8000 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 0:01pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Cybele, I actually do not disagree with your view that in *part* the violent wishes of other nations arise from American foreign policy and actions. However, with that said, I have a few points 1/ This one is personal, but I hope you won't take it the wrong way. Whatever, your political and kammic beliefs, it would have been more sensitive of you to first express sympathy for those who were killed and the families that were suffering. You did not make clear in any of your posts that you cared about these people. Don't you think that was an omission on your part? 2/ Once you had expressed some sympathy towards the people involved, it would be appropriate for you to point out all the other people who have suffered, partly because of U.S. policies, but certainly from a lot of other national politics that the U.S. is not responsible for. The U.S. has some policies that have caused pain, but why would you not condemn the Taliban, which causes horrific suffering to its people every day, Saddam Hussein, who has a hobby of burning people alive and who has tried to obliterate the Kurds and others who fight for freedom in his land? Don't you think it is an expression of prejudice to focus on the U.S. as the international oppressor and pay no attention to the horrific dictators throughout the world who are oppressing their own people? It seems prejudiced and unbalanced to me. 3/ You say that the suffering of others is not reported in the news, but U.S. suffering creates a big media event. What about Bosnia and Kosovo? When the European powers failed to stop the genocide in their back yard, the U.S. stepped in and is still there today, keeping the peace. In that case, they defended Muslims against Serbs who tried to desimate them through genocide. What? No appreciation for the U.S. role here? Only criticism is allowed for the 'evil superpower'? 4/ Osama bin Laden and his associates are not freedom fighters. They are fundamentalist murderers. Why do you not hold *them* responsible for their own actions, instead of putting all the focus on the U.S.? I have to conclude that you are more sympathetic to terrorists than you are to ordinary citizens throughout the world. Perhaps you have developed the mistaken notion, given your affiliation with the philosophy of Che Guevara, that anyone who hates the U.S. must be 'okay', because the U.S. is the one and only enemy of freedom. If that is the case, it is a form of delusion. The situation is far more complicated than that. It is true that the U.S. destroyed the one shining example of working socialism in Latin America, the government of Allende in Chile. That is horrible. But the other examples, particularly that of Castro's oppressive regime, who betrayed Che and had him murdered. don't exactly shine with purity. With that said, feel free to respond, but if you wish to continue on this subject, I think at this point we should take it off list and handle it privately for the benefit of all. Best, Robert E. ===================================== --- Cybele Chiodi wrote: > > Dear Dan > Dear group > > I understand that for an American citizen the > emotional contents of this terroristic episode are > particularly shocking and intense; certainly much more > that for somebody who is not 'directly' involved even > being sympathetic. > Nevertheless this is not a justification to > misinterpret what I commented, whether you agree or > disagree with it. > I wish to clarify and be listened without prejudice > but I suppose is not feasible, too early, too 'raw the > wounds' as Howard expressed. > I never intended any 'personal' insinuation that > anybody in this tragedy 'deserved' such pain. > Neither I attempted to penetrate the misteries of > kamma making assertions I could not be clear-sighted > about. > I only expressed my point of view observing the > situation and whether you like or dislike it I am not > going to 'lie' to recover 'popularity'. > > Response in the context: > --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > > America' when this tragedy is a result of > > American > > > > imperialism all over the world > > > > No. It is the result of an intense hatred and > > ignorance. I can't > > imagine the cetasikas arising and passing away in > > the planning and > > execution of the attacks. > > Dan this hatred and ignorance were in the deeds of > american politics all the same not only in the mind of > who planned and executed this attack. > What doesn't means I have no compassion for the people > involved. > However it seems that anything regarding America > becomes a 'media sensation' and the millions who > suffer tragedies all over the world which don't get > all that publicity yet endure devastating suffering > all the same are neglected. > This certainly doesn't diminish the sorrow and grief > of Americans but is a fact to consider in my opinion. > And I have the right to express freely my opinion even > if is not 'politically correct' for you. > Too easy blame others, too hard and painful consider > the political mistakes (equally fruit of hatred, > greedy and ignorance) that conduce to such clamorous > extremes. > > > > And my friends who work in Manhattan really didn't > > "deserve" to be > > attacked. Vipaka isn't necessarily proportional. > > Dan, who 'deserves' ever being hurt, suffering > injustice or whatever pain one may have to face? > But there are seeds of violence who bears fruits of > violence and I believe that this tragedy is one of the > consequences of all this 'ignorance and hatred' in > international politics. > I was not exactly considering the results of kamma of > your friends and I know very well that vipaka is not > necessarily proportional. > But a nation as an individual has kammic > responsabilities in my view. > And if a nation commit violence cannot expect > indulgence from another nation particularly if > actually we are speaking of fundamentalists, radical > and exalted. > I don't 'hate' americans but as I told Robert E. I > have no sympathy for American internationl policy of > continuous interference like in Vietnam who leads to > much more suffering. > I am sorry if this add more burden to your pain but > many of us from the Third World, in South America, in > Africa, in Asia had to suffer a lot as a result of > American interference. > This is a real fact and I am not going to deny > reality. > As I am not insensible or denying your or other people > sufferings in this tragedy. > I am not expecting you to accept my view but I thought > would be fair to clarify my position. > I know this is not going to bring me popularity but I > am not a hypocritical. > > Metta > Cybele > ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8001 From: Sarah Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 2:49pm Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics, But with a Buddhist Focus (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui) Dear Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > > I noticed, while watching the images on TV and on my > computer screen, that interspersed between the moments > of dosa and patigha and moments of karunaa for those > suffering pain and fear, were moments of lobha--for > the beautiful photography of the blue sky and the > billowing clouds of flame and smoke; for the awareness > of my relative personal safety; for the unfolding of > the story; and even moments of none-of-the-above when > hearing a sound or touching something tangible was > predominant for a moment--in those moments, no dosa or > patigha or karunaa at all with regards to these events > (or rather my concepts of them)--just liking or > disliking or indifference to those sense-impingements. Mike, these comments and 'observations'/awareness show (in my opinion, of course) a real development of understanding of the Teachings in daily life. These are the paramatha dhammas that make up our life that should be known. Even when we have the idea of turning on the TV or checking the newspaper, it's lobha already, wanting to follow the news, wanting to see the pictures, hear the stories, watch the 'movie' unfold. I had to leave home very early this morning, but after checking messages here, still couldn't resist quickly checking CNN for the latest, even though I knew it would be a condition for more dosa......it's so very natural and so useful to begin to 'see' the cittas at these times. We can begin to see how the world, the horrors, all that we hold dear, just exist in this one moment of seeing or visible object or lobha or dosa and then gone. As you suggested recently, no matter whether we like sitting in a lotus/cross-legged position or are jumping up and down in dismay, awareness can only ever be at the present moment. > Politics are so beside the point. What causes this > kind of conduct, has always caused it? Just > ignorance, aversion and desire--the very causes of > politics themselves and of injustice. The only thing > that even begins to address these root causes is, I > think, The Buddhadhamma. > > The Buddha's last exhortation was, "Vayadhamma > sankhara appamadena sampadetha." "Subject to loss are > conditioned things--try to achieve heedfulness." (my > poor translation). Thank you Mike. yes we're very fortunate to have this opportunity. > > Please excuse my rambling, Pls ramble on...;-))) Sarah 8002 From: Sarah Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 3:20pm Subject: ... But with a Buddhist Focus -Christine Dear Christine, --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > What an oasis of Dhamma sanity this list is. Sometimes it is at 'traumatic' times that our understanding of dhamma is really tested.... > Below is a sample of .......(someone else) > There are many precepts I cannot keep, and in this situation I am > weak when the idea of a non-violent response is proposed. As we've been discussing here, we may have no difficulty following the precepts when everything is going our way, but what about when we're really tested? > Your post below Sarah would have been met with virulent hostility > and verbal violence directed personally at you because you were > not 'compassionate enough.' Any mention of vipaka would have been > termed 'sick'. As Rob E wrote, we need to learn to speak wisely. Sometimes silence is the most helpful response too. Most people on dsg have studied quite a lot of dhamma and so for many it may be appropriate to be reminded that that seeing, hearing, contact through the body sense too are all vipaka. There's nothing that can prevent vipaka arising now. When I talk to other non-buddhist friends in New York or the gym, then mostly I just show sympathy and listen to see if I can help in other ways. > Some of us only had > enough courage to try to stop the demonizing of Dhamma brothers and > sisters, and are now left despising ourselves because we could not > stand more publicly for what the Buddha taught. It's not always the right time...maybe later you can add something helpful. Now, Christine, 'despising ourselves' sounds like accumulating more dosa to me...;-)) > > I cry for the physical, and emotional hurt and damage to individual > people and their lives, to a psychologically and emotionally damaged > nation and its shaken view of itself and the world, but mostly I cry > for the shattering of my understanding of Practice and the feeling I > once had of refuge in a world wide group of Dhamma followers. Christine, these are very natural reactions, but we can begin to see the difference between moments of true compassion and metta which are so few and far between (and don't shed any tears or unpleasant feelings at all) and the many, many moments of dosa, no matter what has conditioned it. May I suggest that it is the former rather than the latter that will help you help the others? Like Rob E also suggested, we don't need to feel shocked by reactions of ignorance. Aren't we all beginners with so very little understanding most of the time? Just because we may call ourselves 'Dhamma followers' doesn't mean that we don't cry, get angry or experience shock. So this is why the refuge in Dhamma always comes back to 'our own' understanding now. Metta and many thanks for your comments, Christine. I'm sure you help many, many people in your own way. Sarah 8003 From: KennethOng Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 5:22pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike the book title "A Treasury of Mahayana Sutras" Selections from the Maharatnakuta Sutra. This are translated from the Chinese by the Buddhist Association of the United States regards Kenneth Ong "m. nease" wrote: Hi Kenneth, Sorry it's taken me so long to reply, still don't know quite what to make of this. Could you possible give the location in the tipitaka of the original, or the Pali title? Thanks in advance, mike --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Maybe this would help, the sutra, "Elucidation of > Consiousness" translated by Buddhist Association of > the United States" > "Wise Protector, the consciousness in its > self-nature, pervades everywhere [in the body] not > it is not tainted by any part. Although it dwells > in the six sense organs, the six sense objects and > the five aggregates which are defiled, it is not > stained by any of them, it only function though > them. > Wise Protector, a wooden puppet strung up somewhere > can give a variety of perfomances, such as walking, > prancing, jumping, throwing, playing and dancing. > What do you think? By whose power can the wooden > puppet do so? > Wise Protector said to the Buddha "I am not > intelligent enough to know the answer" > The Buddha told Wise Protector "You should know that > it is by the power of the puppeteer. The puppeteer > is out of sight; only the operation of his > intelligence can be seen. Similarly, the body does > everything by the power of consciousness. All > beings in the various planes of existences all > depend on the power of consciousness to act. The > body is exactly like the wooden puppet. > Consiousness is devoid of form and substance but it > upholds all in the dharmahatu; it is fully endowed > with the power of wisdom and can even know events of > past lives" > "Sunlight impartially illuminates the evildoers and > such filthy things as stinking corpses without being > tainted by their foulness. Similarly consciousness > may reside in a pig, a dog or a being of another > miserable planes who eats dirty food, but is stained > by none of them." > "Wise Protector, after leaving the body, the > consciousness [takes birth again] with its good and > evil karmas to undergo other karmic results. The > wind becomes fragrant if it enters a grove of > fragant campaka flowers after coming out of a deep > valley. However if the wind passes through > stinking, dirty place where there are excrement and > corpses, it catches an offensive smell. If the wind > passes through a place which is permeated with both > a fragrant odor and an offensive one, it carries > good and bad odors at the same time, but the > stronger of the two predominates. The wind is > deviod of form or substance. Fragrance and stench > too, have no shape, however the wind can carry both > fragrance and stench far away. The consciousness > takes good and evil karma with it from one body to > another to undergo different karmic results." > Kind regards > Kenneth 8004 From: KennethOng Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 5:58pm Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics, But with a Buddhist Focus (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui) very well written letter :) Kenneth Ong <> wrote: Dear American members, very glad to hear from Robert E. and Howard - both in cities hit by this tragedy. Hope your friends and family are ok too. This is a letter Amara wrote today about it: > Dear , > > A big warm hug for you and all of us who are victims of this great > tragedy, and you are right, we are still here to have a chance to > practice the brahma vihara and help those whom we are able to, if only > with friendship and understanding, over such great distance. We all > know things happen from causes and only the Buddha could pinpoint the > kamma involved, and that those who performed this bad kamma are and > will be expiating this just as victims and perpetrators of akusala > each day would do. This is the great danger of samsara, I was talking > to Erik who used to work in the area that has been destroyed, (whose > wife is safe, by the way) who was telling me that when he said he > would be coming to Thailand people said he was coming to an unsafe > country. But statistics aside, all that keeps us safe or unsafe are > our individual kamma (kammasakata). Such situations remind us of the > dangers of samsara where no one is really 'safe' despite the illusions > of well being. > > Distance doesn't mean there are less emotional victims, my own mother > who has a heart condition was relatively traumatized from watching the > news (and she is still following the reports closely), even though she > has studied the dhamma for a long time. These news come to us through > the eyes and ears, yet we can't help taking them for people suffering, > most of the time. An opportunity for us to try to practice the brahma > vihara as best we can and accumulate panna wherever possible, again, > we are lucky to have the chance to accumulate kusala in all > situations, even though we might not be able to stand being eaten > alive by a lion. These kinds of things could happen to us any minute > of the day, even when you cross the street, but it doesn't make it > less horrific to the victims and their relatives, and help them as > best we can at least through moral support, as fellow humans > throughout the world. > > May we practice the brahma vihara to the best of our abilities and > reach the end of the dangers of samsara as the Buddha intended in > teaching the dhamma, > > Amara 8005 From: <> Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 6:44pm Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Dear Cybele, I wonder if we can look at the situation from more of a Buddhist point of view (I am responsible for my own actions) rather than a materialist point of view (someone else is responsible for my actions). > Dan this hatred and ignorance were in the deeds of > american politics all the same not only in the mind of > who planned and executed this attack. Have you considered that when the name of "America" or "United States" comes up, you react with hatred? I don't know that you do, but there is that tone in some of your writings. "'He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me' -- for those who brood on this, hostility isn't stilled." Dhp 3 > However it seems that anything regarding America > becomes a 'media sensation' and the millions who > suffer tragedies all over the world which don't get > all that publicity yet endure devastating suffering > all the same are neglected. Neglected by whom? Is it the media you hate then? > Too easy blame others, too hard and painful consider > the political mistakes (equally fruit of hatred, > greedy and ignorance) that conduce to such clamorous > extremes. To me it looks like the arising of hatred in every other case: Because of ignorance, hatred arises. It might look like the hatred was caused by some object, that the unpleasant mind states are caused by the great Satan that I and my fellow countrymen are, but really hatred arises through ignorance. > But a nation as an individual has kammic > responsabilities in my view. A nation is an individual what? I don't understand what you mean. > I don't 'hate' americans but as I told Robert E. I > have no sympathy for American internationl policy of > continuous interference like in Vietnam who leads to > much more suffering. What does killing many thousands of innocent people in NYC and Washington D.C. have to do with international policy? Nothing whatsoever. > I am sorry if this add more burden to your pain but > many of us from the Third World, in South America, in > Africa, in Asia had to suffer a lot as a result of > American interference. Now, just what is it that is the cause of your suffering? 8006 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 7:58am Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics, But with a Buddhist Focus (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui) --- cybele chiodi wrote: > > Insightful discourse Robert which I respect but while I don't believe or > encourage violence it happens that I have 'zero sympathy' for American > politics. How about American citizens who are brutally killed? Does that equal 'American politics' to you? Or do you consider Americans human beings? > If you were born on the 'wrong side of America' you could be much more > sympathetic with my opinion. > Sorry to disappoint you. > Hopefully we can agree to disagree on this issue. :-) With all due respect, Cybele, and I certainly respect your right to your opinion and everything else, how do you know where I grew up? I'm not wealthy, I grew up with working people of all backgrounds and races. I know the real people of the U.S., most of them came from Europe and other places around the world, and they're just like anyone you know in your world. They are not the holders of power in the U.S., any more than the Iraqi people support Saddam Hussein. I have protested American imperialism and racism at home and abroad all of my life. I was part of the Civil Rights movement, the movement against the war in Vietnam, I protested American actions in Guatemala and El Salvador. I am not in favor of the way the U.S. does business in a lot of areas. I am aware of what we did in Chile, Iran, Afganistan and in a lot of other places, but if you think it's okay to kill thousands of people who are showing up to their jobs or to kill innocent people who are taking a trip on an airplane, then you are way beyond fighting American politics and you are knee-deep in terrorism. I do not believe that causing more suffering can ever effect positive change. At that point, we do part company, and I believe you also part company with Buddhism, if you believe in violent means to effect political ends. Ahimsa doesn't have political exceptions. Robert 8007 From: Moderators Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:16pm Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Rob E (and all) --- Robert Epstein wrote: > With that said, feel free to respond, but if you wish to continue on this subject, > I think at this point we should take it off list and handle it privately for the > benefit of all. Thanks for cutting things at this point and taking your discussion off-list. May we ask all members to keep any discussion on this topic to dhamma aspects, and to avoid political aspects as far as possible. Thanks for your cooperation. Jon & Sarah 8008 From: Anders Honore Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 10:10pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: > > dear anders, > > > > But is it anywhere stated specifically that Nibbana is anatta in the > > Sutta Pitaka? > > > > I found the 'sabbe dhamma anatta' and in Mulapariyaya where buddha said > Nibbana is not to be conceived as 'mine' as saying Nibbana is anatta. The problem with the word Dhamma is that it can mean just about everything. Other passages say sabbe dhamma anicca and that can hardly refer to Nibbana! It's not easy to draw a conclusion from that. > And in another instance buddha says 'Vimutti saraa sabbe dhamma' which means > 'release is the essence of all dhammas'. > This vimutti is another word for nibbana, so I thought when buddha says > 'sabbe dhamma' he includes nibbana in it. Hmm, could you clarify that. I'm not sure I understand what oyou mean. > But now I understand that (after reading the sanskrit mahaparinirvana sutra) > the word 'self' points to a somewhat different context in Mahayana. > Many thanks for you for giving me the opportunity to take a look at Mahayana > texts, which I had not done earlier. > So if I had a mahayanic background and had read that mahaparinirvana sutra > and other texts, those would have driven a different understanding of the > 'bodhi','true self' for this end. Yes. > > I think that certainly has something to do with it. Words meaning > > different things to different people. > > > > Yep, buddha did a great job explaining this fine , 'not-easy-to- comprehend' > dhamma using the worldly language with its inherent shortcomings. True. There's no real understanding to be derived from words. 8009 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 10:50pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS > The problem with the word Dhamma is that it can mean just about > everything. Other passages say sabbe dhamma anicca and that can > hardly refer to Nibbana! There are? I've seen "sabbe sankhara anicca" and "sabbe sankhara dukkha", but there's a distinction when it comes to "dhamma", because not all dhammas are anicca and dukkha, Nibbana in particular. Hence, "sabbe dhamma anatta". [Dhp. 277-279: http://www.tipitaka.org/tipitaka/s0502m/s0502m-frm.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/20.html] It would be interesting indeed to find "sabbe dhamma anicca"---I wonder how the commentators would explain away something like that! 8010 From: rikpa21 Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 11:05pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > > The problem with the word Dhamma is that it can mean just about > > everything. Other passages say sabbe dhamma anicca and that can > > hardly refer to Nibbana! > > There are? I've seen "sabbe sankhara anicca" and "sabbe sankhara > dukkha", but there's a distinction when it comes to "dhamma", because > not all dhammas are anicca and dukkha, Nibbana in particular. Hence, > "sabbe dhamma anatta". [Dhp. 277-279: This lumping of Nibbana in as a dhamma is highly suspect, because it appears to suggests that Nibbana is a "thing"--which is definitely off the mark. Nibbana is merely the absence of greed, hatred, and delusion. To call it a "dhamma" is to almost suggest it's something other than a mere label for an absence, and as such would just be another view to be discarded. So I find this classification of Nibbana as a dhamma one can even talk about in terms of "anatta" to be a highly questionable one. 8011 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 11:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear anders and dan, > The problem with the word Dhamma is that it can mean just about > everything. Other passages say sabbe dhamma anicca and that can > hardly refer to Nibbana! It's not easy to draw a conclusion from that. > well the thing is ,( as we discussed in an early discussion, and as Dan pointed out ) in tipitaka at all instances where the triplet(anicca,dukkha,anatta) appears it comes like sabbe samkhara anicca sabbe samkhara dukkha sabbe dhamma anatta., > > And in another instance buddha says 'Vimutti saraa sabbe dhamma' > which means > > 'release is the essence of all dhammas'. > > This vimutti is another word for nibbana, so I thought when buddha > says > > 'sabbe dhamma' he includes nibbana in it. > > Hmm, could you clarify that. I'm not sure I understand what oyou mean. another phrase in tipitaka is 'vimutti saaraa sabbe dhamma' this means 'Release is the essense of all phenomena' vimutti - sanskrit vimukti means relese , another word for nibbana. so here buddha treats nibbana as belonging to 'sabbe dhamma'( all phenomena ) if I remember the story correctly this is what happened.. Buddha was instructing his disciples. "Monks, the students of the teachers who preach non-dhamma will ask you these question, you should answer like this.." the question is something like this " Your teacher teaches that all things are hollow, have no worth, then what is the meaning of these phenomena? what is the essense of these phenomena?" Buddha says " Those students will try to get you with this question, they will be trying to get your word for a "self", as the essence of phenomena, Then you shoud answer like this, 'Our teacher teaches that vimutti is the 'saara' (essence, worth) of 'sabbe dhamma' '" thats how u should answer if u were asked such a question. rgds, gayan 8012 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 11:23pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear erik, > This lumping of Nibbana in as a dhamma is highly suspect, because it > appears to suggests that Nibbana is a "thing"--which is definitely > off the mark. well , "thing"s are samkharas, whereas "realities" are dhammas. rgds, gayan 8013 From: rikpa21 Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 11:42pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: > dear erik, > > > > This lumping of Nibbana in as a dhamma is highly suspect, because it > > appears to suggests that Nibbana is a "thing"--which is definitely > > off the mark. > > well , "thing"s are samkharas, > whereas "realities" are dhammas. All "things" are also dhammas. So what exactly does "reality" mean in this case, and how is "reality" different from "thing" in your understanding? The word "reality" has the word "real" in it, after all. I think only of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana is classified as a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and rupa. Yet there is no such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't meaningfully talk about a mere absence as having any nature of its own (since an absence doesn't denote anything that exists in the first place!). :) 8014 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 11:56pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS > This lumping of Nibbana in as a dhamma is highly suspect, because it > appears to suggests that Nibbana is a "thing"--which is definitely > off the mark. I would agree that it is off the mark to call Nibbana a thing! I would go even further and say it is off the mark to call citta and cetasikas "things". But I would call citta, cetasika, and Nibbana "dhammas", and this breakdown is well supported in Tipitaka, which I'm sure you are quite well aware of. 8015 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 11:59pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS > of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana is classified as > a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and rupa. Yet there is no > such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't meaningfully talk about a > mere absence as having any nature of its own (since an absence > doesn't denote anything that exists in the first place!). :) Nibbana is mere absence? Hmmmm.... I've never thought of it like that. Actually, I've tried to, but it didn't seem to work. 8016 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 0:00am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS > All "things" are also dhammas. So what exactly does "reality" mean in > this case, and how is "reality" different from "thing" in your > understanding? > yep, samkharas belong to the 'set' of dhammas. in my undertanding I equate english word 'thing' with conditioned realities. > The word "reality" has the word "real" in it, after all. I think only > of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana is classified as > a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and rupa. >Yet there is no > such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't meaningfully talk about a > mere absence as having any nature of its own (since an absence > doesn't denote anything that exists in the first place!). :) > another word for nibbana is 'nirodha', meaning 'No-Rodha', ( as coming in Nirodha sacca) for an example we gan take 'Niroga' which means 'no-desease'. Niroga amounts to 'Healthyness', 'absense of ailments,deseases'. the Niroga , the absence of ailments can have a nature of its own, but its not a thing as 'an ailment'. rgds, gayan 8017 From: Cybele Chiodi Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 11:33pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Dear Dan Dear group For clarification I am sending this mail to the list but as I don't know if will get 'moderated' and rejected because of the 'political contents' I took the liberty to send it to you privately Dan and also to Robert Epstein as this discussion started with our interaction. Further discussions should remain private, off list to don't subvert the theme of this mailing list. First place I am using a budhist focus called - detachment. I am not cold hearted neither embittered right now. Second thing to consider I am not 'an american hater', my political opinions have nothing to do with my personal relationships and interaction with people. I don't let myself being dragged by resentments and who knows me can observe I am the first one to take initiatives to reconcile if ever there is any conflict. Human beings are human beings whether americans or brazilians or indians for me and I respect their inherent dignity and share their dukkha and struggles. Personally despite my 'teasing' of anglosaxons my best friends are americans and english people. It is not at all to exclude that I had myself friends who perished in the attack. Third I never thought that 'someone else' is responsible for troubles instead of taking my responsabilities whether this regards myself personally or social and political events. I don't deny reality or try to transfer the burden on someone's else shoulders to 'facilitate' things for me. If you believe I am 'tough' above all this toughness regards myself, I don't indulge in self deceit generally speaking. Obviously I am deluded like everybody else. > > Dan this hatred and ignorance were in the deeds of > > american politics all the same not only in the > mind of > > who planned and executed this attack. Dan: > Have you considered that when the name of "America" > or "United > States" comes up, you react with hatred? I don't > know that you do, > but there is that tone in some of your writings. Cybele: Have you considered that perhaps YOU are oversensitive being an american after the shock of the terroristic attack? Mine is not hatred, is a political position, it's a chioce like being a buddhist. Being a buddhist doesn't means hating Christians or Jewish for me or rejecting and despising other religions. Therefore allow me to don't be 'lighthearted' about American economical imperialism all over the world. This said I am grieving for the people sacrificed and I am not agreeing or supporting the terrorists action. I don't believe in violence but in awareness. Yet I am considering the 'big picture' not only details. > > "'He insulted me, hit me, > beat me, robbed me' > -- for those who brood on this, > hostility isn't stilled." Dhp 3 Dear Dan tell this to the victims in Vietnam, to the people crushed down to the 'embargo' in Cuba, to all the South Americans governements subjected to CIA manipulations and so on, to the exploited by american unwholesome economical and political policy in the Third World. Perhaps they will reconsider and take 'their' responsabilities and recover sovranity refusing the influence of America. > > > However it seems that anything regarding America > > becomes a 'media sensation' and the millions who > > suffer tragedies all over the world which don't > >get all that publicity yet endure devastating > >suffering all the same are neglected. > > Neglected by whom? Is it the media you hate then? I don't hate anybody Dan. The hatred argument is yours not mine, don't twist my intentions or assume what I don't feel. Perhaps you react aggressively to my remarks because you are in pain. > > > Too easy blame others, too hard and painful > consider > > the political mistakes (equally fruit of hatred, > > greedy and ignorance) that conduce to such > clamorous extremes. > > To me it looks like the arising of hatred in every > other case: > Because of ignorance, hatred arises. It might look > like the hatred > was caused by some object, that the unpleasant mind > states are caused > by the great Satan that I and my fellow countrymen > are, but really > hatred arises through ignorance. You are taking it personally Dan, 'non self' remember? This is attachment to self view. I accuse american government, the political institution not you or your fellow countrymen. Don't be absurd Dan, you are worked up because of your dislike of my opinions but I have the right to sustain them and also to express freely my viewpoint. All this pathetic image of the Great Satan is yours not mine. I am not that childish to think America is responsble for the evil in the world. I think that greedy, aversion and ignorance are the responsible. That's why I practice awareness. I can understand you feel sore and reactive to my observations, it's too early, too burning the pain. > > > But a nation as an individual has kammic > > responsabilities in my view. > > A nation is an individual what? I don't understand > what you mean. A nation AS an individual has responsabilities Dan, is very clearly written but you are perhaps a bit upset to pay attention. I am sorry if my English is not correct but not everybody was born English mother tongue. Are you listening to me or to your anger which I provoked not deliberately? Did I provoke it or you were angry becuase you cannot accept all this violence? I am not nationalistic Dan and you? > > > I don't 'hate' americans but as I told Robert E. I > > have no sympathy for American internationl policy > of continuous interference like in Vietnam who leads > to much more suffering. > > What does killing many thousands of innocent people > in NYC and > Washington D.C. have to do with international > policy? Nothing > whatsoever. Why people in Vietnam were not innocent as well? Wow Dan please don't deny reality. Do you think that this act of terrorism came out of the blue? There are sure political reasons for it. Reality is political. Sure the people who commited the attack are unbalanced and extremists but their motivations were 'political' and due to American international policy. I can see you are not willing to consider this aspects but only focussing on dukkha in this moment. Fair enough but don' 'be angry' with me. I never commited organized violence against anybody. I am not a terrorist perhaps I am a bit 'anarchist' but not a terrorist. > > > I am sorry if this add more burden to your pain > but many of us from the Third World, in South >> America, in Africa, in Asia had to suffer a lot as >>a result of American interference. > > Now, just what is it that is the cause of your > suffering? INJUSTICE Dan. Injustice that pervade reality for everybody. Tragedies do not belong to America or to India but to the world and all HUMAN BEINGS ARE MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN. Frontiers are only in our mind. And what is the cause of your suffering? Metta Cybele 8018 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 3:15am Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Cybele: > And what is the cause of your suffering? Craving. If bandits were to viciously saw off my arms with a two-handed saw, I would suffer greatly. When confronted with pain, I react with aversion. When attacked viciously, I react with anger. At a deep level, though, the pain itself is not the cause of my suffering, it is my craving for health and peace when health and peace are absent. Does this mean that the bandits are not wrong in their actions? Not at all. They are wrong as can be. Their violence and hatred is not only akusala, it is morally wrong. In USA Tuesday, what caused the bandits to use the two handed saw? What else but hatred? Surely not U.S. imperialism. 8019 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 6:36am Subject: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Dear Group, As Dan and Gayan have explained Nibbana is classified as a dhamma and is anatta. It is also Sunnata - devoid of the existence of a self., When Nibbana is attained with the khandas remaining , it is called Sopadisesa-nibbandhadu. When the arahant dies it is called Anupadisesa-nibbanadhatu. When Arahats attain parinibbana it does not mean 'entering into Nibbana' as if it was a place but it means fully passed away or fully extinct (Parinibbuto). . _____ Here is a readable summary by a Burmese monk. NIBBANA Venerable Kaba-Aye Sayadaw U Pannadipa The Bodhisatta, in his birth as the ascetic, Sumedha contemplated thus: "Even as, although Misery is, Yet Happiness Is also found, So, though indeed Existence is, Non-Existence should be sought." "When I am subject to Birth, Old Age, Disease, So then I will search for the Supreme Peace Free from Old Age and Death." NIBBANA the Nibbanic state is totally devoid of any and every thing of the four elements, personal existence, static entity, rebirth, death, consciousness or mind and matter etc. It is only the state of element (Dhatu) which means "Nisatta nijjiva" non-being, non-soul, i.e. there is not even a purified soul in Nibbana. It is the happiest state or the ultimate peaceful bliss of emancipation which utterly eliminates all passions that cause prolong unrest in Samsaric existence. Actually, Nibbana in its true nature is single (Ekameva Nibbanam), but it can be treated in a two-fold way, namely, (Kilesa parinibbana) the extinction of all impure passions and it is also called (Saupadisesa Nibbana), i.e., attainment of Nibbana still with life. When the Arahat dies his Nibbana is Khandha parinibbana i.e. attaining Nibbana with the dissolution of the aggregate of mind-matter, or Anupadisesa, i.e. Nibbana without life-substratum. Thus Nibbana is only one as Asankhatadhatu, Unformed Element: it is twofold as Saupadisesa and Anupadisesa: threefold according to the three entrances, Vimokkha mukha) that is one of the three contemplation, impermanence, suffering, and insubstantiality (Anicca), (Dukkha) and (Anatta). It is four-fold in accordance with the four Paths, and is five-fold with reference to the elimination of the five-fold attachment to the five senses, and is six-fold as it is attained by extinction of the six-fold craving pertaining to the six sense objects. It is the question of what happens to the Arahat at death that has given rise to much discussion. At the death of an Arahat all his physical and mental aggregate cease together with all attributes relating to phenomenal existence. Hence the Arahat's death is called Khandhaparinibbana the extinction of aggregates in the Asankhata-dhatu, unborn, unformed purified Element, and it is the release from Sankhata, that which is born and formed. Referring to this the Buddha said: "Monks, there is an unborn, unmade, unoriginated, and unformed. Were there not such a state there would be no escape from that which is born, made, originated and formed. Since, Monks, there is this state of the unborn . . . there is an escape from the born, made, originated and formed." (Udana 80). It is to find out and to proclaim this unborn state that the Bodhisatta endeavored to attain enlightenment. "It is for the sake of attaining the unconditioned state of Nibbana that the religious life in the Buddha is lived," and this was the reply of that great Arahat Punna to the question of the Great Arahat Sariputta, the Captain of the Faith, who questioned about the purpose of living holy life in the Buddha. The argument depends upon such expressions as "extinction" or "blown out as a lamp," which are frequent in the scriptures as is seen in the following: "The old craving exhausted, the fresh craving rises, Freed from thought of future becoming They like seeds barren do not spring again, But are blown out just as a lamp. (Sn. ver. 235). Some may venture to ask: "Whether the Arahat exists after death, or does not exist, or whether he is both existence and non-existence". The Buddha has answered this kind of topsy-turvy arguments by noble silence, knowing that they may not tend to any profit, but to more confusion. There is neither an existent, nor non-existent object, called Nibbana, which we have to enter for the attainment of Immortality. If there were a phenomenal object called Nibbana then it must have been subject to destruction and none could have attained the eternal and immutable state called Nibbana or Immortality. On the other hand, Nibbana cannot be explained as being the annihilation of' the individual and the world, for if we judge by the standard of the absolute truth (Paramattha) , we find that the self and the world are mere illusions in so far as they get no existence apart from our consciousness. Nibbana is not existence, hardly can it be non-existence. It lies totally beyond both existence and non-existence. Existence and non-existence are both conditional and relative to each other. Nibbana which is "Absolute" cannot be designated as being either existence or non-existence: Nibbana which is incomprehensible and profound can only be realized by those who have attained it and have thus passed beyond both limitations, existence and non-existence. "But where does this Nibbana exist?" was the question raised by King Milinda. The Venerable Nagasena replied: "There is no place looking in the East, the West, the South, the North, above, below or beyond, where Nibbana is situated. Yet, there is Nibbana, for he who is pure in virtue and possesses right Insight, realizes it, whether he is in Greece, Alexandria, Kosala or in China:" (M11. pp. 323-26). Just as the fire is not stored up in a particular place but rises when the necessary conditions are present, so Nibbana is not said to exist in a particular place, but it is attained when and wherever the necessary qualities are fulfilled. Nibbana, therefore, is not a heavenly place like the Hebrew Paradise, or the Christian Heaven, or the Hindu Brahma." Let us turn to our friends of the Mahayana School to see what they think about this Asankhatadhatu. Nagarjuna who was supposed to be a saint and the founder of the Madhyamika School explained Nibbana as "Sunyata" Voidness, condemning all the degrees of "Realism of the Sarvasti-vadins and asserting the mayavic nature of existence. He denied the existence of the self and the world, and proclaimed the essential oneness of Samsara and Nibbana. According to his view Nibbana is to be attained by the grace of Amitabha, and cannot be attained by self effort, for there is no "Self" to effort. In the Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghosa Thera says: The Third truth, the Cessation of Suffering, i.e. Nibbana is void of Atta, Self or Soul, but is full of the essence of durability, goodness, and blissfulness, and its essential characteristic is "Santi " peace. This shows how he has opposed the idea of Sunyata of Nagarjuna. Regarding one's existence in Samsara and the deliverance from it, the Buddha said the following salient facts:? "Inconceivable is the beginning of this Samsara, not to be discovered a first beginning of beings, who, obstructed by ignorance and ensnared by craving, are hurrying and hastening through this round of rebirths." "And thus have you long time undergone suffering, undergone torment, undergone misfortune and filled the graveyards full, verily, long enough to be dissatisfied with all forms of existence, long enough to turn away and free yourself from them all." "Be it in the past, present or future: whosoever of the monks or priests regards the delightful and pleasurable things in the world as impermanent (anicca), miserable (dukkha), without an ego (anatta), as a disease and sorrow, it is he who overcomes craving. "And released from Sensual Craving, released from the Craving for Existence, and released from the Craving for Non-Existence, he does not return, does not enter again into existence." "For through the total fading away and extinction of "Craving"(tanha), "Clinging to Existence" (upadana) is extinguished: through the extinction of the clinging to existence, the "Process of Becoming" (bhava) is extinguished: through the extinction of the "Process of Becoming," (Action) Rebirth (jati) is extinguished, through the extinction of rebirth, decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are extinguished. Thus comes about the extinction of this whole mass of suffering." "Hence the annihilation, cessation and overcoming of bodily form, feeling, perception, karma-formations and consciousness: this is the extinction of suffering, the end of disease, the overcoming of old age or death." ""Verily, there is a realm where there is neither the solid, nor the liquid; neither heat, nor motion; neither this world, nor any other world; neither sun, or moon. "This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering." ""However, through the fading away of delusion, through the arising of wisdom, through the extinction of craving, no future rebirth takes place again." "In this respect one may say of me, that I teach annihilation, that I propound my doctrine for the purpose of annihilation, and that I herein train my disciples. For certainly, I teach annihilation, the annihilation of greed, anger, and delusion, as well as of the manifold evil and demeritorious things." If someone puts the question. "Who, made the Five Khandhas, or five groups of existence," he seldom gets a right answer. Now let it be said that the five groups of bodily and mental phenomena, correctly speaking, have been put together by the Buddha in order to show the "Anatta doctrine" the central and unique teaching of Buddhism. All those bodily forms, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and states of consciousness which the Buddha has classified and grouped into the five groups are only of momentary duration, existing no longer than a flash of lightning. One never gets a right understanding of the five groups of existence, if one thinks of them as something compact, whereas in reality they are only fleeting phenomena changing as quickly as lightning. The five groups are merely a classification made by the Buddha hut have, as such, i.e. as groups, no real existence. If there arises, e.g. a joyful feeling,0there cannot arise at the very same moment a sorrowful feeling; thus at any given moment only a single representative of those groups may be present, never any group as a whole. Hence it is impossible that a group of feelings, or perceptions, or states of consciousness may arise at one and the same time. The four mental groups are never existing separately. "And it is Impossible that anyone can explain the passing out of one existence and then entering into a new existence or the growth, increase and development of consciousness, independently of bodily form, feeling, perception and mental formations. Each state of consciousness is always connected with some of the fifty mental formations as explained in the "Abhidhamma Pitaka." Through not understanding the nature of the five groups of existence, one gets possessed of manifold wrong views, and it becomes one's conviction and firm belief, "I have an Ego," or "I have no Ego;" or "With the Ego I perceive the Ego," or "With that which is no Ego I perceive the Ego," or "with the Ego I perceive that which is no Ego." Or one falls into the following view: "This my Ego, which can think and feel, and which, now here, now there,. experiences the fruit of good and evil deeds - this my Ego is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change and will thus eternally remain the same. But, the noble disciple who understands the five Khandhas as impermanent, subject to change and suffering, as not remaining in two successive moments the same, he will penetrate that liberating truth of "Anatta," the very root of all unselfishness, leading to Nibbana. "Sabbe dhamma anattati "Nowhere can there be found a Self: Yada pannaya passati, Who wisely perceives this truth, Atha nibbindati dukkhe, He turns away from misery, Esa maggo visuddhiya." This is the path to purity." In the Abhidhanapadipika, Nibbana is described in various terms: Accanta The Everlasting Akata The Unmade Ananta The Endless Apalokita The Undestructible Panita The Sublime Sarana The Refuge Khema The Safety Tana The Shelter Lena The Retreat Parayana The Goal Siva The Bliss Nipuna The Profound Sacca The Truth Dukkahakkhaya The Cessation of misery Annasa The Freedom from longing Sududdasa That which is difficult to grasp Asankhara The Uncreated Para The Further Shore Para The Beyond Mokkha The Deliverance Nirodha The Extinction Anidassana The Unperceptible Nibbana The Extinction of Craving Dhuva The Permanent Avyapajja The Unoppressedness Vivatta The Standstill of the cycle of existence Kevala The Absolute Anitika The Undistressed Analaya The Detached Pada The Law Accuta The Deathless Akkhara The Lasting Vimutta The Release Vimutti The Liberation Apavagga The Total Completion Viraga The Dispassionate Yogakkhema The Peace from Bondage Santi The Stillness Visuddhi The Purity Asankhata The Uncaused Suddhi The Pure Nibbuta The Allayment These are the names given to Nibbana by the Buddha in various discourses. By this it becomes evident that Nibbana cannot be compared to anything which comes within the reach of our senses. Nibbana is visible to the mind of those who enter the Path of the Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami and Arahat, at the moment of deep insight into the Egolessness, Emptiness and Misery of all Existence. And this moment is reached by the Noble Eight-fold Path. Just as a blind man does not understand what light is, or as the sun cannot be seen when there are clouds, just so the mind clouded by greed, anger and delusion will not be able to perceive the reality of Nibbana. To say that there is no Nibbana simply because those filled with greed, anger and delusion, do not perceive it, is just as illogical as to say that there is no light because the blind man does not see it or because we cannot see the sun when clouds are hindering our sight. Not by reasoning and abstract thinking can Nibbana ever be attained, but only by right understanding, by inward purification, inward conquest and by fulfilling the "Noble Eight-fold Path" founded on Anattasanna, i.e. the perception that all things are without an Ego, or Self and that also behind all these phenomena of existence there is no "I," no eternal, immutable, unchanging entity, a "thing in itself." There is only a five-khandha process of existence which comes to a stand still at the death of the Arahat or Holy One. One never knows a thing as it really is without seeing it, and this, more than anywhere else, is true with regard to Nibbana. Although Nibbana is hidden to the eyes of the worldling, the Path, however, leading there is attained by the noble disciple and is explained by the Buddha with all necessary details and every one can follow it. . We have seen that in reality there does not exist any Ego-entity or Soul, and that therefore also no transmigration of the same into a new mother's womb is in no way a continuation of the former bodily process but merely a result or effect caused by the selfish craving and clinging to life, of the so-called individual who has died. In Nid. Samy. No. 59, it is said: "Once all Ignorance and clinging are extinguished neither karmically meritorious nor demeritorious, nor imperturbable karma-formations are produced, and thus no consciousness will spring up again in a new mother's womb." "Here I feel the necessity of once more expressly emphasizing the fact that without a clear perception of the phenomenality, or Egolessness of all existence, a real understanding of the Buddha's teaching, especially that of rebirth and Nibbana, is impossible." "This doctrine of Anatta is in fact the only specific teaching of Buddhism with which the entire teaching stands or falls." One cannot say that the Arahat is reborn, because all craving and clinging to existence are completely abandoned, rooted out, like a palm tree torn out of the soil, destroyed and not liable to spring up again in the future. "Neither can one say that the Arahat is annihilated at death as there is nothing to be annihilated. What we call "Arahat" is, as we have seen, only a convenient term of speech and has no real existence. There is only a process of bodily and mental phenomena which have come to a standstill and is not continued after death." Whether Perfect Ones (Buddhas) appear In the world or whether Perfect Ones do not appear in the world, it still remains a firm condition, an Immutable fact and fixed law that all formations are "impermanent," that all formations are "subject to suffering," that everything is "without an Ego." "Therefore, Disciples, the doctrines which I advised you to penetrate, you should well preserve, well guard, so that this Holy Life may take its course and continue for ages, for the wheel and welfare of heavenly beings and men." Thus, the problem of Nibbana is an ethical rather than a philosophical one, and its solution is dependent not upon dialectical skill but upon right understanding and upon inward purification, Inward conquest and fulfilling the "Noble Eightfold Path' founded on Anatta-sanna, the perception that, all things created as well as uncreated are without an Ego, and that also behind all these phenomena of existence there is no "I", "no eternal, immutable unchangeable entity, or a thing in itself." Dukkham-eva hi na koci dukkhito, Karako na, kiriya va vijjati, Atthi nibuti, na nibbuto puma, Maggam-atthi, gamako na vijjati. "Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds: Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it, The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen." Kammassa Karako natthi, Vipakassa ca vedako, Suddhadhamma pavattanti, Ev 'etam sammadassanam. No doer of the deeds is found, No one who ever reaps their fruits, Empty phenomena roll on, This view alone is right and true. Na hettha devo brahma va, Samsarass-atthi karako, Suddhadhamma pavattanti, Hetusambharapaccaya ti. No god, no Brahma, may be called, The maker of this wheel of life, Empty phenomena roll on, Dependent on conditions all." V.M. XIX. 8020 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 11:18am Subject: Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > As Dan and Gayan have explained Nibbana is classified as a > dhamma and is anatta. So Robert, in your understanding what part of the "is" of Nibbana is anatta? (This could get rather Clintonian, as it depends on what your definition of "is" is! :). > It is also Sunnata - devoid of the > existence of a self., In what way is Nibbana void of self and shunya in your understanding? 8021 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 11:11am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > Nibbana is mere absence? Hmmmm.... I've never thought of it like that. > Actually, I've tried to, but it didn't seem to work. Not surprising, since any conceptualizations about Nibbana directly hinders realization thereof. 8022 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 11:12am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: > for an example we gan take 'Niroga' which means 'no-desease'. > Niroga amounts to 'Healthyness', 'absense of ailments,deseases'. > > the Niroga , the absence of ailments can have a nature of its own, but its > not a thing as 'an ailment'. Hi Gayan. This sounds as though you're implying Nibbana has "entity" or "self". 8023 From: Craig Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:07am Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Dear Dan and cybelle and all of us, Well I am shure that nobody thinks that the people or organisation behind these killings have performed right action it is plain to see. At this point we must stand strong with love and compassion, it is all we can do. The rest is going to be acted out in accordance with each person,group,state & countries level of understanding. I am not shure but I believe I once read that the Buddha in a past incarnation took or killed somebody for the sake of saving a lot of lives. Injustice is hard to deal with and we can only live and learn. I could give so many examples of injustice, but lets try and become just and fair,and begin to balance this world of ours. Lets learn to love and be peacefull even in this forum, it is a start, it would show that we are learning. Stand firm in what we have so fortunately been tought by the Buddha. Happyness and peace to you all Craig 8024 From: gayan Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 0:31pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear erik, > > Hi Gayan. This sounds as though you're implying Nibbana has "entity" > or "self". Nope, it does not imply that 'absence of ailments' is an entity. it is not an entity like 'an ailment'. but it can have a nature of its own. rgds, gayan 8025 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 1:53pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- gayan wrote: > Nope, it does not imply that 'absence of ailments' is an entity. > it is not an entity like 'an ailment'. > but it can have a nature of its own. Interesting, Gayan. How would you describe this "nature"? The reason I ask is that I still hear you saying or implying that Nibbana has "own-being", since I am still hearing "svabhava" (nature) being implied here. Maybe that's not what you mean, but it sounds that way. As an aside, that way of putting things is strongly rejected in the Madhyamika-Prasangika system, for example, because it is seen as a convenient way to sneak "independent existence" in the back door in the form of suggesting shunyata implies one or more positive characteristics. If nothing else it easily lends itself to the very sort of subtle reification of emptiness fatal to direct understanding. For example, the Abhidhamma school's (Vaibhasika) presentation is the first one rejected by the Madhyamikas, for the fault of reifying "paramattha dhammas"--which many mistakenly interpret as entities having "true reality" or their "own nature". Things like citta, cetasika, rupa, and even Nibbana are intepreted by some Abhidhaamikas to have "true existence" or svabhava in the sense of "own-being", which entails the extreme of eternalism. A subtler flavor of this can be found in the "gzhan stong" (other emptiness) schools in Tibet, where the "gzhan stong pas" advocated a view based on the Yogacara that emptiness is the emptiness of "other being" (paratantra) and "mental imputation" (parikalpita), resulting in a consummate nature (parinispanna) that implies that emptiness is a permanent entity with true nature (svabhava). This is thoroughly rejected by the "rang-tong-pas" (self-emptiness) schools like the Madhyamika-Prasangika, which reject the idea that there is any "independent existence" of any kind regarding emptiness. This point is considered one of such pivotal importance in debates on emptiness that most of the effort in establishing Right View within the Madhyamika-Prasangika system goes toward refuting this view. So my question is again, how does your interpretation of emptiness/Nibbana above not imply svabhava (and by implication independent existence) of some sort? 8026 From: Howard Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 9:15am Subject: A Personal note Hi, all - About a half a year ago my wife and I attended a Bar Mitzvah service and party. The Bar Mitzvah boy was the Grandson of a very close friend of my mother-in-law's by the name of Sid Cohen. The boy's father, Sid's son-in-law, the person who hosted the event, is no more. He was trapped above the 90th floor on one of the twin towers. He called his family on his cell phone. He said "This may be the last time we speak". It was. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8027 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 2:06pm Subject: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana is classified as > > a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and rupa. Yet there is no > > such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't meaningfully talk about a > > mere absence as having any nature of its own (since an absence > > doesn't denote anything that exists in the first place!). :) > > Nibbana is mere absence? Hmmmm.... I've never thought of it like that. > Actually, I've tried to, but it didn't seem to work. I don't know what's most accurate scripturally, but I would say that you can look at Nibbana as the absence of certain properties, or you can look at it as the positive state of being in which those properties are absent. This may seem like semantics, but I think it makes a difference. Is there a positive state left when delusory mental factors have been released from awareness? I would say that awareness, which is not a thing either but is indeed a reality, is left unblemished by those obscuring mental factors and defiling tendencies. So if we only emphasis the absence of delusion, and don't emphasize that awareness [sentience] is still present, just without the false creation of separate objects, beings and delusions [I know I'm not being precise], we may lose the flavor of a state in which awareness is free to take in the exact truth of all things it encounters, rather than a sort of nothing that has in some way been depleted. I personally feel that looking at Nibbana as a mere absence, rather than a positive state, tends to verge towards annihilationism in which one sees the self and other structures obliterated, with nothing left over. My own view is that if we have raw perceptions being delivered directly to consciousness without mental factors intervening, we have a kind of mechanical vision of Nibbana. If we emphasize an unimpeded and freed awareness, however, in positive sense, we have the promise of sentience come to its complete fruition, without the suffering it had endured previously. This difference in emphasis may in some ways characterize the Mahayana approach. I think it is important not to stray too far in either direction, but to maintain the 'middle way', which is to say: If one emphasizes the obliteration of delusion, one tends towards nihilism, seeing emptiness as absence. If one emphasizes liberated awareness as a positive state, one may tend towards establishing a spiritual self as a thing, and re-create the vision of the immortal soul, which would be eternalism. To me, the middle ground is to say that awareness is liberated by entry into Nibbana, but that awareness has no definition as a thing and does not partake of any notion of self or entity. I will be curious to see what others think of these distinctions. Best, Robert E. 8028 From: Anders Honore Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 5:40pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > > The problem with the word Dhamma is that it can mean just about > > everything. Other passages say sabbe dhamma anicca and that can > > hardly refer to Nibbana! > > There are? I've seen "sabbe sankhara anicca" and "sabbe sankhara > dukkha", but there's a distinction when it comes to "dhamma", because > not all dhammas are anicca and dukkha, Nibbana in particular. Hence, > "sabbe dhamma anatta". [Dhp. 277-279: > http://www.tipitaka.org/tipitaka/s0502m/s0502m-frm.html > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/20.html] > > It would be interesting indeed to find "sabbe dhamma anicca"---I > wonder how the commentators would explain away something like that! SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." 8030 From: Sarah Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 3:03pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] A Personal note Dear Howard, Thank you for sharing this. I'm very sure that all the friends like yourselves who attended the service and party will be offering emotional and spiritual help and support as appropriate and I very much hope that Sid, his daughter, her son and other family members are able with time to accept the tragedy and grow in wisdom. I teach some students from the American school here and one who came yesterday was quite disturbed as he told me his best friend's father was in tears all night because he had several friends lost in the Pentagon.....So many people are affected and there are many opportunities for us to practise the brahma viharas as others have said. Howard, our best wishes to your wife as well from us all here. Sarah --- Howard wrote: > Hi, all - > > About a half a year ago my wife and I attended a Bar Mitzvah service > and party. The Bar Mitzvah boy was the Grandson of a very close friend of my > mother-in-law's by the name of Sid Cohen. The boy's father, Sid's son-in-law, > > the person who hosted the event, is no more. He was trapped above the 90th > floor on one of the twin towers. He called his family on his cell phone. He > said "This may be the last time we speak". It was. > > With metta, > Howard > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) > 8031 From: dalthorp Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 5:50pm Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Dear Cybele, I am not very interested in discussing politics, but I would like to work through a couple of the "Buddhist" points that have been a part of our conversation. > Third I never thought that 'someone else' is > responsible for troubles instead of taking my > responsabilities whether this regards myself > personally or social and political events. I think there must be a misunderstanding here because when I made my comment that I simply preferred to not think about this from a materialist point of view, not that you were trying to blame someone else for *your* actions. I had in mind your comment that "America" *caused* the attack because of its policies, which places responsibility for the attack on the shoulders of those who were attacked. That's a radically materialistic perspective (i.e. the cause of a behavior is the material conditions, the behavior is rooted in the object [in this case the concept of America as "individual"] itself rather than sankhara), and one that is quite at odds with the bedrock Buddhist principle of kamma/vipaka. > Cybele: > Have you considered that perhaps YOU are oversensitive > being an american after the shock of the terroristic > attack? Clearly you are right that I am being overly sensitive. I fell into the view of America as an individual--an individual that I was a part of. My arms were savagely severed by bandits with a two-handed saw. My reaction was mostly sadness (i.e. "pain"--domanassa), but when I heard that I and the other parts of my big me (USA) CAUSED the attack, I reacted with anger. Why? Because of my own delusion. In my ignorance I constructed concepts of America as an individual and myself as an individual. Then, I imagined that these "entities" were being attacked unfairly by you, and anger rose to defend these phantoms. Another phantom I created was the view that people (the terrorists) are solely responsible for their own actions, not someone else (the victims). This is still something I believe, but anger arises when I cling to that idea as a view. Ignorance. > > > However it seems that anything regarding America > > > becomes a 'media sensation' and the millions who > > > suffer tragedies all over the world which don't > > >get all that publicity yet endure devastating > > >suffering all the same are neglected. > > > > Neglected by whom? Is it the media you hate then? > > I don't hate anybody Dan. > The hatred argument is yours not mine, don't twist my > intentions or assume what I don't feel. You are right that I have no business assuming that you are filled with hatred for America and the media. I was unfairly making the leap that since dosa is strong in me when I go on rants like yours that it was also strong in you in your rants against America and the media. Thanks for pointing out the unfair, crude, rude, ignorant, mean, and hasty remarks I made. I apologize. > I accuse american government, the political > institution not you or your fellow countrymen. My deluded and ignorant views don't feel threatened when you accuse the american government and political institution of some specific act that they have done. But my deluded views DO indeed occasion hostility when you accuse USA of extradinarily atrocious things that they clearly have not done, like saying they caused the attacks on Tuesday. > All this pathetic image of the Great Satan is yours > not mine. Actually, the pathetic image of the great Satan is from contemporary stripes of radical Islam. I believe the term was coined by Ayatollah Khomeni in Iran in the late 1970's and is still a popular notion among Muslim extremists. Creation of views of a nation as an individual and then arguing that individual to be capable of moral efficacy and then judging that individual to be evil has been summarized eloquently and efficiently as the concept of the great Satan--assigning a personality to America, the individual. Once such an outlandish concept is born, it becomes a powerful vehicle for instilling the intense hatred and profound courage that make such atricities possible. The outlandish concept is born of delusion, nourished by craving, and in turn it incubates hatred. > A nation AS an individual Do mean an individual like a person? A very common view of "individual" is as consciousness or the entity that has consciousness (or some other of the five aggregates). I'm having a hard time seeing what you mean by a nation as an individual because it seems so far removed from other, much more common personality views. > Reality is political. That is one view. It's one that I don't subscribe to at all. Even so, sometimes I do find myself prey to the view's powerful, groping tentacles and all of a sudden I'm thinking, speaking, and acting like I believe it! Actually, the "reality is political" view is just a version of sakayaditthi with a little gloss added to disguise it. When it see it rise and fall it reminds me of just how difficult it is for samma-ditthi to become established. 8032 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 1:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote: > another phrase in tipitaka is > 'vimutti saaraa sabbe dhamma' > this means 'Release is the essense of all phenomena' > vimutti - sanskrit vimukti means relese , another word for nibbana. > > so here buddha treats nibbana as belonging to 'sabbe dhamma'( all > phenomena ) Well this is extremely intriguing. If this is an accurate way of looking at this statement, it seems to me that the root of Mahayana doctrines, and perhaps Anders' doctrine of Nibbana as the 'true self' have their root in Theravadin doctrine. This would be very important, as it would provide a link between all of the teachings proposed to emanate from the Buddha. There is a Mahayana doctrine -- I am not sure exactly where it occurs in the sutras, or how widespread it is -- that Samsara and Nirvana are two sides of the same coin, and that Samsara is the deluded face of Nirvana [Nibbana]. When buddha says above that all phenomena have Nibbana as their essence, he is hinting at the advanced idea that an enlightened being would not see the arising phenomena as flawed in some way, but would see it as the momentary reflection of Nibbana itself. We can imagine that the Buddha would not only see the illusory nature of the arisings of phenomena, but would also see the essence from which they spring. Without awareness, phenomena would not even appear to arise, and so awareness is the essence of the arising of all phenomena. As awareness becomes more unimpeded, the true nature of phenomena is revealed: it is not only impermanent, unsatisfying and lacking in self-nature, but is also nothing other than a seeming modification of the awareness in which it appears to occur. I am extrapolating this from the above quote, knowing that it may be confusing, controversial, or, from a Theravadin view, perhaps just wrong, but I would like to take the opportunity to see what others' views are of the Buddha's statement above, and of the ideas I have put forth based on them. They will either suggest a bridge between the Theravadin and Mahayana schools, or perhaps obscure it further. I would also like to hear from Anders, who can say if he thinks my way of putting this is off the mark from a Mahayana point of view. Best, Robert E. ===== 8033 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 2:28pm Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics, But with a Buddhist Focus (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui) Cybele, I am mainly responding to you off-list on this topic, because we have agreed to remove it from dsg as it seems to go off-topic. But since you have had a strong reaction to what I said, and felt a need to post it to the list, I will answer once more on list. I apologize to Sarah and Jon. After this, I will continue to communicate off the list. Your accusations of aggression and aversion towards you are untrue, and I don't believe they are in my words. I have challenged what seemed to me to be the assumptions and beliefs contained in your message. I am happy to have you clarify what you actually think and believe, but I don't think there is an expression of anger or rage against you in anything I have said. I have attempted to challenge your statements, that is all. When you use a term like 'zero sympathy' in a situation where many people have been killed, you have to expect that someone may think this means that you are not sympathetic to the people killed. It just makes sense. Even though you are talking about 'American politics', you did say that America has reaped its kammic reward for its actions causing suffering overseas. So I am only going by what you yourself said. I am sorry you see rage in my words. I don't feel rage. I do feel that you were blaming the U.S. for what happened in New York and Washington. You are entitled to your view, I was merely stating what I believe to be the case about it. I apologize that you felt personally attacked, and I withdraw any implication that you read as being against you personally. I really did feel that there were issues here worth addressing, but I am happy to let them go and reestablish peace between us. I hope that is possible. Best Regards, Robert E. ========================= --- cybele chiodi wrote: > > Dear Robert > > > >--- cybele chiodi wrote: > > > > > > Insightful discourse Robert which I respect but while I don't believe or > > > encourage violence it happens that I have 'zero sympathy' for American > > > politics. > > > >How about American citizens who are brutally killed? Does that equal > >'American > >politics' to you? Or do you consider Americans human beings? > > I consider HUMAN BEINGS and don't care if they are americans or africans for > that matter. > And you should consider DOSA because you are very much affected right now. > I am not a terrorist Robert, don't use me as a container for your ANGER. > > > > > > > If you were born on the 'wrong side of America' you could be much more > > > sympathetic with my opinion. > > > Sorry to disappoint you. > > > Hopefully we can agree to disagree on this issue. :-) > > > >With all due respect, Cybele, and I certainly respect your right to your > >opinion > >and everything else, how do you know where I grew up? I'm not wealthy, I > >grew up > >with working people of all backgrounds and races. I know the real people > >of the > >U.S., most of them came from Europe and other places around the world, and > >they're > >just like anyone you know in your world. They are not the holders of power > >in the > >U.S., any more than the Iraqi people support Saddam Hussein. > > You completely misunderstood my intentions Robert. > When I said so I meant having the chance to observe discrimination and > oppression as a direct witness and not anything personal. > Here everybody has a great talk about NON SELF and at the first opportunity > to demonstrate the affiliation to such teachings you just show total > attachment like everybody else. > I was not intending any personal observation and you are holding a political > meeting in the wrong place. > A simple remark and the hell is unchained Robert and I am the passionate > one. Good grief! > You are in pain Robert, can't you see? > I am not a escape goat for your suffering, sorry. > Let's use a bit of sense and restrain ourselves. > > > > I >okay to kill thousands of people who are showing up to their jobs or to > kill > >innocent people who are taking a trip on an airplane, then you are way > >beyond > >fighting American politics and you are knee-deep in terrorism. I do not > >believe > >that causing more suffering can ever effect positive change. > > > >At that point, we do part company, and I believe you also part company with > >Buddhism, if you believe in violent means to effect political ends. > > Robert you are totally dominated by your emotions and this enraged, > sorrowful response is the proof. > Who ever declared or hinted that I am 'pro-terrorism' or believe in > violence; this all a product of your upset mind. > This is delusional mind state Robert. > You are aggressive and unrestrained against somebody you barely know. > Do you realize it? > Can you get any insight from your pain? > > > > >Ahimsa doesn't have political exceptions. > > > > But it seems you believe your distress justify this personal aversion > against me? > > Metta > Cybele 8034 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 2:21pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS "Nibbana is merely the absence of greed, hatred, and delusion" Since Nibbana is the absence of greed, hatred and delusion, therefore it would implied that Nibbana presence is dependent on greed, hatred and delusion. Hence without these three factors, how would you described Nibbana. When someones says all things are dharma, the person is not wrong. Because all things are the illusions of our own consciousness which is attached to a self ego. Whether Nibbana is a thing or not a thing or is a dharma or not a dharma. is does not really matters, what it matters is that it is something Buddha has exhort us to attain. I believe Nibbana is not explained fully because it can only be experience and not illustrated. Similarly, when we program a computer that sugar taste sweet. the computer could only understands by 1s and 0s but not experience the taste of sweet. Kind regards Kenneth Ong rikpa21 wrote: --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > > The problem with the word Dhamma is that it can mean just about > > everything. Other passages say sabbe dhamma anicca and that can > > hardly refer to Nibbana! > > There are? I've seen "sabbe sankhara anicca" and "sabbe sankhara > dukkha", but there's a distinction when it comes to "dhamma", because > not all dhammas are anicca and dukkha, Nibbana in particular. Hence, > "sabbe dhamma anatta". [Dhp. 277-279: This lumping of Nibbana in as a dhamma is highly suspect, because it appears to suggests that Nibbana is a "thing"--which is definitely off the mark. Nibbana is merely the absence of greed, hatred, and delusion. To call it a "dhamma" is to almost suggest it's something other than a mere label for an absence, and as such would just be another view to be discarded. So I find this classification of Nibbana as a dhamma one can even talk about in terms of "anatta" to be a highly questionable one. 8035 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 6:40pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] It is indeed sad that such a tragedy has happened. But we got to let go of it and carry on our life. Do not forget that Buddha whole Sakya clan was completely wipe out/killed. How does he feels?. He knows that this is all karma and there is nothing he could do about it. Believe in Karma, what has happened has happened and what will happened will happen. What can we do them, we strive to be enlighten. Only through enlightenment then we are able in our future lives or in the present one to teach pple the Dharma. When others able to achieve enlightenment due to our teachings of the Dharma, this person is truly save. this person is truly out of the cycle of sufferings. there will be no more bombings or terrorism or counter actions for this truly liberated person. When we have thoughts of right or wrong or what should be done or calling for justice, are not these our own prejudice or bias thoughts. This means that we are affected by external conditions. In order to help beings, we got to be heedful so that we could try to strive to be enlighten and in turns help others. Heedful of our internal feelings, consciousness..... Let me say again that let us not blame or say who is right or wrong because it has happened and it is all karmic actions. What we ought to do now is to realise that life is so impermanent and in a matter of few seconds, we are out of our existence us human beings. Let us strive to be enlighted and thereafter save as much beings as possible. As I said earlier, when others able to achieve enlightment, these beings are truly save/liberated. For the present let us be compassionate to those around us. Let us not build any more negative/ill will feelings in our daily lives. Let us not pursue any calling of justice. Why? Because when we are calling for justice, this will hardened our self ego or in another sense a self fulling goal that something must be done to satisfy our "sense of justice". Always remember Karma will do their work, let us not be judges of beings. Let karma be their judge. When I saw pple shouting for retaliatory actions in this Sangha groups or pinpointing/blaming at the terrorists or the US govt, it sadden me because Buddha is an embodiment of compassion and wisdom. When we condemned others, are not we ourselves have give up on others. Aren't we not having ill will towards others. Actually my sympathy is not just on the innocent lives being lost and the US govt and citizens, it also encompasses the terrorists that do it because they will suffer more greatly in later lives. I only wrong myself for not realising the way and departing these good dharma to them. No one is to blame, I only blame myself for not being enlighten and not teaching these innocent lives and terrorists the dharma. Once again, lets us believe in karma and be compassionate to those around us. Let us refrain from incorrect actions or words. With kindest regards Kenneth Ong dalthorp wrote: Dear Cybele, I am not very interested in discussing politics, but I would like to work through a couple of the "Buddhist" points that have been a part of our conversation. > Third I never thought that 'someone else' is > responsible for troubles instead of taking my > responsabilities whether this regards myself > personally or social and political events. I think there must be a misunderstanding here because when I made my comment that I preferred to not think about this from a materialist point of view, I had in mind your comment that "America" *caused* the attack because of its policies, which places responsibility for the attack on the shoulders of those who were attacked. That's a radically materialistic perspective (i.e. the cause of a behavior is the material conditions, the behavior is rooted in the object [in this case the concept of America as "individual"] itself rather than sankhara), and one that is quite at odds with the bedrock Buddhist principle of kamma/vipaka. > Cybele: > Have you considered that perhaps YOU are oversensitive > being an american after the shock of the terroristic > attack? Clearly you are right that I am being overly sensitive. I fell into the view of America as an individual--an individual that I was a part of. My arms were savagely severed by bandits with a two-handed saw. My reaction was mostly sadness (i.e. "pain"--domanassa), but when I heard that I and the other parts of my big me (USA) CAUSED the attack, I reacted with anger. Why? Because of my own delusion. In my ignorance I constructed concepts of America as an individual and myself as an individual. Then, I imagined that these "entities" were being attacked, and anger rose to defend these phantoms. Another phantom I created was the view that people (the terrorists) are solely responsible for their own actions, not someone else (the victims). This is still something I believe, but anger arises when I cling to that idea as a view. Ignorance. > > > However it seems that anything regarding America > > > becomes a 'media sensation' and the millions who > > > suffer tragedies all over the world which don't > > >get all that publicity yet endure devastating > > >suffering all the same are neglected. > > > > Neglected by whom? Is it the media you hate then? > > I don't hate anybody Dan. > The hatred argument is yours not mine, don't twist my > intentions or assume what I don't feel. You are right that I have no business assuming that you are filled with hatred for America and the media. I was unfairly making the leap that since dosa is strong in me when I go on rants like yours that it was also strong in you in your rants against America and the media. Thanks for pointing out the unfair, crude, rude, ignorant, mean, and hasty remarks I made. I apologize. > I accuse american government, the political > institution not you or your fellow countrymen. My deluded and ignorant views don't feel threatened when you accuse the american government and political institution of some specific act that they may have done. But my deluded views DO indeed react with hostility when you accuse them of extradinarily atrocious things that they clearly have not done, like saying they caused the attacks on Tuesday. > All this pathetic image of the Great Satan is yours > not mine. Actually, the pathetic image of the great Satan is from contemporary stripes of radical Islam. I believe the term was coined by Ayatollah Khomeni in Iran in the late 1970's and is still a popular notion among Muslim extremists. Creation of views of a nation as an individual and then arguing that individual to be capable of moral efficacy and then judging that individual to be evil has been summarized eloquently and efficiently as the concept of the great Satan. Once such an outlandish concept is born, it becomes a powerful vehicle for instilling the intense hatred and profound courage that make such atricities possible. The outlandish concept is born of delusion, nourished by craving, and in turn it incubates hatred. > A nation AS an individual Do mean an individual like a person? A very common view of "individual" is as consciousness or the entity that has consciousness (or some other of the five aggregates). I'm having a hard time seeing what you mean by a nation as an individual because it seems so far removed from other, much more common personality views. > Reality is political. That is one view. It's one that I don't subscribe to at all. Even so, sometimes I do find myself prey to the view's powerful, groping tentacles and all of a sudden I'm thinking, speaking, and acting like I believe it! Actually, the "reality is political" view is just a version of sakayaditthi with a little gloss added to disguise it. When it see it rise and fall it reminds me of just how difficult it is for samma-ditthi to become established. 8036 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 6:39pm Subject: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) --- Robert Epstein wrote: > I don't know what's most accurate scripturally, I don't think it matters much what's most accurate scripturally. What I think matters most is if a certain presentation helps one overcome one's clinging to views. > but I would say that you can look > at Nibbana as the absence of certain properties, or you can look at it as the > positive state of being in which those properties are absent. In the Prasangika system (the most highly developed of all extant systems dealing with the topic of emptiness/anatta), for example, emptiness prevents the "eternalism" extreme while dependent origination prevents the "annihilation" extreme. When the two no longer alternate, come together, then at least conventionl Right View is said to be established. That is the actual Middle Way between the extremes conventionally. > I personally feel that looking at Nibbana as a mere absence, rather than a > positive state, tends to verge towards annihilationism in which one sees the self > and other structures obliterated, with nothing left over. The reason emptiness is so often presented as a negation is because few people have the problem of believing that nothing exists. Every experience serves to demonstrate the contrary--that at minimum there is *experience*, which is "real enough". The most common error is instead is holding to objects of experience as "real" such that one sees them as possessing "true entity" or "self" (and not just self in the sense of the puggala, but more generally "self" in the sense of self-nature, or "core" or "entity"). That is the view the antidote of emptiness is designed to counter. Even the subtlest reification of how we hold to objects is enough to block the direct perception of emptiness. This is why so much effort is expended in deconstructing how objects are held to--as a means of terminating this clinging to objects as having "independent existence" or self-nature, which implies the view of eternalism. Objects do not "exist from their own side" (by way of their own truly- established nature) for example. Nor do they exist independent of causes and conditions. Nor do they exist independent of the mind labeling them. Objects cannot exist "from their own side" because any object of investigation, on analysis, can be demonstrated to be totally unfindable. It does not exist among its parts, apart from its conditions, apart from the mind cognizing it. In this sense it is totally "unfindable", yet it appears and performs a function. To be able to hold these two apparently contradictory positions in a state of non-contradiction is considered mundane Right View. > My own view is that if > we have raw perceptions being delivered directly to consciousness without mental > factors intervening, we have a kind of mechanical vision of Nibbana. That is specfically one view rejected in the analysis of emptiness: this idea that "raw sensation" unmediated by concepts has anything to do with Nibbana, because such is still very definitely in the domain of the mundane (still dealing with subject/object dichotomies as it is), whereas Nibbana is supramundane and one can't possibly apply such limiting categories to emptiness in terms of ultimate truth. So "raw sense data" is not what emptiness/anatta refers to, not even as an approximation, because "raw sensation" happens at the level of conventional truth (asmutti sacca), not ultimate truth (paramattha sacca), the domain of emptiness. In the Perfection of Wisdom (emptiness), there is no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; no suffering, no end of suffering, no sentient beings, no Buddhas, no form, feeling, perception, sankharas, consciousness, nor object of consciousness! :) > To me, the middle ground is to say that > awareness is liberated by entry into Nibbana, but that awareness has no definition > as a thing and does not partake of any notion of self or entity. This sounds suspiciously like you're reifying awareness Robert. You say it's not a "thing", and yet awareness implies a subject, and by implication, an object. This demonstrates that awareness is a changing thing, i.e. composed, because it is dependent on an object-- a changing thing, and changes in dependence on an object. Therefore it is mundane by definition. This means that awareness cannot possibly be Nibbana, since Nibbana is uncomposed, the asankhara dhatu. This view that nothing exists except for awareness--which exists absolutely in some way (even if it is asserted it is not a "thing"--and how can this be, incidentally, since awareness too is a dependent arising?)--is specifically the view rejected in the Madhyamika critique of Cittamatra (Mind Only). This view of awareness as a "true existent" is extremely subtle, and it's very easy to get caught on this one, because the mind so readily seizes on the idea that if Nibbana is not "consciouness" it means Nibbana implies annihilation! And yet no definition of Nibbana asserts it is either consciousness (or a state of mind--in fact, this is explicitly rejected by the Buddha), or a composed entity of any sort. Again, this is because consciousness is sankhara (composed) by definition, whereas Nibbana is asankhara (uncomposed). So to say that Nibbana is "thing" with any positive characteristics is to fall into the view that Nibbana is composed. That is why I think it can be so dangerous to classify about Nibbana as a "dhamma", because it plants the idea in the mind that it can be conceived, that it is some "thing", rather than a mere absence of independent existence--which is the ultimate mode of all phenomena, even Nibbana. For example, the view that Nibbana is "awareness" of some sort is explicitly rejected by the Buddha in the Bharmajala Sutta: "Here, a certain ascetic or Brahmin is a logician, a reasoner. Hammering it out by reason, following his own line of thought, he argues: `Whatever is called eye or ear or nose or tongue or body, that is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, liable to change. But what is called thought, or mind or consciousness, that is a self that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, the same for ever and ever! 8037 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 2:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Dear Robert, In all that is said below, I find it most interesting that Nibbana is said to partake of: "Asankhata-dhatu, unborn, unformed purified Element". Is that a convention of speech, or what is the unborn, unformed purified Element that Nibbana involves. It certainly seems that a positive state or substance is here invoked, rather than mere cessation. Best, Robert E. ============================= --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Group, > As Dan and Gayan have explained Nibbana is classified as a > dhamma and is anatta. It is also Sunnata - devoid of the > existence of a self., When Nibbana is attained with the khandas > remaining , it is called Sopadisesa-nibbandhadu. When the > arahant dies it is called Anupadisesa-nibbanadhatu. When > Arahats attain parinibbana it does not mean 'entering into > Nibbana' as if it was a place but it means fully passed away or > fully extinct (Parinibbuto). . > > _____ > Here is a readable summary by a Burmese monk. > > NIBBANA > Venerable Kaba-Aye Sayadaw U Pannadipa > > The Bodhisatta, in his birth as the ascetic, Sumedha > contemplated thus: > > "Even as, although Misery is, > > Yet Happiness Is also found, > > So, though indeed Existence is, > > Non-Existence should be sought." > > "When I am subject to > > Birth, Old Age, Disease, > > So then I will search for the Supreme Peace > > Free from Old Age and Death." > > > NIBBANA > the Nibbanic state is totally devoid of any and every thing of > the four elements, personal existence, static entity, rebirth, > death, consciousness or mind and matter etc. It is only the > state of element (Dhatu) which means "Nisatta nijjiva" > non-being, non-soul, i.e. there is not even a purified soul in > Nibbana. It is the happiest state or the ultimate peaceful bliss > of emancipation which utterly eliminates all passions that cause > prolong unrest in Samsaric existence. > Actually, Nibbana in its true nature is single (Ekameva > Nibbanam), but it can be treated in a two-fold way, namely, > (Kilesa parinibbana) the extinction of all impure passions and > it is also called (Saupadisesa Nibbana), i.e., attainment of > Nibbana still with life. When the Arahat dies his Nibbana is > Khandha parinibbana i.e. attaining Nibbana with the dissolution > of the aggregate of mind-matter, or Anupadisesa, i.e. Nibbana > without life-substratum. > > Thus Nibbana is only one as Asankhatadhatu, Unformed > Element: it is twofold as Saupadisesa and Anupadisesa: threefold > according to the three entrances, > > Vimokkha mukha) that is one of the three contemplation, > impermanence, suffering, and insubstantiality (Anicca), (Dukkha) > and (Anatta). It is four-fold in accordance with the four Paths, > and is five-fold with reference to the elimination of the > five-fold attachment to the five senses, and is six-fold as it > is attained by extinction of the six-fold craving pertaining to > the six sense objects. > > It is the question of what happens to the Arahat at death > that has given rise to much discussion. At the death of an > Arahat all his physical and mental aggregate cease together with > all attributes relating to phenomenal existence. Hence the > Arahat's death is called Khandhaparinibbana the extinction of > aggregates in the Asankhata-dhatu, unborn, unformed purified > Element, and it is the release from Sankhata, that which is born > and formed. Referring to this the Buddha said: > > "Monks, there is an unborn, unmade, unoriginated, and > unformed. Were there not such a state there would be no escape > from that which is born, made, originated and formed. Since, > Monks, there is this state of the unborn . . . there is an > escape from the born, made, originated and formed." (Udana 80). > > It is to find out and to proclaim this unborn state that > the Bodhisatta endeavored to attain enlightenment. "It is for > the sake of attaining the unconditioned state of Nibbana that > the religious life in the Buddha is lived," and this was the > reply of that great Arahat Punna to the question of the Great > Arahat Sariputta, the Captain of the Faith, who questioned about > the purpose of living holy life in the Buddha. > > The argument depends upon such expressions as "extinction" > or "blown out as a lamp," which are frequent in the scriptures > as is seen in the following: > > "The old craving exhausted, the fresh craving rises, > > Freed from thought of future becoming > > They like seeds barren do not spring again, > > But are blown out just as a lamp. (Sn. ver. 235). > > Some may venture to ask: "Whether the Arahat exists after > death, or does not exist, or whether he is both existence and > non-existence". The Buddha has answered this kind of topsy-turvy > arguments by noble silence, knowing that they may not tend to > any profit, but to more confusion. > > There is neither an existent, nor non-existent object, > called Nibbana, which we have to enter for the attainment of > Immortality. If there were a phenomenal object called Nibbana > then it must have been subject to destruction and none could > have attained the eternal and immutable state called Nibbana or > Immortality. On the other hand, Nibbana cannot be explained as > being the annihilation of' the individual and the world, for if > we judge by the standard of the absolute truth (Paramattha) , we > find that the self and the world are mere illusions in so far as > they get no existence apart from our consciousness. > > Nibbana is not existence, hardly can it be non-existence. > It lies totally beyond both existence and non-existence. > Existence and non-existence are both conditional and relative to > each other. Nibbana which is "Absolute" cannot be designated as > being either existence or non-existence: Nibbana which is > incomprehensible and profound can only be realized by those who > have attained it and have thus passed beyond both limitations, > existence and non-existence. > > "But where does this Nibbana exist?" was the question > raised by King Milinda. The Venerable Nagasena replied: "There > is no place looking in the East, the West, the South, the North, > above, below or beyond, where Nibbana is situated. Yet, there is > Nibbana, for he who is pure in virtue and possesses right > Insight, realizes it, whether he is in Greece, Alexandria, > Kosala or in China:" (M11. pp. 323-26). > > Just as the fire is not stored up in a particular place > but rises when the necessary conditions are present, so Nibbana > is not said to exist in a particular place, but it is attained > when and wherever the necessary qualities are fulfilled. > Nibbana, therefore, is not a heavenly place like the Hebrew > Paradise, or the Christian Heaven, or the Hindu Brahma." > > Let us turn to our friends of the Mahayana School to see what > they think about this Asankhatadhatu. Nagarjuna who was supposed > to be a saint and the founder of the Madhyamika School explained > Nibbana as "Sunyata" Voidness, condemning all the degrees of > "Realism of the Sarvasti-vadins and asserting the mayavic nature > of existence. He denied the existence of the self and the world, > and proclaimed the essential oneness of Samsara and Nibbana. > According to his view Nibbana is to be attained by the grace of > Amitabha, and cannot be attained by self effort, for there is no > "Self" to effort. In the Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghosa Thera says: > The Third truth, the Cessation of Suffering, i.e. Nibbana is > void of Atta, Self or Soul, but is full of the essence of > durability, goodness, and blissfulness, and its essential > characteristic is "Santi " peace. This shows how he has opposed > the idea of Sunyata of Nagarjuna. > > Regarding one's existence in Samsara and the deliverance > from it, the Buddha said the following salient facts:? > "Inconceivable is the beginning of this Samsara, not to be > discovered a first beginning of beings, who, obstructed by > ignorance and ensnared by craving, are hurrying and hastening > through this round of rebirths." > > "And thus have you long time undergone suffering, > undergone torment, undergone misfortune and filled the > graveyards full, verily, long enough to be dissatisfied with all > forms of existence, long enough to turn away and free yourself > from them all." > > "Be it in the past, present or future: whosoever of the > monks or priests regards the delightful and pleasurable things > in the world as impermanent (anicca), miserable (dukkha), > without an ego (anatta), as a disease and sorrow, it is he who > overcomes craving. > > "And released from Sensual Craving, released from the > Craving for Existence, and released from the Craving for > Non-Existence, he does not return, does not enter again into > existence." > > "For through the total fading away and extinction of > "Craving"(tanha), "Clinging to Existence" (upadana) is > extinguished: through the extinction of the clinging to > existence, the "Process of Becoming" (bhava) is extinguished: > through the extinction of the "Process of Becoming," (Action) > Rebirth (jati) is extinguished, through the extinction of > rebirth, decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and > despair are extinguished. Thus comes about the extinction of > this whole mass of suffering." > > "Hence the annihilation, cessation and overcoming of > bodily form, feeling, perception, karma-formations and > consciousness: this is the extinction of suffering, the end of > disease, the overcoming of old age or death." > > ""Verily, there is a realm where there is neither the > solid, nor the liquid; neither heat, nor motion; neither this > world, nor any other world; neither sun, or moon. > > "This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither > standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither > foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of > suffering." > > ""However, through the fading away of delusion, through > the arising of wisdom, through the extinction of craving, no > future rebirth takes place again." > > "In this respect one may say of me, that I teach annihilation, > that I propound my doctrine for the purpose of annihilation, and > that I herein train my disciples. For certainly, I teach > annihilation, the annihilation of greed, anger, and delusion, as > well as of the manifold evil and demeritorious things." > If someone puts the question. "Who, made the Five Khandhas, or > five groups of existence," he seldom gets a right answer. Now > let it be said that the five groups of bodily and mental > phenomena, correctly speaking, have been put together by the > Buddha in order to show the "Anatta doctrine" the central and > unique teaching of Buddhism. > > All those bodily forms, feelings, perceptions, mental > formations and states of consciousness which the Buddha has > classified and grouped into the five groups are only of > momentary duration, existing no longer than a flash of > lightning. > > One never gets a right understanding of the five groups of > existence, if one thinks of them as something compact, whereas > in reality they are only fleeting phenomena changing as quickly > as lightning. > > The five groups are merely a classification made by the > Buddha hut have, as such, i.e. as groups, no real existence. If > there arises, e.g. a joyful feeling, there cannot arise at the > very same moment a sorrowful feeling; thus at any given moment > only a single representative of those groups may be present, > never any group as a whole. Hence it is impossible that a group > of feelings, or perceptions, or states of consciousness may > arise at one and the same time. > > The four mental groups are never existing separately. "And > it is Impossible that anyone can explain the passing out of one > existence and then entering into a new existence or the growth, > increase and development of consciousness, independently of > bodily form, feeling, perception and mental formations. Each > state of consciousness is always connected with some of the > fifty mental formations as explained in the "Abhidhamma Pitaka." > > > Through not understanding the nature of the five groups of > existence, one gets possessed of manifold wrong views, and it > becomes one's conviction and firm belief, "I have an Ego," or "I > have no Ego;" or "With the Ego I perceive the Ego," or "With > that which is no Ego I perceive the Ego," or "with the Ego I > perceive that which is no Ego." Or one falls into the following > view: "This my Ego, which can think and feel, and which, now > here, now there,. experiences the fruit of good and evil deeds - > this my Ego is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change > and will thus eternally remain the same. > > But, the noble disciple who understands the five Khandhas > as impermanent, subject to change and suffering, as not > remaining in two successive moments the same, he will penetrate > that liberating truth of "Anatta," the very root of all > unselfishness, leading to Nibbana. > > "Sabbe dhamma anattati "Nowhere can there be found a Self: > Yada pannaya passati, Who wisely perceives this truth, > Atha nibbindati dukkhe, He turns away from misery, > Esa maggo visuddhiya." This is the path to purity." > > In the Abhidhanapadipika, Nibbana is described in various > terms: > > Accanta The Everlasting > Akata The Unmade > Ananta The Endless > Apalokita The Undestructible > Panita The Sublime > Sarana The Refuge > Khema The Safety > Tana The Shelter > Lena The Retreat > Parayana The Goal > Siva The Bliss > Nipuna The Profound > Sacca The Truth > Dukkahakkhaya The Cessation of misery > Annasa The Freedom from longing > Sududdasa That which is difficult to grasp > Asankhara The Uncreated > Para The Further Shore > Para The Beyond > Mokkha The Deliverance > Nirodha The Extinction > Anidassana The Unperceptible > Nibbana The Extinction of Craving > Dhuva The Permanent > Avyapajja The Unoppressedness > Vivatta The Standstill of the cycle of existence > Kevala The Absolute > Anitika The Undistressed > Analaya The Detached > Pada The Law > Accuta The Deathless > Akkhara The Lasting > Vimutta The Release > Vimutti The Liberation > Apavagga The Total Completion > Viraga The Dispassionate > Yogakkhema The Peace from Bondage > Santi The Stillness > Visuddhi The Purity > Asankhata The Uncaused > Suddhi The Pure > Nibbuta The Allayment > > These are the names given to Nibbana by the Buddha in > various discourses. By this it becomes evident that Nibbana > cannot be compared to anything which comes within the reach of > our senses. > > Nibbana is visible to the mind of those who enter the Path > of the Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami and Arahat, at the moment > of deep insight into the Egolessness, Emptiness and Misery of > all Existence. > > And this moment is reached by the Noble Eight-fold Path. > > Just as a blind man does not understand what light > is, or as the sun cannot be seen when there are clouds, just so > the mind clouded by greed, anger and delusion will not be able > to perceive the reality of Nibbana. > To say that there is no Nibbana simply because those filled with > greed, anger and delusion, do not perceive it, is just as > illogical as to say that there is no light because the blind man > does not see it or because we cannot see the sun when clouds are > hindering our sight. > > Not by reasoning and abstract thinking can Nibbana ever be > attained, but only by right understanding, by inward > purification, inward conquest and by fulfilling the "Noble > Eight-fold Path" founded on Anattasanna, i.e. the perception > that all things are without an Ego, or Self and that also behind > all these phenomena of existence there is no "I," no eternal, > immutable, unchanging entity, a "thing in itself." > > There is only a five-khandha process of existence which > comes to a stand still at the death of the Arahat or Holy One. > > One never knows a thing as it really is without seeing it, > and this, more than anywhere else, is true with regard to > Nibbana. > > Although Nibbana is hidden to the eyes of the worldling, > the Path, however, leading there is attained by the noble > disciple and is explained by the Buddha with all necessary > details and every one can follow it. > . We have seen that in reality there does not exist any > Ego-entity or Soul, and that therefore also no transmigration of > the same into a new mother's womb is in no way a continuation of > the former bodily process but merely a result or effect caused > by the selfish craving and clinging to life, of the so-called > individual who has died. In Nid. Samy. No. 59, it is said: "Once > all Ignorance and clinging are extinguished neither karmically > meritorious nor demeritorious, nor imperturbable > karma-formations are produced, and thus no consciousness will > spring up again in a new mother's womb." > > "Here I feel the necessity of once more expressly emphasizing > the fact that without a clear perception of the phenomenality, > or Egolessness of all existence, a real understanding of the > Buddha's teaching, especially that of rebirth and Nibbana, is > impossible." > > "This doctrine of Anatta is in fact the only specific > teaching of Buddhism with which the entire teaching stands or > falls." > > One cannot say that the Arahat is reborn, because all > craving and clinging to existence are completely abandoned, > rooted out, like a palm tree torn out of the soil, destroyed and > not liable to spring up again in the future. > > "Neither can one say that the Arahat is annihilated at > death as there is nothing to be annihilated. What we call > "Arahat" is, as we have seen, only a convenient term of speech > and has no real existence. There is only a process of bodily and > mental phenomena which have come to a standstill and is not > continued after death." > > Whether Perfect Ones (Buddhas) appear In the world > or whether Perfect Ones do not appear in the world, it still > remains a firm condition, an Immutable fact and fixed law that > all formations are "impermanent," that all formations are > "subject to suffering," that everything is "without an Ego." > > "Therefore, Disciples, the doctrines which I advised you > to penetrate, you should well preserve, well guard, so that this > Holy Life may take its course and continue for ages, for the > wheel and welfare of heavenly beings and men." > > Thus, the problem of Nibbana is an ethical rather than a > philosophical one, and its solution is dependent not upon > dialectical skill but upon right understanding and upon inward > purification, Inward conquest and fulfilling the "Noble > Eightfold Path' founded on Anatta-sanna, the perception that, > all things created as well as uncreated are without an Ego, and > that also behind all these phenomena of existence there is no > "I", "no eternal, immutable unchangeable entity, or a thing in > itself." > > Dukkham-eva hi na koci dukkhito, > > Karako na, kiriya va vijjati, > > Atthi nibuti, na nibbuto puma, > > Maggam-atthi, gamako na vijjati. > > "Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found > > The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds: > > Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it, > > The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen." > > Kammassa Karako natthi, > > Vipakassa ca vedako, > > Suddhadhamma pavattanti, > > Ev 'etam sammadassanam. > > No doer of the deeds is found, > > No one who ever reaps their fruits, > > Empty phenomena roll on, > > This view alone is right and true. > > Na hettha devo brahma va, > > Samsarass-atthi karako, > > Suddhadhamma pavattanti, > > Hetusambharapaccaya ti. > > No god, no Brahma, may be called, > > The maker of this wheel of life, > > Empty phenomena roll on, > > Dependent on conditions all." V.M. XIX. > ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8038 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 7:02pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Robert Epstein wrote: > There is a Mahayana doctrine -- I am not sure exactly where it occurs in the > sutras, or how widespread it is -- that Samsara and Nirvana are two sides of the > same coin, and that Samsara is the deluded face of Nirvana [Nibbana]. Hi Robert, You can see this in the Yogacara, that Nirvana is nothing other than defiled mental imputations removed from dependent arisings, leaving their consummate nature. The analogy of gold, gold ore, and mud is used. When you remove the mud from the gold ore you get gold. When you remove defiled concepts from the dependent arisings, the very same dependently-arise phenomena exist, yet they appear as undefiled (peace), and reveal their true nature to the undefiled mind, which is Nibbana. In technical terms this is parinispanna (consummate nature) = paratantra (other dependent) - parikalipta (defiled mental imputations). > When buddha > says above that all phenomena have Nibbana as their essence, he is hinting at the > advanced idea that an enlightened being would not see the arising phenomena as > flawed in some way, but would see it as the momentary reflection of Nibbana > itself. The ultimate mode of all phenomena is their emptiness. So in this sense a Buddha, who has removed all "obstructions to omniscience", simultaneously sees the dependent nature of all phenomena and their emptiness. Arahats lacking the faculty of a Buddha's omniscience cannot see this, however. > Without awareness, phenomena would not even appear to arise, and so awareness is > the essence of the arising of all phenomena. As awareness becomes more unimpeded, > the true nature of phenomena is revealed: it is not only impermanent, > unsatisfying and lacking in self-nature, but is also nothing other than a seeming > modification of the awareness in which it appears to occur. Right, however, this ultimate mode is only perceived for short instants by those in the actual perception of emptiness (and by Buddhas at all times). That means only during path-moments where Nibbana is being perceived directly can beings other than Buddhas percieve this ultimate nature of phenomena, but this also cancels out the perception of their dependent nature for non-Buddhas. > I am extrapolating this from the above quote, knowing that it may be confusing, > controversial, or, from a Theravadin view, perhaps just wrong, The Pali Canon doesn't explicitly cover all of this material, which is why we are fortunate in having the so-called Mahayana teachings from the Buddha to fill in the details the Pali Canon glosses over (and there are many). > but I would like to > take the opportunity to see what others' views are of the Buddha's statement > above, and of the ideas I have put forth based on them. They will either suggest > a bridge between the Theravadin and Mahayana schools, or perhaps obscure it > further. The one thing I can say is that the more I study the more tha Pali Canon, the more it simply confirms everything I've learned in the Mahayana, and it's given me an even deeper respect for the depth and breadth of the so-called Mahayana. There is precedent for everything in the Pali Canon, though. It's just that there's not enough detail there on certain points (particularly Buddhahood and the Bodhsattva path), and without reference to the Mahayana Sutras which detail these aspect specifically, it is difficult to draw the appropriate interpretations of those points. Then again, since few who study the Pali Canon are explicitly practicing the Bodhisattva path and aiming at Buddhahood, it is not so important these details be present there. 8039 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi Robert, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > I am extrapolating this from the above quote, > knowing that it may be confusing, > controversial, or, from a Theravadin view, perhaps > just wrong, but I would like to > take the opportunity to see what others' views are > of the Buddha's statement > above, and of the ideas I have put forth based on > them. They will either suggest > a bridge between the Theravadin and Mahayana > schools, or perhaps obscure it > further. I do think you're closing in on one of the major differences between the Mahayana and the Theravada. It was my dream, years ago, to find a synthesis of the two--my conclusion (possibly mistaken, of course) was that this is not possible, in large part because of the differences you're addressing here (which I believe are fundamental). This conclusion (and others) are based on some somewhat vague ideas about Mahayana doctrine, extracted by me mostly from my readings of a large volume of Ch'an material (and my own experiences and readings from and about the Tipitaka). Though I'm fairly confident of my conclusions, I'm not able to support them sufficiently to publish my opinions. I do wish you the very best in your own investigations, which continue to impress me with their sincerity and focus. mike --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote: > > > another phrase in tipitaka is > > 'vimutti saaraa sabbe dhamma' > > this means 'Release is the essense of all > phenomena' > > vimutti - sanskrit vimukti means relese , another > word for nibbana. > > > > so here buddha treats nibbana as belonging to > 'sabbe dhamma'( all > > phenomena ) > > Well this is extremely intriguing. If this is an > accurate way of looking at this > statement, it seems to me that the root of Mahayana > doctrines, and perhaps Anders' > doctrine of Nibbana as the 'true self' have their > root in Theravadin doctrine. > This would be very important, as it would provide a > link between all of the > teachings proposed to emanate from the Buddha. > > There is a Mahayana doctrine -- I am not sure > exactly where it occurs in the > sutras, or how widespread it is -- that Samsara and > Nirvana are two sides of the > same coin, and that Samsara is the deluded face of > Nirvana [Nibbana]. When buddha > says above that all phenomena have Nibbana as their > essence, he is hinting at the > advanced idea that an enlightened being would not > see the arising phenomena as > flawed in some way, but would see it as the > momentary reflection of Nibbana > itself. > > We can imagine that the Buddha would not only see > the illusory nature of the > arisings of phenomena, but would also see the > essence from which they spring. > Without awareness, phenomena would not even appear > to arise, and so awareness is > the essence of the arising of all phenomena. As > awareness becomes more unimpeded, > the true nature of phenomena is revealed: it is not > only impermanent, > unsatisfying and lacking in self-nature, but is also > nothing other than a seeming > modification of the awareness in which it appears to > occur. > > I am extrapolating this from the above quote, > knowing that it may be confusing, > controversial, or, from a Theravadin view, perhaps > just wrong, but I would like to > take the opportunity to see what others' views are > of the Buddha's statement > above, and of the ideas I have put forth based on > them. They will either suggest > a bridge between the Theravadin and Mahayana > schools, or perhaps obscure it > further. > > I would also like to hear from Anders, who can say > if he thinks my way of putting > this is off the mark from a Mahayana point of view. > > Best, > Robert E. > 8040 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:41pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Dear Kenneth, Thanks for the good words. --- KennethOng wrote: > When I saw pple shouting for retaliatory actions in > this Sangha > groups or pinpointing/blaming at the terrorists or > the US govt, it > sadden me because Buddha is an embodiment of > compassion and wisdom. > When we condemned others, are not we ourselves have > give up on > others. Aren't we not having ill will towards > others. > No one is to blame, I only blame > myself for not > being enlighten and not teaching these innocent > lives and terrorists > the dharma. I think that 'self' is to blame only in the sense that it's an aspect of ignorance. > Once again, lets us believe in karma and be > compassionate to those > around us. Let us refrain from incorrect actions or > words. Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through anger or irritation wish for another to suffer. Sutta Nipata I, 8 Thanks again, Kenneth. mike 8041 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 9:06pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear erik, > > > Nope, it does not imply that 'absence of ailments' is an entity. > > it is not an entity like 'an ailment'. > > but it can have a nature of its own. > > Interesting, Gayan. How would you describe this "nature"? The reason > I ask is that I still hear you saying or implying that Nibbana > has "own-being", since I am still hearing "svabhava" (nature) being > implied here. Maybe that's not what you mean, but it sounds that way. > this is like a word play erik, i think this happens simply because you are well versed in several schools of buddhism than most of us. :o) What 'you' hear as 'I' say can possibly be what 'you' have in your mind. 'nature' not nessesarily has to be or have 'own-being'. Nature can be a presence or an absence. Most of the time Buddha explains nibbana as absence of lobha , dosa, moha.. thats the nature. Its something like the 'extinction' of a flame.(Nibbana) This extinction of fire has a nature. > So my question is again, how does your interpretation of > emptiness/Nibbana above not imply svabhava (and by implication > independent existence) of some sort? This does not imply an independent existance of a non-flame. rgds, gayan 8042 From: Sarah Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 9:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Good Grief! Dear Mike, (Nina and Kom) --- "m. nease" wrote: > Still catching up. Me too! (what’s new?) > --- Sarah wrote: > > > As I mentioned, Khun Sujin stressed that it should > > not be understood that tanha > > was ever kusala in anyway. However tanha for > > following the noble path is or > > developing kusala is not as bad as other kinds of > > tanha (connected to the 5 > > sensualities) as it can be upanissaya paccaya for > > kusala and this is what > > should be understood. This is how I read the Thai > > comm notes you provided, but > > it may not sound convincing to others;-) > > The responses to this thread are mostly over my head, > hope you don't mind if I drag it back down a little. Mostly over mine as well...but I did follow up with Khun Sujin. Still some question marks, but I’ll add a few comments according to my understanding of what she said, before I look at your question. As I recollect, she mentioned that after coming out of a jhana state, there is bound to be domanassa (unpleasant feeling). There are 2 kinds of domanassa: that which doesn’t hurt or cause any harm to others such as the one for spiritual attainments (see Kom's note below from the com.) and the 2nd one for sense objects. The first one can be a condition (upanissaya paccaya) for wholesome states (jhana or vipassana) and so, although domanassa can never accompany a wholesome citta, this is the one that is referred to as the ‘one to be pursued’. This is exactly how she had (by telephone earlier) explained about tanha above and also ‘fits’ with the Thai commentary notes which Kom gave us and I’ve added at the end.* Kom & Nina, I also raised the question of jhana paccaya and domanassa in this regard, but she stressed that this was quite another matter....jhana states and jhana paccaya are quite separate and it was only the former that is being referred to here . You may like to pursue it further in India if this isn’t clear.. (Nina, Jon or I or both will come back to the other discussion topics when we’re not so very hectic. His boss is away and he’s doing 2 jobs this week and all my school year classes have just started....many thanks for raising them...) > The above is pretty much the way I've been thinking of > it, with the addition of samvega (sometimes translated > as anxiety, agitation or dismay). Sorry if I've > overlooked the answer to this in the preceding notes, > but do you think samvega could be the 'grief to be > pursued'? Nina or Rob or Kom may have more idea about this. I only know very little about samvega vatthu or the 8 kinds of urgency - birth, old age, disease, death. lower planes suffering, future misery in cycles of rebirth, present misery in the search for food. Anyone can read more about these in the Vism, (ch 3?) and i will review when i have time, but I’m not sure if these are what you are referring to. The only connection I see is that perhaps we could say that again any domanassa asociated with moments of seeing the urgency of development, conditioned by clinging for sure, are again not harmful to others like most domanassa and dosa. Not sure I’ve helped, Sarah .................................................... * Kom wrote: The commentary mentioned that domanassa that should not be pursued includes domanassa that is connected to the 5 sensualities. The domanassa that should be pursued includes domanassa resulting from wanting to attain the lokutarra phala but doesn't attain adaquate amount of vipassana in a certain period of time, the wanting of the same kind of ayatana as the ariyans. As a result of the want, the domanassa arises. "To be pursued" domannassaa includes: domanassa resulting from leaving the 5 sensualities, from vipassana, from being mindful - being aware, from the 1st Jhana, etc. It was then explained in detail how a Bikhu can have domanassa resulted from wanting to have the result but has not attained. end quote .................................................> > Still catching up. > > --- Sarah wrote: > > > As I mentioned, Khun Sujin stressed that it should > > not be understood that tanha > > was ever kusala in anyway. However tanha for > > following the noble path is or > > developing kusala is not as bad as other kinds of > > tanha (connected to the 5 > > sensualities) as it can be upanissaya paccaya for > > kusala and this is what > > should be understood. This is how I read the Thai > > comm notes you provided, but > > it may not sound convincing to others;-) > > The responses to this thread are mostly over my head, > hope you don't mind if I drag it back down a little. > The above is pretty much the way I've been thinking of > it, with the addition of samvega (sometimes translated > as anxiety, agitation or dismay). Sorry if I've > overlooked the answer to this in the preceding notes, > but do you think samvega could be the 'grief to be > pursued'? > > mike 8043 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 9:40pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear anders, >SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." in the context of SN4 this is the interpretation buddha intended. " Sabbaµ vo bhikkhave desissŚmi-1 taµ suöŚtha. Ki–ca bhikkhave sabbaµ: cakkhu–ceva rčpŚ ca sota–ca saddŚ ca ghŚna–ca gandhŚ ca jivhŚ ca rasŚ ca kŚyo ca pho­­habbŚ ca mano ca dhammŚ ca idaµ vuccati bhikkhave sabbaµ. " when buddha says 'sabba' here , he intends chakkhu and rupa, sota and sadda, ghana and gandha, jivha and rasa, kaya and pottabbha, mano and dhamma. the word dhamma here has a restricted meaning here. its to be understood as 'dhamma' to mano indriya is similar as rupa to chakkhu indriya. furthur more " DhammŚ niccŚ vŚ aniccŚ vŚti? AniccŚ bhante. Yaµ panŚniccaµ dukkhaµ vŚ taµ sukhaµ vŚti? Dukkhaµ bhante yaµ panŚniccaµ dukkhaµ viparinŚmadhammaµ kallannu taµ samanupassituµ "etaµ mama esohamasmi eso me attŚ" ti? Nohetaµ bhante. " so in the SN4's context 'dhamma' has a specific meaning. rgds, gayan 8044 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 9:48pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear robert e., > > another phrase in tipitaka is > > 'vimutti saaraa sabbe dhamma' > > this means 'Release is the essense of all phenomena' > > vimutti - sanskrit vimukti means relese , another word for nibbana. > > > > so here buddha treats nibbana as belonging to 'sabbe dhamma'( all > > phenomena ) > > Well this is extremely intriguing. If this is an accurate way of looking at this > statement, it seems to me that the root of Mahayana doctrines, and perhaps Anders' > doctrine of Nibbana as the 'true self' have their root in Theravadin doctrine. > This would be very important, as it would provide a link between all of the > teachings proposed to emanate from the Buddha. > Yes it is intrguing. Buddha simply said this phrase to drive the point away from a 'self'. I wrote the story(As much as I can remember) in a mail to anders in an earlier post. A 'self' is not the essence. The 'release' is the essence. It may be the case that in Mahayana, what is intended by word 'true self' of 'bodhi' is the 'release' or nibbana. But in theravada context 'self' has nothing to do with 'nibbana'. rgds, gayan 8045 From: Sarah Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 10:02pm Subject: Sabhava or 'essence' Dear Friends, I'm glad to see all the interesting discussion, even though I'm rather behind;-) Sabhava or ‘essence’ has been a pretty popular topic on dsg, especially amongst those who’ve come from a Mahayana background. Anyone can go to: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ (password- metta) and key in ‘sabhava’ under ‘search’. I’ve just done this and extracted a few quotations from a few of my past posts (the comments in between were mine): *********** 1) > > 'Nibbana is a single undifferentiated ultimate reality. It is > exclusively supramundane, and has > > one intrinsic nature (sabhava), which is that of being the > unconditioned deathless element totally > > transcendant to the conditioned world.' (AS.V1,31) > > ********** > > In other words, even though it is unconditioned, it has its nature > that can be realized. I'm not > > sure that I would call the realizing 'marking', but either way, it > remains the citta that realizes > > or marks and is conditioned. Being realized does not make the > unconditioned reality conditioned. ................................................................................> 2)Nibbana, even though it's unconditioned, is a reality with its own 'sabhava' even if it lacks many/most the characteristics of other realities. Because we often use negative terms to describe it (the un-this and un-that) it's very easy to be left with the idea that there is nothing to be realized. Although I'm not an expert on nibbana (!!), this isn't true according to my studies. Also, of course, all realities are not self and yet phassa 'contacts' them..this doesn't make them non-existent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3) The only way that seeing can be known as anatta is by being aware of the essence of seeing when it appears at this moment. Whether sati arises at the exact moment of seeing or immediately following it in the mind-door process is not very important. What is important is to understand its nature when it appears. I can hear Erik ready to object! So how can seeing be both anatta and yet with essence? Simply, if seeing had no characteristic or nature it would not arise and would not perform its function. There was some discussion awhile back (between Jon and Howard I believe) about the individual essence or sabhava. Howard, you may wish to refer back to this, but now rather than hunting back, let me quote from the Visuddhimagga which has many notes about sabhava (individual essence). I'm looking at ChX1V, (the start of the section on vipassana),3-7, which discusses panna (understanding) and also sanna (perception): '....It is understanding (panna) in the sense of act of understanding (pajanana). What is this act of understanding? It is knowing (janana) in a particular mode separate from the modes of perceiving (sanjanana) and cognizing (vijanana). For though the state of knowing (janana-bhava) is equally present in perception (sanna), in consciousness (vinnana) and in understanding (panna), nevertheless perception is only the mere perceiving of an object as, say, 'blue' or 'yellow'; it cannot bring about the penetration of its characteristics as impermanent, painful, and not-self. Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow, and it brings about the penetration of its characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by endeavouring, the manifestation of the (supramundane) path. Understanding knows the object in the way already stated, it brings about the penetration of the characteristics, and it brings about, by endeavouring, the manifestation of the path.................Understanding has the characteristic of penetrating the individual essences of states*. Its function is to abolish the darkness of delusion, which conceals the individual essences of states. It is manifested as non-delusion. Because of the words "One who is concentrated knows and sees correctly (A.v.3), its proximate cause is concentration...' *' 'A phenomenon's own essence (sako bhavo) or existing essence (samano va bhava) is its individual essence (sabhava). Cf Ch V111, note 68 where Pm gives the definition from saha-bhava (with essence). At the last reference we find the definition of sabhava is narrower than dhamma and is similar to dhatu (element)...'dhamma without individual essence (asabhava-dhamma) include the attainment of cessation and some concepts such as space and time.....Of nibbana..which has its own individual essence, the Mula Tia says: 'Nibbana is not like othe dhammas; because of its extreme profundity it cannot be made an object of consciousness (alambitum) by one who has not realized it. That is why it has to be realized by change-of-lineage. It has profundity surpassing any individual essence belonging to the three periods of time.'.. There is a lot more detail on sabhava in the Vism. As I have mentioned, there has to be awareness of the characteristic of 'essence' or nature of seeing over and over and over again. Direct understanding has to know its nature as being not-self and quite different from visible object, sanna and thinking. When there is so little understanding now, I wonder rather what is the use of thinking much about nibbana when really there can be so little comprehension of what its profundity means. When we consider different realities, sometimes we may consider them in terms of dependent origination, sometimes as khandhas, sometimes as nama and rupa, sometimes in tems of kamma and vipaka. Whatever classification or terminology is being used, the purpose is to help remind us about different realities appearing right now which can be known as anatta. ................................................ 4)Let me add a little more from that Vism ref I gave sabhava...'..it is narrower than dhamma. It often roughly corresponds to dhatu (element) and lakkhana(characteristic), but less nearly to the vaguer and (in Pali) untechnical pakati (nature), or to rasa(function). The Athasalani observes: 'it is the individual essence, or the generality, of such and such dhammas that is called their characteristic' (DhsA.63); on which the Mula Tika comments: 'The individual essence consisting in, say, hardness as that of earth, or touching as that of contact, is not common to all dhammas....' Actually there's a lot of detail here and following and if I had time I'd follow the cross refs too. There is a note at the end that says the Sanskrit equivalent, sabhava, had a 'great vogue and chequered history in philosophical discusions on the Indian mainland'. To my understanding, they couldn't possibly have the same meaning because Pali sabhava, essence is inherently reflecting the anatta characteristic of the reality whereas the Sanskrit one would be reflecting a thing, a self, atta.... .......................................... If anyone is still reading, you may like to look at useful posts saved under nibbana and sabhava at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Best wishes, Sarah 8046 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 10:35pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "m. nease" wrote: Hi Mike, > I do think you're closing in on one of the major > differences between the Mahayana and the Theravada. > It was my dream, years ago, to find a synthesis of the > two--my conclusion (possibly mistaken, of course) was > that this is not possible, in large part because of > the differences you're addressing here (which I > believe are fundamental). I have not detected any fundamental difference between the two (not as much as a hair of contradiction, actually). Can you point to specifics that have led you to adopt this particular view? > This conclusion (and others) are based on some > somewhat vague ideas about Mahayana doctrine, > extracted by me mostly from my readings of a large > volume of Ch'an material (and my own experiences and > readings from and about the Tipitaka). Perhaps rather than drawing any conclusions from your own cursory readings of Ch'an material (which can hardly be said to represent the vast breadth of systems categorized under the heading "Mahayana"), it may be prudent to in addition request isntruction from those trained in one of these wonderful traditions, and then to take that instruction and put it into practice and test out for yourself if it works for you or not. Taking my own advice, before I attempted to draw any conclusions about Theravada, for example, I was careful to request teachings from qualified instructors in this excellent tradition. And I have been very nicely surprised--particularly by all my instructors over at Wat Mahatat, where I found nothing but perfect harmony and concord between what I've been taught in the Mahayana by my teachers, such that I feel as though I'm just as at home there as in my own gompa. But that's just the opinion of someone who's studied under qualified teachers in both traditions, put their teachings into practice (from both sides), and studied the Pali Suttas side-by-side with the Mahayana Sutras since the beginning of his studies (even though favoring the Mahayana since it accords best with his accumulations). Regardless, in the final analysis, the only way to put this question to bed once and for all is to awaken to the Deathless. Then all doubt is terminated and one knows for certain what is and is not the Dharma. Since what is being pointed ceases to be a matter of doubt, then it is possible to know whether or not a given presentation squares with the essence of the Dharma or not--which is what actually matters (substance vs. style, in other words). But not until. Without such definitive knowledge, any conclusion would be nothing but the purest speculation; and if one is entirely honest, this is just as true regarding the teachings in Pali Canon as for the teachings of the so-called Mahayana. Hopefully this underscores why attempting to draw any conclusions before such direct knowledge is thoroughly established isn't a particularly helpful approach. In fact, it is not even acting in accordance with what the Buddha suggested in the Pali Canon in terms of acting as a "guardian of the truth," nor even the Abhidhamma for that matter, where the notion that "this alone is true, all other views are false" is listed as one of the "Four Bonds." Not only that, but for those of a particularly dogmatic bent, it could even lead to the very serious error of denigrating what is in fact the ariyan Dharma, out of ignorance (not suggesting this in your case, mind you), simply because an unfamiliar presentation of the Dharma may not accord with one's present prejudices and speculations. 8047 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 10:59pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: > this is like a word play erik, > i think this happens simply because you are well versed in several schools > of buddhism than most of us. > :o) Hi Gayan, This is a "word play" because there's no alternative but to play with words in a forum like this! :) On that note, I have found enormous advantage in studying several schools' presentations of emptiness. There are more flavors of this out there than can be imagined, many of them questionable. Having a basis of comparison can really help uncover the points of contention, where they're hiding--which is one reason there is such a heavy emphasis on comparative analysis and debate in the Tibetan Geluk-pa tradition, for example. I am very grateful for having been exposed to this ruthless analytical method. > What 'you' hear as 'I' say can possibly be what 'you' have in your mind. I am responding to words that in my tradition would get you hammered for suggesting "true existence"! What can I say? Old habits are hard to break! :) > Most of the time Buddha explains nibbana as absence of lobha , dosa, moha.. > thats the nature. > Its something like the 'extinction' of a flame.(Nibbana) > This extinction of fire has a nature. This is of course a very stock answer. Since you suggest the extinction of the fire has a nature, what nature would that be? > > So my question is again, how does your interpretation of > > emptiness/Nibbana above not imply svabhava (and by implication > > independent existence) of some sort? > > This does not imply an independent existance of a non-flame. Okay, so we agree Nibbana lacks independent existence. Since we're using analogies, the way I read that is that there is the cessation of that flame because it ran out of fuel. This cessation is a mere absence of nutriment conditions, i.e., there are no further conditions for the flame's arising, i.e. when this ceases, that ceases. But the cessation of the flame implies nothing positive whatsoever; it is a non-affirming negative (unlike an affirming negative like "The fat Devadatta never eats during the daytime", which carries with it the affirmation that he has to be stuffing his face at night). 8048 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 11:12pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Good Grief! Dear Sarah, --- Sarah wrote: > As I recollect, she mentioned that after coming out > of a jhana state, there is > bound to be domanassa (unpleasant feeling). There > are 2 kinds of domanassa: > that which doesn’t hurt or cause any harm to others > such as the one for > spiritual attainments (see Kom's note below from the > com.) and the 2nd one for > sense objects. The first one can be a condition > (upanissaya paccaya) for > wholesome states (jhana or vipassana) and so, > although domanassa can never > accompany a wholesome citta, this is the one that is > referred to as the ‘one to > be pursued’. Yes--this still points to samvega, by my (very limited!) understanding. > This is exactly how she had (by telephone earlier) > explained about tanha above > and also ‘fits’ with the Thai commentary notes which > Kom gave us and I’ve added > at the end.* > > Kom & Nina, I also raised the question of jhana > paccaya and domanassa in this > regard, but she stressed that this was quite another > matter....jhana states and > jhana paccaya are quite separate and it was only the > former that is being > referred to here. Thanks, Sarah. Your recap of your and Kom's and Nina's comments somehow helped to clarify this. I'm pretty comfortable now with 'samvega', especially in light of the 'eight urgencies'. As in the case of ottapa(sp?), I think this is a case of pańńaa 'seeing danger' rather than aversion to the danger. mike 8049 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 11:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS If you say nibbana is the "release", what is the release then, release from a self to a "true self", what is the true self. If Nibbana is a true self, then there is hold to a conception, means dwelling on a notion which lead to dualism as there must be a false self in order to be a true self. Nibbana is emptiness hence it cannot be described. it is notionless, labelless and signless. All Buddhism are of one root, one vehicle, different type of school/sects or vehicle differentiation is designed to suit the different likings and aspirations of different beings. To see all different, is to attached in dualism. All branches in Buddhism advocate impermanence and mindfulness and their foundamental evolve from the four noble truth. They are the same in essence. Kind regards Kenneth Ong Gayan Karunaratne wrote: dear robert e., > > another phrase in tipitaka is > > 'vimutti saaraa sabbe dhamma' > > this means 'Release is the essense of all phenomena' > > vimutti - sanskrit vimukti means relese , another word for nibbana. > > > > so here buddha treats nibbana as belonging to 'sabbe dhamma'( all > > phenomena ) > > Well this is extremely intriguing. If this is an accurate way of looking at this > statement, it seems to me that the root of Mahayana doctrines, and perhaps Anders' > doctrine of Nibbana as the 'true self' have their root in Theravadin doctrine. > This would be very important, as it would provide a link between all of the > teachings proposed to emanate from the Buddha. > Yes it is intrguing. Buddha simply said this phrase to drive the point away from a 'self'. I wrote the story(As much as I can remember) in a mail to anders in an earlier post. A 'self' is not the essence. The 'release' is the essence. It may be the case that in Mahayana, what is intended by word 'true self' of 'bodhi' is the 'release' or nibbana. But in theravada context 'self' has nothing to do with 'nibbana'. rgds, gayan 8050 From: rikpa21 Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 0:28am Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence' --- Sarah wrote: Hi Sarah, > 2)Nibbana, > even though it's unconditioned, is a reality with its own 'sabhava' even if it > lacks many/most the > characteristics of other realities. Because we often use negative terms to > describe it (the > un-this and un-that) it's very easy to be left with the idea that there is > nothing to be realized. What about the non-affirming negation represented by the label Nibbana can be positively known? > Also, of > course, all realities are not self and yet phassa 'contacts' them..this doesn't > make them > non-existent. Phassa contacts mundane realities, which may have anatta as a ultimate characteristic, but phassa isn't contacting that aspect of them. That is the function of lokuttara panna. > 3) The only way that seeing can be known as anatta is by > being aware of the essence of seeing when it appears > at this moment. Whether sati arises at the exact > moment of seeing or immediately following it in the > mind-door process is not very important. What is > important is to understand its nature when it appears. > I can hear Erik ready to object! I am curious where in the Satipatthana Sutta this is mentioned, because I've combed through it and haven't found this referenced there. What I have found is this: "There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further appearance in the future of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.)" This says to be mindful of the *fetters* arising dependent on *forms* arising in dependence on the eye-sense. Nowhere does it say to be mindful of the "essence of seeing". I have no idea how one would even go about being mindful of such a thing. Is it possible to explain how one is supposed to be mindful of the "essence of seeing"? What in particular is one supposed to pay attention to, such that sati finds a firm foundation for arising? Of all the meditations in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta, such as on the five hindrances, the body, the Four Noble Truths, pleasant feeling, unleasant feeling, I can't find any reference to this at all. Surely if it's so helpful, I would imagine the Buddha would have expounded it there among all the other objects of mindfulness, as he did in great detail regarding things like finding seclusion and sitting cross-legged, spine erect (oh, I forgot, that explicit instruction from the Satipatthana Sutta is deemed unnecessary around here and the "essence of seeing", which I can't find anyplace in the Satipatthana Sutta, is considered the essential intepretation! :) > Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow, > and it brings about the penetration of its > characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by > endeavouring, the manifestation of the (supramundane) > path. Understanding knows the object in the way > already stated, it brings about the penetration of the > characteristics, and it brings about, by endeavouring, > the manifestation of the > path.................Understanding has the > characteristic of penetrating the individual essences > of states*. Its function is to abolish the darkness > of delusion, which conceals the individual essences of > states. It is manifested as non-delusion. Because of > the words "One who is concentrated knows and sees > correctly (A.v.3), its proximate cause is > concentration...' > > *' 'A phenomenon's own essence (sako bhavo) or > existing essence (samano va bhava) is its individual > essence (sabhava). Cf Ch V111, note 68 where Pm gives > the definition from saha-bhava (with essence). This sounds like it's actually contradicting you Sarah! There is not mention of penetrating the essence of "seeing" but rather the essence of *what* (phenomenon) is being seen: as painful, impermanent, and not-self. But consciousness is also mentioned as a factor for understanding here, meaning consciousness of *what* is being perceived, not the "essence of seeing". To me this very clearly appears to be referring to the nature of what is *being* seen--again, the forms arisen in dependence on the eye-sense. That is a pretty big difference. In fact, if read as the the essence of *what is being seen*, it accords with the Satipatthana Sutta, because here it says that understanding, using consciousness, investigates the characteristics of its object, and comes to see them as impermanent, painful, and not-self. This makes even more sense to me if I just consider my own experience. For example, I can discern the fetter of unarisen sensual desire arising in me when I'm around my girlfriend. In this way I can easily note the arising of this unarisen fetter, and likewise, some time after taking a cold shower, if I'm lucky, the passing away of this fetter. What I am still unable to do, however, is figure out how I'm supposed to note any of the three characteristics of the "essence of seeing" going on at the same time. Can you understasnd where I might have a hard time discerning how one is supposed to recognize this mysterious "essence of seeing", when it's so very simple to instead observe the characteristics of all these obvious fetters like kamachanda arising and passing away? > As I have mentioned, there has to be awareness of the > characteristic of 'essence' or nature of seeing over > and over and over again. Direct understanding has to > know its nature as being not-self and quite different > from visible object, sanna and thinking. Again, to help with my obtuseness, how do do this? What about "seeing" gives me enough of a hook to sink my sati into that I can work with right now? How do I get "clear comprehension" of this essence--because after all clear comprehension and mindfulness work together, and I can't even get a clear comprehension of what this "essence of seeing" refers to, let alone how I'd begin to recognize this in any way even if I did had an idea what this is supposed to mean! :) > When there is > so little understanding now, I wonder rather what is > the use of thinking much about nibbana when really > there can be so little comprehension of what its > profundity means. I dunno, in the Mahayana systems emptiness is heavily emphasized as a teaching. This approach actually seems to work quite well for many people. 8051 From: Howard Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:37pm Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Hi, Robert - I share your perspective on this. As I see it, nibbana is the absence of all conditions, but it is not a dark absence; there is the light of awareness, infinite, luminous all around, falling on no objects, with discernment unmanifestive - rikpa. (I also accept the notion of a "nibbana beyond nibbana", the union of opposites which subsumes the mutually dependent nibbana/unconditioned and the realm of conditions, which is what I understand as one sense of the term 'suchness'.) If there were any "absolute" at all, it would have to subsume both conditions and the unconditioned. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/14/01 5:01:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > > of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana is classified as > > > a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and rupa. Yet there is no > > > such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't meaningfully talk about a > > > mere absence as having any nature of its own (since an absence > > > doesn't denote anything that exists in the first place!). :) > > > > Nibbana is mere absence? Hmmmm.... I've never thought of it like that. > > Actually< I've tried to, but it didn't seem to work. > > I don't know what's most accurate scripturally, but I would say that you > can look > at Nibbana as the absence of certain properties, or you can look at it as > the > positive state of being in which those properties are absent. This may > seem like > semantics, but I think it makes a difference. Is there a positive state > left when > delusory mental factors have been released from awareness? I would say that > awareness, which is not a thing either but is indeed a reality, is left > unblemished by those obscuring mental factors and defiling tendencies. So > if we > only emphasis the absence of delusion, and don't emphasize that awareness > [sentience] is still present, just without the false creation of separate > objects, > beings and delusions [I know I'm not being precise], we may lose the flavor > of a > state in which awareness is free to take in the exact truth of all things it > encounters, rather than a sort of nothing that has in some way been > depleted. > > I personally feel that looking at Nibbana as a mere absence, rather than a > positive state, tends to verge towards annihilationism in which one sees > the self > and other structures obliterated, with nothing left over. My own view is > that if > we have raw perceptions being delivered directly to consciousness without > mental > factors intervening, we have a kind of mechanical vision of Nibbana. If we > emphasize an unimpeded and freed awareness, however, in positive sense, we > have > the promise of sentience come to its complete fruition, without the > suffering it > had endured previously. This difference in emphasis may in some ways > characterize > the Mahayana approach. I think it is important not to stray too far in > either > direction, but to maintain the 'middle way', which is to say: If one > emphasizes > the obliteration of delusion, one tends towards nihilism, seeing emptiness > as > absence. If one emphasizes liberated awareness as a positive state, one > may tend > towards establishing a spiritual self as a thing, and re-create the vision > of the > immortal soul, which would be eternalism. To me, the middle ground is to > say that > awareness is liberated by entry into Nibbana, but that awareness has no > definition > as a thing and does not partake of any notion of self or entity. > > I will be curious to see what others think of these distinctions. > > Best, > Robert E. > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8052 From: Anders Honore Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 0:46am Subject: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) --- Robert Epstein wrote: > I don't know what's most accurate scripturally, but I would say that you can look > at Nibbana as the absence of certain properties, or you can look at it as the > positive state of being in which those properties are absent. This may seem like > semantics, but I think it makes a difference. Is there a positive state left when > delusory mental factors have been released from awareness? I would say that > awareness, which is not a thing either but is indeed a reality, is left > unblemished by those obscuring mental factors and defiling tendencies. So if we > only emphasis the absence of delusion, and don't emphasize that awareness > [sentience] is still present, just without the false creation of separate objects, > beings and delusions [I know I'm not being precise], we may lose the flavor of a > state in which awareness is free to take in the exact truth of all things it > encounters, rather than a sort of nothing that has in some way been depleted. > > I personally feel that looking at Nibbana as a mere absence, rather than a > positive state, tends to verge towards annihilationism in which one sees the self > and other structures obliterated, with nothing left over. My own view is that if > we have raw perceptions being delivered directly to consciousness without mental > factors intervening, we have a kind of mechanical vision of Nibbana. If we > emphasize an unimpeded and freed awareness, however, in positive sense, we have > the promise of sentience come to its complete fruition, without the suffering it > had endured previously. This difference in emphasis may in some ways characterize > the Mahayana approach. I think it is important not to stray too far in either > direction, but to maintain the 'middle way', which is to say: If one emphasizes > the obliteration of delusion, one tends towards nihilism, seeing emptiness as > absence. If one emphasizes liberated awareness as a positive state, one may tend > towards establishing a spiritual self as a thing, and re-create the vision of the > immortal soul, which would be eternalism. To me, the middle ground is to say that > awareness is liberated by entry into Nibbana, but that awareness has no definition > as a thing and does not partake of any notion of self or entity. > > I will be curious to see what others think of these distinctions. Some people say Nibbana is positive, others negative. Such people don't really know. 8053 From: Howard Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:49pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi, Anders - In a message dated 9/14/01 6:01:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Anders writes: > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > ========================= Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I have no idea of where to look. I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read the Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta Nipata, the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come across this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I think this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) Nibbana is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is unacceptable. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8054 From: Howard Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:54pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] A Personal note Thank you, Sarah. You are very kind. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/14/01 6:14:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Sarah writes: > Dear Howard, > > Thank you for sharing this. > > I'm very sure that all the friends like yourselves who attended the service > and > party will be offering emotional and spiritual help and support as > appropriate > and I very much hope that Sid, his daughter, her son and other family > members > are able with time to accept the tragedy and grow in wisdom. > > I teach some students from the American school here and one who came > yesterday > was quite disturbed as he told me his best friend's father was in tears all > night because he had several friends lost in the Pentagon.....So many people > are affected and there are many opportunities for us to practise the brahma > viharas as others have said. > > Howard, our best wishes to your wife as well from us all here. > > 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) 8055 From: Anders Honore Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 0:57am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: > dear anders, > > >SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > > in the context of SN4 this is the interpretation buddha intended. > > " > Sabbaµ vo bhikkhave desissŚmi-1 taµ suöŚtha. Ki–ca bhikkhave sabbaµ: > cakkhu–ceva rčpŚ ca sota–ca saddŚ ca ghŚna–ca gandhŚ ca jivhŚ ca rasŚ ca > kŚyo ca pho­­habbŚ ca mano ca dhammŚ ca idaµ vuccati bhikkhave sabbaµ. > > " > > when buddha says 'sabba' here , he intends chakkhu and rupa, sota and sadda, > ghana and gandha, jivha and rasa, kaya and pottabbha, mano and dhamma. > the word dhamma here has a restricted meaning here. > its to be understood as 'dhamma' to mano indriya is similar as rupa to > chakkhu indriya. > > furthur more > > " > DhammŚ niccŚ vŚ aniccŚ vŚti? AniccŚ bhante. Yaµ panŚniccaµ dukkhaµ vŚ taµ > sukhaµ vŚti? Dukkhaµ bhante yaµ panŚniccaµ dukkhaµ viparinŚmadhammaµ > kallannu taµ samanupassituµ "etaµ mama esohamasmi eso me attŚ" ti? Nohetaµ > bhante. > > " > > so in the SN4's context 'dhamma' has a specific meaning. My point was, which is something Derek has pointed out in the past more skillfully, is that dhamma has so incredibly many meanings in Pali that it is virtually impossible to categorically say whether or not Nibbana is included in the classic "sabbe dhamma" statement. 8056 From: Anders Honore Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 0:54am Subject: Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Group, >snip< Dear Robert K. Your post wa a long an extensive one, and dealing with many facets of what we call*nibbana*. I have no intention of getting into that discussion again, as I feel it leaves out the most important aspect: getting there. However, in your post, when you dealt with issues raised by by others which are contradictory to your own understanding, I see you making a vital mistake, which is something Sarah and I have been discussing recently. Once again, I quote my favourite sutta (Sutta Nipata IV.5 Paramatthaka Sutta): 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; ....... Abandoning what he had embraced,....... he doesn't make himself dependent even in connection with knowledge; doesn't follow a faction among those who are split; doesn't fall back on any view whatsoever. By whom, with what, should he be pigeonholed here in the world? -- this brahmin who hasn't adopted views. They don't conjure, don't yearn, don't adhere even to doctrines. _____________________________ I think this sutta is one of great importance, because it is a message that is often overlooked and not properly understood. I hope you can see what I am getting at. 8057 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:05am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear erik, > > This is a "word play" because there's no alternative but to play with > words in a forum like this! :) indeed! ;) >On that note, I have found enormous > advantage in studying several schools' presentations of emptiness. > There are more flavors of this out there than can be imagined, many > of them questionable. Having a basis of comparison can really help > uncover the points of contention, where they're hiding--which is one > reason there is such a heavy emphasis on comparative analysis and > debate in the Tibetan Geluk-pa tradition, for example. I am very > grateful for having been exposed to this ruthless analytical method. > yep, this is truely a blessing. On second thoughts , as with all blessings , there are some disadvantages also. I remember when ajahn chah said ' you got bigger houses to clean up'. > > What 'you' hear as 'I' say can possibly be what 'you' have in your > mind. > > I am responding to words that in my tradition would get you hammered > for suggesting "true existence"! What can I say? Old habits are hard > to break! :) > :o) 'my tradition' , thats nice.Hardest to break. > > Most of the time Buddha explains nibbana as absence of lobha , > dosa, moha.. > > thats the nature. > > Its something like the 'extinction' of a flame.(Nibbana) > > This extinction of fire has a nature. > > This is of course a very stock answer. Since you suggest the > extinction of the fire has a nature, what nature would that be? > the nature is not having fire anymore. > > > So my question is again, how does your interpretation of > > > emptiness/Nibbana above not imply svabhava (and by implication > > > independent existence) of some sort? > > > > This does not imply an independent existance of a non-flame. > > Okay, so we agree Nibbana lacks independent existence. Since we're > using analogies, the way I read that is that there is the cessation > of that flame because it ran out of fuel. >This cessation is a mere > absence of nutriment conditions, i.e., there are no further > conditions for the flame's arising, i.e. when this ceases, that > ceases. But the cessation of the flame implies nothing positive > whatsoever; The cessation of the flame can be positive, if the 'aim' is for the cessation of the flame. > it is a non-affirming negative (unlike an affirming > negative like "The fat Devadatta never eats during the daytime", > which carries with it the affirmation that he has to be stuffing his > face at night). This is not affirming. This can depend on the time the quote was made. Like after getting fat(the fatness also depends), the (now) fat devadatta stopped eating ( in daytime And night ). Can depend on devadatta's eating habits, he may be drinking(not eating) lot of food drinks without having to stuff his face at night. rgds, gayan 8058 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:19am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear kenneth, > > If you say nibbana is the "release", what is the release then, release from a self to a "true self", what is the true self. In theravada context , the realease is from the suffering. A self does not get annihiliated, since there is no self to be found. Suffering is annihiliated. So , in theravada context , there's no true self or a false self. > If Nibbana is a true self, then there is hold to a conception, means dwelling on a notion which lead to dualism as there must be a false self in order to be a true self. > Nibbana is emptiness hence it cannot be described. it is notionless, labelless and signless. yep, this is what the scriptures say, nibbana is signless. > All Buddhism are of one root, one vehicle, different type of school/sects or vehicle differentiation is designed to suit the different likings and aspirations of different beings. yes, different 'beings', but absolute realities having their own characteritics. >To see all different, is to attached in dualism. All branches in Buddhism advocate impermanence and mindfulness and their foundamental evolve from the four >noble truth. They are the same in essence. Agreed, and the 'essence' IS the 'release'. rgds, gayan 8059 From: m. nease Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:36am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Dear Howard and Robert E., This is where we part company, I'm reluctant to say--I enjoy your company immensely. I also respect your views and am far from certain of my own. Thanks to you both for defining this point so carefully--I think it's an extremely important one and a fundamental distinction between the Mahayana and the Theravada, as I understand them. I look forward to hearing more from you both. mike --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > I share your perspective on this. As I see > it, nibbana is the absence > of all conditions, but it is not a dark absence; > there is the light of > awareness, infinite, luminous all around, falling on > no objects, with > discernment unmanifestive - rikpa. (I also accept > the notion of a "nibbana > beyond nibbana", the union of opposites which > subsumes the mutually dependent > nibbana/unconditioned and the realm of conditions, > which is what I understand > as one sense of the term 'suchness'.) If there were > any "absolute" at all, it > would have to subsume both conditions and the > unconditioned. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 9/14/01 5:01:09 AM Eastern > Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > > > of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana > is classified as > > > > a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and > rupa. Yet there is no > > > > such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't > meaningfully talk about a > > > > mere absence as having any nature of its own > (since an absence > > > > doesn't denote anything that exists in the > first place!). :) > > > > > > Nibbana is mere absence? Hmmmm.... I've never > thought of it like that. > > > Actually, I've tried to, but it didn't seem to > work. > > > > I don't know what's most accurate scripturally, > but I would say that you > > can look > > at Nibbana as the absence of certain properties, > or you can look at it as > > the > > positive state of being in which those properties > are absent. This may > > seem like > > semantics, but I think it makes a difference. Is > there a positive state > > left when > > delusory mental factors have been released from > awareness? I would say that > > awareness, which is not a thing either but is > indeed a reality, is left > > unblemished by those obscuring mental factors and > defiling tendencies. So > > if we > > only emphasis the absence of delusion, and don't > emphasize that awareness > > [sentience] is still present, just without the > false creation of separate > > objects, > > beings and delusions [I know I'm not being > precise], we may lose the flavor > > of a > > state in which awareness is free to take in the > exact truth of all things it > > encounters, rather than a sort of nothing that has > in some way been > > depleted. > > > > I personally feel that looking at Nibbana as a > mere absence, rather than a > > positive state, tends to verge towards > annihilationism in which one sees > > the self > > and other structures obliterated, with nothing > left over. My own view is > > that if > > we have raw perceptions being delivered directly > to consciousness without > > mental > > factors intervening, we have a kind of mechanical > vision of Nibbana. If we > > emphasize an unimpeded and freed awareness, > however, in positive sense, we > > have > > the promise of sentience come to its complete > fruition, without the > > suffering it > > had endured previously. This difference in > emphasis may in some ways > > characterize > > the Mahayana approach. I think it is important > not to stray too far in > > either > > direction, but to maintain the 'middle way', which > is to say: If one > > emphasizes > > the obliteration of delusion, one tends towards > nihilism, seeing emptiness > > as > > absence. If one emphasizes liberated awareness as > a positive state, one > > may tend > > towards establishing a spiritual self as a thing, > and re-create the vision > > of the > > immortal soul, which would be eternalism. To me, > the middle ground is to > > say that > > awareness is liberated by entry into Nibbana, but > that awareness has no > > definition > > as a thing and does not partake of any notion of > self or entity. > > > > I will be curious to see what others think of > these distinctions. > > > > Best, > > Robert E. > > 8060 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:57am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear anders, >My point was, which is something Derek has pointed out in the past >more skillfully, is that dhamma has so incredibly many meanings in >Pali that it is virtually impossible to categorically say whether or >not Nibbana is included in the classic "sabbe dhamma" statement. if I put the points from this side in a nutshell. in SN 4 when buddha says about the anicca-ness of dhamma, its very clear that 'dhamma' used there has specific meaning. In the classic 'sabbe dhamma' statement , its clear that even whats not belonging to 'sabbe samkhara', is anatta.Because a distinction has been made. In 'vimutti sara sabbe dhamma', its clear that vimutti(release from suffering) is included in the set of 'sabbe dhamma'. rgds, gayan 8061 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 3:31am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) --- rikpa21 wrote: >>This sounds suspiciously like you're reifying awareness Robert. You say it's not a "thing", and yet awareness implies a subject, and by implication, an object. This demonstrates that awareness is a changing thing, i.e. composed, because it is dependent on an object-- a changing thing, and changes in dependence on an object. Therefore it is mundane by definition. >> I have to disagree, Erik, that awareness implies an object. I am speaking of pure awareness, which I would consider an equivalent of Nibbana. If Nibbana is not an aware state, and it implies the negation of all other conditions, there is no way for it not to be a state in which all experiences and conditions have been annihilated. If it as an unformed pre-condition which is *discovered* rather than attained, then does it remove the sentience of sentient beings? Only sentient beings are eligible for enlightenment. There is a reason for that, and that is that their *sentience* is what is capable of being enlightened. Sentience = Awareness. It si the illusion of 'self' that is removed in enlightenment, but the awareness or core awakeness of sentience that characterizes all living beings, is not itself removed. Otherwise nibbana would be the equivalent of turning a living being into an inanimate object. Obviously this is not the case. >>This means that awareness cannot possibly be Nibbana, since Nibbana is uncomposed, the asankhara dhatu. This view that nothing exists except for awareness--which exists absolutely in some way (even if it is asserted it is not a "thing"--and how can this be, incidentally, since awareness too is a dependent arising?)--is specifically the view rejected in the Madhyamika critique of Cittamatra (Mind Only).>> I would say that Nibbana would indeed have to be the unformed awareness at the heart of all experience. If Nibbana is not awareness one would be left with the absurd idea that Nibbana is a state of unawareness, that it is a form of unconsciousness. Whatever you say about the attributes of Nibbana, unformed, unmodified, undifferentiated, and unborn, can be said about this primary awareness, which is not a rising or falling consciousness, but is the backdrop or field in which all living experience arises. > For example, the view that Nibbana is "awareness" of some sort is > explicitly rejected by the Buddha in the Bharmajala Sutta: > > "Here, a certain ascetic or Brahmin is a logician, a reasoner. > Hammering it out by reason, following his own line of thought, he > argues: `Whatever is called eye or ear or nose or tongue or > body, that is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, liable to change. > But what is called thought, or mind or consciousness, that is a self > that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, the same > for ever and ever! Thought, mind or consciousness as a self would be a false reification of some aspect of sentience which is given a definition, which then recreates it as a kind of soul. I understand that you can also view my assertion of Awareness as such an object as well. But I mean it as an impersonal property rather than as a self or a possession, in just the same way that Nibbana is meant. If Nibbana does equal a kind of primal awareness that is undifferentiated and unborn, it would partake of all the same properties that allow Nibbana to avoid being an object or self. And if Nibbana is not a form of primal Awareness, then I have to ask you: what allows Nibbana to be a state into which a sentient being can enter, and only a sentient being? What happens to human awareness when it enters Nibbana? Is awareness obliterated, or does it in fact lose all definitions of self and become just pure experience of what is? Can a rock become enlightened? If sentience is not the one property that is refined and uplifted into its true form in Nibbana, then what aspect of being human allows for Nibbana to be attained? Best, Robert E. 8062 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 3:35am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- rikpa21 wrote: > The one thing I can say is that the more I study the more tha Pali > Canon, the more it simply confirms everything I've learned in the > Mahayana, and it's given me an even deeper respect for the depth and > breadth of the so-called Mahayana. There is precedent for everything > in the Pali Canon, though. It's just that there's not enough detail > there on certain points (particularly Buddhahood and the Bodhsattva > path), and without reference to the Mahayana Sutras which detail > these aspect specifically, it is difficult to draw the appropriate > interpretations of those points. > > Then again, since few who study the Pali Canon are explicitly > practicing the Bodhisattva path and aiming at Buddhahood, it is not > so important these details be present there. Thank you, Erik. I appreciate your confirmations and other comments. A good description I think of the distinction between the canons. For those of us arrogant enough to dream of Buddhahood, even if not in this lifetime, it is good to have both canons, and some eventual shot at the whole picture, however long it may take. Best, Robert E. 8063 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 3:36am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Robert, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > I am extrapolating this from the above quote, > > knowing that it may be confusing, > > controversial, or, from a Theravadin view, perhaps > > just wrong, but I would like to > > take the opportunity to see what others' views are > > of the Buddha's statement > > above, and of the ideas I have put forth based on > > them. They will either suggest > > a bridge between the Theravadin and Mahayana > > schools, or perhaps obscure it > > further. > > I do think you're closing in on one of the major > differences between the Mahayana and the Theravada. > It was my dream, years ago, to find a synthesis of the > two--my conclusion (possibly mistaken, of course) was > that this is not possible, in large part because of > the differences you're addressing here (which I > believe are fundamental). > > This conclusion (and others) are based on some > somewhat vague ideas about Mahayana doctrine, > extracted by me mostly from my readings of a large > volume of Ch'an material (and my own experiences and > readings from and about the Tipitaka). Though I'm > fairly confident of my conclusions, I'm not able to > support them sufficiently to publish my opinions. I > do wish you the very best in your own investigations, > which continue to impress me with their sincerity and > focus. > > mike Thanks, Mike. I always appreciate your messages. Robert E. 8064 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 3:40am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote: > > So my question is again, how does your interpretation of > > emptiness/Nibbana above not imply svabhava (and by implication > > independent existence) of some sort? > > This does not imply an independent existance of a non-flame. Just to push it a bit, Gayan, I like your analogy and I would like to hear how you would describe the nature of a 'non-flame' or of a flame that has been extinguished. I think we are all grappling with the idea that Nibbana is not an 'is' and yet it is not extinguishment. I am stuck on the idea that Nibbana should not extinguish the 'sentience' of sentient beings, but remove all the impediments to that sentience realizing its true aspect and nature. So if the flame is extinguished, what is the nature that this reality then expresses? Robert 8065 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 3:42am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote: > dear robert e., > > > > > > another phrase in tipitaka is > > > 'vimutti saaraa sabbe dhamma' > > > this means 'Release is the essense of all phenomena' > > > vimutti - sanskrit vimukti means relese , another word for nibbana. > > > > > > so here buddha treats nibbana as belonging to 'sabbe dhamma'( all > > > phenomena ) > > > > Well this is extremely intriguing. If this is an accurate way of looking > at this > > statement, it seems to me that the root of Mahayana doctrines, and perhaps > Anders' > > doctrine of Nibbana as the 'true self' have their root in Theravadin > doctrine. > > This would be very important, as it would provide a link between all of > the > > teachings proposed to emanate from the Buddha. > > > > Yes it is intrguing. > Buddha simply said this phrase to drive the point away from a 'self'. > I wrote the story(As much as I can remember) in a mail to anders in an > earlier post. > A 'self' is not the essence. The 'release' is the essence. > > It may be the case that in Mahayana, what is intended by word 'true self' of > 'bodhi' is the 'release' or nibbana. > But in theravada context 'self' has nothing to do with 'nibbana'. Dear Gayan, I'm not as intrigued by the 'self' aspect in this quote, as the 'all phenomena' aspect. If release [liberation] is the nature of all phenomena, it seems to be saying that all phenomena are inherently liberated but are not realized as such because of delusion. That would seem a very Mahayanist doctrine to me, in a Theravadan sutra. What do you think? Robert E. 8066 From: Victor Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 4:15am Subject: Name-and-form Name is impermanent, is dukkha, is not mine, not I, not my self. Form is impermanent, is dukkha, is not mine, not I, not my self. Metta, Victor 8067 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 4:32am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence' --- Sarah wrote: > To my understanding, they couldn't possibly have the > same meaning because Pali sabhava, essence is > inherently reflecting the anatta characteristic of the > reality whereas the Sanskrit one would be reflecting a > thing, a self, atta.... Dear Sarah, Thanks for all your quotes on the nature of Nibbana. I think this last statement kind of puts the conceptual conflict in a nutshell. I'm trying to understand how an essence can reflect the anatta characteristic. It seems to me that this is torturing the concept of 'essence'. Why say that something has an essence, only to say by definition that this essence is not an essence, but a not-essence? An essence means that something has a central property of some kind, it must mean that there is something that can be characterized about it. We are able to distinguish between a ocnditioned and a non-conditioned reality, and I could accept the idea that Nibbana had a non-conditioned or primal essence. But if the essence is merely to reflect its characteristic of 'anatta' of not being a self or entity, it seems to me that this is a redundancy. [I am being redundant here too to try to tackle it from an angle or two]. Why not just say that it has no entity and thus has no essence? Why say it has an essence which is that it doesn't have an essence? What I am implying is that if the Buddha used the term sabhava, and that means the essence of something, in this case Nibbana, then there must be a positive reason why he used it. In other words, Nibbana does partake of anatta, meaning that it cannot be defined as an entity or a self, but that it does have an essence. I wonder if there are any other descriptions, or a good way to search for, more descriptions of how the sabhava of Nibbana is meant or what it implies. This is the central question that we have been struggling with since Anders' and your thread on Nibbana as self or non-self, and this seems like a positive place to try to look at it. Aren't you glad you brought up that idea? Best, Robert E. 8068 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 4:50am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > I share your perspective on this. As I see it, nibbana is the absence > of all conditions, but it is not a dark absence; there is the light of > awareness, infinite, luminous all around, falling on no objects, with > discernment unmanifestive - rikpa. (I also accept the notion of a "nibbana > beyond nibbana", the union of opposites which subsumes the mutually dependent > nibbana/unconditioned and the realm of conditions, which is what I understand > as one sense of the term 'suchness'.) If there were any "absolute" at all, it > would have to subsume both conditions and the unconditioned. > > With metta, > Howard Dear Howard, Yes, this sounds correct to me. I appreciate the clear way you've put it. Best, Robert E. ================= > In a message dated 9/14/01 5:01:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > > > of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana is classified as > > > > a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and rupa. Yet there is no > > > > such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't meaningfully talk about a > > > > mere absence as having any nature of its own (since an absence > > > > doesn't denote anything that exists in the first place!). :) > > > > > > Nibbana is mere absence? Hmmmm.... I've never thought of it like that. > > > Actually, I've tried to, but it didn't seem to work. > > > > I don't know what's most accurate scripturally, but I would say that you > > can look > > at Nibbana as the absence of certain properties, or you can look at it as > > the > > positive state of being in which those properties are absent. This may > > seem like > > semantics, but I think it makes a difference. Is there a positive state > > left when > > delusory mental factors have been released from awareness? I would say that > > awareness, which is not a thing either but is indeed a reality, is left > > unblemished by those obscuring mental factors and defiling tendencies. So > > if we > > only emphasis the absence of delusion, and don't emphasize that awareness > > [sentience] is still present, just without the false creation of separate > > objects, > > beings and delusions [I know I'm not being precise], we may lose the flavor > > of a > > state in which awareness is free to take in the exact truth of all things it > > encounters, rather than a sort of nothing that has in some way been > > depleted. > > > > I personally feel that looking at Nibbana as a mere absence, rather than a > > positive state, tends to verge towards annihilationism in which one sees > > the self > > and other structures obliterated, with nothing left over. My own view is > > that if > > we have raw perceptions being delivered directly to consciousness without > > mental > > factors intervening, we have a kind of mechanical vision of Nibbana. If we > > emphasize an unimpeded and freed awareness, however, in positive sense, we > > have > > the promise of sentience come to its complete fruition, without the > > suffering it > > had endured previously. This difference in emphasis may in some ways > > characterize > > the Mahayana approach. I think it is important not to stray too far in > > either > > direction, but to maintain the 'middle way', which is to say: If one > > emphasizes > > the obliteration of delusion, one tends towards nihilism, seeing emptiness > > as > > absence. If one emphasizes liberated awareness as a positive state, one > > may tend > > towards establishing a spiritual self as a thing, and re-create the vision > > of the > > immortal soul, which would be eternalism. To me, the middle ground is to > > say that > > awareness is liberated by entry into Nibbana, but that awareness has no > > definition > > as a thing and does not partake of any notion of self or entity. > > > > I will be curious to see what others think of these distinctions. > > > > Best, > > Robert E. > > ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8069 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 5:59am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Howard and Robert E., > > This is where we part company, I'm reluctant to say--I > enjoy your company immensely. I also respect your > views and am far from certain of my own. > > Thanks to you both for defining this point so > carefully--I think it's an extremely important one and > a fundamental distinction between the Mahayana and the > Theravada, as I understand them. > > I look forward to hearing more from you both. > > mike Thanks, Mike. Here is my question to you, perhaps one which is very difficult to answer or even shouldn't be answered. If there is not some sort of positive presence in Nibbana, albeit not a 'self' or a 'condition', what is then denoted by saying that one has attained it? When I say 'positive' I don't mean 'good' or 'worthy' or anything like that. I just mean positive as in the positive numbers: something that can be asserted. You have a number of things in Theravada that can be denied about Nibbana, things that have been eliminated in order to reach it. You have a number of positive states that have been entered into in order to reach it: Right View, Right Thinking, Right Concentration, insights and jhanas. The essence of all of these positive states that are entered into is that they are increasingly refined forms of apprehensions or awareness. There is no 'self' discovered that is receiving these insights or understandings, but the refinement of understanding and attention themselves are certainly there. So, when all the defilements and delusions are eliminated in order to create the Nirvanic state, is the refined awareness and insight and awareness that has been so meticulously developed to create the ladder to Nibbana also eliminated, or are they merely surpassed in a state that contains the same essence as this development but is totally beyond them? It would make logical sense that the essence of the path would be exemplified in its most refined form in its final attainment, Nibbana. To think that all is eliminated and that there is merely negation of negatives just doesn't make sense. It is not because of Mahayana doctrines that it doesn't make sense, but because of the path outlined by the Buddha and all of his statements about the pleasantness and uplifted quality of each progressive stage on the path. Where is that quality of refined joy and total discernment that characterize the Buddha's own statements and presumably his own state? They are contained in and are the natural emanation of the state of Nibbana, of Arahatship, of Buddhahood. So it doesn't make sense to me that one cannot assert that there is a positive state, experience, or awareness in Nibbana. The Buddha is not 'dead'. He has not been annihilated by attaining Nibbana and Buddhahood. In fact he is completely free and 'awake'. Buddha means 'one who is awake'. Can one be 'awake' without sentience/consciousness/awareness? This also doesn't make sense. If you want to say that the Buddha is 'awake' but has none of those other attributes or qualities, you would have to at least say, based on his most popular title alone, that he at least partakes of 'awakeness'. Awakeness and awareness are synonyms. There is nothing about being 'awake' or 'aware' that necessitates a 'self'. Awareness is not contradictory with anatta, nor does there have to be an object of awareness to 'create' the awareness, if awareness is the very essence of the state itself, nor does there have to be any arising and falling away of awareness if it is not modified by any object of awareness. There is no reason why nibbana cannot be the most refined and totally free [free of object and modification] state of awareness possible, the absolute essence of being sentient, minus the mental modifications, minus the self, minus the kandhic idenfiications and samskaric accumulations. I think it can work with Theravadan doctrine as it stands. But this is just my unschooled intuition so I'm happy to have more learned arguments thrown at me by those who know the Suttas. You see my problem with asserting Nibbana as nothing but negation? I hope some of you can help me with this issue. Best, Robert E. 8070 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 6:00am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear robert e. > > Dear Gayan, > I'm not as intrigued by the 'self' aspect in this quote, as the 'all phenomena' > aspect. If release [liberation] is the nature of all phenomena, It says that release is the worth,essence(sara) of all phenomena. > it seems to be > saying that all phenomena are inherently liberated but are not realized as such > because of delusion. I thought that ,its saying that of all phenomena , this phenomenon (the release) is the worthy one. Its a phenomenon which belongs to the (all-inclusive)set of 'All phenomena'. And delusion is another phenomenon. And if we go to the 'being' level, I remember somewhere in tipitaka buddha says that all beings have 'nibbana' as the aim. His advice to the 'beings' is to be 'appamada' .( dont get lax in effort in attaining nibbana ) otherwise the suffering will go on for incalculable period of time. > That would seem a very Mahayanist doctrine to me, in a > Theravadan sutra. What do you think? > Actually robert, I dont know very much about mahayana, and only have a limited understanding of theravada texts. So I dont know how to make a relation. But in theravada canon, in lot of instances the delusion is explained as a darkness, which prevents the truth from being seen. I would like to know the mahayanist doctrine which is related to this topic and its similarities and diffrences as you have observed. rgds, gayan 8071 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 6:18am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear robert e., > > Just to push it a bit, Gayan, I like your analogy and I would like to hear how you > would describe the nature of a 'non-flame' or of a flame that has been > extinguished. the nature of a flame that has been extinguished is that there is no flame anymore, a path cannot be traced, it cannot be explained as the flame has gone this way or that way. > I think we are all grappling with the idea that Nibbana is not an > 'is' and yet it is not extinguishment. I am stuck on the idea that Nibbana should > not extinguish the 'sentience' of sentient beings, but remove all the impediments > to that sentience realizing its true aspect and nature. So if the flame is > extinguished, what is the nature that this reality then expresses? > In Bahiya Sutta theres an inspired utterence by buddha. Where neither water nor yet earth Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this For himself through his own wisdom, Then he is freed from form and formless. Freed from pleasure and from pain. again there are lot of 'NO' s here , i thought that this is the nature that this reality expresses. rgds, gayan 8072 From: Howard Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:47am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Hi, Mike - In a message dated 9/14/01 4:29:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mike writes: > Dear Howard and Robert E., > > This is where we part company, I'm reluctant to say--I > enjoy your company immensely. I also respect your > views and am far from certain of my own. > > Thanks to you both for defining this point so > carefully--I think it's an extremely important one and > a fundamental distinction between the Mahayana and the > Theravada, as I understand them. > > I look forward to hearing more from you both. > > mike > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I can't think of a nicer guy to be in disagreement with! ;-)) I have simply expressed an opinion, one in which I have not very much invested. I could be quite wrong. When it comes to what nibbana is I doubt that any of us really know what we are talking about! ;-)) As far as the Theravada/Mahayana distinction is concerned on this issue, I would like to point out that the talk of unmanifestive discernment being "infinite, luminous all around, and falling on no objects" is derived from the Pali Sutta Pitaka, not Mahayana sources. My identification of it with rikpa was for Erik's sake! ;-) Robert's post and my reply to it which you quote follow below. ============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) ****************************************************** > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > > > I share your perspective on this. As I see > > it, nibbana is the absence > > of all conditions, but it is not a dark absence; > > there is the light of > > awareness, infinite, luminous all around, falling on > > no objects, with > > discernment unmanifestive - rikpa. (I also accept > > the notion of a "nibbana > > beyond nibbana", the union of opposites which > > subsumes the mutually dependent > > nibbana/unconditioned and the realm of conditions, > > which is what I understand > > as one sense of the term 'suchness'.) If there were > > any "absolute" at all, it > > would have to subsume both conditions and the > > unconditioned. > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > > In a message dated 9/14/01 5:01:09 AM Eastern > > Daylight Time, > > Robert E writes: > > > > > > > --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > > > > of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana > > is classified as > > > > > a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and > > rupa. Yet there is no > > > > > such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't > > meaningfully talk about a > > > > > mere absence as having any nature of its own > > (since an absence > > > > > doesn't denote anything that exists in the > > first place!). :) > > > > > > > > Nibbana is mere absence? Hmmmm.... I've never > > thought of it like that. > > > > Actually, I've tried to, but it didn't seem to > > work. > > > > > > I don't know what's most accurate scripturally, > > but I would say that you > > > can look > > > at Nibbana as the absence of certain properties, > > or you can look at it as > > > the > > > positive state of being in which those properties > > are absent. This may > > > seem like > > > semantics, but I think it makes a difference. Is > > there a positive state > > > left when > > > delusory mental factors have been released from > > awareness? I would say that > > > awareness, which is not a thing either but is > > indeed a reality, is left > > > unblemished by those obscuring mental factors and > > defiling tendencies. So > > > if we > > > only emphasis the absence of delusion, and don't > > emphasize that awareness > > > [sentience] is still present, just without the > > false creation of separate > > > objects, > > > beings and delusions [I know I'm not being > > precise], we may lose the flavor > > > of a > > > state in which awareness is free to take in the > > exact truth of all things it > > > encounters, rather than a sort of nothing that has > > in some way been > > > depleted. > > > > > > I personally feel that looking at Nibbana as a > > mere absence, rather than a > > > positive state, tends to verge towards > > annihilationism in which one sees > > > the self > > > and other structures obliterated, with nothing > > left over. My own view is > > > that if > > > we have raw perceptions being delivered directly > > to consciousness without > > > mental > > > factors intervening, we have a kind of mechanical > > vision of Nibbana. If we > > > emphasize an unimpeded and freed awareness, > > however, in positive sense, we > > > have > > > the promise of sentience come to its complete > > fruition, without the > > > suffering it > > > had endured previously. This difference in > > emphasis may in some ways > > > characterize > > > the Mahayana approach. I think it is important > > not to stray too far in > > > either > > > direction, but to maintain the 'middle way', which > > is to say: If one > > > emphasizes > > > the obliteration of delusion, one tends towards > > nihilism, seeing emptiness > > > as > > > absence. If one emphasizes liberated awareness as > > a positive state, one > > > may tend > > > towards establishing a spiritual self as a thing, > > and re-create the vision > > > of the > > > immortal soul, which would be eternalism. To me, > > the middle ground is to > > > say that > > > awareness is liberated by entry into Nibbana, but > > that awareness has no > > > definition > > > as a thing and does not partake of any notion of > > self or entity. > > > > > > I will be curious to see what others think of > > these distinctions. > > > > > > Best, > > > Robert E. > > > > 8073 From: Howard Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:51am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Hi, Robert - Reading your words is like perceiving my own thoughts! With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/14/01 5:14:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > --- rikpa21 wrote: > > >>This sounds suspiciously like you're reifying awareness Robert. You > say it's not a "thing", and yet awareness implies a subject, and by > implication, an object. This demonstrates that awareness is a > changing thing, i.e. composed, because it is dependent on an object-- > a changing thing, and changes in dependence on an object. Therefore > it is mundane by definition. >> > > I have to disagree, Erik, that awareness implies an object. I am speaking > of pure > awareness, which I would consider an equivalent of Nibbana. If Nibbana is > not an > aware state, and it implies the negation of all other conditions, there is > no way > for it not to be a state in which all experiences and conditions have been > annihilated. If it as an unformed pre-condition which is *discovered* > rather than > attained, then does it remove the sentience of sentient beings? Only > sentient > beings are eligible for enlightenment. There is a reason for that, and > that is > that their *sentience* is what is capable of being enlightened. Sentience = > Awareness. It si the illusion of 'self' that is removed in enlightenment, > but the > awareness or core awakeness of sentience that characterizes all living > beings, is > not itself removed. Otherwise nibbana would be the equivalent of turning a > living > being into an inanimate object. Obviously this is not the case. > > >>This means that awareness cannot possibly be Nibbana, since Nibbana > is uncomposed, the asankhara dhatu. This view that nothing exists > except for awareness--which exists absolutely in some way (even if it > is asserted it is not a "thing"--and how can this be, incidentally, > since awareness too is a dependent arising?)--is specifically the > view rejected in the Madhyamika critique of Cittamatra (Mind Only).>> > > I would say that Nibbana would indeed have to be the unformed awareness at > the > heart of all experience. If Nibbana is not awareness one would be left > with the > absurd idea that Nibbana is a state of unawareness, that it is a form of > unconsciousness. Whatever you say about the attributes of Nibbana, > unformed, > unmodified, undifferentiated, and unborn, can be said about this primary > awareness, which is not a rising or falling consciousness, but is the > backdrop or > field in which all living experience arises. > > > For example, the view that Nibbana is "awareness" of some sort is > > explicitly rejected by the Buddha in the Bharmajala Sutta: > > > > "Here, a certain ascetic or Brahmin is a logician, a reasoner. > > Hammering it out by reason, following his own line of thought, he > > argues: `Whatever is called eye or ear or nose or tongue or > > body, that is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, liable to change. > > But what is called thought, or mind or consciousness, that is a self > > that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, the same > > for ever and ever! > > Thought, mind or consciousness as a self would be a false reification of > some > aspect of sentience which is given a definition, which then recreates it as > a kind > of soul. I understand that you can also view my assertion of Awareness as > such an > object as well. But I mean it as an impersonal property rather than as a > self or > a possession, in just the same way that Nibbana is meant. If Nibbana does > equal a > kind of primal awareness that is undifferentiated and unborn, it would > partake of > all the same properties that allow Nibbana to avoid being an object or > self. And > if Nibbana is not a form of primal Awareness, then I have to ask you: what > allows > Nibbana to be a state into which a sentient being can enter, and only a > sentient > being? What happens to human awareness when it enters Nibbana? Is > awareness > obliterated, or does it in fact lose all definitions of self and become > just pure > experience of what is? Can a rock become enlightened? If sentience is not > the > one property that is refined and uplifted into its true form in Nibbana, > then what > aspect of being human allows for Nibbana to be attained? > > Best, > Robert E. > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8074 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 7:59am Subject: Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Robert, > In all that is said below, I find it most interesting that Nibbana is said to > partake of: > > "Asankhata-dhatu, unborn, unformed purified Element". > > Is that a convention of speech, or what is the unborn, unformed purified Element > that Nibbana involves. It certainly seems that a positive state or substance is > here invoked, rather than mere cessation. > > Best, > Robert E. > > ============================= Dear Robert E. Nibbana is classified as paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality)but it is in no way like the other paramattha dhammas of consciousness , mental factors and materiality. It can't be said to exist at all in that way that they do. But it can be an object of the developed citta that arises if the eightfold path is correctly followed. The harbinger of this path is right view. Nibbana is NOT , according to the Ancient theravada tradition, > > > """A the light of > awareness, infinite, luminous all around, falling on no objects, with > discernment unmanifestive - rikpa.""" Do we yet see how utterly oppressive this continual rising and passing away is. One moment there is seeing, then thinking , then hearing, feeling, tasting, thinking, anger, happiness , sadness, again and again - no one can stop these moments arising. It has been going on like this for zillions and trillions of aeons of time. And much of that time has been spent as animals or insects or worms or in freezing hells or boiling hells. Now we happen to be in a happy existence as a human - but that is so brief. There are only namas and rupas arising and passing, never to return but conditioning succesive moments. Only by the eightfold path can this fearful stream be brought to an end. By studying the dhammas, that are arising again and again at the 6 doors in the correct way, I suggest that there will be more appreciation of what nibbana is (even while it cannot be fully understood until it is the object of magga citta and phala citta) I cut some extracts from the article by the Burmese monk yesterday that might be worth reflecting on below: The bodhisatta, in his birth as the ascetic, Sumedha > > contemplated thus: > > > > "Even as, although Misery is, > > > > Yet Happiness Is also found, > > > > So, though indeed Existence is, > > > > Non-Existence should be sought." > > > > "When I am subject to > > > > Birth, Old Age, Disease, > > > > So then I will search for the Supreme Peace > > > > Free from Old Age and Death." > > > > > > NIBBANA > > the Nibbanic state is totally devoid of any and every thing of > > the four elements, personal existence, static entity, rebirth, > > death, consciousness or mind and matter etc. It is only the > > state of element (Dhatu) which means "Nisatta nijjiva" > > non-being, non-soul, i.e. there is not even a purified soul in > > Nibbana. > > Freed from thought of future becoming > > > > They like seeds barren do not spring again, > > > > But are blown out just as a lamp. (Sn. ver. 235). > > > > > Regarding one's existence in Samsara and the deliverance > > from it, the Buddha said the following salient facts:? > > "Inconceivable is the beginning of this Samsara, not to be > > discovered a first beginning of beings, who, obstructed by > > ignorance and ensnared by craving, are hurrying and hastening > > through this round of rebirths." > > > > "And thus have you long time undergone suffering, > > undergone torment, undergone misfortune and filled the > > graveyards full, verily, long enough to be dissatisfied with all > > forms of existence, long enough to turn away and free yourself > > from them all." > > > > "Be it in the past, present or future: whosoever of the > > monks or priests regards the delightful and pleasurable things > > in the world as impermanent (anicca), miserable (dukkha), > > without an ego (anatta), as a disease and sorrow, it is he who > > overcomes craving. > > > > "And released from Sensual Craving, released from the > > Craving for Existence, and released from the Craving for > > Non-Existence, he does not return, does not enter again into > > existence." > > > > > ""Verily, there is a realm where there is neither the > > solid, nor the liquid; neither heat, nor motion; neither this > > world, nor any other world; neither sun, or moon. > > > > "This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither > > standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither > > foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of > > suffering." > > > > ""However, through the fading away of delusion, through > > the arising of wisdom, through the extinction of craving, no > > future rebirth takes place again." > > > > "In this respect one may say of me, that I teach annihilation, > > that I propound my doctrine for the purpose of annihilation, and > > that I herein train my disciples. For certainly, I teach > > annihilation, the annihilation of greed, anger, and delusion, as > > well as of the manifold evil and demeritorious things." > > If someone puts the question. "Who, made the Five Khandhas, or > > five groups of existence," he seldom gets a right answer. Now > > let it be said that the five groups of bodily and mental > > phenomena, correctly speaking, have been put together by the > > Buddha in order to show the "Anatta doctrine" the central and > > unique teaching of Buddhism. > > > > All those bodily forms, feelings, perceptions, mental > > formations and states of consciousness which the Buddha has > > classified and grouped into the five groups are only of > > momentary duration, existing no longer than a flash of > > lightning. > > > > One never gets a right understanding of the five groups of > > existence, if one thinks of them as something compact, whereas > > in reality they are only fleeting phenomena changing as quickly > > as lightning. > > > > > > "Sabbe dhamma anattati "Nowhere can there be found a Self: > > Yada pannaya passati, Who wisely perceives this truth, > > Atha nibbindati dukkhe, He turns away from misery, > > Esa maggo visuddhiya." This is the path to purity." > > > > > Not by reasoning and abstract thinking can Nibbana ever be > > attained, but only by right understanding, by inward > > purification, inward conquest and by fulfilling the "Noble > > Eight-fold Path" founded on Anattasanna, i.e. the perception > > that all things are without an Ego, or Self and that also behind > > all these phenomena of existence there is no "I," no eternal, > > immutable, unchanging entity, a "thing in itself." > > > > There is only a five-khandha process of existence which > > comes to a stand still at the death of the Arahat or Holy One. > > > > One never knows a thing as it really is without seeing it, > > and this, more than anywhere else, is true with regard to > > Nibbana. > > > > > "Here I feel the necessity of once more expressly emphasizing > > the fact that without a clear perception of the phenomenality, > > or Egolessness of all existence, a real understanding of the > > Buddha's teaching, especially that of rebirth and Nibbana, is > > impossible." > > > > "This doctrine of Anatta is in fact the only specific > > teaching of Buddhism with which the entire teaching stands or > > falls." > > > .com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ 8075 From: Howard Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 7:55am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi, Gayan - In a message dated 9/14/01 7:38:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Gayan writes: > dear robert e., > > > > > > Just to push it a bit, Gayan, I like your analogy and I would like to hear > how you > > would describe the nature of a 'non-flame' or of a flame that has been > > extinguished. > > the nature of a flame that has been extinguished is that there is no flame > anymore, a path cannot be traced, it cannot be ?xplained as the flame has > gone this way or that way. > > > I think we are all grappling with the idea that Nibbana is not an > > 'is' and yet it is not extinguishment. I am stuck on the idea that > Nibbana should > > not extinguish the 'sentience' of sentient beings, but remove all the > impediments > > to that sentience realizing its true aspect and nature. So if the flame > is > > extinguished, what is the nature that this reality then expresses? > > > > In Bahiya Sutta theres an inspired utterence by buddha. > > Where neither water nor yet earth > Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, > There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, > There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. > When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this > For himself through his own wisdom, > Then he is freed from form and formless. > Freed from pleasure and from pain. > > again there are lot of 'NO' s here , i thought that this is the nature > that this reality expresses. > > > > rgds, > > gayan > ============================= You quote from the Bahiya Sutta: **************************************************** "Where neither water nor yet earth Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this For himself through his own wisdom, Then he is freed from form and formless. Freed from pleasure and from pain.", *********************************************************** Please note there the words "yet there no darkness reigns"! No conditions there, no elements of rupa, no mundane light at all, neither form not formlessness, and "yet there no darkness reigns"!! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8076 From: Howard Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:52am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/14/01 8:49:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, <> writes: > Dear Robert E. > Nibbana is classified as paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality)but it > is in no way like the other paramattha dhammas of consciousness , > mental factors and materiality. It can't be said to exist at all in > that way that they do. But it can be an object of the developed citta > that arises if the eightfold path is correctly followed. The > harbinger of this path is right view. > Nibbana is NOT , according to the Ancient theravada tradition, > > > > """A the light of > > awareness, infinite, luminous all around, falling on no objects, > with > > discernment unmanifestive - rikpa.""" > ================================== This material you quote shouldn't be blamed on Robert E. I was the one who wrote it. With regard to it, I refer you to the end portion of the Kevatta Sutta, DN 11, to be found on Access to Insight: ************************************* "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements -- the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property -- cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this: > Where do water, earth, fire, & wind > have no footing? > Where are long & short, > coarse & fine, > fair & foul, > name & form > "'And the answer to that is: > Consciousness without feature, > without end, > luminous all around: > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > have no footing. > Here long & short > coarse & fine > fair & foul > name & form > are all brought to an end. > With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness > That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Kevatta the householder delighted in the Blessed One's words. ************************************* What I meant by unmanifestive discernment is exactly what is given above, and which sure sounds like nibbana to me: "Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around: Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end." With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8077 From: KennethOng Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 1:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS nothing is annihilated in Buddhism since all dharmas inherently are signless. To my understanding, the words should be "let go" Kind regards Kenneth Ong Gayan Karunaratne wrote: dear kenneth, > > If you say nibbana is the "release", what is the release then, release from a self to a "true self", what is the true self. In theravada context , the realease is from the suffering. A self does not get annihiliated, since there is no self to be found. Suffering is annihiliated. So , in theravada context , there's no true self or a false self. > If Nibbana is a true self, then there is hold to a conception, means dwelling on a notion which lead to dualism as there must be a false self in order to be a true self. > Nibbana is emptiness hence it cannot be described. it is notionless, labelless and signless. yep, this is what the scriptures say, nibbana is signless. > All Buddhism are of one root, one vehicle, different type of school/sects or vehicle differentiation is designed to suit the different likings and aspirations of different beings. yes, different 'beings', but absolute realities having their own characteritics. >To see all different, is to attached in dualism. All branches in Buddhism advocate impermanence and mindfulness and their foundamental evolve from the four >noble truth. They are the same in essence. Agreed, and the 'essence' IS the 'release'. rgds, gayan 8078 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:02pm Subject: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Howard wrote: Kevatta Sutta, DN 11, to be found on Access to Insight: "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements -- the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property -- cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this: > Where do water, earth, fire, & wind > have no footing? > Where are long & short, > coarse & fine, > fair & foul, > name & form > "'And the answer to that is: > Consciousness without feature, > without end, > luminous all around: > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > have no footing. > Here long & short > coarse & fine > fair & foul > name & form > are all brought to an end. > With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness > That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Kevatta the householder delighted in the Blessed One's words. ************************************* What I meant by unmanifestive discernment is exactly what is given above, and which sure sounds like nibbana to me: "Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around: Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end." With metta, Howard _______________________________________________ Dear Howard, You quoted the above from the translation by Thanissaro. There is another translation at www.metta.lk http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/11-kevaddha-e.htm Where do earth, water, fire, and wind, And long and short, and fine and coarse, Pure and impure, no footing find? Where is it that both name and form[22] Die out, leaving no trace behind?" 'On that the answer is : 'The intellect of Arahatship, the invisible, the endless, accessible from every side[23] 'Where is it that earth, water, fire, and wind, And long and short, and fine and coarse, Pure and impure, no footing find. Where is it that both name and form Die out, leaving, no trace behind. When intellection ceases they all also cease.' Thus spake the Exalted One. And Kevaddha, the young householder, pleased at heart, rejoiced at the spoken word. Actually I had a converstaion with Suan recently about this as I was puzzled by the somewhat confusing translations of this sutta extract. He wrote in his usual helpful way when I asked about this pali phrase in the sutta: The original Pali found in Section 499, Kevatta Suttam, Silakkhandhavagga, Dighanikayo starts with the term "Vińńanam". And Kevatta Sutta Atthakatha defines "Vińńanam" as follows. "Tattha vińńatabbanti "Vińńanam" nibbanassetam namam,.." "There, to be known specially, so (it is) "Vińńanam". This is the name of nibbana." And Kevatta Sutta Tika further explains the phrase "vińńatabbanti" as follows. "Vińńatabbanti visitthena ńatabbam, ńanuttamena ariyamaggańanena paccakkhato janitabbanti attho, tenaha "nibbanassetam namam"ti." "(To be known specially) means to be extraordinarily known. The meaning is 'to be known in the sense of realization by ultimate wisdom, by noble path wisdom'". Therefore, (the commentator) stated that 'This is the name of nibbana'" Therefore, the term 'Vińńanam' in the line of the original Pali verse "Vińńanam anidassanam, anantam sabbatopabham .." does not refer to consciousness, the usual meaning of vińńanam. In fact, the same verse includes the following two lines "Ettha namańca rupańca, asesam uparujjhati Vińńanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti". "Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases without remainder. By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here." Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness just because one of its Pali names happens to be Vińńanam. Suan 8079 From: rikpa21 Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 7:38pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: Hello Gayan, > >On that note, I have found enormous > > advantage in studying several schools' presentations of emptiness. method. > yep, this is truely a blessing. > > On second thoughts , as with all blessings , there are some disadvantages > also. > I remember when ajahn chah said ' you got bigger houses to clean up'. Indeed. However, I still prefer this approach for a number of reasons. It isn't neccessary for everyone, nevertheless, knowing what other views exist and the critiques of those views has been one of the most beneficial aspects in my studies. On that note, and to digress somewhat (because this is not at all directed at anyone in particular here), it is very easy to study just one presentation and get ensnared in the particular language of that presentation. I take some the discussions on Nibbana here as a case in point. To draw something of an analogy, some of the arguments I have seen remind me of what I might expect to see from those who've never actually tasted a mango, who have heard a particular description of a mango as having a somewhat sweet and fruity flavor, found some liking to such a description in dependence on nothing other than preference, who prefer this description of sweetness so much that when someone describes the texture of a mango as soft and juicy, it is denounced as heresy. I have been given a lot of cause to consider this lately, because I still see an insistence from some quarters that the Pali Canon contains the only accurate representation of the Buddha's Dharma. For example, just recently I have seen quotes from certain Theravada monks on Nibbana that actively denigrate the Mahayana (and if that is their intent, they only make the speaker look like a rather foolish and uncharitable individual, given these quotes make plain the speaker obviously hasn't bothered to study the tradition he's denigrating). I don't take any personal offense at such woeful mischaracterizations (indeed how ciould one take offesne at waht is amost laughably off the mark?), but I almost reflexively head the opposite direction all the same, since I prefer not to spend my precious life of leisure & fortune I could be spending practicing the Dharma with folks who behave this way. Perhaps it's an aversion from having been raised a Mormon, where I was exposed to some rather unyielding and oppressive dogmatism for so many years, and also perhaps because I have found little benefit in attempting to engage those of this mentality once it becomes evident their prejudices take precedence over dispassionate investigation and careful consideration. This indicates to me that any attempts at reasoned discussion or debate are usually futile and as such, a waste of precious time. In all cases I find this sort of mentality so far from any sort of mentality I aspire to, that I find nothing in it worthy of emulation. > :o) 'my tradition' , thats nice.Hardest to break. That's not that habit I was referring to here. Conventionally speaking, this will always be "my tradition" (after all, I see no need to fix what isn't broken or lpay switch-hitter). Therefore I see nothing wrong with designating this. One habit I do believe very troublesome is when "my tradition" dogmatically becomes the "only tradition." My comment referred to the tendency of those in my school (one I still carry around to a limited degree) to challange any characterizations of emptiness that use positivistic descriptions. On that note, drawing from a particularly unfortunate chapter of my own tradition's history, there were some there so dogmatically fixated on the Prasangika presentation of emptiness they felt it necessary to destroy the monasteries of those who had the temerity to suggest another interpretation (though it would be unwise to forget there were also strong political undercurrents at the same time). I mention this only to point out that dogmatism is a great danger to look out for no matter which tradition's pesentation we prefer. Whether or not the gzhan-stong view is "right" or not, one appropriate response would be to challange specific points of contention, rather than denigrate an entire tradition wholesale, or even destroy their monasteries! > > it is a non-affirming negative (unlike an affirming > > negative like "The fat Devadatta never eats during the daytime", > > which carries with it the affirmation that he has to be stuffing his > > face at night). > > This is not affirming. > This can depend on the time the quote was made. Like after getting fat(the > fatness also depends), the (now) fat devadatta stopped eating ( in daytime > And night ). > Can depend on devadatta's eating habits, he may be drinking(not eating) lot > of food drinks without having to stuff his face at night. As an aside, this is one of the classic examples given for an affirming negative in general--meaning, that it implies the "fat Devadatta" isn't starving; he's taking in enough calories to be chubby somehow, even if through an IV drip! :) 8080 From: Howard Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 7:09pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi, Robert - It's really hard to know about the proper translation and meaning, especially for a total Pali-neophyte such as me. Bhikkhu ~NAnananda translates this as : "Consciousness which is non-manifestive - endless, lustrous on all sides, Here it is that earth and water-fire and air no footing find; Here, again, are long and short - fine and coarse - pleasant and unpleasant And name-and-form - all cut off without exception. When consciousness comes to cease - all these are held in check herein." He also translates from the Brahmanimantanika Sutta, in MN I as follows: "Consciousness which is non-manifestive, infinite and lustrous all around: it does not partake of the solidity of earth, ..., the allness of the all" Peter Harvey, in his book "The Sefless Mind" uses a similar translation: "Discernment, non-manifestive, accessible from all round (vi~n~nAnam anidassanam, anantam, sabbato paham)." But, in any case, I think that Robert Epstein's point about nibbana certainly being different from the unconsciousness of a stone is a valid one. Another point: Even in Abhidhamma, if I'm not mistaken, nibbana, is *not* considered to be citta (which always has an object), but *is* considered to be nama. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/15/01 2:03:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, <> writes: > Howard wrote: > Kevatta Sutta, DN 11, to be found on Access to Insight: > > "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do > these four great > elements -- the earth property, the liquid property, the fire > property, and > the wind property -- cease without remainder? Instead, it should > be phrased > like this: > > Where do water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing? > > Where are long & short, > > coarse & fine, > > fair & foul, > > name & form > > > > "'And the answer to that is: > > Consciousness without feature, > > without end, > > luminous all around: > > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing. > > Here long & short > > coarse & fine > > fair & foul > > name & form > > are all brought to an end. > > With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness > > > > That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Kevatta the > householder > delighted in the Blessed One's words. > ************************************* > > What I meant by unmanifestive discernment is exactly what > is given > above, and which sure sounds like nibbana to me: > > "Consciousness without feature, > without end, > luminous all around: > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > have no footing. > Here long & short > coarse & fine > fair & foul > name & form > are all brought to an end." > > With metta, > Howard > _______________________________________________ > > Dear Howard, > You quoted the above from the translation by Thanissaro. > There is another translation at www.metta.lk > > > > > > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/11-kevaddha-e.htm > > Where do earth, water, fire, and wind, > > And long and short, and fine and coarse, > > Pure and impure, no footing find? > > Where is it that both name and form[22] > > Die out, leaving no trace behind?" > > 'On that the answer is : > > 'The intellect of Arahatship, the invisible, the endless, > accessible from every side[23] > > 'Where is it that earth, water, fire, and wind, > > And long and short, and fine and coarse, > > Pure and impure, no footing find. > > Where is it that both name and form > > Die out, leaving, no trace behind. > > When intellection ceases they all also cease.' > > Thus spake the Exalted One. And Kevaddha, the young householder, > pleased at heart, rejoiced at the spoken word. > > > Actually I had a converstaion with Suan recently about this as I > was puzzled by the somewhat confusing translations of this sutta > extract. > He wrote in his usual helpful way when I asked about this pali > phrase in the sutta: > > The original Pali found in Section 499, Kevatta Suttam, > Silakkhandhavagga, Dighanikayo starts with the term "Vińńanam". > > And Kevatta Sutta Atthakatha defines "Vińńanam" as follows. > > "Tattha vińńatabbanti "Vińńanam" nibbanassetam namam,.." > > "There, to be known specially, so (it is) "Vińńanam". This is > the > name of nibbana." > > And Kevatta Sutta Tika further explains the phrase > "vińńatabbanti" > as follows. > > "Vińńatabbanti visitthena ńatabbam, ńanuttamena > ariyamaggańanena paccakkhato janitabbanti attho, tenaha > "nibbanassetam namam"ti." > > "(To be known specially) means to be extraordinarily known. The > meaning is 'to be known in the sense of realization by ultimate > wisdom, by noble path wisdom'". Therefore, (the commentator) > stated > that 'This is the name of nibbana'" > > Therefore, the term 'Vińńanam' in the line of the original Pali > verse > > "Vińńanam anidassanam, anantam sabbatopabham .." does not refer > to > consciousness, the usual meaning of vińńanam. > > In fact, the same verse includes the following two lines > > "Ettha namańca rupańca, asesam uparujjhati > Vińńanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti". > > "Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases without > remainder. > By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here." > > Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness just because one > of > its Pali names happens to be Vińńanam. > > Suan > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8081 From: gayan Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 11:09pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear howard, > > > ============================= > You quote from the Bahiya Sutta: > **************************************************** > "Where neither water nor yet earth > Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, > There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, > There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. > When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this > For himself through his own wisdom, > Then he is freed from form and formless. > Freed from pleasure and from pain.", > *********************************************************** > Please note there the words "yet there no darkness reigns"! No > conditions there, no elements of rupa, no mundane light at all, neither form > not formlessness, and "yet there no darkness reigns"!! > > With metta, > Howard That was the whole point of putting the quote. :o) a lot of NOs. Important thing is-> " NO Darkness " too thats something positive. rgds, gayan 8082 From: gayan Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 0:27am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear erik, > Indeed. However, I still prefer this approach for a number of > reasons. It isn't neccessary for everyone, nevertheless, knowing what > other views exist and the critiques of those views has been one of > the most beneficial aspects in my studies. Yes , I think this is the most important aspect of it. Its always helpful to facilitate different thought-lines. Like, "what if its otherwise.." Having a grasp of everything certainly helps understanding what buddha said., simply because at the end of the day buddha reigns supreme. From my side , I even found the computer engineering technology as helpful to understand what the guy said. You simply can't beat this old chap.(the buddha with all due respects) > > On that note, and to digress somewhat (because this is not at all > directed at anyone in particular here), it is very easy to study just > one presentation and get ensnared in the particular language of that > presentation. I take some the discussions on Nibbana here as a case > in point. This also can have multiple aspects. Like studying all and converging all of them to a single point of view. Or studing one and extrapolating it to others. All have advantages and disadvantages. I think that its just the relative disadvantageous-ness of time we currently live in. > > To draw something of an analogy, some of the arguments I have seen > remind me of what I might expect to see from those who've never > actually tasted a mango, who have heard a particular description of a > mango as having a somewhat sweet and fruity flavor, found some liking > to such a description in dependence on nothing other than preference, > who prefer this description of sweetness so much that when someone > describes the texture of a mango as soft and juicy, it is denounced > as heresy. > Oh, I got the 'mango' thing (what you are trying to say) :o) One cant force the mango to another's mouth. There is a case of wanting others to taste the mango which one has tasted. Personally i think, If the 'taste of the mango' is staying forever tasty, theres no need to care about all those denouncings etc. > I have been given a lot of cause to consider this lately, because I > still see an insistence from some quarters that the Pali Canon > contains the only accurate representation of the Buddha's Dharma. The word 'only' is the scary-point here. Mango sellers, only promote their mangoes. Lot of different versions of mangoes, fruit-salads. Indecision makes a big headache. For > example, just recently I have seen quotes from certain Theravada > monks on Nibbana that actively denigrate the Mahayana (and if that is > their intent, they only make the speaker look like a rather foolish > and uncharitable individual, given these quotes make plain the > speaker obviously hasn't bothered to study the tradition he's > denigrating). I don't take any personal offense at such woeful > mischaracterizations (indeed how ciould one take offesne at waht is > amost laughably off the mark?), but I almost reflexively head the > opposite direction all the same, since I prefer not to spend my > precious life of leisure & fortune I could be spending practicing the > Dharma with folks who behave this way. > Reflecting on these incidents, .. Cant beat the old chap. > Perhaps it's an aversion from having been raised a Mormon, where I > was exposed to some rather unyielding and oppressive dogmatism for > so many years, and also perhaps because I have found little benefit > in attempting to engage those of this mentality once it becomes > evident their prejudices take precedence over dispassionate > investigation and careful consideration. This indicates to me that > any attempts at reasoned discussion or debate are usually futile and > as such, a waste of precious time. In all cases I find this sort of > mentality so far from any sort of mentality I aspire to, that I find > nothing in it worthy of emulation. > yep.. > > :o) 'my tradition' , thats nice.Hardest to break. > > That's not that habit I was referring to here. Conventionally > speaking, this will always be "my tradition" (after all, I see no > need to fix what isn't broken or lpay switch-hitter). Therefore I see > nothing wrong with designating this. > > One habit I do believe very troublesome is when "my tradition" > dogmatically becomes the "only tradition." My comment referred to the > tendency of those in my school (one I still carry around to a limited > degree) to challange any characterizations of emptiness that use > positivistic descriptions. > > On that note, drawing from a particularly unfortunate chapter of my > own tradition's history, there were some there so dogmatically > fixated on the Prasangika presentation of emptiness they felt it > necessary to destroy the monasteries of those who had the temerity to > suggest another interpretation (though it would be unwise to forget > there were also strong political undercurrents at the same time). > > I mention this only to point out that dogmatism is a great danger to > look out for no matter which tradition's pesentation we prefer. > Whether or not the gzhan-stong view is "right" or not, one > appropriate response would be to challange specific points of > contention, rather than denigrate an entire tradition wholesale, or > even destroy their monasteries! > Meaningless(with politics,collective egos and all that) , they are indeed. Jihad-mentality,Saviour-mentality all give perfect examples of what the Old One warned as pitfalls. rgds. gayan 8083 From: gayan Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:16am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear kenneth, > nothing is annihilated in Buddhism since all dharmas inherently are signless. To my understanding, the words should be "let go" well, if I remember correctly,somewhere in tipitaka, buddha says, "Monks, some people will accuse me of teaching annihiliation, to them I say., 'yes, I teach annihiliation, I teach annihiliation of dukkha, thats what I teach.' " rgds, gayan 8084 From: Anders Honore Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:34am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- rikpa21 wrote: > I have not detected any fundamental difference between the two (not > as much as a hair of contradiction, actually). Ditto that. As I see it, Mahayana is not in opposition to Theravada. It is an elaboration of it (I do not mean in any higher evolutionary way, just that it expands on certain topics which later practitioners have misinterpreted). > Perhaps rather than drawing any conclusions from your own cursory > readings of Ch'an material (which can hardly be said to represent the > vast breadth of systems categorized under the heading "Mahayana"), it > may be prudent to in addition request isntruction from those trained > in one of these wonderful traditions, and then to take that > instruction and put it into practice and test out for yourself if it > works for you or not. Yup. I think it was Buddhaghosa who said: "The worst authority I know, is my own." > But that's just the opinion of someone who's studied under qualified > teachers in both traditions, put their teachings into practice (from > both sides), and studied the Pali Suttas side-by-side with the > Mahayana Sutras since the beginning of his studies (even though > favoring the Mahayana since it accords best with his accumulations). What Theravada teachers have you studied under, whom you felt were "qualified"? >s (substance vs. style, in other words). But not until. Without > such definitive knowledge, any conclusion would be nothing but the > purest speculation; and if one is entirely honest, this is just as > true regarding the teachings in Pali Canon as for the teachings of > the so-called Mahayana. I can't remember which, but there is a Mayahana sutra in which all the Bodhisattvas and Sravakas try to figure out the truth, but can't, to which the Buddha responds that the reason they can't, is because they speculate on it. 8085 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 1:02am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi, Gayan - In a message dated 9/15/01 1:44:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gayan writes: > dear howard, > > > > > > ============================= > > You quote from the Bahiya Sutta: > > **************************************************** > > "Where neither water nor yet earth > > Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, > > There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, > > There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. > > When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this > > For himself through his own wisdom, > > Then he is freed from form and formless. > > Freed from pleasure and from pain.", > > *********************************************************** > > Please note there the words "yet there no darkness reigns"! > No > > conditions there, no elements of rupa, no mundane light at all, > neither form > > not formlessness, and "yet there no darkness reigns"!! > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > That was the whole point of putting the quote. :o) > > a lot of NOs. > Important thing is-> " NO Darkness " too > > thats something positive. > > > rgds, > gayan > ========================== Ahhh! Sorry. I was a bit slow on the uptake! ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8086 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 1:14am Subject: Passing on Some Possibly Important Information Hi, all - The following was sent to me, and I am passing it along: Lucent Technologies has an instrument which is being utilized at the site of the World Trade Center disaster. This instrument can hone in on a signal from a cell phone, a beeper, or a Palm device and determine the location of the device. The instrument needs the telephone number of the device in order to locate it. Those who are using the instrument to locate these devices can be reached at 877-348-8579. If there is a need to call them, be sure to have the device's telephone number readily available. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8087 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 5:45am Subject: Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Howard wrote: > > > But, in any case, I think that Robert Epstein's point about nibbana > certainly being different from the unconsciousness of a stone is a valid one. > Another point: Even in Abhidhamma, if I'm not mistaken, nibbana, is *not* > considered to be citta (which always has an object), but *is* considered to > be nama. > > With metta, > Howard > > _______ Dear Howard, I think it is clear if widely within the Tipitika that nibbana is not some type of awareness. Nibbana is classified as nama only in the sense that it is not rupa not because it has the characteristics of awreness or knowing. Do you agree that parinibbana is the extinction of the five khandas? robert 8088 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:18am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi, Robert - > Dear Howard, > I think it is clear if widely within the Tipitika that nibbana is > not some type of awareness. Nibbana is classified as nama only in the > sense that it is not rupa not because it has the characteristics of > awreness or knowing. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, then, why not, by the same reasoning, classify it as rupa "only in the sense that it is not vinnana not because it has the characteristic of resistance"? Do you see what I mean? ---------------------------------------------------- > Do you agree that parinibbana is the extinction of the five khandas? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. But I take vinnana khanda to be the function of discerning objects. --------------------------------------------------- > 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) 8089 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:41am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote: > dear robert e. > > > Dear Gayan, > > I'm not as intrigued by the 'self' aspect in this quote, as the 'all > phenomena' > > aspect. If release [liberation] is the nature of all phenomena, > > It says that release is the worth,essence(sara) of all phenomena. > > > it seems to be > > saying that all phenomena are inherently liberated but are not realized as > such > > because of delusion. > > I thought that ,its saying that of all phenomena , this phenomenon (the > release) is the worthy one. > Its a phenomenon which belongs to the (all-inclusive)set of 'All phenomena'. > And delusion is another phenomenon. > > And if we go to the 'being' level, I remember somewhere in tipitaka buddha > says that all beings have 'nibbana' as the aim. > His advice to the 'beings' is to be 'appamada' .( dont get lax in effort in > attaining nibbana ) otherwise the suffering will go on for incalculable > period of time. > > > That would seem a very Mahayanist doctrine to me, in a > > Theravadan sutra. What do you think? > > > Actually robert, I dont know very much about mahayana, and only have a > limited understanding of theravada texts. > So I dont know how to make a relation. > But in theravada canon, in lot of instances the delusion is explained as a > darkness, which prevents the truth from being seen. > > I would like to know the mahayanist doctrine which is related to this topic > and its similarities and diffrences as you have observed. Dear Gayan, Let me just say that I am not a scholar and sometimes my view is more instinctive than scriptural, but my sense from the Mahayana traditions that I have been interested in is that enlightenment is seen as the true condition of all beings, only delusion keeps it from being realized. Therefore, realization of one's true state is what is required, rather than an actual change in one's condition. In other words, Nibbana in a sense is not to be attained, but to be realized through understanding, or direct awakening. It is on this basis I believe that the Chinese 'Sudden School' [Ch'an/Zen] asserted that understanding can come at any time, rather than as the result of a long progression of linear steps, if the condition of the mind and circumstances was right. [This is what happened to its founder Hui-Neng, upon hearing the recitation of part of the Diamond Sutra. He then went to a teacher to clarify and deepen his understanding. He was put to work pounding rice in the kitchen for six months. I don't know about you, but that sounds to me like he was practicing mindfulness meditation during that time, only he had the cart before the horse]. Most likely, however, the person thus enlightened would have already done a lot of work in past lives, or would be otherwise close to realization, and they would just need this particular push to destroy their basic delusion of separate self and mind. The gradations of that initial awakening into stream-enterer, once-returner, never-to-return, etc., are all still there, but the emphasis is somewhat different. Of course, there are stages of development in Zen as there are in Theravadin meditation, but based on this idea of enlightenment being a pre-existing reality which needs to be discovered, rather than attained, the practice has a different flavor to some extent. It has led to some of the unusual behavior of Zen Masters which they use to awaken monks who are 'ready' to be pushed out of their conventional mindset. One of the characteristics of this, I believe, is that this makes Zen much more dependent on having a skillful teacher, while my sense of the Theravadin path is that while a teacher is sometimes essential, one can take the steps with some clarity even if a teacher is not available. Best, Robert E. 8090 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:46am Subject: no moon/no darkness (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) Where neither water nor yet earth Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this For himself through his own wisdom, Then he is freed from form and formless. Freed from pleasure and from pain. Dear Gayan, Well I love this verse, just love it. Yet there is a clue within all the 'no-s' that you cite: There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. If there is no moon, then why does not darkness reign? There is no other way to interpret this other than an implication that without the moon, there is still a source of light. So my Zen koan for you today is: where shines no moon, why doesn't the darkness reign? Something is not extinguished, and I feel that the Buddha couldn't resist but hint at this, though he doesn't want to state positively some statement that will be turned into an entity or object by the unenlightened mind. Best, Robert ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8091 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:52am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > Reading your words is like perceiving my own thoughts! > > With metta, > Howard Robert E. ============================== > In a message dated 9/14/01 5:14:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > --- rikpa21 wrote: > > > > >>This sounds suspiciously like you're reifying awareness Robert. You > > say it's not a "thing", and yet awareness implies a subject, and by > > implication, an object. This demonstrates that awareness is a > > changing thing, i.e. composed, because it is dependent on an object-- > > a changing thing, and changes in dependence on an object. Therefore > > it is mundane by definition. >> > > > > I have to disagree, Erik, that awareness implies an object. I am speaking > > of pure > > awareness, which I would consider an equivalent of Nibbana. If Nibbana is > > not an > > aware state, and it implies the negation of all other conditions, there is > > no way > > for it not to be a state in which all experiences and conditions have been > > annihilated. If it as an unformed pre-condition which is *discovered* > > rather than > > attained, then does it remove the sentience of sentient beings? Only > > sentient > > beings are eligible for enlightenment. There is a reason for that, and > > that is > > that their *sentience* is what is capable of being enlightened. Sentience = > > Awareness. It si the illusion of 'self' that is removed in enlightenment, > > but the > > awareness or core awakeness of sentience that characterizes all living > > beings, is > > not itself removed. Otherwise nibbana would be the equivalent of turning a > > living > > being into an inanimate object. Obviously this is not the case. > > > > >>This means that awareness cannot possibly be Nibbana, since Nibbana > > is uncomposed, the asankhara dhatu. This view that nothing exists > > except for awareness--which exists absolutely in some way (even if it > > is asserted it is not a "thing"--and how can this be, incidentally, > > since awareness too is a dependent arising?)--is specifically the > > view rejected in the Madhyamika critique of Cittamatra (Mind Only).>> > > > > I would say that Nibbana would indeed have to be the unformed awareness at > > the > > heart of all experience. If Nibbana is not awareness one would be left > > with the > > absurd idea that Nibbana is a state of unawareness, that it is a form of > > unconsciousness. Whatever you say about the attributes of Nibbana, > > unformed, > > unmodified, undifferentiated, and unborn, can be said about this primary > > awareness, which is not a rising or falling consciousness, but is the > > backdrop or > > field in which all living experience arises. > > > > > For example, the view that Nibbana is "awareness" of some sort is > > > explicitly rejected by the Buddha in the Bharmajala Sutta: > > > > > > "Here, a certain ascetic or Brahmin is a logician, a reasoner. > > > Hammering it out by reason, following his own line of thought, he > > > argues: `Whatever is called eye or ear or nose or tongue or > > > body, that is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, liable to change. > > > But what is called thought, or mind or consciousness, that is a self > > > that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, the same > > > for ever and ever! > > > > Thought, mind or consciousness as a self would be a false reification of > > some > > aspect of sentience which is given a definition, which then recreates it as > > a kind > > of soul. I understand that you can also view my assertion of Awareness as > > such an > > object as well. But I mean it as an impersonal property rather than as a > > self or > > a possession, in just the same way that Nibbana is meant. If Nibbana does > > equal a > > kind of primal awareness that is undifferentiated and unborn, it would > > partake of > > all the same properties that allow Nibbana to avoid being an object or > > self. And > > if Nibbana is not a form of primal Awareness, then I have to ask you: what > > allows > > Nibbana to be a state into which a sentient being can enter, and only a > > sentient > > being? What happens to human awareness when it enters Nibbana? Is > > awareness > > obliterated, or does it in fact lose all definitions of self and become > > just pure > > experience of what is? Can a rock become enlightened? If sentience is not > > the > > one property that is refined and uplifted into its true form in Nibbana, > > then what > > aspect of being human allows for Nibbana to be attained? > > > > Best, > > Robert E. > > > > > > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) > ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8092 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 0:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS > > Dear Robert, > > In all that is said below, I find it most interesting that Nibbana > is said to > > partake of: > > > > "Asankhata-dhatu, unborn, unformed purified Element". > > > > Is that a convention of speech, or what is the unborn, unformed > purified Element > > that Nibbana involves. It certainly seems that a positive state or > substance is > > here invoked, rather than mere cessation. > > > > Best, > > Robert E. > > > > ============================= > Dear Robert E. > Nibbana is classified as paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality)but it > is in no way like the other paramattha dhammas of consciousness , > mental factors and materiality. It can't be said to exist at all in > that way that they do. I wouldn't think that it would exist in that sense. But I sure would like to know what the "unborn, unformed purified Element" means. It sounds like the essential quality that exists prior to manifest existence as apparent beings. So what is that unborn, original element? What does Element here mean? Whatever it is, that is a positive statement about Nibbana, it is not a statement of mere cessation of defilements and delusions. I am not saying it is a 'self'. Anatta to me means that there is no center to which experience can be attributed. That doesn't mean that any property that Nibbana had would necessarily have to be a 'self'. It would be a transcendent quality, not a mundane one, and all self-nature partakes of the kandhas. So that unborn, primordial Element would not partake of a self, being or entity. So what is it? But it can be an object of the developed citta > that arises if the eightfold path is correctly followed. The > harbinger of this path is right view. > Nibbana is NOT , according to the Ancient theravada tradition, > > > > """A the light of > > awareness, infinite, luminous all around, falling on no objects, > with > > discernment unmanifestive..."" Why is it then stated in the Pali Sutta Pitaka, as Howard reports? Is the Pitaka not part of the ancient Theravada tradition? [I ask this sincerely, not rhetorically]. > Do we yet see how utterly oppressive this continual rising and > passing away is. One moment there is seeing, then thinking , then > hearing, feeling, tasting, thinking, anger, happiness , sadness, > again and again - no one can stop these moments arising. It has been > going on like this for zillions and trillions of aeons of time. And > much of that time has been spent as animals or insects or worms or in > freezing hells or boiling hells. Now we happen to be in a happy > existence as a human - but that is so brief. There are only namas and > rupas arising and passing, never to return but conditioning succesive > moments. Only by the eightfold path can this fearful stream be > brought to an end. By studying the dhammas, that are arising again > and again at the 6 doors in the correct way, I suggest that there > will be more appreciation of what nibbana is (even while it cannot be > fully understood until it is the object of magga citta and phala > citta) I understand and appreciate your passionate statement. The only place we disagree, and it is an important place, is that you think that awareness cannot exist without a rising and falling experience of object. We are both talking about Nibbana here. If Nibbana is a form of awareness, if awareness itself [awake being = Buddha] is the unformed, primal Element that can be attributed to Nibbana, then it would *not* be a rising and falling consciousness that is attached to an object. It would be a still lake in which there is no ripple, an absolute awareness with no object. It would not be prone to attachment or aversion, it would not perceive mundane objects, and it would not escape through the six sense-organs. It would neither become nor extinguish. It would merely be. It would have no personal identity, and it would neither die nor be reborn. If one does not assert that awareness in its pure state can cease from becoming, then one is left with the absurd notion that the careful refinement of mindfulness and insight is only there to then be completely extinguished. Why would a path that is totally built on the refinement of awareness suddenly extinguish as the final accomplishment of its path? It doesn't make any sense. Why not have a path of gradual extinction of awareness, if awareness is not to be the final ingredient of Nibbana? What is extinguished by the Buddha instead is "greed, anger, and delusion, as well as of the manifold evil and demeritorious things," borrowing from your quotes below. Nowhere in any of your quotes does the Buddha say that sentience, or awareness is extinguished. He never says the Arahat is 'no longer awake'. Rather, his name, Buddha, means awakened one. Even if one is only being awakened to the truth of anatta, there is still something there to be awake, or he would not be able to realize this. For those who believe in pure annihilation, this is never, I believe, adequately explained or dealt with. Certainly, anything we are familiar with in this manifest life as individuals is extinguished in Nibbana, but that doesn't mean that the quality he has cultivated in order to attain Nibbana is also extinguished. Is awareness, the ability to discern that is so highly prized on the path, ever listed as one of the defilements to be eradicated? No. No Sutra, I would venture to guess, will ever say: 'Upon reaching Nibbana, his discernment is extinguished and he is no longer awake or aware.' Obviously, the Buddha was awake or aware, even while having no notion of self. The two are not the same. For certainly, I teach > > > annihilation, the annihilation of greed, anger, and delusion, as > > > well as of the manifold evil and demeritorious things." There is nothing about extinguishing the meritorious things, which have been accumulated and refined on the path, is there? Of all the quotes, this is the one that gets closest to saying that Nibbana involves total extinction. It does not say awareness, but it does say 'consciousness' is extinguished. This is, I take it, a commentary and not from a Sutra? In any case, I would need to know what is meant by consciousness. My understanding of consciousness is that it is meant as a consciousness of something, arising and falling away with that object. If that is the case, it is not what I mean by awareness. The commentator says that the primal Element is in fact an elemental 'state' where there is no being or soul. I would like to know whether the Buddha spoke of a state of non-being, as the commentator does. A state of absolute non-being is pure annihilationism in my view, which the Buddha denied as one of the errors of View. I await your clarifications on this most important issue. > > > NIBBANA > > > the Nibbanic state is totally devoid of any and every thing of > > > the four elements, personal existence, static entity, rebirth, > > > death, consciousness or mind and matter etc. It is only the > > > state of element (Dhatu) which means "Nisatta nijjiva" > > > non-being, non-soul, i.e. there is not even a purified soul in > > > Nibbana. > > Best to you, Robert E. 8093 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 0:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Howard wrote: > Please note there the words "yet there no darkness reigns"! No > conditions there, no elements of rupa, no mundane light at all, neither form > not formlessness, and "yet there no darkness reigns"!! > > With metta, > Howard Well, Howard, we seem to have simeoltaneously picked up on the same idea again! You're right: we're apparently in telepathic communication. Well, I don't mind the company! Best, Robert E. 8094 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 0:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Thanks for getting me off the hook, Howard, but I wish I was the one who found this sutra. It is one of the most beautiful things I've ever read. Well, I hope we will all have a lively discussion re-translating and discussing this Sutra. It seems to make clear that the four elements are not extinguished, but lose their footing, and that consciousness is not extinguished, but loses its properties and activity. And this sounds a lot like Nibbana to me as well. I would like to see if others here would agree with the way it is translated. Best, Robert E. ===================== --- Howard wrote: > > This material you quote shouldn't be blamed on Robert E. I was the one > who wrote it. With regard to it, I refer you to the end portion of the > Kevatta Sutta, DN 11, to be found on Access to Insight: > > ************************************* > "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great > elements -- the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and > the wind property -- cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased > like this: > > Where do water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing? > > Where are long & short, > > coarse & fine, > > fair & foul, > > name & form > > > > "'And the answer to that is: > > Consciousness without feature, > > without end, > > luminous all around: > > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing. > > Here long & short > > coarse & fine > > fair & foul > > name & form > > are all brought to an end. > > With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness 8095 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 0:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Thanks, Howard. Both translations below are very interesting. Robert E. ========= --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > It's really hard to know about the proper translation and meaning, > especially for a total Pali-neophyte such as me. > > Bhikkhu ~NAnananda translates this as : > > "Consciousness which is non-manifestive - endless, lustrous on all > sides, > Here it is that earth and water-fire and air no footing find; > Here, again, are long and short - fine and coarse - pleasant > and > unpleasant > And name-and-form - all cut off without exception. > When consciousness comes to cease - all these are held in > > check herein." > > He also translates from the Brahmanimantanika Sutta, in MN I as follows: > > "Consciousness which is non-manifestive, infinite and lustrous > all around: it does not partake of the solidity of earth, ..., the > allness > of the all" > > Peter Harvey, in his book "The Sefless Mind" uses a similar > translation: > > "Discernment, non-manifestive, accessible from all round (vi~n~nAnam > anidassanam, anantam, sabbato paham)." > > But, in any case, I think that Robert Epstein's point about nibbana > certainly being different from the unconsciousness of a stone is a valid one. > Another point: Even in Abhidhamma, if I'm not mistaken, nibbana, is *not* > considered to be citta (which always has an object), but *is* considered to > be nama. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 9/15/01 2:03:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > <> writes: > > > > Howard wrote: > > Kevatta Sutta, DN 11, to be found on Access to Insight: > > > > "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do > > these four great > > elements -- the earth property, the liquid property, the fire > > property, and > > the wind property -- cease without remainder? Instead, it should > > be phrased > > like this: > > > Where do water, earth, fire, & wind > > > have no footing? > > > Where are long & short, > > > coarse & fine, > > > fair & foul, > > > name & form > > > > > > > "'And the answer to that is: > > > Consciousness without feature, > > > without end, > > > luminous all around: > > > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > > > have no footing. > > > Here long & short > > > coarse & fine > > > fair & foul > > > name & form > > > are all brought to an end. > > > With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness > > > > > > > That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Kevatta the > > householder > > delighted in the Blessed One's words. > > ************************************* > > > > What I meant by unmanifestive discernment is exactly what > > is given > > above, and which sure sounds like nibbana to me: > > > > "Consciousness without feature, > > without end, > > luminous all around: > > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing. > > Here long & short > > coarse & fine > > fair & foul > > name & form > > are all brought to an end." > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Dear Howard, > > You quoted the above from the translation by Thanissaro. > > There is another translation at www.metta.lk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/11-kevaddha-e.htm > > > > Where do earth, water, fire, and wind, > > > > And long and short, and fine and coarse, > > > > Pure and impure, no footing find? > > > > Where is it that both name and form[22] > > > > Die out, leaving no trace behind?" > > > > 'On that the answer is : > > > > 'The intellect of Arahatship, the invisible, the endless, > > accessible from every side[23] > > > > 'Where is it that earth, water, fire, and wind, > > > > And long and short, and fine and coarse, > > > > Pure and impure, no footing find. > > > > Where is it that both name and form > > > > Die out, leaving, no trace behind. > > > > When intellection ceases they all also cease.' > > > > Thus spake the Exalted One. And Kevaddha, the young householder, > > pleased at heart, rejoiced at the spoken word. > > > > > > Actually I had a converstaion with Suan recently about this as I > > was puzzled by the somewhat confusing translations of this sutta > > extract. > > He wrote in his usual helpful way when I asked about this pali > > phrase in the sutta: > > > > The original Pali found in Section 499, Kevatta Suttam, > > Silakkhandhavagga, Dighanikayo starts with the term "Vińńanam". > > > > And Kevatta Sutta Atthakatha defines "Vińńanam" as follows. > > > > "Tattha vińńatabbanti "Vińńanam" nibbanassetam namam,.." > > > > "There, to be known specially, so (it is) "Vińńanam". This is > > the > > name of nibbana." > > > > And Kevatta Sutta Tika further explains the phrase > > "vińńatabbanti" > > as follows. > > > > "Vińńatabbanti visitthena ńatabbam, ńanuttamena > > ariyamaggańanena paccakkhato janitabbanti attho, tenaha > > "nibbanassetam namam"ti." > > > > "(To be known specially) means to be extraordinarily known. The > > meaning is 'to be known in the sense of realization by ultimate > > wisdom, by noble path wisdom'". Therefore, (the commentator) > > stated > > that 'This is the name of nibbana'" > > > > Therefore, the term 'Vińńanam' in the line of the original Pali > > verse > > > > "Vińńanam anidassanam, anantam sabbatopabham .." does not refer > > to > > consciousness, the usual meaning of vińńanam. > > > > In fact, the same verse includes the following two lines > > > > "Ettha namańca rupańca, asesam uparujjhati > > Vińńanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti". > > > > "Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases without > > remainder. > > By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here." > > > > Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness just because one > > of > > its Pali names happens to be Vińńanam. > > > > Suan > > ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8096 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 0:46pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- gayan wrote: > > > dear howard, > > > > > > ============================= > > You quote from the Bahiya Sutta: > > **************************************************** > > "Where neither water nor yet earth > > Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, > > There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, > > There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. > > When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this > > For himself through his own wisdom, > > Then he is freed from form and formless. > > Freed from pleasure and from pain.", > > *********************************************************** > > Please note there the words "yet there no darkness reigns"! > No > > conditions there, no elements of rupa, no mundane light at all, > neither form > > not formlessness, and "yet there no darkness reigns"!! > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > That was the whole point of putting the quote. :o) > > a lot of NOs. > Important thing is-> " NO Darkness " too > > thats something positive. > > > rgds, > gayan yes, but the question is: where there is no darkness, is there not light? Robert ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8097 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 1:23pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- <> wrote: > --- Howard wrote: > > > > > But, in any case, I think that Robert Epstein's point about > nibbana > > certainly being different from the unconsciousness of a stone is a > valid one. > > Another point: Even in Abhidhamma, if I'm not mistaken, nibbana, is > *not* > > considered to be citta (which always has an object), but *is* > considered to > > be nama. > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > > _______ > Dear Howard, > I think it is clear if widely within the Tipitika that nibbana is > not some type of awareness. Nibbana is classified as nama only in the > sense that it is not rupa not because it has the characteristics of > awreness or knowing. I wonder, Robert, why it would be classified as a nama, only to distinguish it from a rupa? If it were not a nama, why wouldn't it simply be called something else? Correct me if I am wrong, but Nibbana would be an unconditioned nama, as opposed to a conditioned nama, which would include consciousness. But there must be a reason why Nibbana is grouped as a nama, instead of having a wholly removed category of its own. > Do you agree that parinibbana is the extinction of the five khandas? > robert Even if it is, the question is whether primal awareness is the same as consciousness as it is meant in the definition of the kandhas. It still doesn't make sense to me that Nibbana would be described as pure cessation, while the Buddha's name means 'one who is awake'. Someone who is awake need not have a self, but they have not totally ceased in their awareness. They are awake, not unconscious. This suggests a pure wakefulness, a pure awareness, without an object or modification, ie a transcendent nama that Nibbana seems to be classified as. Here is another translation of the verse we've been looking at on this subject, provided by Access to Insight: Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars do not shine, the sun is not visible, the moon does not appear, darkness is not found. And when a sage, a brahman through sagacity, has known [this] for himself, then from form & formless, from bliss & pain, he is freed. -- Ud I.10 Isn't it amazing that in the midst of all these negations of light, that 'darkness is not found'? What can this mean? To me it suggests that the luminosity of pure awareness, which is neither bright nor dark, is the presence there. Where is this view explicitly rejected in the canon, Robert? I will certainly go and read it. Here is another quote from Access to Insight which is interesting: "Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea." -- MN 72 I like that: 'freed from the classification of consciousness'. It sounds like name and form have been abandoned, not basic awareness or awakeness. It doesn't sound like pure cessation to me. It sounds like the conditions of life have ceased, and he says beautifully that there is something 'deep, boundless, hard to fathom' that is well beyond all existence, of which the Tathagata still partakes. Best, Robert E. 8098 From: KennethOng Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 1:32pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Maybe the problem could be the translation. Others translate it as cessation, when we talk abt cessation, we are about talking stopping and this is not destroying. How do we stop then, it is by letting go dualism, by letting go of attachment. Dharmas cannot be destroyed because there are devoid of nature or empty. We cannot destroy things that are inherently empty. Secondly annihilation is an extreme point of view which does not conform to the Buddhism point of view of middle path. In my humblest opinion, I believe that the translation word "annihilation" is not appropriate. Honestly, it is difficult to translate and definitely there are words that are very difficult to be defined correctly in English. Kind Regards Kenneth Ong gayan wrote: dear kenneth, > nothing is annihilated in Buddhism since all dharmas inherently are signless. To my understanding, the words should be "let go" well, if I remember correctly,somewhere in tipitaka, buddha says, "Monks, some people will accuse me of teaching annihiliation, to them I say., 'yes, I teach annihiliation, I teach annihiliation of dukkha, thats what I teach.' " rgds, gayan 8099 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 3:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Questions on lokuttara, sense-door, mind-door Nina Sorry to take time to get back to you. I have been doing 2 jobs at work for the past month, and hope to have more time when things revert to normal (later this week). --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Hi Jonothan Sarah and all, I heard you had good discussions in Bgk. > Amara > sent some notes, and now I have some questions. > As to the role of the three abstinences when the citta is lokuttara. I > can > understand that all 37 bhodipakkhiya dhammas have reached > accomplishment. > These three abstinence are among the eight path-factors. I understand > that > panna eradicates defilements. But my Q, is, do the three abstinences not > also play their part in eradicating, although panna is the chief. > I have some texts: in the Atth (II, Ch I, 219) it is said of right > speech > that is lokuttara that it cuts off the base of misconduct and fulfils > the > path-factor. See also Dhammasangani: Part I, Ch V, §299: right speech > detroys the cause-way leading to them...What do you think of those > texts? Yes, I commented during the talks how, according to the texts, each of the 3 virati's arising with the supramundane citta abandons its opposite (see Vism XVI, 78-80), and how even at mundane path moments right effort, in performing the functions described as the 4 padhanas, seems to be chipping away at the anusaya. I am not sure how exactly one would characterise the respective roles of these factors and panna at path moment, but I am sure it's the case that all need each other's support to achieve the final eradication of kilesa. This is also explained in the similes given in Vism in the passage dealing with the path factors as 3 aggregates (XVI, 96-102). > Another question: concerning my translation of Camb talks. In Cambodia, > A. > Sujin explains about the mind-door that is hidden by the sense-doors in > our > daily life. I understand. When there is no vipassana ~aa.na, the > mind-door > does not appear, although there is a mind-door process after each > sense-door > process. But also, A Sujin says, while thinking about names and > concepts, > the mind-door is hidden by the sense-doors, and we do not realize at > such > moments realities that arise and fall away. My feeling is: we think of > concepts on account of the sense objects, and in between our thinking > there > are sense impressions time and again, the mind-door process does not > appear. > Is this the reason that even while thinking of concepts the mind-door > process is hidden by the sense-door processes? My only recollection of the translation of the Cambodia talks is of a passage dealing with 'thinking hiding the sense-doors'. Have I got this wrong? Perhaps you could refer us again to the part about mind-door being hidden by sense-doors. Thanks. > Looking forward to your notes, Nina. My notes were purely scribbles of things to come back to later in the discussion, rather than a record of useful things said. If I find anything further, I'll post separately. Jon 8100 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 3:37pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Gayan, > Let me just say that I am not a scholar and sometimes my view is more > instinctive > than scriptural, but my sense from the Mahayana traditions that I have > been > interested in is that enlightenment is seen as the true condition of all > beings, > only delusion keeps it from being realized. Therefore, realization of > one's true > state is what is required, rather than an actual change in one's > condition. Rob, I would not wish to discourage erudite thinking, but speculation is, after all, only speculation no matter how erudite the mind of the thinker! Discussion based on instinct can only go so far and is of limited benefit anyway, or so it seems to me. After all, even if we ended up with an 'agreed' view on the question, what use would that be if it was not in accord with the word of the teacher? So why not start with the scriptural position from the outset! If you have any Theravada textual reference to support the proposition that 'enlightenment is the true condition of all beings', I would be interested to see it--unless you are accepting (below) that there is none. > Of course, there are stages of development in Zen as there are in > Theravadin > meditation, but based on this idea of enlightenment being a pre-existing > reality > which needs to be discovered, rather than attained, the practice has a > different > flavor to some extent. It has led to some of the unusual behavior of > Zen Masters > which they use to awaken monks who are 'ready' to be pushed out of their > conventional mindset. > > One of the characteristics of this, I believe, is that this makes Zen > much more > dependent on having a skillful teacher, while my sense of the Theravadin > path is > that while a teacher is sometimes essential, one can take the steps with > some > clarity even if a teacher is not available. There are any number of passages indicating the dependence of every learner on hearing the true dhamma over and over again. The Buddha explained that the dhamma is one's true teacher, and that we all need the assistance of a kalayana mitta to understand it. I think references on this have been given recently, but I could re-post if you would like further elaboration. Jon 8101 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 4:02pm Subject: nibbana . ROBERT E.: He never says the Arahat is 'no longer awake'. Rather, his name, Buddha, means awakened one. Even if one is only being awakened to the truth of anatta, there is still something there to be awake, or he would not be able to realize this. For those who believe in pure annihilation, this is never, I believe, adequately explained or dealt with. Certainly, anything we are familiar with in this manifest life as individuals is extinguished in Nibbana, but that doesn't mean that the quality he has cultivated in order to attain Nibbana is also extinguished. Is awareness, the ability to discern that is so highly prized on the path, ever listed as one of the defilements to be eradicated? No. No Sutra, I would venture to guess, will ever say: 'Upon reaching Nibbana, his discernment is extinguished and he is no longer awake or aware.' Obviously, the Buddha was awake or aware, even while having no notion of self. The two are not the same. ____________ Dear Robert E. I think I said recently that there are two types of nibbana. The first saupaadisesa-nibbaana,(`Nibbaana with the khandas still remaining')which pertains while an arahant is still alive. In this case there is absolute eradication of all kilesa (defilements) upon attainment of arahantship (kilesa -parinibbana). Thus the round of kilesa and the round of kamma is brought to an end. There is, however ,still the round of vipaka (vipaka-vatthu) which doesn't cease until khandha-parinibbaana which takes place at the death of the Arahat, called in the Suttas: `an-upaadisesa-nibbaana' i.e. `(Nibbaana without the khandas remaining) Perhaps the simile of the fire will help. The fuel is craving and ignorance. The fire is nama and rupa (ie the khandas). Once that fuel is no longer being added (upon attainment of arahant) the fire will soon die out(parinibbana Arahant is a term useful to designate a stream of nama and rupa (past, present or future) that no longer has avijja (and hence no other defilements). Before cuti citta(death moment) arises this stream is like a fire where no more fuel is added; at cuti citta the fire is finally extinguished. It is different for a non-arahant. The term non-arahant helps to designate a stream of nama and rupa where avijja and other defilements keep arising. These are the fuel and it is continually being added to (moments of insight excepted). When cuti citta arise for this stream the fire is simply passed to another place and the process continues. robert 8102 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 4:08pm Subject: nibbana 2 Robert E.:the question is whether primal awareness is the same as consciousness as it is meant in the definition of the kandhas. It still doesn't make sense to me that Nibbana would be described as pure cessation, while the Buddha's name means 'one who is awake'. Someone who is awake need not have a self, but they have not totally ceased in their awareness. They are awake, not unconscious. This suggests a pure wakefulness, a pure awareness, without an object or modification, ie a transcendent nama that Nibbana seems to be classified as. ....To me it suggests that the luminosity of pure awareness, which is neither bright nor dark, is the presence there. Where is this view explicitly rejected in the canon, Robert? I will certainly go and read it. _____ Dear Robert E., I don't know if these are helpful. it took me a while to look them up. I think others could find more. A. III. 32 This, truly, is Peace, this is the Highest, namely the end of all Karma formations, the forsaking of every substratum of rebirth, the fading away of craving. detachment, extinction, Nibbaana. A. I. 15 And it is impossible that a being possessed of right understanding should regard anything as the Self. Ud. VIII. 1 Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor the fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any other world, neither sun nor moon. This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering. S. XXII. 30 Hence the annihilation, cessation and overcoming of corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness: this is the extinction of suffering, the end of disease, the overcoming of old age and death. (endsutta) robert 8103 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 4:15pm Subject: nibbana 3 Robert E.: The only place we disagree, and it is an important place, is that you think that awareness cannot exist without a rising and falling experience of object. We are both talking about Nibbana here. If Nibbana is a form of awareness, if awareness itself [awake being = Buddha] is the unformed, primal Element that can be attributed to Nibbana, then it would *not* be a rising and falling consciousness that is attached to an object. It would be a still lake in which there is no ripple, an absolute awareness with no object. It would not be prone to attachment or aversion, it would not perceive mundane objects, and it would not escape through the six sense-organs. It would neither become nor extinguish. It would merely be. It would have no personal identity, and it would neither die nor be reborn. __________ Dear Robert E. perhaps this sutta helps: S. XXII. 94 A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a mental formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and persistent, eternal and not subject to change, such a thing the wise men in this world do not recognize; and I also say that there is no such thing.{endquote] robert 8104 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 5:01pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Rob E, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Sarah wrote: > > > To my understanding, they couldn't possibly have the > > same meaning because Pali sabhava, essence is > > inherently reflecting the anatta characteristic of the > > reality whereas the Sanskrit one would be reflecting a > > thing, a self, atta.... > > Dear Sarah, > Thanks for all your quotes on the nature of Nibbana. I think this last > statement > kind of puts the conceptual conflict in a nutshell. I'm trying to understand > how > an essence can reflect the anatta characteristic. It seems to me that this > is > torturing the concept of 'essence'. Why say that something has an essence, > only > to say by definition that this essence is not an essence, but a not-essence? I think this confusion is only from a Mahayana point of view where I understand sabhava is synonymous with self (or close to it at least). In the pali Tipitaka, sabhava most certainly does not suggest this. So we talk (the Buddha talks) about understanding realities through the 6 doorways, the 6 worlds. All these realities have a characteristic, a ‘nature’ which is different from that of another reality. Seeing only sees. It doesn’t experience sound. It isn’t attached or averse to what is seen and so on. We can say a lot more about its nature: it’s a nama, it’s anatta, impermanent and unsatisfactory. The more understanding develops the more it penetrates or knows the nature or characteristics of a reality. > An > essence means that something has a central property of some kind, it must > mean > that there is something that can be characterized about it. We are able to > distinguish between a ocnditioned and a non-conditioned reality, and I could > accept the idea that Nibbana had a non-conditioned or primal essence. But if > the > essence is merely to reflect its characteristic of 'anatta' of not being a > self or > entity, it seems to me that this is a redundancy. [I am being redundant here > too > to try to tackle it from an angle or two]. Why not just say that it has no > entity > and thus has no essence? Why say it has an essence which is that it doesn't > have > an essence? I hope I’ve clarified this. All realities are anatta and (almost) all realities have a sabhava, a nature, characteristics which are not self in any way. When I discussed this topic with Howard ages ago, I think we both agreed that ‘essence’ can be easily misunderstood as a translation....maybe just think of it as characteristic: (Vism):sabhava...'..it is narrower than dhamma. It often roughly corresponds to dhatu (element) and lakkhana(characteristic), but less nearly to the vaguer and (in Pali) untechnical pakati (nature), or to rasa(function). The Athasalani observes: 'it is the individual essence, or the generality, of such and such dhammas that is called their characteristic' (DhsA.63); on which the Mula Tika comments: 'The individual essence consisting in, say, hardness as that of earth, or touching as that of contact, is not common to all dhammas....' What I am implying is that if the Buddha used the term sabhava, > and > that means the essence of something, in this case Nibbana, then there must be > a > positive reason why he used it. In other words, Nibbana does partake of > anatta, > meaning that it cannot be defined as an entity or a self, but that it does > have an > essence. I wonder if there are any other descriptions, or a good way to > search > for, more descriptions of how the sabhava of Nibbana is meant or what it > implies. > This is the central question that we have been struggling with since Anders' > and > your thread on Nibbana as self or non-self, and this seems like a positive > place > to try to look at it. Rob E, I know you and Anders have a different understanding from a few of us on some fundamental issues, but according to the Pali Tipitaka (according to my understanding, of course), there is no nibbana being experienced now. All that can ever be known are the realities appearing now, which means understanding their characteristics or natures (in theory and directly) very well indeed. Without beginning to understand the difference clearly between namas and rupas there is no way to even reach the first vipassana nana, let alone higher levels. A moment of satipatthana (awareness) of one of these realities has nothing to do with nibbana (except very indirectly) and right now, unless there is the understanding of one of these same realities, there is no panna (wisdom) either. In other words there is no all-encompassing awareness or panna to be seen now if only the clouds of ignorance could be removed. Nor, as I read the Teachings, is there a Bodhi citta or Bodhisattva ideal to be realized by us (or followed) if only we could read between the lines in the Tipitaka. Just to finish, may I add a quote and note that Rob K gave earlier in a post to Howard: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the majjhimanikaya tika (mulapariyaya sutta) has the following to say. I use bhikkhu bodhi's translation p39. It comments on the atthakatha which says "they bear their own characteristics, thus they are dhammas." The tika(subcommentary ) notes. "although there are no dhammas devoid of their own characteristics this is said for the purpose of showing that mere dhammas endowed with their specific natures devoid of such attributes as being etc... whereas such entities as self, permanence or nature, soul, body etc are mere misconstructions due to craving and views...and cannot be discovered as ultinately real actualities, these dhammas (ie.those endowed with a specific sabhava) can. these dhammas are discovered as actually real actualties. And although 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. Also they are borne, or they are discerned, known , acccording to their specific nature, thus they are dhammas" It should be noted that when it says they are real, essence etc. this doesn't imply existence in the usual sense of an independent lasting thing. All dhammas are conditioned in complex ways by other dhammas It is just a flux happening so fast that time itself can only be understood by reference to the change of dhammas. robert >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Aren't you glad you brought up that idea? Yes, rather, but let me say I see sabhava as an aspect of reality rather than an idea! I hope I’ve clarified rather than confused the issue further. I also realize some of my comments may sound too direct or rigid. I apologise sincerely if this is so. . I appreciate your careful consideration of my earlier quotes and indeed all that is written on dsg. Sarah 8105 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 5:17pm Subject: Trying to understand Anatta Dear List Members, The events of the last week have given extra impetus to me to try to understand several teachings in Buddhism that I have been unable to grasp completely. The first was Kamma - but I have decided to let that sit awhile after getting a headache and more confused by all the permutations and combinations I found while pondering on it. Looking into Kamma made me realise that I needed to study and understand Dependant Origination as well. Looking into Dependent Origination just a little, made me realise that the major key to it all might be to try and understand Anatta. So, I wonder if anyone would care to give me the right perspective on Anatta. For instance, what views are common mistakes to hold, which would be better avoided. I put Anatta into Google,which is the way I usually learn, and found a number of Suttas and articles, but the one that has had most impact so far is the book by Sayadaw U Silananda, with an excerpt below. Hope this is not too boring for everyone, but I feel if I get this right and understand it, I will be a bit further down the Path. metta, Christine In "Inner Core - Anatta" Chapter 5 'Understanding Anatta' Sayadaw U Silananda http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/5787/anatta1.html "Another scholar John Blofeld, also claims that Buddha was really teaching a doctrine of two selves, one true Self or Soul, and one false personal self or ego. Notice in the following quote how he must clarify that the Zen doctrine of Self or One Mind is not in the reality the Atman of the Hindu Brahmins:- The doctrine of Atman has always been the centre of Buddhist controversy. There is no doubt that Gautama Buddha made it one of the central points of his teaching, but the interpretations of it are various. The Theravadins interpret it not only as "no self," but also as "no Self," thereby denying man both an ego and all participation in something of the nature of Universal Spirit or the One Mind. The Mahayanists accept the interpretation of "egolessness," holding that the real "Self" is none other than that indescribable "non-entity," the One Mind; something far less of an "entity" than the Ătman of the Brahmins. The "Universal Spirit," "One Mind," and "Self" which Blofeld finds within the anatta doctrine are really an Atman, an atta, of a finer substance, "less of an entity " as he says, but nevertheless an Atman. These ideas of atta are therefore in conflict with the anatta doctrine of the Buddha. As mentioned before, most Mahayanists accept the doctrine of anatta, but later schools of Mahayana, such as the Chinese Zen of which Blofeld writes, may have drifted into a soul-like theory. The controversy over the anatta doctrine seems to be based on a deep fear of the denial of the existence of a soul. People are often very attached to their lives, so they like to believe that there exists something everlasting, eternal, and permanent inside them. When someone comes along and tells them that there is nothing permanent in them, nothing by which they will continue eternally such as a soul, they may become frightened. They wonder what will become of them in the future - they have the fear of extinction. Buddha understood this, as we can see in the story of Vacchagotta, who, like many other people, was frightened and confused by the anatta doctrine. Vacchagotta was an ascetic who once went to the Buddha to discuss some important matters. He asked the Buddha, "Is there atta?" Buddha remained silent. Vacchagotta then asked, "Is there no atta" But Buddha again remained silent. After Vacchagotta went away Buddha explained to Ananda why he had remained silent. Buddha explained that He knew that Vacchagotta was very confused in his thinking about atta, and that if He were to respond that there does exist atta, then He would be expounding the eternalist view the eternal soul theory with which He did not agree. But if He were to say that atta did not exist, then Vacchagotta might think that He was expounding the annihilationist view, the view that a person is nothing but a psychophysical organism which will be completely annihilated at death. Since this latter view denies kamma, rebirth, and dependent origination, Buddha did not agree with this. Buddha teaches, in fact, that people are reborn with patisandhi, "relinking consciousness," a rebirth consciousness which does not transmigrate from the previous existence, but which comes into existence by means of conditions included in the previous existences, conditions such as kamma. Thus a reborn person is not the same as the one who has died, nor is the reborn person entirely different from the one who has died. Most importantly no metaphysical entity no soul, and no kind of spiritual self continues from one existence to another in Buddha's teaching. But this teaching was too difficult for Vacchagotta, and Buddha wanted to wait for a time when Vacchagotta would mature in intellect. Buddha was not a computer who gave automatic answers to every Question. He taught according to the circumstances and temperaments of the people, for their benefit. As it happened, Vacchagotta advanced spiritually through Vipassana meditation, which allowed him to realize the suffering, impermanent, and no-soul nature of all things, and he later became an Arahant. " 8106 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 8:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Dear Rob, Suan, Rob E, Howard & all, --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > > Dear Howard, http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/11-kevaddha-e.htm > 'The intellect of Arahatship, the invisible, the endless, > accessible from every side[23] > 'Where is it that earth, water, fire, and wind,...’ > > Recently I discussed this passage in MN with Anders (Aug 18th) and you'll see the conclusion in the conversation here is similar to Suan's far more detailed translation notes below I think: ************************************************ S: With regard to the MN 49 (24-26) passage you quoted: Sarah: >> B.Bodhi translates the passage as: > > 'the consciousness that makes no showing, > > And in becoming about to disbecome, > > Not claiming being with respect to all: > > that is not partaken of by the earthness of earth etc Maj NIk, 49, The Invitation of a Brahma,24-26 -------------------------------- S: The word 'consciousness' is translated from 'vi~n~naa.na.m' to be understood as 'cognizable' (vijaanitabba.m) and not consciousness according to the Pali com. as explained to me. As I mentioned, BB also added in his notes (513). , Sarah: >>"MA takes > >the subject of the sentence to be Nibbana, called 'consciousness' in the > >sense that "it can be cognized" '. ----------------------------------- S: Perhaps another translation of the first line could be: 'Cognizable (vi~n~naa.na.m), invisible (anidassana.m), shininig in all directions (ananta.m sabbatopabha)' Anders: > Hmm, well, we enter the realm of speculation as regards to the definition of > "consciousness" in this case. -------------------------------------- S:I think we all agree it refers to Nibbana. Sarah > >, but I fail to see why this description of nibbana has anything to > do > > with the idea of Nivana being present in us..... --------------------------------------- S:I hope that clarifies and thanks for raising these tricky lines! ******************************************************** --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Actually I had a converstaion with Suan recently about this as I > was puzzled by the somewhat confusing translations of this sutta > extract. > He wrote in his usual helpful way when I asked about this pali > phrase in the sutta: > > The original Pali found in Section 499, Kevatta Suttam, > Silakkhandhavagga, Dighanikayo starts with the term "Vińńanam". > > And Kevatta Sutta Atthakatha defines "Vińńanam" as follows. > > "Tattha vińńatabbanti "Vińńanam" nibbanassetam namam,.." > > "There, to be known specially, so (it is) "Vińńanam". This is > the > name of nibbana." > > And Kevatta Sutta Tika further explains the phrase > "vińńatabbanti" > as follows. > > "Vińńatabbanti visitthena ńatabbam, ńanuttamena > ariyamaggańanena paccakkhato janitabbanti attho, tenaha > "nibbanassetam namam"ti." > > "(To be known specially) means to be extraordinarily known. The > meaning is 'to be known in the sense of realization by ultimate > wisdom, by noble path wisdom'". Therefore, (the commentator) > stated > that 'This is the name of nibbana'" > > Therefore, the term 'Vińńanam' in the line of the original Pali > verse > > "Vińńanam anidassanam, anantam sabbatopabham .." does not refer > to > consciousness, the usual meaning of vińńanam. > > In fact, the same verse includes the following two lines > > "Ettha namańca rupańca, asesam uparujjhati > Vińńanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti". > > "Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases without > remainder. > By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here." > > Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness just because one > of > its Pali names happens to be Vińńanam. > > Suan 8107 From: KennethOng Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 8:33pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Contradictory statements are written so that there is no dwelling on any point of views as any point of views is attachement to a notion. The first four sentence is the illustration emptiness while the last two says about enlightment Kind rgds Kenneth Ong > > ============================= > > You quote from the Bahiya Sutta: > > **************************************************** > > "Where neither water nor yet earth > > Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, > > There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, > > There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. > > When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this > > For himself through his own wisdom, > > Then he is freed from form and formless. > > Freed from pleasure and from pain.", > > *********************************************************** 8108 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:07am Subject: Re: Trying to understand Anatta Dear Christine , Thanks for posting this article which I like very much. As the venerable notes, anatta is resisted by many. The difficulty of understanding anatta should not be underestimated. Someone may even think "there is no-self" and still be clinging to self idea while thinking this. If anatta is correctly understood this is sacca-nana and is the harbinger of the eighfold path - and that will dismantle the wheel of paticasamupada (dependent origination). And that means the end of this long, long round of birth and death. Anatta is the great fear of mara and he will use any means to resist, avoid, slip around, and distort in order not to see it. It is literally a fight for SELF existence. You asked about what to do to understand more. I think you are doing well. As a hint the Abhidhamma is said to have only one taste: the taste of anatta. best wishes robert --- "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > Dear List Members, > > The events of the last week have given extra impetus to me to try to > understand several teachings in Buddhism that I have been unable to > grasp completely. The first was Kamma - but I have decided to let > that sit awhile after getting a headache and more confused by all the > permutations and combinations I found while pondering on it. > > Looking into Kamma made me realise that I needed to study and > understand Dependant Origination as well. > Looking into Dependent Origination just a little, made me realise > that the major key to it all might be to try and understand Anatta. > So, I wonder if anyone would care to give me the right perspective on > Anatta. For instance, what views are common mistakes to hold, which 8109 From: rikpa21 Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 0:01pm Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E --- Sarah wrote: Hi Sarah, > I think this confusion is only from a Mahayana point of view where I understand > sabhava is synonymous with self (or close to it at least). Svabhava in the Mahayana is the equivalent of "independent essence"-- which is thoroughly rejected as inhering in anything in all schools of the Mahayana. > Rob E, I know you and Anders have a different understanding from a few of us on > some fundamental issues, I've seen nothing in Anders' presentation of anatta I would consider remotely at odds with Right Understanding. To the contrary, in fact. I have observed some interpret what he's saying in ways that don't accord with my interpretation of what he's saying, perhaps due to their being unaware of the fact there is an entire tradition of realized masters who use such terms as "Nature of Mind"--which does not mean what many conditioned by the Tripitaka's presentation of the Dharma may automatically assume it does. Hui Neng comes to mind on this point in the "Platform Sutra," for example. Yet, mysteriously, Hui Neng goes on to note in the same sutra that "when you get rid of the idea of a self and that of a being, Mount Meru will topple." I imagine such apparent contradictions might be a bit maddening to anyone who's latched on to the idea of anatta by itself as the be-all and end-all! Anyway, regarding folks like Hui Neng and in specific the Platform Sutra (where Hui Neng mentions this), Ajahn Chah noted: "Hui Neng's wisdom is very keen. It is very profound teaching, not easy for beginners to understand. But if you practice with our discipline and with patience, if you practice not- clinging, you will eventually understand." On that point, I can only concur heartily with both Ajahn Chah's and Anders' mention of letting go of clinging to views. And I find it very encouraging (and rather amusing) to see a teenager with a fraction of the textual training of the Abhidhamma scholars here able to cause such a ruckus, whose words carry more impact and clarity and insight by far, in my opinion, than the words of those questioning him. No offense intended, but I've observed what I consider more wisdom and behavior worthy of emulation coming from a mere teenager than I have from all the Abhidhamma scholars combined. Then again, I have been seeing an extraordinary degree of wisdom coming from teenagers lately. Perhaps that is because some of them are less fettered by preconceptions, views, and prejudices. When Ajahn Chah was asked "What is the biggest problem of your new disciples?" he replied: "Opinions. views and ideas about all things. About themselves, about practice, about the teachings of the Buddha. Many of those who come here have a high rank in the community. There are wealthy merchants or college graduates, teachers and government officials. Their minds are filled with opinions about things. They are too clever to listen to others. It is like water in a cup. If a cup is filled with dirty, stale water, it is useless. Only after the old water is thrown out can the cup become useful. You must empty your minds of opinions, then you will see. Our practice goes beyond cleverness and beyond stupidity. If you think;"I am clever, I am wealthy, I am important, I understand all about Buddhism."; You cover up the truth of anatta or no-self. All you will see is self, I, mine. But Buddhism is letting go of self. Voidness, Emptiness, Nibbana." And I can also imagine that if one were attached to one's own views about the Pali Canon as sole authority and simultaneously subject to the affliction of issa, the idea that anyone who accepts Mahayana scriptures (let alone a teenager) might be possessed of Right Understanding could be a rather disquieting prospect, given how many carefully guarded preconceptions that would be likely to upset. Merely entertaining this possibility could erode the foundations from beneath years of carefully constructed elaborations and (not to diminish the tragedy this last week) send the entire carefully constructed edifice of fabrications toppling. I can only hope that this is the case. > Nor, as I read the > Teachings, is there a Bodhi citta or Bodhisattva ideal to be realized by us (or > followed) if only we could read between the lines in the Tipitaka. I find this a rather interesting interpretation, given this was the very path that Shakyamuni Buddha took, as noted in the Pali Canon. I would think that if you reject the Bodhisattva path, then it would appear that by implication you also reject Shakyamuni Buddha, since that is how he became the Shakyamuni Buddha in the first place--at least according to the Suttas of the Pali Canon. Also, in rejecting Bodhicitta (Mind of Enlightenment) you reject lokuttara panna, because that is the precise definition of "Bodhicitta" in the systems that teach it. But I suppose first understanding those systems in the way they are intended to be understood may demand too much effort, and it's easier to reflexivly suggest an entire tradition that fails to accord with one's prejudices and speculations has somehow missed the mark. From this I can only assume that to some, the thought that the Mahayana could actually be the ariyan Dharma, is a threatening idea. Fortunately not all Theravadins are troubled by this possibility, and there are many--like Ajahn Chah and other apparently realized masters- -who do not appear to have any doubt that this is so. If this is true, then this would appear to present something of a problem for those who hold the view that the Pali Canon is the sole authority on the Buddha's teaching. Because if the Mahayana indeed teaches the ariyan Dharma--for example, the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Three Marks of Existence, has a correct interpretation of anatta (all dharmas are devoid of independent essence and self-nature), Nirvana is the absence of the defilements of greed hatred, and delusion--then as I see it to reject the Mahayana would be to reject Dharma that actually does lead to relinquishment, cessation, Nibbana. Further, when one examines the implications of this, in so rejecting any aspect of the ariyan Dharma, one rejects not only the Dharma, but also the Sangha, and by implication the Buddha--all Three Jewels simultaneously, because by this one is actually implying that the Buddha is a liar, that the ariyan Dharma is not in fact the ariyan Dharma, and does not lead to the cessation of dukkha. To me rejecting the Three Jewels like this would seem to be a pretty serious problem for anyone who professes to be a follower of the Buddha. So suggesting that anyone with the "Mahayana" label must be mistaken merely by virtue of their having a "Mahayana" label, and in sole dependence on that label cannot possibly have rightly understood the way leading to the cessation of suffering, seems a rather risky position to take. I would imagine that the implications of this view should give anyone serious about the entire point of the Buddha's Dharma--the cessation of suffering (and not something else, like the accumulation of praise or fame or book-knowledge)--pause for careful consideration. Particularly when that view must, by definition, be based entirely on speculation, as it is for anyone who has not yet actualized the fruits of the Noble Path. In fact, I would go even further and suggest that this very view could directly obstruct realizing the fruits of the Noble Path, because the presence of such views are certainly at odds with everything the Buddha actually taught--even in the Pali Canon--about the importance of relinquishing views as a necessary expedient to awakening to the Deathless. It could furthermore even serve as a condition for some quite akusala vipaka should one get carried away with this view and go so far as to actively denigrate the entire Mahayana tradition by suggesting it is not the ariyan Dharma. I know I'd prefer to avoid the vipaka of denigrating any tradition of the ariyan Dharma out of ignorance. Regardless, I can say that even if those who maintain this view might theoretically possess Right View (and I see no evidence of this in the slightest), that I consider this sort of rigidity so unworthy of emulation that I would instantly dismiss them with the thought that "this is not the Dhamma; this is not the Vinaya; this is not the teacher's instruction." I can certainly draw no correlation between such views and the Buddha's actual teachings, as they seem so at odds with the spaciousness and spirit of everything I've come to associate with what the Buddha taught in the Pali Canon and the Mahayana Sutras, which to me has only one taste: the taste of freedom. Constricted views and a fixation of sectarian dogmas reflect anything but freedom to me. The represent to me only a wilderness, a thicket, a contortion, a writhing, a fetter, of views. But that's just these khandas. To borrow again from one of my favorite Theravada teachers, Ajahn Chah: "There is one essential point that all good practice must eventually come to--not clinging. In the end, all meditation systems must be let go of. Neither can one cling to the teacher. If a system leads to relinquishment, to not clinging, then it is correct practice." Again, perhaps others would beg to differ with Ajahn Chah. The unstated implication is, of course, that any teaching which does not lead to relinquishment, to non-clinging, is not correct practice. I wonder if Ajahn Chah is somehow mistaken on this point. What do you think? I would just like to add that what Ajahn Chah says here accords perfectly with everything I've been taught by my Mahayana teachers and all my Theravada teachers at Wat Mahatat. And if Ajahn Chah's wrong on this point, then at least he has some excellent company-- company I feel far more comfortable associating with than those who do not appear to share this understanding. But that's just my conditioning--perhaps from being raised in a dogmatic environment, where I was confronted with rigidity and constricted thinking that I came to see was associated with great dukkha for the bearers of such views. From the Vajjiya Sutta: "Criticizing what should be criticized, praising what should be praised, the Blessed One is one who speaks making distinctions, not one who speaks categorically on this matter." > Yes, rather, but let me say I see sabhava as an aspect of reality rather than > an idea! I hope I've clarified rather than confused the issue further. I also > realize some of my comments may sound too direct or rigid. I apologise > sincerely if this is so. . I appreciate your careful consideration of my > earlier quotes and indeed all that is written on dsg. Speaking for these khandas, I prefer directness to beating around the bush. Particularly on matters like this. Please, feel free to share your opinions without fear of offending the likes of me. After all, it was seeing the the implication that the Dalai Lama is teaching corrupt Dharma that spurred me to join DSG in the first place, since I thought it might be interesting to examine that view in greater detail. I think that even if you disagree, I hope you do at least find find such dialogues entertaining, if not enlightening. :) 8110 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 2:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > Dear Gayan, > > Let me just say that I am not a scholar and sometimes my view is more > > instinctive > > than scriptural, but my sense from the Mahayana traditions that I have > > been > > interested in is that enlightenment is seen as the true condition of all > > beings, > > only delusion keeps it from being realized. Therefore, realization of > > one's true > > state is what is required, rather than an actual change in one's > > condition. > > Rob, I would not wish to discourage erudite thinking, but speculation is, > after all, only speculation no matter how erudite the mind of the thinker! > > Discussion based on instinct can only go so far and is of limited benefit > anyway, or so it seems to me. When I speak of instinct, I actually give it strong weight. It is more of a Mahayana idea, I am sure, that enlightenment is the nature of all beings, to be discovered through realization. There are plenty of Mahayana scriptures on the subject, but I'm not sure about Theravadin scriptures. Perhaps not. Chogyam Trungpa, a Tibetan Rinpoche in the Kagyu/Nyingma lineages, said something to the affect that when the deluded mind takes over, enlightenment takes on the characteristic of an underlying instinct. Although you may not agree with the premise, I think you would agree that the delusory mind is deluded, however, those of us trying to reach an more enlightened state have some sort of 'instinct' that such a thing exists. Otherwise, I don't think the scriptures and sutras would particularly excite us. We sense that what is spoken of is a reality. Personally, I feel that if one does not consult that reality in whatever way one has present access to it, then the sutras alone will not carry one. Each stage of the path must be experienced, must it not, to take root in the understanding, not just read about? My sense that enlightenment is one's true nature comes from glimpses and experiences I've had in meditation as well. If I had no experiential sense of this, I probably wouldn't even have a concept of it. I would think there is also a guiding set of experiences that you have cultivated through understanding or practice that makes the sutras 'real' to you. Is that not so? After all, even if we ended up with an > 'agreed' view on the question, what use would that be if it was not in > accord with the word of the teacher? So why not start with the scriptural > position from the outset! Certainly the scriptures are a guide to what is to be understood, practiced and experienced. But I feel that without cultivating the experiences, the scriptures cannot really be understood, except as general indications. As specific as the words may be, they indicate something that is to be understood, if not practiced, something to be realized. I understand that there has been quite a bit of discussion about not taking the Buddha's words as calls to 'actions'. But I would think that practice, whether in meditation or contemplation of reality, would be a focus on understanding, rather than an attempt to change behavior or perception through some sort of gross activity. > If you have any Theravada textual reference to support the proposition > that 'enlightenment is the true condition of all beings', I would be > interested to see it--unless you are accepting (below) that there is none. It is probably more of a Mahayana doctrine. I realize that this is a Theravadin study group, so perhaps other Buddhist sutras are not admissible. > > Of course, there are stages of development in Zen as there are in > > Theravadin > > meditation, but based on this idea of enlightenment being a pre-existing > > reality > > which needs to be discovered, rather than attained, the practice has a > > different > > flavor to some extent. It has led to some of the unusual behavior of > > Zen Masters > > which they use to awaken monks who are 'ready' to be pushed out of their > > conventional mindset. > > > > One of the characteristics of this, I believe, is that this makes Zen > > much more > > dependent on having a skillful teacher, while my sense of the Theravadin > > path is > > that while a teacher is sometimes essential, one can take the steps with > > some > > clarity even if a teacher is not available. > > There are any number of passages indicating the dependence of every > learner on hearing the true dhamma over and over again. The Buddha > explained that the dhamma is one's true teacher, and that we all need the > assistance of a kalayana mitta to understand it. I think references on > this have been given recently, but I could re-post if you would like > further elaboration. I would be interested in the role of the teacher, and I am sure that it is always helpful and important to have a teacher whenever possible. However, my point was that the Theravadin path is a bit more clear and step-wise than in Zen, and that if a teacher is not available it will be possible to at least follow it without straying totally off. Perhaps you disagree with that. I will be interested in your references on this. Best, Robert E. 8111 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 3:05pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > I think I said recently that there are two types of nibbana. The > first saupaadisesa-nibbaana,(`Nibbaana with the khandas still > remaining')which pertains while an arahant is still alive. In > this case there is absolute eradication of all kilesa > (defilements) upon attainment of arahantship (kilesa > -parinibbana). Thus the round of kilesa and the round of kamma > is brought to an end. There is, however ,still the round of > vipaka (vipaka-vatthu) which doesn't cease until > khandha-parinibbaana which takes place at the death of the > Arahat, called in the Suttas: `an-upaadisesa-nibbaana' i.e. > `(Nibbaana without the khandas remaining) > Perhaps the simile of the fire will help. > The fuel is craving > and ignorance. The fire is nama and rupa (ie the khandas). Once > that fuel is no longer being added (upon attainment of arahant) > the fire will soon die out(parinibbana > Arahant is a term useful to designate a stream of nama and rupa > (past, present or future) that no longer has avijja (and hence > no other defilements). > Before cuti citta(death moment) arises this stream is like a > fire where no > more fuel is added; at cuti citta the fire is finally > extinguished. > > It is different for a non-arahant. The term non-arahant helps > to designate a stream of nama and rupa where avijja and other > defilements keep arising. These are the fuel and it is > continually being added to (moments of insight excepted). When > cuti citta arise for this stream the fire is simply passed to > another place and the process continues. > robert So Parinibbana is in fact a final cessation of all experience, a complete extinction of all living qualities, including awareness? And there is no Buddhic life beyond the extinction of the body, once the fire is out? I assume that if the fire were still blazing, one's karmic tendencies might continue their activity in another realm, such as a ghost or god realm, so there is an acknowledgement of supernatural dimensions, but you are saying that once the fire is out there is no realm in which any residue of the Buddha's existence continues. It is just wiped out. So the final perfect peace of the Buddha is to cease to exist in Parinibbana? And are there Theravadin references to quote on this, that the Buddha specifically ceases to be completely? I understand the idea that since the Buddha never actually existed as an entity, that nothing is extinguished, but I am just saying the consciousness of the Buddha just ceases and there is no afterlife for one for whom there is no more karma, no more fire. Is that correct? So he that is called Buddha is no longer a Buddha -- he is no longer 'awake', any activity associated with him has been 'extinguished' with the death of the body. Thanks, Robert E. 8112 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 3:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 3 --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Robert E.: > The only place we > disagree, and it is an important place, is that you think that > awareness cannot > exist without a rising and falling experience of object. We are > both talking > about Nibbana here. If Nibbana is a form of awareness, if > awareness itself > [awake > being = Buddha] is the unformed, primal Element that can be > attributed to > Nibbana, > then it would *not* be a rising and falling consciousness that > is attached to an > object. It would be a still lake in which there is no ripple, > an absolute > awareness with no object. > It would not be prone to attachment or aversion, it would not > perceive mundane > objects, and it would not escape through the six sense-organs. > It would neither > become nor extinguish. It would merely be. It would have no > personal identity, > and it would neither die nor be reborn. > __________ > Dear Robert E. > perhaps this sutta helps: > > S. XXII. 94 > A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a mental > formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and persistent, > eternal and not subject to change, such a thing the wise men in > this world do not recognize; and I also say that there is no > such thing.{endquote] > robert Thanks, that certainly seems to make the position clear. It is quite different from the Mahayana canon in this way. I would like to hear from those who say that the two canons do not contradict each other. They do seem to. I would tend to think that the Buddha would not mention an unmoving awareness because one would turn it into a concept that would block the entry into Nibbana. However, I may be grasping at straws, as this sutra states quite unequivocally that no such thing exists. Robert E. 8113 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 3:08pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 2 --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Robert E.:the question is whether primal awareness is the same > as > consciousness as it is meant in the definition of the kandhas. > It still doesn't > make sense to me that Nibbana would be described as pure > cessation, while the > Buddha's name means 'one who is awake'. Someone who is awake > need not have a > self, but they have not totally ceased in their awareness. They > are awake, not > unconscious. This suggests a pure wakefulness, a pure > awareness, without an > object or modification, ie a transcendent nama that Nibbana > seems to be > classified > as. > > ....To me it suggests that the luminosity of pure awareness, > which is neither bright > nor dark, is the presence there. Where is this view explicitly > rejected in the > canon, Robert? I will certainly go and read it. > _____ > Dear Robert E., > I don't know if these are helpful. it took me a while to look > them up. I think others could find more. > > A. III. 32 > This, truly, is Peace, this is the Highest, namely the end of > all Karma formations, the forsaking of every substratum of > rebirth, the fading away of craving. detachment, extinction, > Nibbaana. > > A. I. 15 > And it is impossible that a being possessed of right > understanding should regard anything as the Self. > > > Ud. VIII. 1 > Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor > the fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any > other world, neither sun nor moon. > This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing > still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor > development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering. > > S. XXII. 30 > Hence the annihilation, cessation and overcoming of > corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations, and > consciousness: this is the extinction of suffering, the end of > disease, the overcoming of old age and death. (endsutta) > Thanks. The last one in particular is where the question arises whether consciousness is the same as unmodified awareness. Otherwise, I would have to agree that this sutra states that consciousness ceases and is annihilated. However, the other verse we have been looking at lately has the Buddha saying that while there is no sun or moon, 'darkness does not reign' and this suggests to me some form of light or awareness still present in the Nibbanic experience. Robert E. 8114 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 3:18pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Sarah, If I understand you, each dharma has a kind of 'flavor' which is all its own, and that is its essence or characteristic. In other words, its a way of saying that one tastes the actuality of that very thing itelf, rather than saying that it has an 'essence' like a 'self-nature' of some kind. I hope that's not put confusingly, and I hope I'm not misinterpreting your point! So the sabhava of Nibbana would merely mean its particular quality, which points to its quality of partaking of the cessation of all defilements, experiences, etc. would that be correct in your view? I'll just answer this briefly to see if I'm on the right track, in terms of grasping your point. And thanks for your hospitality when we bring up our odd views! Thanks, Robert E. =================== --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob E, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- Sarah wrote: > > > > > To my understanding, they couldn't possibly have the > > > same meaning because Pali sabhava, essence is > > > inherently reflecting the anatta characteristic of the > > > reality whereas the Sanskrit one would be reflecting a > > > thing, a self, atta.... > > > > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for all your quotes on the nature of Nibbana. I think this last > > statement > > kind of puts the conceptual conflict in a nutshell. I'm trying to understand > > how > > an essence can reflect the anatta characteristic. It seems to me that this > > is > > torturing the concept of 'essence'. Why say that something has an essence, > > only > > to say by definition that this essence is not an essence, but a not-essence? > > I think this confusion is only from a Mahayana point of view where I understand > sabhava is synonymous with self (or close to it at least). In the pali > Tipitaka, sabhava most certainly does not suggest this. So we talk (the Buddha > talks) about understanding realities through the 6 doorways, the 6 worlds. All > these realities have a characteristic, a ‘nature’ which is different from that > of another reality. Seeing only sees. It doesn’t experience sound. It isn’t > attached or averse to what is seen and so on. We can say a lot more about its > nature: it’s a nama, it’s anatta, impermanent and unsatisfactory. The more > understanding develops the more it penetrates or knows the nature or > characteristics of a reality. > > > An > > essence means that something has a central property of some kind, it must > > mean > > that there is something that can be characterized about it. We are able to > > distinguish between a ocnditioned and a non-conditioned reality, and I could > > accept the idea that Nibbana had a non-conditioned or primal essence. But if > > the > > essence is merely to reflect its characteristic of 'anatta' of not being a > > self or > > entity, it seems to me that this is a redundancy. [I am being redundant here > > too > > to try to tackle it from an angle or two]. Why not just say that it has no > > entity > > and thus has no essence? Why say it has an essence which is that it doesn't > > have > > an essence? > > I hope I’ve clarified this. All realities are anatta and (almost) all realities > have a sabhava, a nature, characteristics which are not self in any way. When I > discussed this topic with Howard ages ago, I think we both agreed that > ‘essence’ can be easily misunderstood as a translation....maybe just think of > it as characteristic: > > (Vism):sabhava...'..it is narrower than dhamma. It often > roughly corresponds to dhatu (element) and > lakkhana(characteristic), but less nearly to the > vaguer and (in Pali) untechnical pakati (nature), or > to rasa(function). The Athasalani observes: 'it is > the individual essence, or the generality, of such and > such dhammas that is called their characteristic' > (DhsA.63); on which the Mula Tika comments: 'The > individual essence consisting in, say, hardness as > that of earth, or touching as that of contact, is not > common to all dhammas....' > > > What I am implying is that if the Buddha used the term sabhava, > > and > > that means the essence of something, in this case Nibbana, then there must be > > a > > positive reason why he used it. In other words, Nibbana does partake of > > anatta, > > meaning that it cannot be defined as an entity or a self, but that it does > > have an > > essence. I wonder if there are any other descriptions, or a good way to > > search > > for, more descriptions of how the sabhava of Nibbana is meant or what it > > implies. > > This is the central question that we have been struggling with since Anders' > > and > > your thread on Nibbana as self or non-self, and this seems like a positive > > place > > to try to look at it. > > Rob E, I know you and Anders have a different understanding from a few of us on > some fundamental issues, but according to the Pali Tipitaka (according to my > understanding, of course), there is no nibbana being experienced now. All that > can ever be known are the realities appearing now, which means understanding > their characteristics or natures (in theory and directly) very well indeed. > Without beginning to understand the difference clearly between namas and rupas > there is no way to even reach the first vipassana nana, let alone higher > levels. A moment of satipatthana (awareness) of one of these realities has > nothing to do with nibbana (except very indirectly) and right now, unless there > is the understanding of one of these same realities, there is no panna (wisdom) > either. In other words there is no all-encompassing awareness or panna to be > seen now if only the clouds of ignorance could be removed. Nor, as I read the > Teachings, is there a Bodhi citta or Bodhisattva ideal to be realized by us (or > followed) if only we could read between the lines in the Tipitaka. > > Just to finish, may I add a quote and note that Rob K gave earlier in a post to > Howard: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the majjhimanikaya tika (mulapariyaya sutta) has the following > to say. I use bhikkhu bodhi's translation p39. > It comments on the atthakatha which says "they bear their own > characteristics, thus they are dhammas." > The tika(subcommentary ) notes. "although there are no dhammas > devoid of their own characteristics this is said for the purpose > of showing that mere dhammas endowed with their specific natures > devoid of such attributes as being etc... whereas such entities > as self, permanence or nature, soul, body etc are mere > misconstructions due to craving and views...and cannot be > discovered as ultinately real actualities, these dhammas > (ie.those endowed with a specific sabhava) can. these dhammas > are discovered as actually real actualties. And although 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. Also they are borne, or they are discerned, known , > acccording to their specific nature, thus they are dhammas" > > It should be noted that when it says they are real, essence etc. > this doesn't imply existence in the usual sense of an > independent lasting thing. All dhammas are conditioned in > complex ways by other dhammas It is just a flux happening so > fast that time itself can only be understood by reference to the > change of dhammas. > robert > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Aren't you glad you brought up that idea? > > Yes, rather, but let me say I see sabhava as an aspect of reality rather than > an idea! I hope I’ve clarified rather than confused the issue further. I also > realize some of my comments may sound too direct or rigid. I apologise > sincerely if this is so. . I appreciate your careful consideration of my > earlier quotes and indeed all that is written on dsg. > > Sarah > 8115 From: Howard Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/17/01 6:44:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > So Parinibbana is in fact a final cessation of all experience, a complete > extinction of all living qualities, including awareness? And there is no > Buddhic > life beyond the extinction of the body, once the fire is out? > > I assume that if the fire were still blazing, one's karmic tendencies might > continue their activity in another realm, such as a ghost or god realm, so > there > is an acknowledgement of supernatural dimensions, but you are saying that > once the > fire is out there is no realm in which any residue of the Buddha's existence > continues. It is just wiped out. So the final perfect peace of the Buddha > is to > cease to exist in Parinibbana? And are there Theravadin references to > quote on > this, that the Buddha specifically ceases to be completely? > > I understand the idea that since the Buddha never actually existed as an > entity, > that nothing is extinguished, but I am just saying the consciousness of the > Buddha > just ceases and there is no afterlife for one for whom there is no more > karma, no > more fire. Is that correct? > > So he that is called Buddha is no longer a Buddha -- he is no longer > 'awake', any > activity associated with him has been 'extinguished' with the death of the > body. > > Thanks, > Robert E. > ============================== I understand one Theravadin interpretation of this issue to be the following: Nibbana, whether "entered" by the living arahant or as final nibbana, is essentially the same; "in" it, there is no person/sense of self, and there are no objects discerned; there is, in my words, an impersonal light of awareness going on infinitely, a radiance which falls on no objects, which casts no shadows, which is the ultimate emptiness, purity, and perfection - the cool cave, the refuge, the island. The living arahant, due to the playing out of kammic traces, still perceives objects, but there is no sense of a "self" dualistically perceiving them, nor are the objects reified, but, rather, the objects are seen through as empty of independent existence, and nothing whatsoever is grasped at or pushed away. The main difference that I see between the Theravadin and Mahayanist understandings on this issue pertains to the "ultimate fate" of an arahant who is a Buddha. In Theravada, a Buddha is such by virtue only of having mastered all ten perfections, perfected all skillful means in order to be the perfect teacher of the Dhamma, and who reintroduces the Dhamma at a time and place where it is not known, but in Mahayana, it is understood, in addition, that such a being has the capacity, and is propelled by compassion, to forego final entry to nibbana upon death, to maintain a kind of contact with the realm of conditions in order to continue to teach the Dhamma to sentient beings in various realms. This Mahayanist assumption certainly makes great sense to me, and has great appeal to me, but that is not a particularly significant fact! ;-)) What is true in this regard is true regardless of what might or might not make sense to me or to any of us. Frankly, none of us really knows what is the truth here, and I fail to see how it really matters. The facts are the facts. Meanwhile, as I see it, we should walk the path as well as we can, with metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha, helping whomever we can at every step of the way, and constantly striving to grow in wisdom and compassion. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8116 From: Howard Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 5:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 3 Hi, Robert (and Robert K) - In a message dated 9/17/01 6:48:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > > S. XXII. 94 > > A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a mental > > formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and persistent, > > eternal and not subject to change, such a thing the wise men in > > this world do not recognize; and I also say that there is no > > such thing.{endquote] > > robert > > Thanks, that certainly seems to make the position clear. It is quite > different > from the Mahayana canon in this way. I would like to hear from those who > say that > the two canons do not contradict each other. They do seem to. > > ======================= In this quoted material, the items referred to are instances of the five khandas; they are conditioned phenomena, and all conditioned phenomena are anicca. But nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, and it is not impermanent. It is a timeless, ultimate emptiness, perfect in every way, and certainly not a dead state of dark unconsciousness. Nibbana is the cessation of greed, hatred, and ignorance, shining with the brightness of wisdom, and not a dark annihilation! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8117 From: gayan Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 9:44pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear robert e., > > yes, but the question is: where there is no darkness, is there not light? > I will state another sutta [ you'll just love this too :o) ] Udapaana Sutta Kim kaira udapaanena aapaac(h)e sabbada siyum,? tanhaaya muulato c(h)etva, kissa pariyesanam c(h)are? What's the need for a well if water is everywhere? Having cut craving by the root,( tanhakkhaya - nibbana ) One would go about searching for what? rgds, gayan 8118 From: KennethOng Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 10:07pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E After looking at a few points made by Sarah, Robert E and rikpa21(sorry did not get your name), I would like to say that what Sarah and Robert are trying to do is describing emptiness which in the first place impossible to describe. As what Rikpa21 has quoted Hui Neng text "when you get rid of the idea of a self and that of a being, Mount Meru will topple" (in the first place how do you get rid of a self that is inherently empty by nature, hence if you are able to get rid of a self which is empty, thn mount meru will also topple which is impossible) only through contridictary sentence will emptiness could be know. When we try to understand more and more abt emptiness in words, it is impossible to understand. For example in Mahayana, all dharma is deviod of nature, which means the self is empty by nature but if it is empty what is that (the eyes) looking at the email. If it is not you, pinch yourself see whether you feel pain or not. This is emptiness. When Buddha talks about emptiness, it is not completely empty, if it is completely empty then it is on one extreme end of nihilism. if it is something then it attached to a view of eternalism. Emptiness can only be experience and not explain hence no matter how well we describe even using sutras as references, we will never able to explain emptiness in words. Emptiness has no dwelling as any form of reference is attachement, any words describing is wrong. There is a story about a monk when to preach about Buddhism on the stage, he kept quiet and then left. When pple ask him why he did that, he said he has just preached buddhism. My humble opinion is that his action is about emptiness, as any form of describing is wrong, even thoughts of desribing is also wrong that is why he kept quiet. This is the essence of emptiness and words cannot adequately explain. If it can be explain easily Buddha would have used one sutra to do it just like the four noble truth, but in fact Buddha use a large number of sutras trying to explain emptiness idea or concept. Kind regards Kenneth Ong rikpa21 wrote: --- Sarah wrote: Hi Sarah, > I think this confusion is only from a Mahayana point of view where I understand > sabhava is synonymous with self (or close to it at least). Svabhava in the Mahayana is the equivalent of "independent essence"-- which is thoroughly rejected as inhering in anything in all schools of the Mahayana. > Rob E, I know you and Anders have a different understanding from a few of us on > some fundamental issues, I've seen nothing in Anders' presentation of anatta I would consider remotely at odds with Right Understanding. To the contrary, in fact. I have observed some interpret what he's saying in ways that don't accord with my interpretation of what he's saying, perhaps due to their being unaware of the fact there is an entire tradition of realized masters who use such terms as "Nature of Mind"--which does not mean what many conditioned by the Tripitaka's presentation of the Dharma may automatically assume it does. Hui Neng comes to mind on this point in the "Platform Sutra," for example. Yet, mysteriously, Hui Neng goes on to note in the same sutra that "when you get rid of the idea of a self and that of a being, Mount Meru will topple." I imagine such apparent contradictions might be a bit maddening to anyone who's latched on to the idea of anatta by itself as the be-all and end-all! Anyway, regarding folks like Hui Neng and in specific the Platform Sutra (where Hui Neng mentions this), Ajahn Chah noted: "Hui Neng's wisdom is very keen. It is very profound teaching, not easy for beginners to understand. But if you practice with our discipline and with patience, if you practice not- clinging, you will eventually understand." On that point, I can only concur heartily with both Ajahn Chah's and Anders' mention of letting go of clinging to views. And I find it very encouraging (and rather amusing) to see a teenager with a fraction of the textual training of the Abhidhamma scholars here able to cause such a ruckus, whose words carry more impact and clarity and insight by far, in my opinion, than the words of those questioning him. No offense intended, but I've observed what I consider more wisdom and behavior worthy of emulation coming from a mere teenager than I have from all the Abhidhamma scholars combined. Then again, I have been seeing an extraordinary degree of wisdom coming from teenagers lately. Perhaps that is because some of them are less fettered by preconceptions, views, and prejudices. When Ajahn Chah was asked "What is the biggest problem of your new disciples?" he replied: "Opinions. views and ideas about all things. About themselves, about practice, about the teachings of the Buddha. Many of those who come here have a high rank in the community. There are wealthy merchants or college graduates, teachers and government officials. Their minds are filled with opinions about things. They are too clever to listen to others. It is like water in a cup. If a cup is filled with dirty, stale water, it is useless. Only after the old water is thrown out can the cup become useful. You must empty your minds of opinions, then you will see. Our practice goes beyond cleverness and beyond stupidity. If you think;"I am clever, I am wealthy, I am important, I understand all about Buddhism."; You cover up the truth of anatta or no-self. All you will see is self, I, mine. But Buddhism is letting go of self. Voidness, Emptiness, Nibbana." And I can also imagine that if one were attached to one's own views about the Pali Canon as sole authority and simultaneously subject to the affliction of issa, the idea that anyone who accepts Mahayana scriptures (let alone a teenager) might be possessed of Right Understanding could be a rather disquieting prospect, given how many carefully guarded preconceptions that would be likely to upset. Merely entertaining this possibility could erode the foundations from beneath years of carefully constructed elaborations and (not to diminish the tragedy this last week) send the entire carefully constructed edifice of fabrications toppling. I can only hope that this is the case. > Nor, as I read the > Teachings, is there a Bodhi citta or Bodhisattva ideal to be realized by us (or > followed) if only we could read between the lines in the Tipitaka. I find this a rather interesting interpretation, given this was the very path that Shakyamuni Buddha took, as noted in the Pali Canon. I would think that if you reject the Bodhisattva path, then it would appear that by implication you also reject Shakyamuni Buddha, since that is how he became the Shakyamuni Buddha in the first place--at least according to the Suttas of the Pali Canon. Also, in rejecting Bodhicitta (Mind of Enlightenment) you reject lokuttara panna, because that is the precise definition of "Bodhicitta" in the systems that teach it. But I suppose first understanding those systems in the way they are intended to be understood may demand too much effort, and it's easier to reflexivly suggest an entire tradition that fails to accord with one's prejudices and speculations has somehow missed the mark. From this I can only assume that to some, the thought that the Mahayana could actually be the ariyan Dharma, is a threatening idea. Fortunately not all Theravadins are troubled by this possibility, and there are many--like Ajahn Chah and other apparently realized masters- -who do not appear to have any doubt that this is so. If this is true, then this would appear to present something of a problem for those who hold the view that the Pali Canon is the sole authority on the Buddha's teaching. Because if the Mahayana indeed teaches the ariyan Dharma--for example, the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Three Marks of Existence, has a correct interpretation of anatta (all dharmas are devoid of independent essence and self-nature), Nirvana is the absence of the defilements of greed hatred, and delusion--then as I see it to reject the Mahayana would be to reject Dharma that actually does lead to relinquishment, cessation, Nibbana. Further, when one examines the implications of this, in so rejecting any aspect of the ariyan Dharma, one rejects not only the Dharma, but also the Sangha, and by implication the Buddha--all Three Jewels simultaneously, because by this one is actually implying that the Buddha is a liar, that the ariyan Dharma is not in fact the ariyan Dharma, and does not lead to the cessation of dukkha. To me rejecting the Three Jewels like this would seem to be a pretty serious problem for anyone who professes to be a follower of the Buddha. So suggesting that anyone with the "Mahayana" label must be mistaken merely by virtue of their having a "Mahayana" label, and in sole dependence on that label cannot possibly have rightly understood the way leading to the cessation of suffering, seems a rather risky position to take. I would imagine that the implications of this view should give anyone serious about the entire point of the Buddha's Dharma--the cessation of suffering (and not something else, like the accumulation of praise or fame or book-knowledge)--pause for careful consideration. Particularly when that view must, by definition, be based entirely on speculation, as it is for anyone who has not yet actualized the fruits of the Noble Path. In fact, I would go even further and suggest that this very view could directly obstruct realizing the fruits of the Noble Path, because the presence of such views are certainly at odds with everything the Buddha actually taught--even in the Pali Canon--about the importance of relinquishing views as a necessary expedient to awakening to the Deathless. It could furthermore even serve as a condition for some quite akusala vipaka should one get carried away with this view and go so far as to actively denigrate the entire Mahayana tradition by suggesting it is not the ariyan Dharma. I know I'd prefer to avoid the vipaka of denigrating any tradition of the ariyan Dharma out of ignorance. Regardless, I can say that even if those who maintain this view might theoretically possess Right View (and I see no evidence of this in the slightest), that I consider this sort of rigidity so unworthy of emulation that I would instantly dismiss them with the thought that "this is not the Dhamma; this is not the Vinaya; this is not the teacher's instruction." I can certainly draw no correlation between such views and the Buddha's actual teachings, as they seem so at odds with the spaciousness and spirit of everything I've come to associate with what the Buddha taught in the Pali Canon and the Mahayana Sutras, which to me has only one taste: the taste of freedom. Constricted views and a fixation of sectarian dogmas reflect anything but freedom to me. The represent to me only a wilderness, a thicket, a contortion, a writhing, a fetter, of views. But that's just these khandas. To borrow again from one of my favorite Theravada teachers, Ajahn Chah: "There is one essential point that all good practice must eventually come to--not clinging. In the end, all meditation systems must be let go of. Neither can one cling to the teacher. If a system leads to relinquishment, to not clinging, then it is correct practice." Again, perhaps others would beg to differ with Ajahn Chah. The unstated implication is, of course, that any teaching which does not lead to relinquishment, to non-clinging, is not correct practice. I wonder if Ajahn Chah is somehow mistaken on this point. What do you think? I would just like to add that what Ajahn Chah says here accords perfectly with everything I've been taught by my Mahayana teachers and all my Theravada teachers at Wat Mahatat. And if Ajahn Chah's wrong on this point, then at least he has some excellent company-- company I feel far more comfortable associating with than those who do not appear to share this understanding. But that's just my conditioning--perhaps from being raised in a dogmatic environment, where I was confronted with rigidity and constricted thinking that I came to see was associated with great dukkha for the bearers of such views. From the Vajjiya Sutta: "Criticizing what should be criticized, praising what should be praised, the Blessed One is one who speaks making distinctions, not one who speaks categorically on this matter." > Yes, rather, but let me say I see sabhava as an aspect of reality rather than > an idea! I hope I've clarified rather than confused the issue further. I also > realize some of my comments may sound too direct or rigid. I apologise > sincerely if this is so. . I appreciate your careful consideration of my > earlier quotes and indeed all that is written on dsg. Speaking for these khandas, I prefer directness to beating around the bush. Particularly on matters like this. Please, feel free to share your opinions without fear of offending the likes of me. After all, it was seeing the the implication that the Dalai Lama is teaching corrupt Dharma that spurred me to join DSG in the first place, since I thought it might be interesting to examine that view in greater detail. I think that even if you disagree, I hope you do at least find find such dialogues entertaining, if not enlightening. :) 8119 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 10:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > What a great explanation, very thorough and helpful. This makes a lot > of sense. It's kind of you to say so. I'm glad you found it useful. > I have two points or questions that I might ask you to comment on: > > 1. If all realities present an equal opportunity for insight, why are > the kilesas > sometimes emphasized as faults to be corrected? Fro instance, when the > Buddha, in > a recent quote, admonished the monks for lying to promote their > reputations, was > he not admonishing them to change their unwholesome behavior? Rather > than > presenting this as an object for insight, it seemed that he was making a > moral > distinction and pointing out the monks' impurity. If Buddha wished to > make the > point that you make below, that we should focus on the conditions which > lead to > the overall eradication of kilesas, rather than obsessing on individual > problems > one by one, why would the Buddha not make this distinction clear when > discussing > moral and ethical faults? The manner in which it is discussed seems > like it would > lead to individuals inspecting and trying to correct their moral and > ethical > shortcomings, a major distraction on the path, according to your wise > words below. I think the suttas read like this because of the distance, both in time, between then and now, and in level of understanding, between those who were the listeners at the time of the Buddha and us today. Many of the original listeners were on the verge of enlightenment, so it could be assumed that they would understand things in terms of the present moment reality. It was not necessary for the Buddha to be as explicit about these things then as it would be for us today. It is difficult to discuss the suttas in general. I am happy to look at specific passages if you would like to mention any (I have not identified the one that was referred to in the earlier post you mention above). > 2. I assume that while one should not waste their energy trying to > chase after > their problems and shortcomings, in other words to eradicate kilesas, > that > accumulating virtues is somewhat different and that the virtues can be > directly > cultivated through effort? If this is not the case, and attempting to > purposefully cultivate virtue is also a distraction and cannot be > effected by > will, then where would the role of Sila be left in the path? Sila, and all forms of kusala, play a very important role in the path. Wholesomeness of all kinds can and does arise from time to time, naturally, without being 'made' to happen. A such moments the effort is 'right' by nature. If there is some level of awareness of the wholesomeness, this is the development or cultivation of kusala/sila. Awareness and understanding are the kinds of kusala that are of greatest benefit to the development of sila and all other kinds of kusala. We should know more about both the kusala and the akusala that arise in our lives, just as we should also know more about the non-kusala/akusala moments, too. Jon 8120 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 10:20pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Jon, > > I can certainly see that the development of pańńaa (by > pariyatti and satipathaana) must precede that of the > paaramiis (otherwise what would motivate their > development?). Is it not true, though, that the two > are mutually supportive once the paaramiis have begun > to be developed? Or am I mistaken about this? I think Nina has probably explained this, but I will add my two cents' worth. The qualities that are the paramis (generosity, determination, etc.) can be developed by any one at any time, but the level at which the quality is being developed will depend on the level of understanding or otherwise that accompanies the moment of consciousness. So I don't think it's necessary to think in terms of panna being developed first or the paramis being developed first. If we see the importance of developing kusala we will develop all kinds of kusala--including panna and the qualities that are the paramis--as and when the occasion arises. You are, I believe, right to say that the two are mutually supportive-- that is certainly how I would see it. Thanks for your observations. Jon 8121 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 10:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Descriptive vs. path of action Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Wrong view is a kind of akusala classified as lobha (attachment). It > > takes realties for what they are not ie. it takes the impermanent as > > permanent, the not-self as self etc. > > > > However, all akusala is rooted ultimately in ignorance. Ignorance is > not > > knowing realties. > > > > If I may anticipate your next question, ignorance of the past is a > > condition for the ignorance that arises now. > > > > Jon > > And how it started in the first place is one of the questions you're not > supposed > to ask because it is impossible to answer? As I recall, it was said that 'the beginning is not discernable' or something like that. Jon 8122 From: m. nease Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 10:37pm Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Dear Robert, I composed most of this on Friday, and see that there's been a lot of activity on the list since then. I've been away from my computer, so I apologize if any of my comments here are redundant or fail to take into account subsequent posts. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks, Mike. Here is my question to you, perhaps > one which is very difficult to > answer or even shouldn't be answered. If there is > not some sort of positive > presence in Nibbana, albeit not a 'self' or a > 'condition', what is then denoted by > saying that one has attained it? I think this is one of those (many) cases where one has to sort of jump back and forth between conventional and more technical speech. I know that you know that there is no 'one' who attains, still conventionally it can be said that 'one attains nibbaana'. > When I say > 'positive' I don't mean 'good' or > 'worthy' or anything like that. Yes, I think I understand you. > I just mean > positive as in the positive numbers: > something that can be asserted. You have a number > of things in Theravada that can > be denied about Nibbana, things that have been > eliminated in order to reach it. I find it confusing to think in terms of asserting and denying things about nibbaana--I just think of it as the cessation of dukkha. > You have a number of positive states that have been > entered into in order to reach > it: Right View, Right Thinking, Right > Concentration, insights and jhanas. > The > essence of all of these positive states that are > entered into is that they are > increasingly refined forms of apprehensions or > awareness. Not sure what you mean by 'positive states'. The path factors and so on are mental factors, arising and subsiding instantaneously with moments of consciousness. Certainly no one to 'enter into' them, even conventionally speaking. Also not sure what you mean by 'essence', 'apprehensions' or 'awareness'. If by awareness you mean sati, this is also a cetasika and a path-factor, which arises and subsides instantaneously like the others. > There is no 'self' > discovered that is receiving these insights or > understandings, but the refinement > of understanding and attention themselves are > certainly there. As I understand it, insight (vipassanaa) arises and subsides instantaneously and refines understanding (pańńaa), which accumulates and is passed along from citta to citta. If by 'attention' you mean sati, it is sati (again momentary) that leads to vipassanaa (also momentary). Hope you don't mind if I break this question down a little: > So, when all the > defilements and delusions are eliminated in order to > create the Nirvanic state, This is a very odd way of putting it, to my my way of thinking. I'm unaware of the Buddha's having spoken of anything like 'the Nirvanic state'. To speak of 'creating' nibbaana is also, I think, an error. Nibbaana is just the cessation of dukkha, as I understand it. > is > the refined awareness and insight and awareness that > has been so meticulously > developed to create the ladder to Nibbana also > eliminated, By 'awareness', do you mean sati? And by 'insights', vipassanaa? If so, I think you're referring to satipatthaana vipassanaa. If by 'the ladder to Nibbana' you mean the path, I think it's a very odd metaphor. The path is not a structure, but a collection of mental factors arising and subsiding simultaneously and instantaneously, as I understand it. > or are they merely > surpassed in a state that contains the same essence > as this development but is > totally beyond them? What is there to be surpassed, and by whom? The path factors simply arise and then vanish completely. When they've finished their function, dukkha is permanantly eradicated. > It would make logical sense that the essence of the > path would be exemplified in > its most refined form in its final attainment, > Nibbana. Again, I think it's a mistake to think of the path as having an essence--just a very quick confluence of mental factors, with the supreme function of eradicating defilement, then vanishing completely. > To think that all is > eliminated and that there is merely negation of > negatives just doesn't make sense. Only if you think of there being something lasting that can be negated or eliminated or whatever. Like all other cetasikas, the path-factors arise, perform their function and fall away completely. > It is not because of Mahayana doctrines that it > doesn't make sense, Well, my take on this is that it is a difference between the Mayahana and Theravada. My knowledge of Mahayana doctrine is vague though, based on many years as a Zen student but little academic study (aside from having read a number of classics). So I may well be mistaken about this. > but because > of the path outlined by the Buddha and all of his > statements about the > pleasantness and uplifted quality of each > progressive stage on the path. If you're referring to the stages of enlightenment, they are subjectively very pleasant and uplifting, no doubt (at least I imagine so--this is probably addressed more specifically in the abhidhamma). > Where is > that quality of refined joy and total discernment > that characterize the Buddha's > own statements and presumably his own state? The mental factors arising and subsiding with the moments of consciousness of a Buddha are very refined, no doubt--to say the least! I'm sure these are catalogued somewhere in the abhidhamma, too. For sure they fall away completely in an instant. > They > are contained in and are the > natural emanation of the state of Nibbana, of > Arahatship, of Buddhahood. You seem to be equivocating nibbaana with Arahatship and Buddhahood. The second two are very similar (though not identical)--nibbaana is simply the permanent cessation of dukkha, as I understand it. > So it > doesn't make sense to me that one cannot assert that > there is a positive state, > experience, or awareness in Nibbana. The question is, why would one assert such a thing, with no record of the Buddha's every having taught it? At least if there is any such assertion in the tipitaka, I've never run across it. If you're aware of such a teaching in the tipitaka, I'd like to hear about it. Otherwise, to interpolate this into the Buddhadhamma is a very big mistake, I think. > The Buddha is > not 'dead'. He has not been > annihilated by attaining Nibbana and Buddhahood. In which of the aggregates is, or was, there someone to be annihilated (or not)? > In > fact he is completely free > and 'awake'. Certainly the Buddha was one who 'awoke' (achieved the cessation of dukkha), conventionally speaking. If 'he is completely free and 'awake'', in what aggregate or element is 'he' to be found? In fact, I think that to say that the Buddha 'is completely free and 'awake'' is nothing less than bizarre, from the Theravada perspective as I understand it (no offense!) > Buddha means 'one who is awake'. Can > one be 'awake' without > sentience/consciousness/awareness? This also > doesn't make sense. If you want to > say that the Buddha is 'awake' but has none of those > other attributes or > qualities, you would have to at least say, based on > his most popular title alone, > that he at least partakes of 'awakeness'. Awakeness > and awareness are synonyms. The Buddha 'awoke' (speaking conventionally) when he achieved cessation of dukkha. After that, he could be called 'awake' up until parinibbaana. At that point, the conditions for the arising of any further naamas (cittas or cetasikas, consciousnesses and mental factors) were completely exhausted, as I understand it. The rupas which composed his physical form will continue to arise and subside as long as the conditions exist for their continued existence. > There is nothing about being 'awake' or 'aware' that > necessitates a 'self'. > Awareness is not contradictory with anatta, nor does > there have to be an object of > awareness to 'create' the awareness, I'm still not sure what you mean by 'awareness'. If you're referring to a citta, there certainly does have to be an object. If you're referring to a cetasika, it must arise with a citta which itself must have an object. > if awareness is > the very essence of the state > itself, nor does there have to be any arising and > falling away of awareness if it > is not modified by any object of awareness. Again, I'm unaware of any support for this idea in the Pali canon. > There > is no reason why nibbana cannot > be the most refined and totally free [free of object > and modification] state of > awareness possible, the absolute essence of being > sentient, minus the mental > modifications, minus the self, minus the kandhic > idenfiications and samskaric > accumulations. Again, I'm unaware of any support for this idea in the Pali canon. > I think it can work with Theravadan > doctrine as it stands. But > this is just my unschooled intuition so I'm happy to > have more learned arguments > thrown at me by those who know the Suttas. Well, after all, my objections are base on my own opinions of what I've read, heard and experienced too. As I've said before, I'm by no means certain of my own views. I do find your openness on these subjects admirable. > You see my problem with asserting Nibbana as nothing > but negation? I think I do. However, cessation isn't negation of anything--just cessation. > I hope some of > you can help me with this issue. Thanks for challenging my own perspectives, Robert. Always good to hear from you. mike 8123 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 2:04am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Jon: --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I think Nina has probably explained this, but I will > add my two cents' > worth. Yes, I'm sure she has but always benefit from explanations from a slightly different perspective. > The qualities that are the paramis (generosity, > determination, etc.) can > be developed by any one at any time, but the level > at which the quality is > being developed will depend on the level of > understanding or otherwise > that accompanies the moment of consciousness. Yes, this makes perfect sense. From this angle, understanding does condition the degree of kusala of the parami being developed (or rather developing), so pańńaa seems to be unique among the paramis in this regard. If so, it seems to be a kind of pre-immminent parami. Is this supported by the abhidhamma? (Apologies if someone has already made this clear). > So I don't think it's necessary to think in terms of > panna being developed > first or the paramis being developed first. If we > see the importance of > developing kusala we will develop all kinds of > kusala--including panna and > the qualities that are the paramis--as and when the > occasion arises. Likewise, if the importance of developing understanding specifically is seen, this knowledge will condition the development of more pańńaa specifically, I should think. That is, this seems to me to encourage a particular emphasis on understanding in the development of the paramis. Thanks again, mike 8124 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 3:33am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Hi Howard, --- Howard wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I can't think of a nicer guy to be in > disagreement with! ;-)) I have > simply expressed an opinion, one in which I have not > very much invested. I > could be quite wrong. When it comes to what nibbana > is I doubt that any of us > really know what we are talking about! ;-)) Thanks, Howard, the sentiment is mutual. When it comes to those things that most of us(!) don't claim to know from experience, I think it's all the more important to understand what the Buddha taught on the subject. I appreciate your efforts to do so, as always. > As far as the Theravada/Mahayana distinction > is concerned on this > issue, I would like to point out that the talk of > unmanifestive discernment > being "infinite, luminous all around, and falling on > no objects" is derived > from the Pali Sutta Pitaka, not Mahayana sources. If I remember this correctly, this referred to bhavanga(?), which certainly ceases to rearise after parinibbaana, by my understanding of the canon. Unfortunately, it seems to open a door for the positing of some sort of 'cosmic consciousness', which concept I believe is clearly alien to the Theravada. (By the way, if you have the citation handy, would you mind re-posting it?--thanks). Always a pleasure, Howard, mike 8125 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 3:39am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Thanks, Howard, I see you have re-posted the excerpt from the Kevatta sutta. From this glimpse, it doesn't seem to refer to the bhavanga. I'll give the whole thing a read and get back to you. mike --- Howard wrote: > ================================== > > This material you quote shouldn't be blamed > on Robert E. I was the one > who wrote it. With regard to it, I refer you to the > end portion of the > Kevatta Sutta, DN 11, to be found on Access to > Insight: > > ************************************* > "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: > Where do these four great > elements -- the earth property, the liquid property, > the fire property, and > the wind property -- cease without remainder? > Instead, it should be phrased > like this: > > Where do water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing? > > Where are long & short, > > coarse & fine, > > fair & foul, > > name & form > > > > "'And the answer to that is: > > Consciousness without feature, > > without end, > > luminous all around: > > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing. > > Here long & short > > coarse & fine > > fair & foul > > name & form > > are all brought to an end. > > With the cessation of [the activity of] > consciousness > > > > That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, > Kevatta the householder > delighted in the Blessed One's words. 8126 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 4:37am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hello Again, Howard, Well, I asked for citations from the Dhammavinaya and you seem to have come up with two, anyway. Still don't know quite what to make of these, but will get back to you. mike --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > It's really hard to know about the proper > translation and meaning, > especially for a total Pali-neophyte such as me. > > Bhikkhu ~NAnananda translates this as : > > "Consciousness which is non-manifestive - > endless, lustrous on all > sides, > Here it is that earth and water-fire and air > no footing find; > Here, again, are long and short - fine and > coarse - pleasant > > and > unpleasant > And name-and-form - all cut off without > exception. > When consciousness comes to cease - all > these are held in > > > check herein." > > He also translates from the Brahmanimantanika > Sutta, in MN I as follows: > > "Consciousness which is non-manifestive, > infinite and lustrous > all around: it does not partake of the > solidity of earth, ..., the > allness > of the all" > > Peter Harvey, in his book "The Sefless Mind" > uses a similar > translation: > > "Discernment, non-manifestive, accessible > from all round (vi~n~nAnam > anidassanam, anantam, sabbato paham)." > > But, in any case, I think that Robert > Epstein's point about nibbana > certainly being different from the unconsciousness > of a stone is a valid one. > Another point: Even in Abhidhamma, if I'm not > mistaken, nibbana, is *not* > considered to be citta (which always has an object), > but *is* considered to > be nama. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 9/15/01 2:03:06 AM Eastern > Daylight Time, > robertkirkpatrick writes: > > > > Howard wrote: > > Kevatta Sutta, DN 11, to be found on Access to > Insight: > > > > "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: > Where do > > these four great > > elements -- the earth property, the liquid > property, the fire > > property, and > > the wind property -- cease without remainder? > Instead, it should > > be phrased > > like this: > > > Where do water, earth, fire, & wind > > > have no footing? > > > Where are long & short, > > > coarse & fine, > > > fair & foul, > > > name & form > > > > > > > "'And the answer to that is: > > > Consciousness without feature, > > > without end, > > > luminous all around: > > > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > > > have no footing. > > > Here long & short > > > coarse & fine > > > fair & foul > > > name & form > > > are all brought to an end. > > > With the cessation of [the activity of] > consciousness > > > > > > > That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, > Kevatta the > > householder > > delighted in the Blessed One's words. > > ************************************* > > > > What I meant by unmanifestive discernment > is exactly what > > is given > > above, and which sure sounds like nibbana to me: > > > > "Consciousness without feature, > > without end, > > luminous all around: > > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing. > > Here long & short > > coarse & fine > > fair & foul > > name & form > > are all brought to an end." > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Dear Howard, > > You quoted the above from the translation by > Thanissaro. > > There is another translation at www.metta.lk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/11-kevaddha-e.htm > > > > Where do earth, water, fire, and wind, > > > > And long and short, and fine and coarse, > > > > Pure and impure, no footing find? > > > > Where is it that both name and form[22] > > > > Die out, leaving no trace behind?" > > > > 'On that the answer is : > > > > 'The intellect of Arahatship, the invisible, the > endless, > > accessible from every side[23] > > > > 'Where is it that earth, water, fire, and wind, > > > > And long and short, and fine and coarse, > > > > Pure and impure, no footing find. > > > > Where is it that both name and form > > > > Die out, leaving, no trace behind. > > > > When intellection ceases they all also cease.' > > > > Thus spake the Exalted One. And Kevaddha, the > young householder, > > pleased at heart, rejoiced at the spoken word. > > > > > > Actually I had a converstaion with Suan recently > about this as I > > was puzzled by the somewhat confusing translations > of this sutta > > extract. > > He wrote in his usual helpful way when I asked > about this pali > > phrase in the sutta: > > > > The original Pali found in Section 499, Kevatta > Suttam, > > Silakkhandhavagga, Dighanikayo starts with the > term "Vińńanam". > > > > And Kevatta Sutta Atthakatha defines "Vińńanam" as > follows. > > > > "Tattha vińńatabbanti "Vińńanam" nibbanassetam > namam,.." > > > > "There, to be known specially, so (it is) > "Vińńanam". This is > > the > > name of nibbana." > > > > And Kevatta Sutta Tika further explains the phrase > > "vińńatabbanti" > > as follows. > > > > "Vińńatabbanti visitthena ńatabbam, > ńanuttamena > > ariyamaggańanena paccakkhato janitabbanti > attho, tenaha > > "nibbanassetam namam"ti." > > > > "(To be known specially) means to be > extraordinarily known. The > > meaning is 'to be known in the sense of > realization by ultimate > > wisdom, by noble path wisdom'". Therefore, (the > commentator) > > stated > > that 'This is the name of nibbana'" > > > > Therefore, the term 'Vińńanam' in the line of the > original Pali > > verse > > > > "Vińńanam anidassanam, anantam sabbatopabham .." > does not refer > > to > > consciousness, the usual meaning of vińńanam. > > > > In fact, the same verse includes the following two > lines > > > > "Ettha namańca rupańca, asesam uparujjhati > > Vińńanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti". > > > > "Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases > without > > remainder. > > By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa > ceases here." > > > > Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness > just because one > > of > > its Pali names happens to be Vińńanam. > > > > Suan > > 8127 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 4:56am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana Hi Howard, I always enjoy hearing from you. Of course we share a common vision of the path, so this is natural. I'm reflecting that these differences in the view of Nibbana probably reflects in some way the desire of the practitioner. I do not mean this in a negative way, but we have a vision or an image of what we are attaining to. Even while we try to rid ourselves of images that may obstruct the truth, there is a guiding intention that allows us to follow one path or another. One person may crave the peace of final extinction of all the defilements of life, while another craves the final freedom of an unimpeded state of awareness. Wouldn't this desire cause them to look for evidence of one view of Nibbana or the other? Even in the same verses, we can interpret them to suggest an impersonal lighta t the end of the Dhammic tunnel, or a great undifferentiated Void which is neither light nor dark. When Buddha says the moon and sun do not shine, yet darkness does not reign, you can interpret this either way. To me, who senses the same great impersonal awareness behind all phenomena that you do, I see the statement that darkness does not reign as a clear sign that there is the clear, unsullied light of awareness in the Nibbanic state, free from all fetters. But since it is possible to promote both views, and the Theravadan and Mahayana doctrines seem to interpret these differently, at least in the hands of able practitioners, doesn't it suggest that we really should refrain from clinging to views and interpretations, but follow the Buddha's example as best we can, according to our temperaments? It's not necessary to win the debate, but it is necessary to get views out of our eyes, so that we can see the true composition of life as it unfolds in front of us, and begin to see what the Buddha has suggested, if we want to reach the final goal of the path, whatever it may contain. I guess we would all agree that we want to be free of defilements and fetters, and we want to some day experience what the Buddha did. Of one thing I am sure: no matter what map we use to get there, the map by itself, meaning the Sutras, will not get us there. If we don't apply the instructions in a purposeful way, either practicing meditation, if that is our bent, or discerning in life and observation, if that is our practice, then we can't get real insight, only intellectual understanding. We are all committed, I think, to getting there, and I think it has been demonstrated that both people in the Theravadan and Mahayana traditions have enjoyed full enlightenment. So we should take heart, and realize that we must use views, but without clinging to them, each in our own way. Best, Robert E. ==================== --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 9/17/01 6:44:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > So Parinibbana is in fact a final cessation of all experience, a complete > > extinction of all living qualities, including awareness? And there is no > > Buddhic > > life beyond the extinction of the body, once the fire is out? > > > > I assume that if the fire were still blazing, one's karmic tendencies might > > continue their activity in another realm, such as a ghost or god realm, so > > there > > is an acknowledgement of supernatural dimensions, but you are saying that > > once the > > fire is out there is no realm in which any residue of the Buddha's existence > > continues. It is just wiped out. So the final perfect peace of the Buddha > > is to > > cease to exist in Parinibbana? And are there Theravadin references to > > quote on > > this, that the Buddha specifically ceases to be completely? > > > > I understand the idea that since the Buddha never actually existed as an > > entity, > > that nothing is extinguished, but I am just saying the consciousness of the > > Buddha > > just ceases and there is no afterlife for one for whom there is no more > > karma, no > > more fire. Is that correct? > > > > So he that is called Buddha is no longer a Buddha -- he is no longer > > 'awake', any > > activity associated with him has been 'extinguished' with the death of the > > body. > > > > Thanks, > > Robert E. > > > ============================== > I understand one Theravadin interpretation of this issue to be the > following: > Nibbana, whether "entered" by the living arahant or as final nibbana, > is essentially the same; "in" it, there is no person/sense of self, and there > are no objects discerned; there is, in my words, an impersonal light of > awareness going on infinitely, a radiance which falls on no objects, which > casts no shadows, which is the ultimate emptiness, purity, and perfection - > the cool cave, the refuge, the island. The living arahant, due to the playing > out of kammic traces, still perceives objects, but there is no sense of a > "self" dualistically perceiving them, nor are the objects reified, but, > rather, the objects are seen through as empty of independent existence, and > nothing whatsoever is grasped at or pushed away. The main difference that I > see between the Theravadin and Mahayanist understandings on this issue > pertains to the > "ultimate fate" of an arahant who is a Buddha. In Theravada, a Buddha is such > by virtue only of having mastered all ten perfections, perfected all skillful > means in order to be the perfect teacher of the Dhamma, and who reintroduces > the Dhamma at a time and place where it is not known, but in Mahayana, it is > understood, in addition, that such a being has the capacity, and is propelled > by compassion, to forego final entry to nibbana upon death, to maintain a > kind of contact with the realm of conditions in order to continue to teach > the Dhamma to sentient beings in various realms. This Mahayanist assumption > certainly makes great sense to me, and has great appeal to me, but that is > not a particularly significant fact! ;-)) What is true in this regard is true > regardless of what might or might not make sense to me or to any of us. > Frankly, none of us really knows what is the truth here, and I fail to see > how it really matters. The facts are the facts. Meanwhile, as I see it, we > should walk the path as well as we can, with metta, karuna, mudita, and > upekkha, helping whomever we can at every step of the way, and constantly > striving to grow in wisdom and compassion. > > With metta, > Howard > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8128 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 4:59am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 3 --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert (and Robert K) - > > In a message dated 9/17/01 6:48:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > > S. XXII. 94 > > > A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a mental > > > formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and persistent, > > > eternal and not subject to change, such a thing the wise men in > > > this world do not recognize; and I also say that there is no > > > such thing.{endquote] > > > robert > > > > Thanks, that certainly seems to make the position clear. It is quite > > different > > from the Mahayana canon in this way. I would like to hear from those who > > say that > > the two canons do not contradict each other. They do seem to. > > > > > ======================= > In this quoted material, the items referred to are instances of the > five khandas; they are conditioned phenomena, and all conditioned phenomena > are anicca. But nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, and it is not > impermanent. It is a timeless, ultimate emptiness, perfect in every way, and > certainly not a dead state of dark unconsciousness. Nibbana is the cessation > of greed, hatred, and ignorance, shining with the brightness of wisdom, and > not a dark annihilation! > > With metta, > Howard I agree with you, Howard. My question is: how can we analyze this sutra so as to make clear that saying the annihilation of the kandhic consciousness leaves room for that shining awareness which the Buddha, at least here, fails to mention. What do you think? Is it implied here, or is it mentioned more positively in another sutra, as it is in the Mahayana doctrines? For the sake of communication, I would like to try to resolve this using some evidence from the Pali canon. But my view is the same as yours on this. I do not believe in absolute annihilation. To me, it contradicts all the elements of the path as I understand them. Robert E. ========================== ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8129 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 5:00am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- gayan wrote: > dear robert e., > > > > > > yes, but the question is: where there is no darkness, is there not > light? > > > > I will state another sutta [ you'll just love this too :o) ] > > Udapaana Sutta > > Kim kaira udapaanena > aapaac(h)e sabbada siyum,? > tanhaaya muulato c(h)etva, > kissa pariyesanam c(h)are? > > What's the need for a well > if water is everywhere? > Having cut craving > by the root,( tanhakkhaya - nibbana ) > One would go about searching for what? > > > rgds, > gayan you're right, gayan. it's fantastic. I can't help but compare it to a Biblical reference, from the prophet Jeremiah: Woe unto the children of Israel, For you have forsaken me, The fountain of living Waters, And have hewed out cisterns for yourself, Cracked cisterns, which can hold no water. Robert E. 8130 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 7:43am Subject: Re: paramis --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon: > > > Yes, this makes perfect sense. From this angle, > understanding does condition the degree of kusala of > the parami being developed (or rather developing), so > pańńaa seems to be unique among the paramis in this > regard. If so, it seems to be a kind of pre-immminent > parami. Is this supported by the abhidhamma? > (Apologies if someone has already made this clear). ++++++++++++++++ Thanks for this useful post Mike. Nina in a post on September 5 wrote >>Khun Sujin stressed many times that not one of these perfections should be neglected. 'Wisdom is the chief cause for the practice of the other paramis', the commentary states. And one should recognize wisdom 'to be the cause for the purification of all the paramis'.>>>>>endquote. robert 8131 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 8:10am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 3 Dear Robert & Robert, > > S. XXII. 94 > > A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a > mental > > formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and > persistent, > > eternal and not subject to change, such a thing > the wise men in > > this world do not recognize; and I also say that > there is no > > such thing.{endquote] > > robert --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks, that certainly seems to make the position > clear. It is quite different > from the Mahayana canon in this way. I would like > to hear from those who say that > the two canons do not contradict each other. They > do seem to. > > I would tend to think that the Buddha would not > mention an unmoving awareness > because one would turn it into a concept that would > block the entry into Nibbana. > However, I may be grasping at straws, as this sutra > states quite unequivocally > that no such thing exists. Thanks, both, for helping to further clarify this distinction. Of course, I just like Robert K.'s citation because it seems to confirm my own opinion. I still have great respect for your investigations, Robert E. mike 8132 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 8:22am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Sila, and all forms of kusala, play a very important role in the path. > Wholesomeness of all kinds can and does arise from time to time, > naturally, without being 'made' to happen. A such moments the effort is > 'right' by nature. If there is some level of awareness of the > wholesomeness, this is the development or cultivation of kusala/sila. > > Awareness and understanding are the kinds of kusala that are of greatest > benefit to the development of sila and all other kinds of kusala. > > We should know more about both the kusala and the akusala that arise in > our lives, just as we should also know more about the non-kusala/akusala > moments, too. > > Jon Thanks, Jon, for your reply to my questions. I take it by your description that you believe that all arisings of kusala and akusala are the result of pre-existing or dependently arising causes and effects, and that there is no volition involved in whether a kusala or akusala moments. However, I take it by your indication that one can become more aware of the kusala and akusala moments, and that this awareness or understanding has an effect on cultivation of kusala, that these factors are more subject to an intent or effort to be more aware or understanding? Or are these factors as well just the outcome of arising conditions and causes? I am just trying to see if you would believe one to be completely passive to this process [since in fact there is no self, but only the shifting conditions of the kandhas] or whether there is a moment of volition there if one notices the arisings. Thanks, Robert E. 8133 From: rikpa21 Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 10:19am Subject: Re: nibbana --- Robert Epstein wrote: Hi Robert, > When Buddha says the moon and sun do not shine, yet darkness does > not reign, you can interpret this either way. To me, who senses the same great > impersonal awareness behind all phenomena that you do, I see the statement that > darkness does not reign as a clear sign that there is the clear, unsullied light > of awareness in the Nibbanic state, free from all fetters. > > But since it is possible to promote both views, and the Theravadan and Mahayana > doctrines seem to interpret these differently, at least in the hands of able > practitioners, doesn't it suggest that we really should refrain from clinging to > views and interpretations, but follow the Buddha's example as best we can, > according to our temperaments? That sounds like mighty sage advice to these ears. :) > if we want to reach the final goal of the path, whatever it may contain. I guess > we would all agree that we want to be free of defilements and fetters, and we want > to some day experience what the Buddha did. Of one thing I am sure: no matter > what map we use to get there, the map by itself, meaning the Sutras, will not get > us there. Indeed the map is not the territory. Not even close. I particularly like this excerpt from the story of Ajahn Mun: "In the long course of his wilderness training, Ajaan Mun learned that -- contrary to Reform and Customary beliefs -- the path to nirvana was not closed. The true Dhamma was to be found not in old customs or texts but in the well-trained heart and mind. The texts were pointers for training, nothing more or less. The rules of the Vinaya, instead of simply being external customs, played an important role in physical and mental survival. As for the Dhamma texts, practice was not just a matter of confirming what they said. Reading and thinking about the texts could not give an adequate understanding of what they meant--and did not count as showing them true respect. True respect for the texts meant taking them as a challenge: putting their teachings seriously to the test to see if, in fact, they are true. In the course of testing the teachings, the mind would come to many unexpected realizations that were not contained in the texts. These in turn had to be put to the test as well, so that one learned gradually by trial and error to the point of an actual noble attainment. Only then, Ajaan Mun would say, did one understand the Dhamma." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/customs.html > If we don't apply the instructions in a purposeful way, either > practicing meditation, if that is our bent, or discerning in life and observation, > if that is our practice, then we can't get real insight, only intellectual > understanding. The true Dhamma has never existed within the pages of any text, or in the words of any teacher, but in the heart. > We are all committed, I think, to getting there, and I think it has been > demonstrated that both people in the Theravadan and Mahayana traditions have > enjoyed full enlightenment. Which is why when we find the vehicle best suited to our accumulations we should take it up and thoroughly put it to the test, so we can, as Ajahn Mun observed, truly come to understand the Dhamma. > So we should take heart, and realize that we must use > views, but without clinging to them, each in our own way. Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! My friend in the Dhamma! :) 8134 From: rikpa21 Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 10:27am Subject: Re: paramis --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: Hi Jonothan, > The qualities that are the paramis (generosity, determination, etc.) can > be developed by any one at any time, but the level at which the quality is > being developed will depend on the level of understanding or otherwise > that accompanies the moment of consciousness. > > So I don't think it's necessary to think in terms of panna being developed > first or the paramis being developed first. If we see the importance of > developing kusala we will develop all kinds of kusala--including panna and > the qualities that are the paramis--as and when the occasion arises. I think I am going into something approaching shock, Jonothan, because I find myself in total agreement with what you've said here! :) 8135 From: azita gill Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 10:32am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E hello dsg, this is my first comment to dsg. in reply to K.Ong about Achan Chah whose statement"there is one essential point that all good practice must come to - not clinging" my understanding of 'not clinging' is a moment in time which arises and falls away so quickly that 'we' hardly notice unless sati arises [and also falls away] to know the difference between clinging and not clinging. If sati and panya are not developed to a degree to know this difference, then who knows? My understanding of 'no self' is that in reality, no self can be found in the rapid arising and falling away of, say, generosity, anger, attachment, wisdom, compassion, conceit, and the rupas or matter which we take for "me" or "mine" e.g. my hair,my car, my friends. I am greatly appreciating the amount of dhamma that is available via this dsg. may all beings be happy, Azita --- KennethOng wrote: > > After looking at a few points made by Sarah, Robert > E and rikpa21(sorry did not get your name), I would > like to say that what Sarah and Robert are trying to > do is describing emptiness which in the first place > impossible to describe. As what Rikpa21 has quoted > Hui Neng text "when you get rid of the idea of a > self and that of a being, Mount Meru will topple" > (in the first place how do you get rid of a self > that is inherently empty by nature, hence if you are > able to get rid of a self which is empty, thn mount > meru will also topple which is impossible) only > through contridictary sentence will emptiness could > be know. When we try to understand more and more > abt emptiness in words, it is impossible to > understand. For example in Mahayana, all dharma is > deviod of nature, which means the self is empty by > nature but if it is empty what is that (the eyes) > looking at the email. If it is not you, pinch > yourself see whether you feel pain or not. This is > emptiness. When Buddha talks about emptiness, it is > not completely empty, if it is completely empty then > it is on one extreme end of nihilism. if it is > something then it attached to a view of eternalism. > Emptiness can only be experience and not explain > hence no matter how well we describe even using > sutras as references, we will never able to explain > emptiness in words. Emptiness has no dwelling as > any form of reference is attachement, any words > describing is wrong. There is a story about a monk > when to preach about Buddhism on the stage, he kept > quiet and then left. When pple ask him why he did > that, he said he has just preached buddhism. My > humble opinion is that his action is about > emptiness, as any form of describing is wrong, even > thoughts of desribing is also wrong that is why he > kept quiet. This is the essence of emptiness and > words cannot adequately explain. If it can be > explain easily Buddha would have used one sutra to > do it just like the four noble truth, but in fact > Buddha use a large number of sutras trying to > explain emptiness idea or concept. > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong > > > rikpa21 wrote: --- Sarah wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > > I think this confusion is only from a Mahayana > point of view where I > understand > > sabhava is synonymous with self (or close to it at > least). > > Svabhava in the Mahayana is the equivalent of > "independent essence"-- > which is thoroughly rejected as inhering in anything > in all schools > of the Mahayana. > > > Rob E, I know you and Anders have a different > understanding from a > few of > us on > > some fundamental issues, > > I've seen nothing in Anders' presentation of anatta > I would consider > remotely at odds with Right Understanding. To the > contrary, in fact. > I have observed some interpret what he's saying in > ways that don't > accord with my interpretation of what he's saying, > perhaps due to > their being unaware of the fact there is an entire > tradition of > realized masters who use such terms as "Nature of > Mind"--which does > not mean what many conditioned by the Tripitaka's > presentation of the > Dharma may automatically assume it does. Hui Neng > comes to mind on > this point in the "Platform Sutra," for example. > > Yet, mysteriously, Hui Neng goes on to note in the > same sutra > that "when you get rid of the idea of a self and > that of a being, > Mount Meru will topple." I imagine such apparent > contradictions might > be a bit maddening to anyone who's latched on to the > idea of anatta > by itself as the be-all and end-all! Anyway, > regarding folks like Hui > Neng and in specific the Platform Sutra (where Hui > Neng mentions > this), Ajahn Chah noted: "Hui Neng's wisdom is very > keen. It is very > profound teaching, not easy for beginners to > understand. But if you > practice with our discipline and with patience, if > you practice not- > clinging, you will eventually understand." > > On that point, I can only concur heartily with both > Ajahn Chah's and > Anders' mention of letting go of clinging to views. > And I find it > very encouraging (and rather amusing) to see a > teenager with a > fraction of the textual training of the Abhidhamma > scholars here able > to cause such a ruckus, whose words carry more > impact and clarity and > insight by far, in my opinion, than the words of > those questioning > him. No offense intended, but I've observed what I > consider more > wisdom and behavior worthy of emulation coming from > a mere teenager > than I have from all the Abhidhamma scholars > combined. Then again, I > have been seeing an extraordinary degree of wisdom > coming from > teenagers lately. Perhaps that is because some of > them are less > fettered by preconceptions, views, and prejudices. > > When Ajahn Chah was asked "What is the biggest > problem of your new > disciples?" he replied: "Opinions. views and ideas > about all things. > About themselves, about practice, about the > teachings of the Buddha. > Many of those who come here have a high rank in the > community. There > are wealthy merchants or college graduates, teachers > and government > officials. Their minds are filled with opinions > about things. They > are too clever to listen to others. It is like water > in a cup. If a > cup is filled with dirty, stale water, it is > useless. Only after the > old water is thrown out can the cup become useful. > You must empty > your minds of opinions, then you will see. Our > practice goes beyond > cleverness and beyond stupidity. If you think;"I am > clever, I am > wealthy, I am important, I understand all about > Buddhism."; You cover > up the truth of anatta or no-self. All you will see > is self, I, mine. > But Buddhism is letting go of self. Voidness, > Emptiness, Nibbana." > > And I can also imagine that if one were attached to > one's own views > about the Pali Canon as sole authority and > simultaneously subject to > the affliction of issa, the idea that anyone who > accepts Mahayana > scriptures (let alone a teenager) might be possessed > of Right > Understanding could be a rather disquieting > prospect, given how many > carefully guarded preconceptions that would be > likely to upset. > Merely entertaining this possibility could erode the > foundations from > beneath years of carefully constructed elaborations > and (not to > diminish the tragedy this last week) send the entire > carefully > constructed edifice of fabrications toppling. I can > only hope that > this is the case. > > > Nor, as I read the > > Teachings, is there a Bodhi citta or Bodhisattva > ideal to be > realized by > us (or > > followed) if only we could read between the lines > in the Tipitaka. > > I find this a rather interesting interpretation, > given this was the > very path that Shakyamuni Buddha took, as noted in > the Pali Canon. I > would think that if you reject the Bodhisattva path, > then it would > appear that by implication you also reject > Shakyamuni Buddha, since > that is how he became the Shakyamuni Buddha in the > first place--at > least according to the Suttas of the Pali Canon. > Also, === message truncated === 8136 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 0:02pm Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Robert, > > You have a number of positive states that have been > > entered into in order to reach > > it: Right View, Right Thinking, Right > > Concentration, insights and jhanas. > > The > > essence of all of these positive states that are > > entered into is that they are > > increasingly refined forms of apprehensions or > > awareness. > > Not sure what you mean by 'positive states'. The path > factors and so on are mental factors, arising and > subsiding instantaneously with moments of > consciousness. Certainly no one to 'enter into' them, > even conventionally speaking. Also not sure what you > mean by 'essence', 'apprehensions' or 'awareness'. If > by awareness you mean sati, this is also a cetasika > and a path-factor, which arises and subsides > instantaneously like the others. I see awareness as something that's always there. One is always aware of something. I don't look at it as the consciousness that corresponds to each mental act, but as a background awake quality that is always there. I can understand how that is not in accord with the view that there is nothing in human existence other than the kandhas. It introduces the idea of there being 'something' that's an experiencer. Only it's not personal, not an entity, not separate from the experience. It's more like a field, like space. I guess the question is, can you have something that experiences and still have anatta? I think you can, but I understand that most of you who are taking the abhidarmic reading of the Theravada scriptures would say that they are irreconcileable, and that not only no one but nothing experiences the experiences, except the momentary consciousnesses that arise with the objects of experience. I would ask you, how do you the consciousnesses that correspond to the perceptual or conceptual act arise? Where do they arise from? I know the kandhas are there from past accumulations [?], but what makes these momentary consciousnesses fire off? I understand that there is no one experiencing these experiences, they are just taking place, there is just experience and object of experience arising together, then there are the mental factors that take the experience and process it in some way, and that is another moment that arises and falls. And this keeps going on. But what is the quality of those experiences? There is the illusion of the experiencer, but what is contained int he experience? Is it really not an experience, but just a mental act. Does the momentary consciousness 'experience' the object, or do they just arise together mechanically? Hope this question makes sense. > As I understand it, insight (vipassanaa) arises and > subsides instantaneously and refines understanding > (pańńaa), which accumulates and is passed along from > citta to citta. How does the understanding accumulate? That seems to contradict the momentary nature of every experience. Well, I guess the skandhas accumulate akusala, and that kusala can accumulate as well, eventually outweighing the accumulated akusala. Is that correct? I would still like to know if anything is really accumulated in this momentary arising and falling. What allows accumulation to take place, and what accumulates them? This would seem to me to be implying some sort of solidity which starts to border on entity if you have something that has duration and is able to accumulate qualities or understanding. > Hope you don't mind if I break this question down a > little: > Nibbaana is just the cessation of dukkha, as I > understand it. Okay. And dukkha is a result of aviddja, and the other qualities that are eliminated by the eightfold path. yes? > > is > > the refined awareness and insight and awareness that > > has been so meticulously > > developed to create the ladder to Nibbana also > > eliminated, > > By 'awareness', do you mean sati? And by 'insights', > vipassanaa? If so, I think you're referring to > satipatthaana vipassanaa. Yes, I think in this case that's correct. If by 'the ladder to > Nibbana' you mean the path, I think it's a very odd > metaphor. The path is not a structure, but a > collection of mental factors arising and subsiding > simultaneously and instantaneously, as I understand > it. except they accumulate understanding through vipassana? that's a little contradictory, isn't it? it's the accumulation of insight that allows the path to develop, but at the same time it's just a collection of instantaneous events? I don't mean to give you a hard time. I'm just trying really hard to see how the path develops through accumulation of insight and understanding, and then the whole thing, which is really momentary, all subsides leaving nothing at the end of the path but freedom from dukkha. > > or are they merely > > surpassed in a state that contains the same essence > > as this development but is > > totally beyond them? > > What is there to be surpassed, and by whom? The path > factors simply arise and then vanish completely. When > they've finished their function, dukkha is permanantly > eradicated. > > > It would make logical sense that the essence of the > > path would be exemplified in > > its most refined form in its final attainment, > > Nibbana. > > Again, I think it's a mistake to think of the path as > having an essence--just a very quick confluence of > mental factors, with the supreme function of > eradicating defilement, then vanishing completely. How is defilement eradicated by the accumulation of sati? What is the relation between these two? Why can't defilement just be 'purified' by some other factor, since understanding has no role in the final 'product'? I mean, there are other systems that get rid of attachment through meditation, purification, etc. Buddhism is the only path that focusses so heavily on understanding and insight. But it seems like the understanding and insight gets you to the threshold and then turns out not to really have any purpose, since the final goal is merely cessation of dukkha, and not a state of understanding. The final product has no need of insight or anything else. They were just expedients to get rid of suffering. > > To think that all is > > eliminated and that there is merely negation of > > negatives just doesn't make sense. > > Only if you think of there being something lasting > that can be negated or eliminated or whatever. Like > all other cetasikas, the path-factors arise, perform > their function and fall away completely. > > > It is not because of Mahayana doctrines that it > > doesn't make sense, > > Well, my take on this is that it is a difference > between the Mayahana and Theravada. My knowledge of > Mahayana doctrine is vague though, based on many years > as a Zen student but little academic study (aside from > having read a number of classics). So I may well be > mistaken about this. I'm starting to think you're right about this. At least if you interpret Theravadin doctrine to mean that there is merely cessation of dukkha and all the work with insight and sati is just an expedient, having no value in and of itself. That is where I think we disagree. I may be out of step with Theravadin doctrine in that, or perhaps it can be interpreted both ways. I am not well versed enough [no pun intended] to know that at this point. And I admit that I'm too busy and lazy to catch up really quickly, but one of these days I'll be more knowledgeable! > > but because > > of the path outlined by the Buddha and all of his > > statements about the > > pleasantness and uplifted quality of each > > progressive stage on the path. > > If you're referring to the stages of enlightenment, > they are subjectively very pleasant and uplifting, no > doubt (at least I imagine so--this is probably > addressed more specifically in the abhidhamma). I'm glad you agree that the path can be enjoyable -- in a non-clinging way of course. I'm not sure if everyone would agree with this. > > Where is > > that quality of refined joy and total discernment > > that characterize the Buddha's > > own statements and presumably his own state? > > The mental factors arising and subsiding with the > moments of consciousness of a Buddha are very refined, > no doubt--to say the least! I'm sure these are > catalogued somewhere in the abhidhamma, too. That would be interesting. For sure > they fall away completely in an instant. > > They > > are contained in and are the > > natural emanation of the state of Nibbana, of > > Arahatship, of Buddhahood. > > You seem to be equivocating nibbaana with Arahatship > and Buddhahood. The second two are very similar > (though not identical)--nibbaana is simply the > permanent cessation of dukkha, as I understand it. So what makes for an Arahat or a Buddha, beyond Nibbana? > > So it > > doesn't make sense to me that one cannot assert that > > there is a positive state, > > experience, or awareness in Nibbana. > > The question is, why would one assert such a thing, > with no record of the Buddha's every having taught it? > At least if there is any such assertion in the > tipitaka, I've never run across it. If you're aware > of such a teaching in the tipitaka, I'd like to hear > about it. Otherwise, to interpolate this into the > Buddhadhamma is a very big mistake, I think. > > > The Buddha is > > not 'dead'. He has not been > > annihilated by attaining Nibbana and Buddhahood. > > In which of the aggregates is, or was, there someone > to be annihilated (or not)? > > > In > > fact he is completely free > > and 'awake'. > > Certainly the Buddha was one who 'awoke' (achieved the > cessation of dukkha), conventionally speaking. If 'he > is completely free and 'awake'', in what aggregate or > element is 'he' to be found? In fact, I think that to > say that the Buddha 'is completely free and 'awake'' > is nothing less than bizarre, from the Theravada > perspective as I understand it (no offense!) No offense taken. But I think we look at Buddhi differently. The term Buddha means 'one who is awake or has awakened'. I don't take that to mean that he's merely awakened from dukkha. In any case, in Zen it has a much more positive interpretation. Two travellers were walking down the road when they sensed an amazing presence coming towards them. They were anxious to see who this person could be. They had never experienced anything like this before. As they came into the presence of the man, he seemed to give off an immense radiant energy. They questioned him and asked: "Why do you have this amazing aspect. Who are you?" The Buddha, for it was he, answered simply: "I am awake". > > Buddha means 'one who is awake'. Can > > one be 'awake' without > > sentience/consciousness/awareness? This also > > doesn't make sense. If you want to > > say that the Buddha is 'awake' but has none of those > > other attributes or > > qualities, you would have to at least say, based on > > his most popular title alone, > > that he at least partakes of 'awakeness'. Awakeness > > and awareness are synonyms. > > The Buddha 'awoke' (speaking conventionally) when he > achieved cessation of dukkha. After that, he could be > called 'awake' up until parinibbaana. At that point, > the conditions for the arising of any further naamas > (cittas or cetasikas, consciousnesses and mental > factors) were completely exhausted, as I understand > it. The rupas which composed his physical form will > continue to arise and subside as long as the > conditions exist for their continued existence. I understand this explanation, and it is certainly sensible. > Thanks for challenging my own perspectives, Robert. > Always good to hear from you. > > mike Same here. As always, it's a pleasure to talk to you as well. Best, Robert E. 8137 From: Howard Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 8:08am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Hi, Mike - In a message dated 9/17/01 8:09:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mike writes: > > Hi Howard, > > --- Howard wrote: > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I can't think of a nicer guy to be in > > disagreement with! ;-)) I have > > simply expressed an opinion, one in which I have not > > very much invested. I > > could be quite wrong. When it comes to what nibbana > > is I doubt that any of us > > really know what we are talking about! ;-)) > > Thanks, Howard, the sentiment is mutual. When it > comes to those things that most of us(!) don't claim > to know from experience, I think it's all the more > important to understand what the Buddha taught on the > subject. I appreciate your efforts to do so, as > always. > > > As far as the Theravada/Mahayana distinction > > is concerned on this > > issue, I would like to point out that the talk of > > unmanifestive discernment > > being "infinite, luminous all around, and falling on > > no objects" is derived > > from the Pali Sutta Pitaka, not Mahayana sources. > > If I remember this correctly, this referred to > bhavanga(?), which certainly ceases to rearise after > parinibbaana, by my understanding of the canon. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I think it was a reference something to the effect of the mind being originally luminous, but covered by adventitious defilements that is sometimes associated in commentaries with bhavanga. (BTW, I'm not sure whether the notion of bhavanga citta occurs in the suttas.) -------------------------------------------------- > Unfortunately, it seems to open a door for the > positing of some sort of 'cosmic consciousness', which > concept I believe is clearly alien to the Theravada. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't even have a clue what "cosmic consciousness" would be. But awareness without an object, beyond all conditions and conditioning, unborn, and deathless would be nibbana to me. --------------------------------------------------- > (By the way, if you have the citation handy, would you > mind re-posting it?--thanks). --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: It was Kevatta Sutta, DN 11. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Always a pleasure, Howard, -------------------------------------------- Howard: Likewise, mike! ------------------------------------------ > > mike > > ======================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8138 From: Larry Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 0:20pm Subject: nonmanifestive consciousness Walshe, DN 11: Where consciousness is signless, boundless, all-luminous, That's where earth, water, fire and air find no footing -------------------------- according to the footnote, Nanananda in "Concept and Reality" p.59, understands this consciousness (anidassana-vinnana) as the consciousness of the arahant. Perhaps this could be considered a quality or characteristic of the arahant. The last line of the verse, "with the cessation of consciousness this is all destroyed" I read as the cessation of this anidassana-vinnana, but there isn't any commentarial note. As a tangential question concerning this discussion, does anyone know if the word "buddha" is in the pali cannon, or if not, where it first appears? metta, Larry 8139 From: Sarah Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 0:31pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Trying to understand Anatta Dear Christine, it's always a pleasure to read about your careful consideration of the dhamma and your prolific internet research. I can't think of a more useful response to last week than the study of anatta (and the understanding of realities as anatta) at this moment;-)) Have no fear of being 'boring'! I can just imagine the volume of 'anatta' articles and views 'google' will have turned up and I think it says a lot for your understanding that this interesting and useful article is the one that was of most interest. I just looked through quickly and it seemed to be very well-written indeed. I look forward to reading it more carefully. I always appreciate your links too. What else? 1) I would suggest that any books or articles on Rob's website would be useful to you. In particular, I'd recommend Nina VG's 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life'. Just the first chapter helpfully explains that what we take for self are in reality only namas and rupas. http://www.abhidhamma.org/ 2) Please go to 'Useful Posts' and read the posts from dsg under 'anatta'. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts If you find any aspects or posts you wish to comment on or question (and the same for the books and articles above), I know that many of us will be glad to hear from you. (You can also look for headings of 'kamma and vipaka' and maybe 'Dependent Origination'.) Look f/w to hearing more from you, Sarah p.s On an old topic, Jon told me after I'd already writen, that he'd read in the vinaya or com. that the reason monks were forbidden from eating certain kinds of animal meat (you mentioned dogs, snakes etc) was because in the forest, these (dead) animals attracted predators. the ruling would not apply to us. Someone else may have the details:-)) --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Dear List Members, > > The events of the last week have given extra impetus to me to try to > understand several teachings in Buddhism that I have been unable to > grasp completely. The first was Kamma - but I have decided to let > that sit awhile after getting a headache and more confused by all the > permutations and combinations I found while pondering on it. > > Looking into Kamma made me realise that I needed to study and > understand Dependant Origination as well. > Looking into Dependent Origination just a little, made me realise > that the major key to it all might be to try and understand Anatta. > So, I wonder if anyone would care to give me the right perspective on > Anatta. For instance, what views are common mistakes to hold, which > would be better avoided. > > I put Anatta into Google,which is the way I usually learn, and found > a number of Suttas and articles, but the one that has had most impact > so far is the book by Sayadaw U Silananda, with an excerpt below. > > Hope this is not too boring for everyone, but I feel if I get this > right and understand it, I will be a bit further down the Path. > > metta, > Christine > > > In "Inner Core - Anatta" Chapter 5 'Understanding Anatta' > Sayadaw U Silananda > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/5787/anatta1.html 8140 From: Howard Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 8:33am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 3 Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/17/01 9:48:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and Robert K) - > > > > In a message dated 9/17/01 6:48:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > Robert E writes: > > > > > > > > S. XXII. 94 > > > > A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a mental > > > > formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and persistent, > > > > eternal and not subject to change, such a thing the wise men in > > > > this world do not recognize; and I also say that there is no > > > > such thing.{endquote] > > > > robert > > > > > > Thanks, that certainly seems to make the position clear. It is quite > > > different > > > from the Mahayana canon in this way. I would like to hear from those > who > > > say that > > > the two canons do not contradict each other. They do seem to. > > > > > > > > ======================= > > In this quoted material, the items referred to are instances of > the > > five khandas; they are conditioned phenomena, and all conditioned > phenomena > > are anicca. But nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, and it is not > > impermanent. It is a timeless, ultimate emptiness, perfect in every way, > and > > certainly not a dead state of dark unconsciousness. Nibbana is the > cessation > > of greed, hatred, and ignorance, shining with the brightness of wisdom, > and > > not a dark annihilation! > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > I agree with you, Howard. My question is: how can we analyze this sutra > so as to > make clear that saying the annihilation of the kandhic consciousness leaves > room > for that shining awareness which the Buddha, at least here, fails to > mention. > > What do you think? Is it implied here, or is it mentioned more positively > in > another sutra, as it is in the Mahayana doctrines? > > For the sake of communication, I would like to try to resolve this using > some > evidence from the Pali canon. > > But my view is the same as yours on this. I do not believe in absolute > annihilation. To me, it contradicts all the elements of the path as I > understand > them. > > Robert E. > ============================== The difficulty in finding what you want and what I would also love to see in the Pali canon (which, BTW, I take to be pretty much the word of the Buddha, whereas I take the Mahayana Sutras for the most part *not* to be the original Buddha word) is that the Buddha was apparently quite reticent in giving much in the way of details with regard to nibbana. I expect that is so largely for two reasons: (1) Every description will be wrong, because nibbana is beyond all our concepts and worldly experience, and (2) Any *remotely* adequate description carries the real danger, the *likelihood*, of being misinterpreted, of playing right into our defilements, and of fostering reification and clinging, instead of helping us along the path. Let me put it this way: Mara must love theoreticians! ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8141 From: Howard Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 8:36am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/17/01 9:53:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > I can't help but compare it to a Biblical > reference, from the prophet Jeremiah: > > Woe unto the children of Israel, > For you have forsaken me, > The fountain of living Waters, > And have hewed out cisterns for yourself, > Cracked cisterns, which can hold no water. > ========================== Mmmm! That is *good*!! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8142 From: Sarah Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 0:54pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Rob E, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > If I understand you, each dharma has a kind of 'flavor' which is all its own, > and > that is its essence or characteristic. In other words, its a way of saying > that > one tastes the actuality of that very thing itelf, rather than saying that it > has > an 'essence' like a 'self-nature' of some kind. I hope that's not put > confusingly, and I hope I'm not misinterpreting your point! This is an excellent way of putting it and not at all confusing. You've got my point (or rather what i understand to be the point in the Tipitaka) exactly. Flavor (or 'flavour' to us Brits) would be a very good translation to my mind. We can talk about the flavor of strawberry or chocolate which are quite distinct to the taste buds (or tasting), but this doesn't mean that the tasting, the flavor or the ice-cream are self......just different namas and rupas going about their business, all conditioned as the quote on 'Eating' I posted recently showed. Of course, as soon as there is any idea of flavor or 'strawberry', this is merely the thinking of the story and not the sabhava of hardness, softness, heat,cold or whatever other realities were experienced when tasting.... > So the sabhava of Nibbana would merely mean its particular quality, YES! which > points > to its quality of partaking of the cessation of all defilements, experiences, > etc. > would that be correct in your view? This depends on whether nibbana is referring here to that experienced by the sotapanna (or rather the cittas, as explained by Mike) for the first time, that experienced by the arahat or parinibbana (see Rob K's post on these distinctions ). When nibbana is the object of the lokuttara cittas, just the reality, the sabhava of nibbana is experienced as object. It is then clear and apparent (as I understand it) in the immediately following mind-door processes that some or all defilements have either been fully eradicated according to the 'stage'. As the others have pointed out, it is only at parinibbana that 'experiences' cease. > I'll just answer this briefly to see if I'm on the right track, in terms of > grasping your point. I appreciate your very careful consideration as always, Rob. > > And thanks for your hospitality when we bring up our odd views! We all start with 'odd views' and a list like this is just so we can mutually share and test these very views. Thank you for being so active, appreciative and pleasant to have around;-)) Sarah 8143 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 1:22pm Subject: Re: nibbana Dear Robert E. I'm really pushed for time. But i had to add that I am consistently impressed with your genuine desire to lay your views out in the open - amd even perhaps let some of them go. We have to do this. We have to examine so carefully what we believe. Someone may have the view that all paths are the same and this might sound like a open and spacious idea. But it can be clung to like life itself. Another might have the view that "I don't say either this or that is right" "nor do I say this or that is wrong" and still cling to this view like the devil. The depth that self view - that view that is the root of all others- goes is so deep, that is why we need a Buddha to show its craftiness, the different types and the ways it is attached to. One teacher in thailand (now 96years old) told me that we are like pickles in a pickle jar, saturated with the vinegar of self view. How to give this up?!! It takes much time as I know you know. Wrong view always comes with attachment and pleasant or neutral feeling. Its function is to delude and if it is present it MAKES one believe that what they believe is true. I guess you've spoken with cult members from time to time and noticed how happy many of the are - and yet how attached and sure of quite strange ideas. This is what Miccha-ditthi does. Sometimes it might be attractive or appear reasonable, and then it is not so obvious - but if it is tainted with self it is wrong. Dropping wrong view comes at different levels but if it is not seen at the grossest level - that of thinking - then why wonder about higher levels. This doesn't mean cling to right view though . Or try and brainwash ourselves to belive in anatta. That just obscures the truth too. (as your post makes clear) Such a hard path, so profound. I appreciate your reflections below. robert Robert Epstein wrote: > Hi Howard, > I always enjoy hearing from you. Of course we share a common vision of the path, > so this is natural. > > I'm reflecting that these differences in the view of Nibbana probably reflects in > some way the desire of the practitioner. I do not mean this in a negative way, > but we have a vision or an image of what we are attaining to. Even while we try > to rid ourselves of images that may obstruct the truth, there is a guiding > intention that allows us to follow one path or another. > > One person may crave the peace of final extinction of all the defilements of life, > while another craves the final freedom of an unimpeded state of awareness. > > Wouldn't this desire cause them to look for evidence of one view of Nibbana or the > other? > > Even in the same verses, we can interpret them to suggest an impersonal lighta t > the end of the Dhammic tunnel, or a great undifferentiated Void which is neither > light nor dark. When Buddha says the moon and sun do not shine, yet darkness does > not reign, you can interpret this either way. To me, who senses the same great > impersonal awareness behind all phenomena that you do, I see the statement that > darkness does not reign as a clear sign that there is the clear, unsullied light > of awareness in the Nibbanic state, free from all fetters. > > But since it is possible to promote both views, and the Theravadan and Mahayana > doctrines seem to interpret these differently, at least in the hands of able > practitioners, doesn't it suggest that we really should refrain from clinging to > views and interpretations, but follow the Buddha's example as best we can, > according to our temperaments? It's not necessary to win the debate, but it is > necessary to get views out of our eyes, so that we can see the true composition of > life as it unfolds in front of us, and begin to see what the Buddha has suggested, > if we want to reach the final goal of the path, whatever it may contain. I guess > we would all agree that we want to be free of defilements and fetters, and we want > to some day experience what the Buddha did. 8144 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 1:38pm Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > Thanks, Jon, for your reply to my questions. I take it by your description that > you believe that all arisings of kusala and akusala are the result of pre-existing > or dependently arising causes and effects, and that there is no volition involved > in whether a kusala or akusala moments. > > However, I take it by your indication that one can become more aware of the kusala > and akusala moments, and that this awareness or understanding has an effect on > cultivation of kusala, that these factors are more subject to an intent or effort > to be more aware or understanding? Or are these factors as well just the outcome > of arising conditions and causes? > > I am just trying to see if you would believe one to be completely passive to this > process [since in fact there is no self, but only the shifting conditions of the > kandhas] or whether there is a moment of volition there if one notices the > arisings. > > Thanks, > Robert E. > ++++++ Dear Robert E. Just to butt in here. I mentioned in a post to you about the 24 paccaya(conditions) explained in the Patthana , the last book of the abhidhamma. Some of these are past, some are present. They condition and they are conditioned. Very intricate! But not all of them are past ones (which your letter indicates you might be assuming.) robert 8145 From: Sarah Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 2:06pm Subject: 'I prefer directness' - Erik Hi Erik, Let me start with your last paragraph if I may: --- rikpa21 wrote: > Speaking for these khandas, I prefer directness to beating around the > bush. Particularly on matters like this. Please, feel free to share > your opinions without fear of offending the likes of me. After all, > it was seeing the the implication that the Dalai Lama is teaching > corrupt Dharma that spurred me to join DSG in the first place, since > I thought it might be interesting to examine that view in greater > detail. I think that even if you disagree, I hope you do at least > find find such dialogues entertaining, if not enlightening. :) ‘Entertaining if not enlightening’ Mmmmmm, I’m not sure. As you prefer ‘directness’, I think ‘exhausting’ would be closer to what I find;-)) Frankly I find it a lot easier to talk to Anders, Rob E or Howard who may share some of your views but who always present them in a rational and calm manner which I appreciate. Still, we are as we are (conventionally speaking);-))) Much of what you wrote in your message seemed to have little relation to anything I or anyone else has said and there were many suggestions or inferences which were without basis in my view. In other words, to be very direct, it sounded like a rave;-)) On a technical point above, I think you had to join dsg and then read through much of the archives in order to find one post you strongly objected to, which was absolutely fine. OK, let me look at just a few of your points: > I think this confusion is only from a Mahayana point of view where I > understand > > sabhava is synonymous with self (or close to it at least). > > Svabhava in the Mahayana is the equivalent of "independent essence"-- > which is thoroughly rejected as inhering in anything in all schools > of the Mahayana. This was just my point..sorry if it wasn’t clear. > > > I've seen nothing in Anders' presentation of anatta I would consider > remotely at odds with Right Understanding. To the contrary, in fact. > I have observed some interpret what he's saying in ways that don't > accord with my interpretation of what he's saying, perhaps due to > their being unaware of the fact there is an entire tradition of > realized masters who use such terms as "Nature of Mind"--which does > not mean what many conditioned by the Tripitaka's presentation of the > Dharma may automatically assume it does. Hui Neng comes to mind on > this point in the "Platform Sutra," for example. Erik, as you know, on dsg we are discussing anatta and rt understanding as found in the pali Tipitaka (inc. abhidhamma and coms.) It doesn’t mean that those who use another language or set of concepts are right or wrong, but we are merely looking at what the Buddha meant in the above. > > On that point, I can only concur heartily with both Ajahn Chah's and > Anders' mention of letting go of clinging to views. My main concern, on the other hand, is to carefully consider the Buddha’s words. > > And I can also imagine that if one were attached to one's own views > about the Pali Canon as sole authority and simultaneously subject to > the affliction of issa, the idea that anyone who accepts Mahayana > scriptures (let alone a teenager) might be possessed of Right > Understanding could be a rather disquieting prospect, given how many > carefully guarded preconceptions that would be likely to upset. > Merely entertaining this possibility could erode the foundations from > beneath years of carefully constructed elaborations and (not to > diminish the tragedy this last week) send the entire carefully > constructed edifice of fabrications toppling. I can only hope that > this is the case. Personally, I greatly appreciate any indication of rt understanding OF REALITIES regardless of the background, age, school or label of the speaker. Erik, perhaps it would be more useful if we were ALL to consider our own preconceptions, issa, attachments and wrong views, rather than dwelling on the others’. After all, it is only by knowing ‘our own’ cittas and other namas and rupas right now that any rt understanding can possibly BEGIN to develop. I realy don’t mind (and I don’t think anyone else here does that I’ve noticed) whether someone calls themselves a Theravadan, a Mahayanist, a Christian, Jew, Siehk (sorry Sukin, sp?) or anything else....We’re just here to study the Pali Tipitaka together. > > I find this a rather interesting interpretation, given this was the > very path that Shakyamuni Buddha took, as noted in the Pali Canon. Yes, but where does he encourage us to follow the Bodhisattva path rather than the 8fold path towards final cessation.? > would think that if you reject the Bodhisattva path, then it would > appear that by implication you also reject Shakyamuni Buddha, since > that is how he became the Shakyamuni Buddha in the first place--at > least according to the Suttas of the Pali Canon. ?? Also, in rejecting > Bodhicitta (Mind of Enlightenment) you reject lokuttara panna, > because that is the precise definition of "Bodhicitta" in the systems > that teach it. But here we’re looking at the pali Tipitaka and there is no mention of Bodhicitta in the lokuttara panna of the arahats or earlier stages of enlightenment. > But I suppose first understanding those systems in the > way they are intended to be understood may demand too much effort, > and it's easier to reflexivly suggest an entire tradition that fails > to accord with one's prejudices and speculations has somehow missed > the mark. Mmmm, reminds me of an aunt who says things like 'I suppose it would just take too much effort to come and visit ...' I’m not studying, accepting or making any suggestions about any other teachings or traditions. We're studying the Pali Tipitaka and talking about what is being taught here. This doesn’t mean I don’t study other areas of interest such as politics, literature, psychology or linguistics (to name a few), but they are not of relevance to this discussion. > > To me rejecting the Three Jewels like this would seem to be a pretty > serious problem for anyone who professes to be a follower of the > Buddha. So suggesting that anyone with the "Mahayana" label must be > mistaken merely by virtue of their having a "Mahayana" label, and in > sole dependence on that label cannot possibly have rightly understood > the way leading to the cessation of suffering, seems a rather risky > position to take. I don’t see the problem, Erik. We study the pali canon which reflects the Buddha’s teachings and this is what we’re discussing here. I’ve seen no suggestion of any generalisations of ‘anyone with the ‘Mahayana label’ and frankly these labels don’t interest me at all. I just look at the words which are written, regardless of the speaker, and consider them accordingly. Occasionally even Jon and I have a different understandings of a term or sutta or point. This is healthy and we don’t find it threatening or a condition for issa or fear any of the other suggestions you make. > > I would imagine that the implications of this view should give anyone > serious about the entire point of the Buddha's Dharma--the cessation > of suffering (and not something else, like the accumulation of praise > or fame or book-knowledge)--pause for careful consideration. Perhaps there is just a little too much imagining here...;-))) > From the Vajjiya Sutta: > > "Criticizing what should be criticized, praising what should be > praised, the Blessed One is one who speaks making distinctions, not > one who speaks categorically on this matter." The Buddha is making the point in these lines that he is very specific, ‘one who speaks making distinctions’ (vibhajja-vaado, ekansa-vaado) about what is right, ‘what should be praised’ and what is wrong, ‘what should be criticized’. He is not one who makes ‘sweeping assertions’ (PTS trans.) In this sutta these assertions are in reference to the life of an ascetic or ascetic ways.: ‘If, housefather, in one practising austerities unprofitable states wax and profitable states wane, such austerity should not be practised, I declare. If in one practising austerities, unprofitable states wane and profitable states wax, such austerities should be practised, I declare....’(AN,v, 189ff) In other words, Erik, it is not the ‘situation’, the outer appearance or the label that counts, but the development of all kinds of kusala that does. Erik, I haven’t forgotten your other post to me about ‘seeing’ which I look forward to responding to after a couple to Nina which I plan to do next;-) Hope all’s well for you in Bkk and hope you still get to see our other friends, including K.Sujin, there. Sarah 8146 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 2:53pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 3 --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Robert & Robert, > > > > S. XXII. 94 > > > A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a > > mental > > > formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and > > persistent, > > > eternal and not subject to change, such a thing > > the wise men in > > > this world do not recognize; and I also say that > > there is no > > > such thing.{endquote] > > > robert > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Thanks, that certainly seems to make the position > > clear. It is quite different > > from the Mahayana canon in this way. I would like > > to hear from those who say that > > the two canons do not contradict each other. They > > do seem to. > > > > I would tend to think that the Buddha would not > > mention an unmoving awareness > > because one would turn it into a concept that would > > block the entry into Nibbana. > > However, I may be grasping at straws, as this sutra > > states quite unequivocally > > that no such thing exists. > > Thanks, both, for helping to further clarify this > distinction. Of course, I just like Robert K.'s > citation because it seems to confirm my own opinion. > I still have great respect for your investigations, > Robert E. > > mike That's very kind of you Mike. You seem to be a good example of someone who can have a view that is sensible, without clinging to your view while having it, a very good attribute. I learn something from that! Thanks, Robert E. 8147 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 2:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: nibbana --- rikpa21 wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > > When Buddha says the moon and sun do not shine, yet darkness does > > not reign, you can interpret this either way. To me, who senses > the same great > > impersonal awareness behind all phenomena that you do, I see the > statement that > > darkness does not reign as a clear sign that there is the clear, > unsullied light > > of awareness in the Nibbanic state, free from all fetters. > > > > But since it is possible to promote both views, and the Theravadan > and Mahayana > > doctrines seem to interpret these differently, at least in the > hands of able > > practitioners, doesn't it suggest that we really should refrain > from clinging to > > views and interpretations, but follow the Buddha's example as best > we can, > > according to our temperaments? > > That sounds like mighty sage advice to these ears. :) > > > if we want to reach the final goal of the path, whatever it may > contain. I guess > > we would all agree that we want to be free of defilements and > fetters, and we want > > to some day experience what the Buddha did. Of one thing I am > sure: no matter > > what map we use to get there, the map by itself, meaning the > Sutras, will not get > > us there. > > Indeed the map is not the territory. Not even close. I particularly > like this excerpt from the story of Ajahn Mun: > > "In the long course of his wilderness training, Ajaan Mun learned > that -- contrary to Reform and Customary beliefs -- the path to > nirvana was not closed. The true Dhamma was to be found not in old > customs or texts but in the well-trained heart and mind. The texts > were pointers for training, nothing more or less. The rules of the > Vinaya, instead of simply being external customs, played an important > role in physical and mental survival. As for the Dhamma texts, > practice was not just a matter of confirming what they said. Reading > and thinking about the texts could not give an adequate understanding > of what they meant--and did not count as showing them true respect. > True respect for the texts meant taking them as a challenge: putting > their teachings seriously to the test to see if, in fact, they are > true. In the course of testing the teachings, the mind would come to > many unexpected realizations that were not contained in the texts. > These in turn had to be put to the test as well, so that one learned > gradually by trial and error to the point of an actual noble > attainment. Only then, Ajaan Mun would say, did one understand the > Dhamma." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/customs.html > > > If we don't apply the instructions in a purposeful way, either > > practicing meditation, if that is our bent, or discerning in life > and observation, > > if that is our practice, then we can't get real insight, only > intellectual > > understanding. > > The true Dhamma has never existed within the pages of any text, or in > the words of any teacher, but in the heart. > > > We are all committed, I think, to getting there, and I think it has > been > > demonstrated that both people in the Theravadan and Mahayana > traditions have > > enjoyed full enlightenment. > > Which is why when we find the vehicle best suited to our > accumulations we should take it up and thoroughly put it to the test, > so we can, as Ajahn Mun observed, truly come to understand the Dhamma. > > > So we should take heart, and realize that we must use > > views, but without clinging to them, each in our own way. > > Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! My friend in the Dhamma! :) Thanks for your words of affirmation, and for considering me a Dhamma friend! Best, Robert E. 8148 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 3:28pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: paramis --- rikpa21 wrote: > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Jonothan, > > > The qualities that are the paramis (generosity, determination, > etc.) can > > be developed by any one at any time, but the level at which the > quality is > > being developed will depend on the level of understanding or > otherwise > > that accompanies the moment of consciousness. > > > > So I don't think it's necessary to think in terms of panna being > developed > > first or the paramis being developed first. If we see the > importance of > > developing kusala we will develop all kinds of kusala--including > panna and > > the qualities that are the paramis--as and when the occasion > arises. > > I think I am going into something approaching shock, Jonothan, > because I find myself in total agreement with what you've said > here! :) Erik, you are obviously more smitten that any of us realised! (Next you'll be agreeing that the ancient commentaries are necessary reading...) Jon 8149 From: Sarah Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 4:16pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Hi Azita, I'm very glad indeed to read your comments below and to note that you'venot only been receiving the messages this time, but are also appreciating them;-)) Tadao, you'll remember Azita from Bkk and Sri Lanka in the 70s, I'm sure (though I've just realised you both had different names then...) and Nina of course too. Christine, let me also introduce Azita as another keen Qld dhamma student! Azita, I look forward to hearing plenty more from you . Our very best wishes to other 'old hands' you're in touch with too and hoping (yes, with lots of attachment) to see them here as well. Best wishes, Sarah --- azita gill wrote: > hello dsg, this is my first comment to dsg. in reply > to K.Ong about Achan Chah whose statement"there is one > essential point that all good practice must come to - > not clinging" my understanding of 'not clinging' > is a moment in time which arises and falls away so > quickly that 'we' hardly notice unless sati arises > [and also falls away] to know the difference between > clinging and not clinging. If sati and panya are not > developed to a degree to know this difference, then > who knows? My understanding of 'no self' is that in > reality, no self can be found in the rapid arising and > falling away of, say, generosity, anger, attachment, > wisdom, compassion, conceit, and the rupas or matter > which we take for "me" or "mine" e.g. my hair,my car, > my friends. > I am greatly appreciating the amount of dhamma that > is available via this dsg. may all beings be happy, > Azita 8150 From: Sarah Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 7:59pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Questions on lokuttara, sense-door, mind-door This is a long and picky ‘abhidhamma’ post for those who prefer to ignore the like;-)) Dear Nina, Sometimes I also find this topic of doorways can be confusing.....let me add one or two comments according to my understanding and from chatting to KS in between your recent notes here and Cambodia conversation...pls feel very free to correct me . Nina:> > Another question: concerning my translation of Camb talks. In Cambodia, > > A. > > Sujin explains about the mind-door that is hidden by the sense-doors in > > our > > daily life. I understand. When there is no vipassana ~aa.na, the > > mind-door > > does not appear, although there is a mind-door process after each > > sense-door > > process. Could we say ‘before there is the first stage of vipas. ~nana....’? KS kept stressing this moment. Now there is seeing and we’re so attached to what is seen that it seems that the seeing lasts. In this sense the sense door (of the eye) covers up the mind-door. >>But also, A Sujin says, while thinking about names and > > concepts, > > the mind-door is hidden by the sense-doors, and we do not realize at > > such > > moments realities that arise and fall away. Yes, no awareness and so there is no understanding of the difference between seeing and thinking or other realities. >>My feeling is: we think of > > concepts on account of the sense objects, and in between our thinking > > there > > are sense impressions time and again, the mind-door process does not > > appear. > > Is this the reason that even while thinking of concepts the mind-door > > process is hidden by the sense-door processes? Yes, this sounds exactly right to me. We’re lost in the world of concepts about visible objects, sounds etc and there is no understanding of the mind-door realities. > Jon:> My only recollection of the translation of the Cambodia talks is of a > passage dealing with 'thinking hiding the sense-doors'. Have I got this > wrong? Perhaps you could refer us again to the part about mind-door being > hidden by sense-doors. Thanks. Yes she talked about this quite a bit. The emphasis was very much on how right now, because of the thinking about so many concepts without awareness, there is no understanding of the many moments of seeing and hearing and other sense door activities, no understanding of different namas and rupas. The sense doors are covered up in this sense by the conepts In summary, I think that because there is no awareness most the time, it seems that sense door activities last and the mind door activities are hidden (sense door covering mind door) and/or we’re lost in the world of concepts which are taken to be realities (mind door covering sense door). At 1st vipas ~nana, no more wrong view or taking concepts for realities and clear distinction between namas and rupas, seeing and thinking etc. Now I’ll extract one or two points from yr Cambodia translations. to read the full context, anyone should read the full conversation which can be found in full under ‘Cambodia talks’ at; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Message 7684 ************************************************* Dhamma Discussion in the Sam Paothong Temple Sujin: At this moment realities are appearing, such as seeing arising in the eye-door process. However, people do not know the true nature of what appears, they take what they see for people and things. Therefore, the thinking on account of what was seen, thus, the thinking of people and things, hides the truth. ***************************** *************************************** ................. At this moment heat, cold, softness or hardness appear through the bodysense. However, one does not know that when each of these sense-door processes has fallen away, a mind-door process has to succeed that sense-door process immediately, after there have been bhavanga-cittas in between 1 . Thus, at this moment it seems that there is seeing and then immediately hearing, and one does not know when the mind-door process arises. There are different sense-door processes arising and falling away one after the other, and this can be known because there is a mind-door process in between. ****************************************** ****************************************** However, that does not mean that one realizes the characteristic of the mind-door process. One may merely know that when a sense-door process does not arise and there are only cittas which are thinking, that there must be cittas arising in a mind-door process. ****************************************** ********************************************** If satipatthĺna does not arise, the nĺma and rúpa of just a moment ago have fallen away, but people did not derive any benefit from them since they did not realize the true nature of those dhammas. If satipatthĺna does arise, it is not aware of anything else but the characteristic of the reality that is appearing at this moment through whatever doorway. *********************************** When satipatthĺna arising with mahĺ-kusala citta 2 in a mind-door process knows a characteristic of a reality appearing through one of the six doorways, it does not arise in the same process as that reality. When satipaěěhĺna arising in a mind-door process investigates a characteristic of rúpa, it realizes rúpa that appears through one of the sensedoors. If satipatthĺna is aware of a nĺma dhamma, it knows a nĺma that arose and fell away. That nĺma arose and fell away, but that characteristic still appears, so that it can be studied and correctly understood as a characteristic of nĺma dhamma, different from rúpa dhamma. The arising and falling away of realities is extremely rapid. ************************************* **************************************** Is there anybody who can, while there is seeing, discern the eye-door process that has fallen away, the bhavanga-cittas that arise in between sense-door process and mind-door process, and the mind-door process cittas that experience what appeared through the eye-door? Is there anybody who can distinguish between the sense-door process and the mind-door process? When softness or hardness is appearing, and sati is aware of the characteristic that appears, can anybody tell through which doorway that characteristic appears? ******************* *********************** The pańńĺ that can distinguish the difference between the mind-door and the sense-door must be insight-knowledge, vipassanĺ ńĺna 3. ************************** ***************************** If one asks a person who studies the Dhamma in which kinds of processes mahĺ-kusala citta can arise, the answer is in the sense-door processes and in the mind-door process. It can be known when mahĺ-kusala citta accompanied by pańńĺ arises in a sense-door process, because at that moment pańńĺ knows a characteristic of rúpa. When satipaěěhĺna arises in a mind-door process it can arise alternately in a sense-door process 4 . Pańńĺ that accompanies kusala citta arising in a mind-door process can gradually have more understanding of realities, and it can also penetrate the true nature of rúpa. ************************** ******************************* Footnotes 3. There are several stages of insight knowledge, vipassanĺ ńĺůa. The first stage is distinguishing the difference between nĺma and rúpa and this arises in a mind-door process. Rúpa can be known through a sense-door and through the mind-door, and nĺma can only be known through the mind-door. Thus, the difference between nĺma and rúpa is known through the mind-door. Now, at this moment, the mind-door is covered up by the sense-doors, but at that stage of insight knowledge it is understood what the mind-door is. ****************************** ******************************* Acharn Sujin explains in ?A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, Part V, Ch 2, The Stages of Insight: ?The rúpas which are sense-objects are experienced through the corresponding sense-doors and after each sense-door process the object is experienced through the mind-door. However, when there is no vipassanĺ ńĺůa, insight knowledge, the mind-door process does not appear, it is as it were hidden by the sense objects experienced in the sense-door processes. *************************** ***************************** At the moments of vipassanĺ ńĺůa, rúpas appear very clearly through the mind-door, and at that moment the mind-door hides as it were the sense-doors. Then the situation is opposite to the moments when there is no vipassanĺ ńĺůa. ************************ > After looking at a few points made by Sarah, Robert E and rikpa21(sorry did > not get your name), I would like to say that what Sarah and Robert are trying > to do is describing emptiness which in the first place impossible to > describe. just for the record, i've never tried to describe emptiness and frankly have no idea what emptiness is. It's not a word/concept I've ever used here;-)) What I tend to talk about (too much for some) are realities , the 'anattaness' of realities and the development of understanding of these same realities. Thanks for your keen interest, Kenneth, Sarah 8153 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 9:50pm Subject: Purnomo Sorry for the broadcast, _/\_ If anyone is in contact with Purnomo , pls ask Purnomo to mail me offlist. Or if anyone knows Purnomo's present (snail)mail address, I'd appreciate if I can have that. I need to mail some books to Purnomo, have 2 (snail)mail addresses , but don't know which one ( or any one of them ) is the correct one. Thanx gayan 8154 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 9:50pm Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Jon & Ranil, > > Thanks Jon for ID'ing this sutta. Here's a link to a > translation: > > http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sam/sn3-17.htm > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > The com and subcom explain 'diligence' as diligence > > that motivates one to > > engage in the three bases of meritorious deeds > > [punna kiriya vatthu?] of > > dana, sila and bhavana, and describes diligence, > > though mundane, as chief > > among the supramundane states because it is the > > cause for their > > attainment. > > I think I remember that appamaada is (sometimes?) a > synonym for satipatthaana. If this is correct, > wouldn't appamaada also be chief among mundane states? Yes, I think that follows. Actually, I'm not very familiar with appamada as meaning 'diligence'. I am more familiar with its meaning of 'heedlessness' which is pretty much the negative formulation of 'mindfulness' (= your satipatthana above). Nyanatiloka in his 'Buddhist Dictionary' gives the meanings of 'zeal, non-laxity, earnestness and diligence', and notes that "In the commentaries, it is often explained as the presence (lit. non-absence) of mindfulness (satiyaa avippavaasa).' As to mundane vs. supramundane, I take the com. as saying that even though it is a (mere) mundane state, because of what it leads to it is reckoned as chief among the supramundane states. Difficult to know for sure with so little available from the Com. (and so much ignorance!). Jon 8155 From: rikpa21 Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 10:13pm Subject: Re: 'I prefer directness' - Erik --- Sarah wrote: Hi Sarah, > Much of what you wrote in your message seemed to have little relation to > anything I or anyone else has said and there were many suggestions or > inferences which were without basis in my view. Chalk my response up to a deeply ingrained tendency of not wishing to see various aspects of the Dharma mischaracterized or denigrated via either suggestion or implication. But on futher reflection, I can now see now the pointlessness of that exercise. Besides, what does this beginner on the path with no rank, status, credentials, or even formal learning, really have to say that hasn't been said a thousand times better already by those of infinitely greater knowledge and wisdom? 8156 From: Howard Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 6:15pm Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Hi, Robert(, Mike, and all) - In a message dated 9/18/01 4:02:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > --- "m. nease" wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > > You have a number of positive states that have been > > > entered into in order to reach > > > it: Right View, Right Thinking, Right > > > Concentration, insights and jhanas. > > > The > > > essence of all of these positive states that are > > > entered into is that they are > > > increasingly refined forms of apprehensions or > > > awareness. > > > > Not sure what you mean by 'positive states'. The path > > factors and so on are mental factors, arising and > > subsiding instantaneously with moments of > > consciousness. Certainly no one to 'enter into' them, > > even conventionally speaking. Also not sure what you > > mean by 'essence', 'apprehensions' or 'awareness'. If > > by awareness you mean sati, this is also a cetasika > > and a path-factor, which arises and subsides > > instantaneously like the others. > > I see awareness as something that's always there. One is always aware of > something. I don't look at it as the consciousness that corresponds to each > mental act, but as a background awake quality that is always there. I can > understand how that is not in accord with the view that there is nothing in > human > existence other than the kandhas. It introduces the idea of there being > 'something' that's an experiencer. Only it's not personal, not an entity, > not > separate from the experience. It's more like a field, like space. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: We see this in pretty much the same way, except perhaps for terminological nuance. I see all the khandas, I see the vi~n~nana/namarupa vortex, as depending upon an underlying field of awareness. But that underlying field of awareness is not to be thought of as a substance or thing, but rather as a functional potential. I see vi~n~nana as the function of discerning objects within the overall field of awareness. For example, when "consciousness averts" to an object, there is a sense in which that object needs to already be "present" for discerning. ------------------------------------------------------------- > > I guess the question is, can you have something that experiences and still > have > anatta? > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think there is "something" which experiences. There is just the experiencing, itself. ---------------------------------------------------------- I think you can, but I understand that most of you who are taking the > abhidarmic reading of the Theravada scriptures would say that they are > irreconcileable, and that not only no one but nothing experiences the > experiences, > except the momentary consciousnesses that arise with the objects of > experience. > ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I see no need for some "thing" which experiences. ------------------------------------------------------------- > > I would ask you, how do you the consciousnesses that correspond to the > perceptual > or conceptual act arise? Where do they arise from? I know the kandhas are > there > from past accumulations [?], but what makes these momentary consciousnesses > fire > off? ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think this is a valid question! I see the answer being that each realm of experience, is a shared dynamic flow of discernment which is the creation of the kamma of those "beings" associated with that realm, the function of discernment constantly carving out new objects of experience from the general field of awareness within that limited realm. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > I understand that there is no one experiencing these experiences, they are > just > taking place, there is just experience and object of experience arising > together, > then there are the mental factors that take the experience and process it > in some > way, and that is another moment that arises and falls. And this keeps > going on. > But what is the quality of those experiences? There is the illusion of the > experiencer, but what is contained int he experience? Is it really not an > experience, but just a mental act. Does the momentary consciousness > 'experience' > the object, or do they just arise together mechanically? ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: The momentary consciousness, if, indeed, it is actually a momentary phenomenon, *is* the experiencing of the object. The function of discerning and the discerned object cannot be separated. They not only co-occur, but are, in fact, two sides of the same coin. Vi~n~nana and namarupa are likened by the Buddha to two sheaves of reeds, standing up and lying against each other, providing mutual support, so that were either to fall, both would fall. -------------------------------------------------------------- > sense. > > > As I understand it, insight (vipassanaa) arises and > > subsides instantaneously and refines understanding > > (pańńaa), which accumulates and is passed along from > > citta to citta. > > How does the understanding accumulate? That seems to contradict the > momentary > nature of every experience. Well, I guess the skandhas accumulate akusala, > and > that kusala can accumulate as well, eventually outweighing the accumulated > akusala. Is that correct? I would still like to know if anything is really > accumulated in this momentary arising and falling. What allows > accumulation to > take place, and what accumulates them? This would seem to me to be > implying some > sort of solidity which starts to border on entity if you have something > that has > duration and is able to accumulate qualities or understanding. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What is being passed on are properties, patterns, and functions, but nothing substantial. A physicist might say, I would think, that when one billiard ball hits a second, nothing has truly made contact - yet motion is transferred. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Hope you don't mind if I break this question down a > > little: > > > Nibbaana is just the cessation of dukkha, as I > > understand it. > > Okay. And dukkha is a result of aviddja, and the other qualities that are > eliminated by the eightfold path. yes? > > > > is > > > the refined awareness and insight and awareness that > > > has been so meticulously > > > developed to create the ladder to Nibbana also > > > eliminated, > > > > By 'awareness', do you mean sati? And by 'insights', > > vipassanaa? If so, I think you're referring to > > satipatthaana vipassanaa. > > Yes, I think in this case that's correct. > > If by 'the ladder to > > Nibbana' you mean the path, I think it's a very odd > > metaphor. The path is not a structure, but a > > collection of mental factors arising and subsiding > > simultaneously and instantaneously, as I understand > > it. > > except they accumulate understanding through vipassana? that's a little > contradictory, isn't it? it's the accumulation of insight that allows the > path to > develop, but at the same time it's just a collection of instantaneous > events? > > I don't mean to give you a hard time. I'm just trying really hard to see > how the > path develops through accumulation of insight and understanding, and then > the > whole thing, which is really momentary, all subsides leaving nothing at the > end of > the path but freedom from dukkha. > > > > or are they merely > > > surpassed in a state that contains the same essence > > > as this development but is > > > totally beyond them? > > > > What is there to be surpassed, and by whom? The path > > factors simply arise and then vanish completely. When > > they've finished their function, dukkha is permanantly > > eradicated. > > > > > It would make logical sense that the essence of the > > > path would be exemplified in > > > its most refined form in its final attainment, > > > Nibbana. > > > > Again, I think it's a mistake to think of the path as > > having an essence--just a very quick confluence of > > mental factors, with the supreme function of > > eradicating defilement, then vanishing completely. > > How is defilement eradicated by the accumulation of sati? What is the > relation > between these two? Why can't defilement just be 'purified' by some other > factor, > since understanding has no role in the final 'product'? I mean, there are > other > systems that get rid of attachment through meditation, purification, etc. > Buddhism is the only path that focusses so heavily on understanding and > insight. > But it seems like the understanding and insight gets you to the threshold > and then > turns out not to really have any purpose, since the final goal is merely > cessation > of dukkha, and not a state of understanding. The final product has no need > of > insight or anything else. They were just expedients to get rid of > suffering. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think that is a misreading of the Theravadin understanding. ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > To think that all is > > > eliminated and that there is merely negation of > > > negatives just doesn't make sense. > > > > Only if you think of there being something lasting > > that can be negated or eliminated or whatever. Like > > all other cetasikas, the path-factors arise, perform > > their function and fall away completely. > > > > > It is not because of Mahayana doctrines that it > > > doesn't make sense, > > > > Well, my take on this is that it is a difference > > between the Mayahana and Theravada. My knowledge of > > Mahayana doctrine is vague though, based on many years > > as a Zen student but little academic study (aside from > > having read a number of classics). So I may well be > > mistaken about this. > > I'm starting to think you're right about this. At least if you interpret > Theravadin doctrine to mean that there is merely cessation of dukkha and > all the > work with insight and sati is just an expedient, having no value in and of > itself. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Robert, for an alternative presentation of Theravada, I would encourage you to read The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvana in Early Buddhism, by Peter Harvey, Curzon Press, 1995 (ISBN 0 7007 0338 1 for the paperback). It has become one of my "bibles"! It is excellent, IMHO!! ----------------------------------------------------------- > That is where I think we disagree. I may be out of step with Theravadin > doctrine > in that, or perhaps it can be interpreted both ways. I am not well versed > enough > [no pun intended] to know that at this point. And I admit that I'm too > busy and > lazy to catch up really quickly, but one of these days I'll be more > knowledgeable! > > > > but because > > > of the path outlined by the Buddha and all of his > > > statements about the > > > pleasantness and uplifted quality of each > > > progressive stage on the path. > > > > If you're referring to the stages of enlightenment, > > they are subjectively very pleasant and uplifting, no > > doubt (at least I imagine so--this is probably > > addressed more specifically in the abhidhamma). > > I'm glad you agree that the path can be enjoyable -- in a non-clinging way > of > course. I'm not sure if everyone would agree with this. > > > > Where is > > > that quality of refined joy and total discernment > > > that characterize the Buddha's > > > own statements and presumably his own state? > > > > The mental factors arising and subsiding with the > > moments of consciousness of a Buddha are very refined, > > no doubt--to say the least! I'm sure these are > > catalogued somewhere in the abhidhamma, too. > > That would be interesting. > > For sure > > they fall away completely in an instant. > > > > They > > > are contained in and are the > > > natural emanation of the state of Nibbana, of > > > Arahatship, of Buddhahood. > > > > You seem to be equivocating nibbaana with Arahatship > > and Buddhahood. The second two are very similar > > (though not identical)--nibbaana is simply the > > permanent cessation of dukkha, as I understand it. > > So what makes for an Arahat or a Buddha, beyond Nibbana? > > > > So it > > > doesn't make sense to me that one cannot assert that > > > there is a positive state, > > > experience, or awareness in Nibbana. > > > > The question is, why would one assert such a thing, > > with no record of the Buddha's every having taught it? > > At least if there is any such assertion in the > > tipitaka, I've never run across it. If you're aware > > of such a teaching in the tipitaka, I'd like to hear > > about it. Otherwise, to interpolate this into the > > Buddhadhamma is a very big mistake, I think. > > > > > The Buddha is > > > not 'dead'. He has not been > > > annihilated by attaining Nibbana and Buddhahood. > > > > In which of the aggregates is, or was, there someone > > to be annihilated (or not)? > > > > > In > > > fact he is completely free > > > and 'awake'. > > > > Certainly the Buddha was one who 'awoke' (achieved the > > cessation of dukkha), conventionally speaking. If 'he > > is completely free and 'awake'', in what aggregate or > > element is 'he' to be found? In fact, I think that to > > say that the Buddha 'is completely free and 'awake'' > > is nothing less than bizarre, from the Theravada > > perspective as I understand it (no offense!) > > No offense taken. But I think we look at Buddhi differently. The term > Buddha > means 'one who is awake or has awakened'. I don't take that to mean that > he's > merely awakened from dukkha. In any case, in Zen it has a much more > positive > interpretation. > > Two travellers were walking down the road when they sensed an amazing > presence > coming towards them. They were anxious to see who this person could be. > They had > never experienced anything like this before. As they came into the > presence of > the man, he seemed to give off an immense radiant energy. They questioned > him and > asked: "Why do you have this amazing aspect. Who are you?" The Buddha, > for it > was he, answered simply: "I am awake". > > > > Buddha means 'one who is awake'. Can > > > one be 'awake' without > > > sentience/consciousness/awareness? This also > > > doesn't make sense. If you want to > > > say that the Buddha is 'awake' but has none of those > > > other attributes or > > > qualities, you would have to at least say, based on > > > his most popular title alone, > > > that he at least partakes of 'awakeness'. Awakeness > > > and awareness are synonyms. > > > > The Buddha 'awoke' (speaking conventionally) when he > > achieved cessation of dukkha. After that, he could be > > called 'awake' up until parinibbaana. At that point, > > the conditions for the arising of any further naamas > > (cittas or cetasikas, consciousnesses and mental > > factors) were completely exhausted, as I understand > > it. The rupas which composed his physical form will > > continue to arise and subside as long as the > > conditions exist for their continued existence. > > I understand this explanation, and it is certainly sensible. > > > Thanks for challenging my own perspectives, Robert. > > Always good to hear from you. > > > > mike > > Same here. As always, it's a pleasure to talk to you as well. > > Best, > Robert E. > ============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8157 From: Jinavamsa Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 1:44am Subject: peace > Dear Dan > Dear group > > I understand that for an American citizen the > emotional contents of this terroristic episode are > particularly shocking and intense; certainly much more > that for somebody who is not 'directly' involved even > being sympathetic. > Nevertheless this is not a justification to > misinterpret what I commented, whether you agree or > disagree with it. > I wish to clarify and be listened without prejudice > but I suppose is not feasible, too early, too 'raw the > wounds' as Howard expressed. > I never intended any 'personal' insinuation that > anybody in this tragedy 'deserved' such pain. > Neither I attempted to penetrate the misteries of > kamma making assertions I could not be clear-sighted > about. > I only expressed my point of view observing the > situation and whether you like or dislike it I am not > going to 'lie' to recover 'popularity'. > > Response in the context: > --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > > America' when this tragedy is a result of > > American > > > > imperialism all over the world > > > > No. It is the result of an intense hatred and > > ignorance. I can't > > imagine the cetasikas arising and passing away in > > the planning and > > execution of the attacks. > > Dan this hatred and ignorance were in the deeds of > american politics all the same not only in the mind of > who planned and executed this attack. > What doesn't means I have no compassion for the people > involved. > However it seems that anything regarding America > becomes a 'media sensation' and the millions who > suffer tragedies all over the world which don't get > all that publicity yet endure devastating suffering > all the same are neglected. > This certainly doesn't diminish the sorrow and grief > of Americans but is a fact to consider in my opinion. > And I have the right to express freely my opinion even > if is not 'politically correct' for you. > Too easy blame others, too hard and painful consider > the political mistakes (equally fruit of hatred, > greedy and ignorance) that conduce to such clamorous > extremes. > > > > And my friends who work in Manhattan really didn't > > "deserve" to be > > attacked. Vipaka isn't necessarily proportional. > > Dan, who 'deserves' ever being hurt, suffering > injustice or whatever pain one may have to face? > But there are seeds of violence who bears fruits of > violence and I believe that this tragedy is one of the > consequences of all this 'ignorance and hatred' in > international politics. > I was not exactly considering the results of kamma of > your friends and I know very well that vipaka is not > necessarily proportional. > But a nation as an individual has kammic > responsabilities in my view. > And if a nation commit violence cannot expect > indulgence from another nation particularly if > actually we are speaking of fundamentalists, radical > and exalted. > I don't 'hate' americans but as I told Robert E. I > have no sympathy for American internationl policy of > continuous interference like in Vietnam who leads to > much more suffering. > I am sorry if this add more burden to your pain but > many of us from the Third World, in South America, in > Africa, in Asia had to suffer a lot as a result of > American interference. > This is a real fact and I am not going to deny > reality. > As I am not insensible or denying your or other people > sufferings in this tragedy. > I am not expecting you to accept my view but I thought > would be fair to clarify my position. > I know this is not going to bring me popularity but I > am not a hypocritical. > > Metta > Cybele > 8158 From: m. nease Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 5:00am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Azita, Welcome--what a great first post. I'm a great admirer of Ajahn Chah AND I think you've hit the nail on the head. mike --- azita gill wrote: > hello dsg, this is my first comment to dsg. in > reply > to K.Ong about Achan Chah whose statement "there is > one > essential point that all good practice must come to > - > not clinging" my understanding of 'not clinging' > is a moment in time which arises and falls away so > quickly that 'we' hardly notice unless sati arises > [and also falls away] to know the difference between > clinging and not clinging. If sati and panya are not > developed to a degree to know this difference, then > who knows? My understanding of 'no self' is that > in > reality, no self can be found in the rapid arising > and > falling away of, say, generosity, anger, attachment, > wisdom, compassion, conceit, and the rupas or matter > which we take for "me" or "mine" e.g. my hair,my > car, > my friends. > I am greatly appreciating the amount of dhamma > that > is available via this dsg. may all beings be happy, > > Azita 8159 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 6:07am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] peace I have in the present context just created a new group. This is not > meant in any way to replace any spiritual groups. Its focus is > rather precise and specific... > > Please visit its homepage, where its statement of focus is > presented; its name itself also points to its interest. > > The group is CreativeSolutionsForPeace and is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreativeSolutionsForPeace > > in peace (may it be), > Jinavamsa > ========= > 8160 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 6:23am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 3 --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 9/17/01 9:48:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > > > --- Howard wrote: > > > Hi, Robert (and Robert K) - > > > > > > In a message dated 9/17/01 6:48:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > > Robert E writes: > > > > > > > > > > > S. XXII. 94 > > > > > A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a mental > > > > > formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and persistent, > > > > > eternal and not subject to change, such a thing the wise men in > > > > > this world do not recognize; and I also say that there is no > > > > > such thing.{endquote] > > > > > robert > > > > > > > > Thanks, that certainly seems to make the position clear. It is quite > > > > different > > > > from the Mahayana canon in this way. I would like to hear from those > > who > > > > say that > > > > the two canons do not contradict each other. They do seem to. > > > > > > > > > > > ======================= > > > In this quoted material, the items referred to are instances of > > the > > > five khandas; they are conditioned phenomena, and all conditioned > > phenomena > > > are anicca. But nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, and it is not > > > impermanent. It is a timeless, ultimate emptiness, perfect in every way, > > and > > > certainly not a dead state of dark unconsciousness. Nibbana is the > > cessation > > > of greed, hatred, and ignorance, shining with the brightness of wisdom, > > and > > > not a dark annihilation! > > > > > > With metta, > > > Howard > > > > I agree with you, Howard. My question is: how can we analyze this sutra > > so as to > > make clear that saying the annihilation of the kandhic consciousness leaves > > room > > for that shining awareness which the Buddha, at least here, fails to > > mention. > > > > What do you think? Is it implied here, or is it mentioned more positively > > in > > another sutra, as it is in the Mahayana doctrines? > > > > For the sake of communication, I would like to try to resolve this using > > some > > evidence from the Pali canon. > > > > But my view is the same as yours on this. I do not believe in absolute > > annihilation. To me, it contradicts all the elements of the path as I > > understand > > them. > > > > Robert E. > > > ============================== > The difficulty in finding what you want and what I would also love to > see in the Pali canon (which, BTW, I take to be pretty much the word of the > Buddha, whereas I take the Mahayana Sutras for the most part *not* to be the > original Buddha word) is that the Buddha was apparently quite reticent in > giving much in the way of details with regard to nibbana. I expect that is so > largely for two reasons: (1) Every description will be wrong, because nibbana > is beyond all our concepts and worldly experience, and (2) Any *remotely* > adequate description carries the real danger, the *likelihood*, of being > misinterpreted, of playing right into our defilements, and of fostering > reification and clinging, instead of helping us along the path. I think your reasons are correct. That is also my sense. He gives clear indications in statements that talk about the 'luminous consciousness all around' and that 'darkness does not reign'. Even though one has to look for them, they are there, and I find it hard to really find an interpretation of such statements that does not indicate some sort of presence in Nibbana. For me the clues are good enough to indicate that a consciousness that is not dependent on the rising and falling of conditions is present in Nibbana. But I understand that others will interpret these passages differently. Best, Robert E. 8161 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 6:31am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 'I prefer directness' - Erik Hi Erik, --- rikpa21 wrote: > Chalk my response up to a deeply ingrained tendency of not wishing to > see various aspects of the Dharma mischaracterized or denigrated via > either suggestion or implication. Yes, I agree. I think this is the problem. So what if the dhamma or dharma, our teacher(s) and tradition(s) really are being 'mischaracterized or denigrated'. What is the real problema at that time? Is it the wrong view (as we perceive it) of the one who is criticizing, is it the teachers or traditions for not making the points clearer? Is it the forum where we read/hear these comments? I'd like to suggest the problem (as always) comes back to our attachment to the above and our aversion when we hear or read any criticism. In other words, it always comes back to this very citta now, however much we would like to blame the other. Of course, it's very natural not to wish to hear, even by any implication, any criticism of what we hold dear. Doesn't our old friend, mana (pride), again rear its ugly head again at these times? When I was in Bkk last wek, Khun Sujin was emphasising that we can't be the 'world manager' and need to learn to 'mind our own business'. What she meant by this was that instead of being concerned about the others' wrong views and unskilful deeds and actions, we should develop more understanding at this very moment of our 'own' mental and physical phenomena. We should help others as we can and as we have opportunity to do so, but not with expectation and clinging. >But on futher reflection, I can now > see now the pointlessness of that exercise. there is never a point to clinging. >Besides, what does this > beginner on the path with no rank, status, credentials, or even > formal learning, really have to say that hasn't been said a thousand > times better already by those of infinitely greater knowledge and > wisdom? Erik, you have many useful things to say and in my book, you're a very valued member here on dsg and I miss you when you're not around. I'll get back to your good questions on 'seeing' soon as I mentioned. In the meantime you may like to contribute the good story you wrote me off-list about what we take for being good and bad result, when in fact we never really know. You mentioned that it seemed like pretty bad news to have to leave Manhatten for what your friends in NY considered unsafe Thailand and Cambodia and told me the story (which I'd studied in my Chinese class) about the man who lost his horse..... Sarah 8162 From: Jinavamsa Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 7:03am Subject: peace Dear Jina, > > Good to see you around and I hope you also find time to follow some of the > messages here, too. We'd love to hear from you on any of the dhamma points from > time to time, but I know you're very busy with your website and list. > > Thanks for telling us about your new group below - an excellent idea and best > wishes for it. > > Sarah > > p.s. nice photo btw! very youthful-looking! > > --- 045176234237017031072232175248243208071048 wrote: > > I have in the present context just created a new group. This is not > > meant in any way to replace any spiritual groups. Its focus is > > rather precise and specific... > > > > Please visit its homepage, where its statement of focus is > > presented; its name itself also points to its interest. > > > > The group is CreativeSolutionsForPeace and is at: > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreativeSolutionsForPeace > > > > in peace (may it be), > > Jinavamsa > > ========= > > 8163 From: rikpa21 Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 8:02am Subject: Re: 'I prefer directness' - Erik --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Erik, > > --- rikpa21 wrote: > > Chalk my response up to a deeply ingrained tendency of not wishing to > > see various aspects of the Dharma mischaracterized or denigrated via > > either suggestion or implication. > > Yes, I agree. I think this is the problem. So what if the dhamma or dharma, our > teacher(s) and tradition(s) really are being 'mischaracterized or denigrated'. What is the real problema at that time? > I'd like to suggest the problem (as always) comes back to > our attachment to the above and our aversion when we hear or > read any criticism. The real problem at that time is not necessarily attachment in one responding to such mischaracterizations, as you suggest. The real motivation may, in fact, be something altogether different. You are free to believe such actions are motivated by anything you wish. There could in fact be a whole range of different reasons for doing that sort of thing, just as there could be a range of motivations behind someone denigrating the Dharma--as a means to to turn the Dharma wheel in a debate by drawing a refutation, for example, for the sole benefit of sentient beings. My teachers have reminded me that sometimes there are "plants" out there who put out subtly wrong views to generate a response that clarifies something another person who sees this point uncovered needed clarification on. As far as I know those making the mischaracterizations could well be playing this time-honored game with me, and I am happy to oblige! :) 8164 From: m. nease Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 9:13am Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > The com and subcom explain 'diligence' as > diligence > > > that motivates one to > > > engage in the three bases of meritorious deeds > > > [punna kiriya vatthu?] of > > > dana, sila and bhavana, and describes diligence, > > > though mundane, as chief > > > among the supramundane states because it is the > > > cause for their > > > attainment. > > > > I think I remember that appamaada is (sometimes?) > a > > synonym for satipatthaana. If this is correct, > > wouldn't appamaada also be chief among mundane > states? > > Yes, I think that follows. Actually, I'm not very > familiar with appamada > as meaning 'diligence'. I am more familiar with its > meaning of > 'heedlessness' which is pretty much the negative > formulation of > 'mindfulness' (= your satipatthana above). I assume you meant 'heedfulness' here, rather than 'heedlessness'? Ven. Buddhadatta has, for appamaada: vigilance; earnestness. and for pamaada: negligence; indolence; remissness; carelessness. > Nyanatiloka in his 'Buddhist Dictionary' gives the > meanings of 'zeal, > non-laxity, earnestness and diligence', and notes > that "In the > commentaries, it is often explained as the presence > (lit. non-absence) of > mindfulness (satiyaa avippavaasa).' Glad for this confirmation. > As to mundane vs. supramundane, I take the com. as > saying that even though > it is a (mere) mundane state, because of what it > leads to it is reckoned > as chief among the supramundane states. Somehow not surprising that it bridges the gap (because being both a mundane and supramundane factor). > Difficult to know for sure with so little available > from the Com. (and so > much ignorance!). Yes, some speculation here. mike 8165 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 11:01am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E --- Sarah wrote: > > And thanks for your hospitality when we bring up our odd views! > > We all start with 'odd views' and a list like this is just so we can mutually > share and test these very views. Thank you for being so active, appreciative > and pleasant to have around;-)) Dear Sarah, Thanks for your response and your kind words. I'll continue to wrestle with these issues. I do believe I'm learning something about the Theravadin perspective. Now, if you can possible summarize the distinction between the Theravadin path in general and how it is approached by the Abhidhamma, I would appreciate it. Or perhaps you can direct me to an appropriate place in the archives. Thanks for the good exchange! Regards, Robert E. 8166 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 11:06am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: nibbana --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Robert E. > I'm really pushed for time. But i had to add that I am consistently > impressed with your genuine desire to lay your views out in the open - > amd even perhaps let some of them go. We have to do this. We have > to examine so carefully what we believe. Someone may have the view > that all paths are the same and this might sound like a open and > spacious idea. But it can be clung to like life itself. Another might > have the view that "I don't say either this or that is right" "nor do > I say this or that is wrong" and still cling to this view like the > devil. The depth that self view - that view that is the root of all > others- goes is so deep, that is why we need a Buddha to show its > craftiness, the different types and the ways it is attached to. One > teacher in thailand (now 96years old) told me that we are like > pickles in a pickle jar, saturated with the vinegar of self view. > How to give this up?!! It takes much time as I know you know. > Wrong view always comes with attachment and pleasant or neutral > feeling. Its function is to delude and if it is present it MAKES one > believe that what they believe is true. I guess you've spoken with > cult members from time to time and noticed how happy many of the are - > and yet how attached and sure of quite strange ideas. This is what > Miccha-ditthi does. Sometimes it might be attractive or appear > reasonable, and then it is not so obvious - but if it is tainted with > self it is wrong. > Dropping wrong view comes at different levels but if it is not seen > at the grossest level - that of thinking - then why wonder about > higher levels. > This doesn't mean cling to right view though . Or try and brainwash > ourselves to belive in anatta. That just obscures the truth too. (as > your post makes clear) > Such a hard path, so profound. > I appreciate your reflections below. > robert Dear Robert, Thanks. I appreciate your sincere comments. Best, Robert E. ================= 8167 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 11:09am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Robert E. > Just to butt in here. I mentioned in a post to you about the 24 > paccaya(conditions) explained in the Patthana , the last book of the > abhidhamma. Some of these are past, some are present. They condition > and they are conditioned. Very intricate! But not all of them are > past ones (which your letter indicates you might be assuming.) > robert Thanks, Robert. Just wondering if one of the conditions that condition is the volitional attempt to observe the real components of the passing reality. Robert E. 8168 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 0:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Questions on lokuttara, sense-door, mind-door Dear Sarah, Just want to tell you that, doctrinal disputes and questions aside, I find the specific discussions of mind-door/sense-door and the components of the moments as they arise [and are seemingly prolonged by mind-door processes] to be quite fascinating and hopeful. Whatever one thinks is there at the end of the process, clear seeing has to be the method of operation for getting rid of delusion. To have a breakdown of how one can see what is truly at play when dharmas are constituted for the mind is quite a great tool. Very interesting. I'm one of those people who like this kind of breakdown into specific mechanics. Anyway, I read the whole thing and even understood a surprisingly large percentage of it, something I would not have been able to say a month ago. Best, Robert E. =========================== --- Sarah wrote: > This is a long and picky ‘abhidhamma’ post for those who prefer to ignore the > like;-)) > > Dear Nina, > > Sometimes I also find this topic of doorways can be confusing.....let me add > one or two comments according to my understanding and from chatting to KS in > between your recent notes here and Cambodia conversation...pls feel very free > to correct me . > > Nina:> > Another question: concerning my translation of Camb talks. In > Cambodia, > > > A. > > > Sujin explains about the mind-door that is hidden by the sense-doors in > > > our > > > daily life. I understand. When there is no vipassana ~aa.na, the > > > mind-door > > > does not appear, although there is a mind-door process after each > > > sense-door > > > process. > > Could we say ‘before there is the first stage of vipas. ~nana....’? > KS kept stressing this moment. Now there is seeing and we’re so attached to > what is seen that it seems that the seeing lasts. In this sense the sense door > (of the eye) covers up the mind-door. > > >>But also, A Sujin says, while thinking about names and > > > concepts, > > > the mind-door is hidden by the sense-doors, and we do not realize at > > > such > > > moments realities that arise and fall away. > > Yes, no awareness and so there is no understanding of the difference between > seeing and thinking or other realities. > > >>My feeling is: we think of > > > concepts on account of the sense objects, and in between our thinking > > > there > > > are sense impressions time and again, the mind-door process does not > > > appear. > > > Is this the reason that even while thinking of concepts the mind-door > > > process is hidden by the sense-door processes? > > Yes, this sounds exactly right to me. We’re lost in the world of concepts about > visible objects, sounds etc and there is no understanding of the mind-door > realities. > > > Jon:> My only recollection of the translation of the Cambodia talks is of a > > passage dealing with 'thinking hiding the sense-doors'. Have I got this > > wrong? Perhaps you could refer us again to the part about mind-door being > > hidden by sense-doors. Thanks. > > Yes she talked about this quite a bit. The emphasis was very much on how right > now, because of the thinking about so many concepts without awareness, there is > no understanding of the many moments of seeing and hearing and other sense door > activities, no understanding of different namas and rupas. The sense doors are > covered up in this sense by the conepts > > In summary, I think that because there is no awareness most the time, it seems > that sense door activities last and the mind door activities are hidden (sense > door covering mind door) and/or we’re lost in the world of concepts which are > taken to be realities (mind door covering sense door). At 1st vipas ~nana, no > more wrong view or taking concepts for realities and clear distinction between > namas and rupas, seeing and thinking etc. > > Now I’ll extract one or two points from yr Cambodia translations. to read the > full context, anyone should read the full conversation which can be found in > full under ‘Cambodia talks’ at; > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts > Message 7684 > ************************************************* > Dhamma Discussion in the Sam Paothong Temple > > Sujin: At this moment realities are appearing, such as seeing > arising in the eye-door process. However, people do not know the > true nature of what appears, they take what they see for people > and things. Therefore, the thinking on account of what was seen, > thus, the thinking of people and things, hides the truth. > ***************************** > > *************************************** > ................. At this moment heat, cold, softness or > hardness appear through the bodysense. However, one does not > know that when each of these sense-door processes has fallen > away, a mind-door process has to succeed that sense-door process > immediately, after there have been bhavanga-cittas in between 1 > . Thus, at this moment it seems that there is seeing and then > immediately hearing, and one does not know when the mind-door > process arises. There are different sense-door processes arising > and falling away one after the other, and this can be known > because there is a mind-door process in between. > ****************************************** > these realities by knowing them and distinguishing them from thinking etc. If > there were only sense door processes, this wouldn’t be possible> > ****************************************** > However, that > does not mean that one realizes the characteristic of the > mind-door process. One may merely know that when a sense-door > process does not arise and there are only cittas which are > thinking, that there must be cittas arising in a mind-door > process. > ****************************************** > processs’. Could we instead say ‘characteristics of realities (or just > realities) in the mind door process’ which would make more sense to me.> > > ********************************************** > > If satipatthĺna does not arise, the nĺma and rúpa of just a > moment ago have fallen away, but people did not derive any > benefit from them since they did not realize the true nature of > those dhammas. If satipatthĺna does arise, it is not aware of > anything else but the characteristic of the reality that is > appearing at this moment through whatever doorway. > > whatever doorway), there is no concern at all about doorway. In other words, > when sati is aware of seeing it doesn’t mind or care at all whether the reality > is appearing at hat moment through eye door or mind door and it doesn’t care > whether it is at that v.instant arising and falling away or a split-instant ago > through the previous sense process. In other words just the characteristic of > seeing is object regardless of doorway..> > > *********************************** > > When > satipatthĺna arising with mahĺ-kusala citta 2 in a mind-door > process knows a characteristic of a reality appearing through > one of the six doorways, it does not arise in the same process > as that reality. When satipaěěhĺna arising in a mind-door > process investigates a characteristic of rúpa, it realizes rúpa > that appears through one of the sensedoors. If satipatthĺna is > aware of a nĺma dhamma, it knows a nĺma that arose and fell > away. That nĺma arose and fell away, but that characteristic > still appears, so that it can be studied and correctly > understood as a characteristic of nĺma dhamma, different from > rúpa dhamma. The arising and falling away of realities is > extremely rapid. > > ************************************* > > point that Howard (and others) finds difficult. As I just said, KS stresses > that at a moment of awareness there is no concern arout doorways or processes. > The characteristic of the nama, say seeing or hearing, is known more and more > precisely until even the arising and falling of that reality can be known when > it appears. Thinking about which doorway or process is just thinking about > concepts, but it helps to study the details to understand more about the > anattaness of these realities. No reality lasts at all, not even awareness!> > **************************************** > Is there anybody who can, while there is seeing, discern the > eye-door process that has fallen away, the bhavanga-cittas that > arise in between sense-door process and mind-door process, and > the mind-door process cittas that experience what appeared > through the eye-door? Is there anybody who can distinguish > between the sense-door process and the mind-door process? When > softness or hardness is appearing, and sati is aware of the > characteristic that appears, can anybody tell through which > doorway that characteristic appears? > > ******************* > wisdom of the Buddha who could understand all the intricate details in the > abhidhamma.> > > *********************** > The pańńĺ that can > distinguish the difference between the mind-door and the > sense-door must be insight-knowledge, vipassanĺ ńĺna 3. > > ************************** > over and over again and of nama through mind-door....many, many moments of > awareness> > > ***************************** > > If one asks a person who studies the Dhamma in which kinds of > processes mahĺ-kusala citta can arise, the answer is in the > sense-door processes and in the mind-door process. It can be > known when mahĺ-kusala citta accompanied by pańńĺ arises in a > sense-door process, because at that moment pańńĺ knows a > characteristic of rúpa. When satipaěěhĺna arises in a mind-door > process it can arise alternately in a sense-door process 4 . > Pańńĺ that accompanies kusala citta arising in a mind-door > process can gradually have more understanding of realities, and > it can also penetrate the true nature of rúpa. > > ************************** > > > > ******************************* > Footnotes > > 3. There are several stages of insight knowledge, vipassanĺ > ńĺůa. The first stage is distinguishing the difference between > nĺma and rúpa and this arises in a mind-door process. Rúpa can > be known through a sense-door and through the mind-door, and > nĺma can only be known through the mind-door. Thus, the > difference between nĺma and rúpa is known through the mind-door. > Now, at this moment, the mind-door is covered up by the > sense-doors, but at that stage of insight knowledge it is > understood what the mind-door is. > ****************************** > > the sense-door process and vice versa. At the stage of insight knowledge rupa > appears as rupa and nama as nama, distinct from each other and the sense door > and mind-door (processes?) are clearly distinguished. (Should this be mind-door > or mind-door process?) Now I’m confused..I had u’stood it to be mind-door > process so that the difference between nama and rupa is clear..at higher > stages, the mind-door process can know directly the falling away of the one > before, I u’stand, by the highly developed panna which understands the > realities more and more precisely. (Of course this is also the reason that in > the arupa plane there cannot be this development of panna b/c ther is no rupa > and so the difference between nama and rupa can’t be understood as Rob wrote > about recently I think)> > > ******************************* > Acharn Sujin explains in ?A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, Part > V, Ch 2, The Stages of Insight: ?The rúpas which are > sense-objects are experienced through the corresponding > sense-doors and after each sense-door process the object is > experienced through the mind-door. However, when there is no > vipassanĺ ńĺůa, insight knowledge, the mind-door process does > not appear, it is as it were hidden by the sense objects > experienced in the sense-door processes. > > *************************** > > > ***************************** > > At the moments of > vipassanĺ ńĺůa, rúpas appear very clearly through the mind-door, > and at that moment the mind-door hides as it were the > sense-doors. Then the situation is opposite to the moments when > there is no vipassanĺ ńĺůa. > > ************************ > > now mind-door hides sense-door such as when we’re lost in concepts...I > understand that when rupas are appearing clearly thr’ mind-door that there is > no sense door process at that very time but this seems to be another meaning of > ‘hide’. Are mind-door and mind-door process being used interchangeably? > > *********************** > > Nina, I think I’ve confused rather than clarified this topic..... In any case, > the very clear message I always hear from KS is to develop understanding of > seeing, visible object etc rather than be too concerned about doorways and > processes. Do you have any relevant Tipitaka or com. refs by the way? > > I’m hoping to get back on one or two other topics, before you leave for India, > but we'll see.... > > Best regards, > Sarah > > 8169 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 2:27pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 'I prefer directness' - Erik Hi Erik, I don't think anyone here is playing any game or trying to put out any 'subtly wrong views'. As I said before, we're discussing the Pali Tipitaka here as best we can acording to our limited understanding and with all the kilesa we've mentioned many times so very prevalent. As both Dan and Mike wrote so well in their responses to the events in US last week, there are so many moments of attachment (for most of us, anyway) as soon as we see or hear and form a 'story'. Even when we see and hear dhamma, isn't it the same? We like some 'words' and dislike others. Don't we have different motivations all the time? One moment there is metta (if we're lucky), the next there is impatience or restlessnes or attachment. So many, many different states arising and so many opportunities for satipatthana even now while we discuss. Very best wishes for your dhamma studies, Erik and my apologies if I took the title above too literally;-)) or unintentionally caused (or conditioned) any offense. Sarah > > --- rikpa21 wrote: > The real problem at that time is not necessarily attachment in one > responding to such mischaracterizations, as you suggest. The real > motivation may, in fact, be something altogether different. You are > free to believe such actions are motivated by anything you wish. > There could in fact be a whole range of different reasons for doing > that sort of thing, just as there could be a range of motivations > behind someone denigrating the Dharma--as a means to to turn the > Dharma wheel in a debate by drawing a refutation, for example, for > the sole benefit of sentient beings. My teachers have reminded me > that sometimes there are "plants" out there who put out subtly wrong > views to generate a response that clarifies something another person > who sees this point uncovered needed clarification on. As far as I > know those making the mischaracterizations could well be playing this > time-honored game with me, and I am happy to oblige! :) > 8170 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 3:36pm Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Dear Sarah, > Thanks for your response and your kind words. I'll continue to wrestle with these > issues. I do believe I'm learning something about the Theravadin perspective. > Now, if you can possible summarize the distinction between the Theravadin path in > general and how it is approached by the Abhidhamma, I would appreciate it. Or > perhaps you can direct me to an appropriate place in the archives. > > Thanks for the good exchange! > > Regards, > Robert E. _______ Dear Robert e. I don't know what sarah will say but here is something from the Venerable Sitagu Sayadaw of Burma: >>'Abbhidhamma' means dhamma which is exceedingly subtle, deep, difficult to comprehend, and vast in scope. That exceedingly subtle, deep, difficult, excellent and wide Abhidhamma, which is real and correct because it speaks of the selflessness of beings and the natural essential condition of things, .... Vipassana is a method of wisdom that searches for truth and peace in diverse ways by observing, inquiring into, and penetrating the nature, the essence, the set order, the absence of being, the selflessness and the ultimately reality of mind and matter. For example, one method of Vipassana accomplishes this goal through ten kinds of knowledge whereby one comes to understand the nature of matter as producing effects in mutual dependence on matter; and similarly, the nature of mind as producing effects in mutual dependence on mind. Another method which achieves the same end; that is, the seeking out and penetration of reality, relies on an ascent through the seven purifications. In both instances, Vipassana and Abhidhamma are identical. Since Vipassana meditation takes the Abhidhamma as its sole object of contemplation, Vipassana and Abhidhamma cannot be separated. And while it may not be said that one can practice Vipassana only after one has mastered the Abhidhamma, Vipassana meditation and the study of Abhidhamma remain one and the same thing. Because mind, mental factors and matter are forever bound up with this fathom-long body, the study and learning of this subject, and the concentrated observation of the nature of mind, mental factors and matter are tasks which cannot be distinguished."ENDQUOTE robert 8171 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 4:19pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Rob E, I told myself I wouldn’t post anything here today because I’m so behind on office and other work, but then I see your posts here for which I’m truly appreciative and so conditions and intentions change! --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > Thanks for your response and your kind words. I'll continue to wrestle with > these > issues. I do believe I'm learning something about the Theravadin > perspective. > Now, if you can possible summarize the distinction between the Theravadin > path in > general and how it is approached by the Abhidhamma, I would appreciate it. > Or > perhaps you can direct me to an appropriate place in the archives. To my mind the abhidhamma is the heart of the Theravadin path. the details found in the abhidhamma are essential for understanding what is taught in the Tipitaka as a whole. There is no distinction at all in terms of path or practice for me. This doesn’t mean at all that we have to memorise all the details or even study them all. However, without an appreciation of different mental and physical phenomena in some detail there is bound to be an idea of self and something lasting. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Just want to tell you that, doctrinal disputes and questions aside, I find > the > specific discussions of mind-door/sense-door and the components of the > moments as > they arise [and are seemingly prolonged by mind-door processes] to be quite > fascinating and hopeful. > > Whatever one thinks is there at the end of the process, clear seeing has to > be the > method of operation for getting rid of delusion. To have a breakdown of how > one > can see what is truly at play when dharmas are constituted for the mind is > quite a > great tool. Very interesting. I'm one of those people who like this kind of > breakdown into specific mechanics. > May I say, Rob, that this response and encouragement is exactly the reason why I post a message like this here (and indeed why dsg is run at all) rather than in private or just to 2 or 3 friends who I thought might be interested. The study of the dhamma and abhidhamma is not easy at all, but we can see in these details how what we take for a lasting consciousness are really different moments of seeing, hearing, thinking and so on. There is so very little awareness even now when we discuss these realities and so much delusion, as you say, most of the time. If we don’t begin to know these different namas and rupas and how intricate they are, we may so easily delude ourselves that we have attained high levels of wisdom without even beginning to know anything about these characteristics appearing now. When we begin to study these realities through 6 doorways (in theory and with direct panna), only then do we (or rather panna) begin to understand what is meant by anatta. > Anyway, I read the whole thing and even understood a surprisingly large > percentage > of it, something I would not have been able to say a month ago. Rob E, my sincere appreciation for your careful consideration and interest. (You're obviously a much faster learner than me;-)) Abhidhamma is simply seeing now, visible object now, touching now, hardness now, thinking now and so on....no special labels and nothing mystical about it. Just those realities which can be tested and directly proved. Anumodana and bows, Sarah p.s I've just seen the extract from the excellent article Rob's posted. The full article is on his website and well-worth reading imho: http://www.abhidhamma.org/ I’m also greatly enjoying your dialogue with Mike, btw. Hope you both keep it up! 8172 From: rikpa21 Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 7:12pm Subject: Re: 'I prefer directness' - Erik --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Erik, > > I don't think anyone here is playing any game or trying to put out any 'subtly > wrong views'. I just restated a point some of my teachers have mentioned. This sort of thing is a great way to turn the wheel of Dharma, to expose issues that may otherwise remain hidden. The Dharma is hard. Understanding demands courage and ruthless honesty. Speaking only for myself, I have found I've made the greatest progress when I have had most deeply-held assumptions and beliefs thoroughly put to the test and challenged--the more directly, the better. That is why I enjoy engaging those with a different perspective, and why I prefer directness. I hope those who have had their understanding tested in return benefit in the same way. And anyway, for the record, I much prefer playing games to seriousness. It is possible to have serious fun, you know! :) > Very best wishes for your dhamma studies, Erik and my apologies if I took the > title above too literally;-)) or unintentionally caused (or conditioned) any > offense. As I mentioned, I don't any take personal offense at directness. Believe me, if your characterizations are accurate I am grateful to have any areas I need to examine pointed out. If they aren't accurate, then how could I possibly take offense at anything I know isn't true? 8173 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 7:21pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 'I prefer directness' - Erik Hi Erik again, --- rikpa21 wrote: > Speaking only for myself, I have found I've made the greatest > progress when I have had most deeply-held assumptions and beliefs > thoroughly put to the test and challenged--the more directly, the > better. That is why I enjoy engaging those with a different > perspective, and why I prefer directness. I hope those who have had > their understanding tested in return benefit in the same way. Thanks for these comments and I'm sure we all have our ideas and understandings well challenged here;-)) > > And anyway, for the record, I much prefer playing games to > seriousness. It is possible to have serious fun, you know! :) I do realise, especially having met you, that you are having a lot of serious fun most the time;) I also realise your bark is worse than your bite;-) > > As I mentioned, I don't any take personal offense at directness. > Believe me, if your characterizations are accurate I am grateful to > have any areas I need to examine pointed out. If they aren't > accurate, then how could I possibly take offense at anything I know > isn't true? This is an admirable response and I appreciate your sincerity in these remarks. Speak soon, Sarah 8174 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 8:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for your response and your kind words. I'll continue to > wrestle with these > > issues. I do believe I'm learning something about the Theravadin > perspective. > > Now, if you can possible summarize the distinction between the > Theravadin path in > > general and how it is approached by the Abhidhamma, I would > appreciate it. Or > > perhaps you can direct me to an appropriate place in the archives. > > > > Thanks for the good exchange! > > > > Regards, > > Robert E. > _______ > Dear Robert e. > I don't know what sarah will say but here is something from the > Venerable Sitagu Sayadaw of Burma: > >>'Abbhidhamma' means dhamma which is exceedingly subtle, deep, > difficult to comprehend, and vast in scope. That exceedingly subtle, > deep, difficult, excellent and wide Abhidhamma, which is real and > correct because it speaks of the selflessness of beings and the > natural essential condition of things, .... > Vipassana is a method of wisdom that searches for truth and peace in > diverse ways by observing, inquiring into, and penetrating the > nature, the essence, the set order, the absence of being, the > selflessness and the ultimately reality of mind and matter. For > example, one method of Vipassana accomplishes this goal through ten > kinds of knowledge whereby one comes to understand the nature of > matter as producing effects in mutual dependence on matter; and > similarly, the nature of mind as producing effects in mutual > dependence on mind. Another method which achieves the same end; that > is, the seeking out and penetration of reality, relies on an ascent > through the seven purifications. In both instances, Vipassana and > Abhidhamma are identical. > Since Vipassana meditation takes the Abhidhamma as its sole object of > contemplation, Vipassana and Abhidhamma cannot be separated. And > while it may not be said that one can practice Vipassana only after > one has mastered the Abhidhamma, Vipassana meditation and the study > of Abhidhamma remain one and the same thing. Because mind, mental > factors and matter are forever bound up with this fathom-long body, > the study and learning of this subject, and the concentrated > observation of the nature of mind, mental factors and matter are > tasks which cannot be distinguished."ENDQUOTE > robert Dear Robert, Thanks for this quote. The connection cited between abhidhamma and vipassana meditation is very interesting. Is vipassana meditation originally derived from Abhidhamma? I will do a search for something on the historical place of Abhidhamma in the Theravadin tradition in general. I assume it is one of several schools that have been traditionally engaged in the study of the Pali Canon and its content. Best, Robert E. 8175 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 8:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Thanks, Sarah, for your message. Yes, the mechanics of which factor is at play at any given moment is both interesting in its own right, and gives a strong indication for the approach to Vipassana meditation. I don't know if this is redundant for this group, but I am interested in how one applies this methodology to the four foundations of mindfulness. It seems that most of the discussion of Adhidhamma focusses on the relationship between the sense doors and the mind doors and how they interact, as well as the accumulation of panna. I wonder how the breakdown into body/sensations, feelings/emotions, mind and objects of mind [do I have that right?] is incorporated into the analysis. Or is that more or less incidental to the actual seeing of the specific reality of the moment? Thanks, Robert E. ========================= --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob E, > > I told myself I wouldn’t post anything here today because I’m so behind on > office and other work, but then I see your posts here for which I’m truly > appreciative and so conditions and intentions change! > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for your response and your kind words. I'll continue to wrestle with > > these > > issues. I do believe I'm learning something about the Theravadin > > perspective. > > Now, if you can possible summarize the distinction between the Theravadin > > path in > > general and how it is approached by the Abhidhamma, I would appreciate it. > > Or > > perhaps you can direct me to an appropriate place in the archives. > > To my mind the abhidhamma is the heart of the Theravadin path. the details > found in the abhidhamma are essential for understanding what is taught in the > Tipitaka as a whole. There is no distinction at all in terms of path or > practice for me. This doesn’t mean at all that we have to memorise all the > details or even study them all. However, without an appreciation of different > mental and physical phenomena in some detail there is bound to be an idea of > self and something lasting. > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Just want to tell you that, doctrinal disputes and questions aside, I find > > the > > specific discussions of mind-door/sense-door and the components of the > > moments as > > they arise [and are seemingly prolonged by mind-door processes] to be quite > > fascinating and hopeful. > > > > Whatever one thinks is there at the end of the process, clear seeing has to > > be the > > method of operation for getting rid of delusion. To have a breakdown of how > > one > > can see what is truly at play when dharmas are constituted for the mind is > > quite a > > great tool. Very interesting. I'm one of those people who like this kind of > > breakdown into specific mechanics. > > > May I say, Rob, that this response and encouragement is exactly the reason why > I post a message like this here (and indeed why dsg is run at all) rather than > in private or just to 2 or 3 friends who I thought might be interested. > > The study of the dhamma and abhidhamma is not easy at all, but we can see in > these details how what we take for a lasting consciousness are really different > moments of seeing, hearing, thinking and so on. There is so very little > awareness even now when we discuss these realities and so much delusion, as you > say, most of the time. If we don’t begin to know these different namas and > rupas and how intricate they are, we may so easily delude ourselves that we > have attained high levels of wisdom without even beginning to know anything > about these characteristics appearing now. > > When we begin to study these realities through 6 doorways (in theory and with > direct panna), only then do we (or rather panna) begin to understand what is > meant by anatta. > > > Anyway, I read the whole thing and even understood a surprisingly large > > percentage > > of it, something I would not have been able to say a month ago. > > Rob E, my sincere appreciation for your careful consideration and interest. > (You're obviously a much faster learner than me;-)) > > Abhidhamma is simply seeing now, visible object now, touching now, hardness > now, thinking now and so on....no special labels and nothing mystical about it. > Just those realities which can be tested and directly proved. > > Anumodana and bows, > > Sarah > > p.s I've just seen the extract from the excellent article Rob's posted. The > full article is on his website and well-worth reading imho: > http://www.abhidhamma.org/ > > I’m also greatly enjoying your dialogue with Mike, btw. Hope you both keep it > up! > 8176 From: m. nease Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 8:56pm Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Dear Robert, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > I see awareness as something that's always there. > One is always aware of > something. I don't look at it as the consciousness > that corresponds to each > mental act, but as a background awake quality that > is always there. I can > understand how that is not in accord with the view > that there is nothing in human > existence other than the kandhas. It introduces the > idea of there being > 'something' that's an experiencer. Only it's not > personal, not an entity, not > separate from the experience. It's more like a > field, like space. Yes, I think I understand what you're saying. Is this something like 'original mind' in Zen? > I guess the question is, can you have something that > experiences and still have > anatta? I think you can, but I understand that most > of you who are taking the > abhidarmic reading of the Theravada scriptures would > say that they are > irreconcileable, and that not only no one but > nothing experiences the experiences, > except the momentary consciousnesses that arise with > the objects of experience. No, I don't think anyone would say that 'nothing experiences'; just that mental consciousness experiences mental objects, visual consciousness experiences visual objects and so on. > I would ask you, how do you the consciousnesses that > correspond to the perceptual > or conceptual act arise? Where do they arise from? > I know the kandhas are there > from past accumulations [?], but what makes these > momentary consciousnesses fire > off? Each moment of consciousness arises from a very(!) complex set of conditions. I think you could say that it's 'fired off' by contact. > I understand that there is no one experiencing these > experiences, they are just > taking place, there is just experience and object of > experience arising together, > then there are the mental factors that take the > experience and process it in some > way, and that is another moment that arises and > falls. And this keeps going on. I do realize that you understand this, pretty much as I do, I think. I wouldn't say that the mental factors process the experience--they sort of 'color' it, I think--they support it and imbue it with particular characteristics, as I understand it. > But what is the quality of those experiences? There > is the illusion of the > experiencer, but what is contained int he > experience? Is it really not an > experience, but just a mental act. Does the > momentary consciousness 'experience' > the object, or do they just arise together > mechanically? Hope this question makes > sense. Perfect sense--as I understand it, the citta does experience its object. > > As I understand it, insight (vipassanaa) arises > and > > subsides instantaneously and refines understanding > > (pańńaa), which accumulates and is passed along > from > > citta to citta. > > How does the understanding accumulate? That seems > to contradict the momentary > nature of every experience. It does, doesn't it? The answer to that, though I still don't understand it well, is what began to make the abhidhamma make sense to me. As I understand it, each citta inherits all the conditions of the citta preceding it, mostly(?) in the form of latent tendencies. Do I know this to be true? No. For me it answers more questions while creating fewer new ones than any other 'theory', and accords with my reading of the tipitaka--so I accept it as a working hypothesis. How citta does this (if it does) is an absolute mystery to me. I have a lot of questions about this which I mean to continue to investigate. One notion that's occured to me lately is that citta, though so brief, must be incredibly vast, in a sense. I have no idea whether or not this is supported by abhidhamma. > Well, I guess the > skandhas accumulate akusala, and > that kusala can accumulate as well, eventually > outweighing the accumulated > akusala. Is that correct? Kusala and akusala both lead to the continuation of samsaara, I think. Kusala is 'preferable' to the extent that it leads to the understanding which eliminates defilements. And, of course, understanding leads to kusala. > I would still like to > know if anything is really > accumulated in this momentary arising and falling. > What allows accumulation to > take place, and what accumulates them? This would > seem to me to be implying some > sort of solidity which starts to border on entity if > you have something that has > duration and is able to accumulate qualities or > understanding. Yes, Robert K. and Howard have both warned me against starting to think of citta as a kind of discrete 'particle'. What is accumulated, I THINK, is kamma, vipaaka, understanding, delusion and so on. Somehow each citta 'passes on' this 'inheritance' to the next citta. If I have this wrong (as usual) I hope someone will correct me. > > Hope you don't mind if I break this question down > a > > little: > > > Nibbaana is just the cessation of dukkha, as I > > understand it. > > Okay. And dukkha is a result of aviddja, and the > other qualities that are > eliminated by the eightfold path. yes? As I understand it, dukkha is the product of, and/or actually is dependent origination, including avijjaa. As I understand it, the beginning of this isn't discernible (before enlightenment)--maybe because it began so long ago. The path, as I understand it, eradicates the defilements and breaks the chain of dependent origination. > > > is > > > the refined awareness and insight and awareness > that > > > has been so meticulously > > > developed to create the ladder to Nibbana also > > > eliminated, > > > > By 'awareness', do you mean sati? And by > 'insights', > > vipassanaa? If so, I think you're referring to > > satipatthaana vipassanaa. > > Yes, I think in this case that's correct. > > If by 'the ladder to > > Nibbana' you mean the path, I think it's a very > odd > > metaphor. The path is not a structure, but a > > collection of mental factors arising and subsiding > > simultaneously and instantaneously, as I > understand > > it. > > except they accumulate understanding through > vipassana? that's a little > contradictory, isn't it? it's the accumulation of > insight that allows the path to > develop, but at the same time it's just a collection > of instantaneous events? Understanding is (or isn't) accumulated, and passed along from citta to citta, I THINK. > I don't mean to give you a hard time. Only in the sense that you're making me take a hard look at my own views. I personally find your manner of doing so completely commendable--and I really appreciate it. The courtesy of the members is one of the things that makes this list such a pleasant 'place'. > I'm just > trying really hard to see how the > path develops through accumulation of insight and > understanding, and then the > whole thing, which is really momentary, all subsides > leaving nothing at the end of > the path but freedom from dukkha. I don't think that insight accumulates--just understanding, specifically of the four noble truths. > > > or are they merely > > > surpassed in a state that contains the same > essence > > > as this development but is > > > totally beyond them? > > > > What is there to be surpassed, and by whom? The > path > > factors simply arise and then vanish completely. > When > > they've finished their function, dukkha is > permanantly > > eradicated. > > > > > It would make logical sense that the essence of > the > > > path would be exemplified in > > > its most refined form in its final attainment, > > > Nibbana. > > > > Again, I think it's a mistake to think of the path > as > > having an essence--just a very quick confluence of > > mental factors, with the supreme function of > > eradicating defilement, then vanishing completely. > > How is defilement eradicated by the accumulation of > sati? Not sati, but pańńaa. One of the unique characteristics of pańńaa is that it eradicates defilements. How it does this is maybe a question for a different thread? Others can answer this much better than I can. > What is the relation > between these two? Why can't defilement just be > 'purified' by some other factor, > since understanding has no role in the final > 'product'? Understanding (pańńaa), in the form of Right View of the Noble Eightfold Path, has the role of 'producing' the final product--cessation of dukkha. > I mean, there are other > systems that get rid of attachment through > meditation, purification, etc. Only temporarily, I think. > Buddhism is the only path that focusses so heavily > on understanding and insight. > But it seems like the understanding and insight gets > you to the threshold and then > turns out not to really have any purpose, since the > final goal is merely cessation > of dukkha, and not a state of understanding. To me, the phrase 'merely cessation of dukkha' is saying exactly 'merely enlightenment'. The eradication of the defilements and the breaking of the chain of conditioned origination is, to my mind, the profoundest achievement possible and precisely the goal achieved by the Buddha and the arahanta. > The > final product has no need of > insight or anything else. They were just expedients > to get rid of suffering. Jus so, as I see it. > > > To think that all is > > > eliminated and that there is merely negation of > > > negatives just doesn't make sense. > > > > Only if you think of there being something lasting > > that can be negated or eliminated or whatever. > Like > > all other cetasikas, the path-factors arise, > perform > > their function and fall away completely. > > > > > It is not because of Mahayana doctrines that it > > > doesn't make sense, > > > > Well, my take on this is that it is a difference > > between the Mayahana and Theravada. My knowledge > of > > Mahayana doctrine is vague though, based on many > years > > as a Zen student but little academic study (aside > from > > having read a number of classics). So I may well > be > > mistaken about this. > > I'm starting to think you're right about this. At > least if you interpret > Theravadin doctrine to mean that there is merely > cessation of dukkha and all the > work with insight and sati is just an expedient, > having no value in and of itself. > That is where I think we disagree. I may be out of > step with Theravadin doctrine > in that, or perhaps it can be interpreted both ways. > I am not well versed enough > [no pun intended] to know that at this point. And I > admit that I'm too busy and > lazy to catch up really quickly, but one of these > days I'll be more knowledgeable! Me too! > > > but because > > > of the path outlined by the Buddha and all of > his > > > statements about the > > > pleasantness and uplifted quality of each > > > progressive stage on the path. > > > > If you're referring to the stages of > enlightenment, > > they are subjectively very pleasant and uplifting, > no > > doubt (at least I imagine so--this is probably > > addressed more specifically in the abhidhamma). > > I'm glad you agree that the path can be enjoyable -- > in a non-clinging way of > course. I'm not sure if everyone would agree with > this. Well, I can't claim to personal knowledge of path-consciousness. Can't help thinking it sounds like fun, though(!). I'd sure like to find out. > > > Where is > > > that quality of refined joy and total > discernment > > > that characterize the Buddha's > > > own statements and presumably his own state? > > > > The mental factors arising and subsiding with the > > moments of consciousness of a Buddha are very > refined, > > no doubt--to say the least! I'm sure these are > > catalogued somewhere in the abhidhamma, too. > > That would be interesting. I think so too--if someone out there with more knowledge of abhidhamma could list these in a way we could comprehend them, I'd be grateful. > For sure > > they fall away completely in an instant. > > > > They > > > are contained in and are the > > > natural emanation of the state of Nibbana, of > > > Arahatship, of Buddhahood. > > > > You seem to be equivocating nibbaana with > Arahatship > > and Buddhahood. The second two are very similar > > (though not identical)--nibbaana is simply the > > permanent cessation of dukkha, as I understand it. > > So what makes for an Arahat or a Buddha, beyond > Nibbana? As I understand it, a Buddha discovers, awakens to and teaches the four noble truths--an arahanta only(!) has to awaken to them. > > > So it > > > doesn't make sense to me that one cannot assert > that > > > there is a positive state, > > > experience, or awareness in Nibbana. > > > > The question is, why would one assert such a > thing, > > with no record of the Buddha's every having taught > it? > > At least if there is any such assertion in the > > tipitaka, I've never run across it. If you're > aware > > of such a teaching in the tipitaka, I'd like to > hear > > about it. Otherwise, to interpolate this into the > > Buddhadhamma is a very big mistake, I think. > > > > > The Buddha is > > > not 'dead'. He has not been > > > annihilated by attaining Nibbana and Buddhahood. > > > > > In which of the aggregates is, or was, there > someone > > to be annihilated (or not)? > > > > > In > > > fact he is completely free > > > and 'awake'. > > > > Certainly the Buddha was one who 'awoke' (achieved > the > > cessation of dukkha), conventionally speaking. If > 'he > > is completely free and 'awake'', in what aggregate > or > > element is 'he' to be found? In fact, I think > that to > > say that the Buddha 'is completely free and > 'awake'' > > is nothing less than bizarre, from the Theravada > > perspective as I understand it (no offense!) > > No offense taken. But I think we look at Buddhi > differently. The term Buddha > means 'one who is awake or has awakened'. I don't > take that to mean that he's > merely awakened from dukkha. In any case, in Zen it > has a much more positive > interpretation. Yes, an interpretation that was very dear to me for many years. > Two travellers were walking down the road when they > sensed an amazing presence > coming towards them. They were anxious to see who > this person could be. They had > never experienced anything like this before. As > they came into the presence of > the man, he seemed to give off an immense radiant > energy. They questioned him and > asked: "Why do you have this amazing aspect. Who > are you?" The Buddha, for it > was he, answered simply: "I am awake". Interesting story! I wonder if it has a correlary somewhere in the suttanta. At any rate, it doesn't suggest to me any 'greater' accomplishment than having broken the chain of dependent origination and permanently eradicated the defilements. The cittas and cetasikas of a Buddha must make for some extraordinary non-verbal communication, to say the least. There are many accounts in the tipitaka of the Buddha and the arahanta having a very extraordinary demeanor. > > > Buddha means 'one who is awake'. Can > > > one be 'awake' without > > > sentience/consciousness/awareness? This also > > > doesn't make sense. If you want to > > > say that the Buddha is 'awake' but has none of > those > > > other attributes or > > > qualities, you would have to at least say, based > on > > > his most popular title alone, > > > that he at least partakes of 'awakeness'. > Awakeness > > > and awareness are synonyms. > > > > The Buddha 'awoke' (speaking conventionally) when > he > > achieved cessation of dukkha. After that, he > could be > > called 'awake' up until parinibbaana. At that > point, > > the conditions for the arising of any further > naamas > > (cittas or cetasikas, consciousnesses and mental > > factors) were completely exhausted, as I > understand > > it. The rupas which composed his physical form > will > > continue to arise and subside as long as the > > conditions exist for their continued existence. > > I understand this explanation, and it is certainly > sensible. > > > Thanks for challenging my own perspectives, > Robert. > > Always good to hear from you. > > > > mike > > Same here. As always, it's a pleasure to talk to > you as well. Back at you again, Robert. Thanks for the privilege of taking part in this discussion with you. mike 8177 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 1:16am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Questions on sense-door, mind-door op 18-09-2001 13:59 schreef Sarah op Sarah > > Dear Nina, > > Sometimes I also find this topic of doorways can be confusing.. > > Nina wrote> > Another question: concerning my translation of Camb talks. In > Cambodia, >>> A. >>> Sujin explains about the mind-door that is hidden by the sense-doors in >>> our >>> daily life. I understand. When there is no vipassana ~aa.na, the >>> mind-door >>> does not appear, although there is a mind-door process after each >>> sense-door >>> process. > > Sarah: Could we say before there is the first stage of vipas. ~nana....’? > KS kept stressing this moment. Now there is seeing and we’re so attached to > what is seen that it seems that the seeing lasts. In this sense the sense door > (of the eye) covers up the mind-door. Nina: In the text is just vipassana ~naa.na, and since I am translating I try to change as little as possible. Moreover, it is true, at the moments of insight knowledge namas and rupas appear one at a time through the mind-door. Then such moments of insight fall away, and, after that, A.Sujin explained, the world appears as usual, as a whole. Because in between the stages of insight the insight one gained has to be applied, and those are pari~n~naa, full comprehension (see Survey, three levels of them). Thus panna has to be developed on and on. >>> But also, A Sujin says, while thinking about names and >>> concepts, >>> the mind-door is hidden by the sense-doors, and we do not realize at >>> such >>> moments realities that arise and fall away. > S: Yes, no awareness and so there is no understanding of the difference between > seeing and thinking or other realities. > N: My feeling is: we think of >>> concepts on account of the sense objects, and in between our thinking >>> there >>> are sense impressions time and again, the mind-door process does not >>> appear. >>> Is this the reason that even while thinking of concepts the mind-door >>> process is hidden by the sense-door processes? > > Sarah: Yes, this sounds exactly right to me. We’re lost in the world of concepts > about > visible objects, sounds etc and there is no understanding of the mind-door > realities. >> > Jon:> My only recollection of the translation of the Cambodia talks is of a >> passage dealing with 'thinking hiding the sense-doors'. Have I got this >> wrong? Perhaps you could refer us again to the part about mind-door being >> hidden by sense-doors. Thanks. > S: Yes she talked about this quite a bit. The emphasis was very much on how right > now, because of the thinking about so many concepts without awareness, there > is > no understanding of the many moments of seeing and hearing and other sense > door > activities, no understanding of different namas and rupas. The sense doors are > covered up in this sense by the concepts > > In summary, I think that because there is no awareness most the time, it seems > that sense door activities last and the mind door activities are hidden (sense > door covering mind door) and/or we’re lost in the world of concepts which are > taken to be realities (mind door covering sense door). Nina: As Khun Sujin explained: now, we do not realize what the mind-door is,we only know in theory that there are sense-door processes and mind-door processes. We know about sense-cognitions, but, although each sense-door process is followed by a mind-door process, we have no direct understanding of this fact, and thus we can say: the mind-door is as it were hidden by the sense-doors. An example she gave long ago to Alan Weller: the world seems to be light all the time, no darkness, but in reality there is light only at those short moments colour impinges on the eyesense and there is seeing. Thus, many, many moments of darkness, at all those moments there is no seeing, but we do not realize this.There seems to be seeing all the time. When I come to think of it, it is so strange, isn't it, but it is true. Now, at the moments of insight knowledge, nama and rupa appear very clearly one at a time through the mind-door. At such moments we shall know what mind-door and mind-door process means. A. Sujin said: It is as if there are no sense-doors, because rupas appear through the mind-door. Thus, then the sense-doors are as it were hidden by the mind-door, the situation is opposite to what we experience now, while there is no insight knowledge. Amara recently quoted A. Sujin: at the first stage of insight the mind-door appears for the first time in samsara, the cycle of birth and death. This can remind us of what we do not know yet and may not realize for a long time. This subject is most difficult, but it can be useful to know about it at least in theory, so that we will not go astray and take for insight what is not insight. When beginning to be aware now we do not think of doorways and processes, that is only thinking. But still the theory is helpful. I do not believe that we should think of being aware of rupa through a sensedoor and through a mind-door, that is again thinking. Thus, when we are lost in thinking of concepts I would prefer not to use in this context the expression mind-door covering the sense-door, rather: no awareness. In Cambodia some people thought that, while thinking, one knows the mind-door, but this is not so. I cannot copy now from all these chapters, I have such lack of time. I gave each chapter one at a time to Robert (given up making attachments), and he copied some for dsg. I could if you like do the same for dsg, but, I thought that these would become to lengthy posts. But not before India, it takes a lot of time to copy and paste. > how > now mind-door hides sense-door such as when we’re lost in concepts... N: See above, there is no question here of mind-door being evident, just unawareness and also in between such moments of thinking there are seeing, hearing. > Nina, I think I’ve confused rather than clarified this topic..... In any case, > the very clear message I always hear from KS is to develop understanding of > seeing, visible object etc rather than be too concerned about doorways and > processes. Do you have any relevant Tipitaka or com. refs by the way? N: The stages of insight: Path of Discrimination, patisambidha magga, Treatise on Knowledge, it is explained what should be "defined",that is considered. The English text is not clear, so I have the Thai also plus commentary, but not studied yet. Ch IV, until Ch Xi. Also in Vis. About sense-door and mind-door, this is something we have to deeply consider ourselves: nama can only be experienced through the mind-door, rupa is experienced through sense-door and mind-door, and thus the insight that understands their differences must arise in a mind-door process. Then the characteristics of both nama and rupa appear very clearly, no doubt. For the teaching of Dhamma, there is the person who explains and there must be the person who thoroughly considers what he hears, that is said in the Suttanta. It depends on the listener what he gets from the teaching. What A. Sujin explains about the doorways is very logical but we have to deeply consider what is taught. It is profound and difficult to understand. Nina. 8178 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 5:19am Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- > > Dear Robert, > Thanks for this quote. The connection cited between abhidhamma and vipassana > meditation is very interesting. Is vipassana meditation originally derived from > Abhidhamma? > > I will do a search for something on the historical place of Abhidhamma in the > Theravadin tradition in general. I assume it is one of several schools that have > been traditionally engaged in the study of the Pali Canon and its content. > > Best, > Robert E. _______ Dear Robert E., Vipassana means special or profound seeing. That is, insight into the true nature of dhammas, realities. These dhammas are analysed and explained by the Sammasamabuddha in the most careful way in the Abhidhamma. They are also explained throughout the rest of the Tipitaka but in a less comprehensive way. The Buddha's teaching are sometimes called DhammaVinaya (the teachings and discipline). And these are recorded in the Tipitaka (the pali canon). Ti means three and so it is divided into 1) Vinaya (rules for monks and nuns). 2)Suttanta - individual discourses to various people on diverse topics and 3) Abhidhamma People have different accumulations and hence there are differences as to which aspects of the DhammaVinaya are most appealing. However, even one who devotes most time to suttanta or vinaya will have to know much about the khandas, the ayatanas(sense fields), and the dhatus(elements) , the different conditions; as these are, as the visuddhimagga says "the soil in which understanding grows". These are all found in the suttanta and even a little in the vinaya . But it is only in the Abhidhamma where they are elucidated in full detail. The Abhidhamma details all that the realities that we experience in daily life as well as those that we aspire to. Understanding Abhidhamma is synonymous with with understanding life, with vipassana . (By understanding I mean not as an academic understands but as direct and deep understanding of whatever appears at the 6doors.) here is an url: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tipintr4.htm robert 8179 From: Sarah Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 6:12am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Questions on sense-door, mind-door Dear Nina, Thank you for all your comments which I'll read more carefully later. We've actually ordered the Path of Discrimination which I've always benn rather put off b/c of the difficult translation. --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > I cannot copy now from all these chapters, I have such lack of time. I gave > each chapter one at a time to Robert (given up making attachments), and he > copied some for dsg. I could if you like do the same for dsg, but, I thought > that these would become to lengthy posts. I'm sure Rob will put these on his website in due course and then it's easy to look there. I think there's no need to do the same for dsg (as you say, they may be too lengthy) but you and he can quote any extracts that are relevant to discussions and that would be very helpful and I look forward to it. But not before India, it takes a > lot of time to copy and paste. not necessary and please conserve your energy for the trip. I think it was Cybele before who asked about the India trip which keeps being mentioned, so I'll just say now that in mid-October around 120 people will be joining Khun Sujin on a 'pilgrimage' to the holy places in India with plenty of dhamma discussion/talk at each point. There has been a waiting list (I understand) for many months and the talks on this trip will be in Thai, so we didn't mention it here. Nina, Jon, Kom (and others from the California group who lurk here), Betty, Amara and one or two other Thais who also lurk here, will all be going. I know Nina, that you and your husband Lodevick will be leaving early, so I'd like to take this chance now to wish you all a very useful, enjoyable and inspiring trip. We'll look forward to hearing some of the wisdom from you all on your return at the end of Oct/beg Nov.....I forget the dates. I hope we manage without you all! Very best wishes, Sarah p.s Next year, in october I think, the California group above mentioned have invited khun Sujin for a return trip and discussions there. Anyone is welcome and this may be of interest to people like Rob E. I'm hoping to go to join this, but we'll see. Kom or I will give details in due course. 8180 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 8:42am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Questions on sense-door, mind-door --- Sarah wrote: > p.s Next year, in october I think, the California group above mentioned have > invited khun Sujin for a return trip and discussions there. Anyone is welcome > and this may be of interest to people like Rob E. I'm hoping to go to join > this, but we'll see. Kom or I will give details in due course. Yes, I would be interested. My daughter, whom I watch during the day, will be four then, so I'll have to see if arising conditions are such that I'm allowed to go! , but please keep me and us informed. Best, Robert E. 8181 From: rikpa21 Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 10:01am Subject: Re: 'I prefer directness' - Erik --- Sarah wrote: Hi Sarah, > I do realise, especially having met you, that you are having a lot of serious > fun most the time;) I also realise your bark is worse than your bite;-) Indeed, and you also hopefully know there is not a trace of ill-will behind my words. To the contrary. If they may at times sound unendearing, at least I hope that in some way they are beneficial. 8182 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 10:47am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > --- > > > Dear Robert, > > Thanks for this quote. The connection cited between abhidhamma and > vipassana > > meditation is very interesting. Is vipassana meditation originally > derived from > > Abhidhamma? > > > > I will do a search for something on the historical place of > Abhidhamma in the > > Theravadin tradition in general. I assume it is one of several > schools that have > > been traditionally engaged in the study of the Pali Canon and its > content. > > > > Best, > > Robert E. > > > _______ > Dear Robert E., > Vipassana means special or profound seeing. That is, insight into the > true nature of dhammas, realities. These dhammas are analysed and > explained by the Sammasamabuddha in the most careful way in the > Abhidhamma. They are also explained throughout the rest of the > Tipitaka but in a less comprehensive way. > The Buddha's teaching are sometimes called DhammaVinaya (the > teachings and discipline). And these are recorded in the Tipitaka > (the pali canon). Ti means three and so it is divided into 1) Vinaya > (rules for monks and nuns). 2)Suttanta - individual discourses to > various people on diverse topics and 3) Abhidhamma > People have different accumulations and hence there are differences > as to which aspects of the DhammaVinaya are most appealing. However, > even one who devotes most time to suttanta or vinaya will have to > know much about the khandas, the ayatanas(sense fields), and the > dhatus(elements) , the different conditions; as these are, as the > visuddhimagga says "the soil in which understanding grows". These are > all found in the suttanta and even a little in the vinaya . But it is > only in the Abhidhamma where they are elucidated in full detail. The > Abhidhamma details all that the realities that we experience in daily > life as well as those that we aspire to. Understanding Abhidhamma is > synonymous with with understanding life, with vipassana . (By > understanding I mean not as an academic understands but as direct and > deep understanding of whatever appears at the 6doors.) > here is an url: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tipintr4.htm > robert > Dear Robert, This is a very interesting and useful explanation. Thanks for the breakdown on the Tipitaka as well. I have bookmarked the site and I will read some of the material as time allows. Thanks again. Best Regards, Robert E. 8183 From: Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 11:15am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Robert K., I am deeply touched by the clear and concise explanation. It is excellent! Sadhu! Sadhu! Sahdu! If you would be so kind, could you communicate some things about actual practice? It would be very helpful to many surely! Metta and Karuna Dhammapiyo Bhante ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Epstein" Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 10:47 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E > > --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > > --- > > > > Dear Robert, > > > Thanks for this quote. The connection cited between abhidhamma and > > vipassana > > > meditation is very interesting. Is vipassana meditation originally > > derived from > > > Abhidhamma? > > > > > > I will do a search for something on the historical place of > > Abhidhamma in the > > > Theravadin tradition in general. I assume it is one of several > > schools that have > > > been traditionally engaged in the study of the Pali Canon and its > > content. > > > > > > Best, > > > Robert E. > > > > > > _______ > > Dear Robert E., > > Vipassana means special or profound seeing. That is, insight into the > > true nature of dhammas, realities. These dhammas are analysed and > > explained by the Sammasamabuddha in the most careful way in the > > Abhidhamma. They are also explained throughout the rest of the > > Tipitaka but in a less comprehensive way. > > The Buddha's teaching are sometimes called DhammaVinaya (the > > teachings and discipline). And these are recorded in the Tipitaka > > (the pali canon). Ti means three and so it is divided into 1) Vinaya > > (rules for monks and nuns). 2)Suttanta - individual discourses to > > various people on diverse topics and 3) Abhidhamma > > People have different accumulations and hence there are differences > > as to which aspects of the DhammaVinaya are most appealing. However, > > even one who devotes most time to suttanta or vinaya will have to > > know much about the khandas, the ayatanas(sense fields), and the > > dhatus(elements) , the different conditions; as these are, as the > > visuddhimagga says "the soil in which understanding grows". These are > > all found in the suttanta and even a little in the vinaya . But it is > > only in the Abhidhamma where they are elucidated in full detail. The > > Abhidhamma details all that the realities that we experience in daily > > life as well as those that we aspire to. Understanding Abhidhamma is > > synonymous with with understanding life, with vipassana . (By > > understanding I mean not as an academic understands but as direct and > > deep understanding of whatever appears at the 6doors.) > > here is an url: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tipintr4.htm > > robert > > > > Dear Robert, > This is a very interesting and useful explanation. Thanks for the breakdown on > the Tipitaka as well. I have bookmarked the site and I will read some of the > material as time allows. Thanks again. > > Best Regards, > Robert E. > > > 8184 From: rikpa21 Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 8:38pm Subject: Clinging --- azita gill wrote: Hi Azita, > hello dsg, this is my first comment to dsg. in reply > to K.Ong about Achan Chah whose statement"there is one > essential point that all good practice must come to - > not clinging" my understanding of 'not clinging' > is a moment in time which arises and falls away so > quickly that 'we' hardly notice unless sati arises > [and also falls away] to know the difference between > clinging and not clinging. It seems a rather difficult task for a beginner like me to discern a single moment in time arising and passing away. It sounds like it must be happening at an extremely rapid rate, and I have a hard enough time just remaining focused on putting one foot in front of the other without my mind wandering off in a hundred different directions. As a result, I fear this sounds like a terribly advanced practice, but I'm game for trying out any techniques you can point me at that will help me to directly see one of these moments arising and passing away. On that note, what practices would you suggest I try to come to the point of discerning one of these moments arising and passing away? Also, to help me understand better, how long a time-frame are we talking about here? One second? One one-hundredth of a second? One billionth of a second? Also, I am a bit unclear on what, specifically, I should be looking for. How does one of these moments appear--what does it look like, feel like, taste like--anything that will help me get some sense of what I'm trying to observe--so I will be able to discern its arising and passing away? If I have some means of identifying it I will perhaps be able to someday go "aha! a moment arising and passing away!" (Others have mentioned "just seeing" "just hearing" as well, though I am still very curious to understand the specific characteristics in seeing and hearing I am supposed to be observing, because I still haven't enough of a clue to know where to begin with this). I am asking in all seriousness here, because this is obviously a method many here in DSG advocate, and I am still scratching my head after all this time about what I am missing that makes it so difficult for me to understand how I'm supposed to come to see this, let alone where to even begin. I would imagine those with decades of experience noting the arising and passing away of these moments should be readily able to explain, in plain language, how I can replicate that experience through my own diligent efforts. And I make the sincere promise that if anyone explains to me how to come to directly see this from their own knowledge and experience, that I will put that into practice with my very best efforts, because I wish to eradicate my questions about this as a method, and I am willing to go to any lengths I can to do so, in all sincerity and honesty. I am totally open to listening carefully to any and all instructions on how this works, and it is in this spirit I am asking. In other words, this is a sincere request for Dharma instructions on this practice. If there is no one here who feels up to the task, perhaps there may be others not present who could explain this in the way needed to clarify this. I am sure this would be of great benefit for all to hear, since as I understand it the Buddha's Dharma is all about terminating suffering, and this sounds as if it might be a way to come to directly see the impermanance and insubstantiality of all dharmas. I don't imagine anyone could lose from a detailed explanation of how we can use this to terminate suffering. Anyway, for the time being, since I am only a beginner and what you mention sounds extremely advanced, I have found that understanding the four types of clinging described in the Suttas has been very helpful as a starting point up to now: 1. Kamupadana - clinging to sensuous desires. 2. Ditthupadana - clinging to views (even one's ideas of "right views") 3. Silabbatupadana - clinging to the belief in the efficacy of rites, rituals 4. Attavadupadana - clinging to self-view I liked Buddhadasa Bikkhu's essay on clinging, and am including his commentary on the first two types of clinging (given space constraints): "1) Sensual attachment (Kamupanana) is clinging to attractive and desirable sense objects. It is the attachment that we naturally develop for things we like and find satisfaction in: colours and shapes, sounds, occurs, tastes, tactile objects, or mental images, objects past, present, or future that arise in the mind, and either correspond to material objects in the world outside or within the body, or are just imaginings. We instinctively find pleasure, enchantment delight in these six kinds of sense objects. They induce delight and enchantment in the mind perceiving them. "As soon as an individual is born, he comes to know the taste of these six sense objects, and clings to them, and as time passes he becomes more and more firmly attached to them. Ordinary people are incapable of withdrawing from them, so they present a major problem. It is necessary to have a proper knowledge and understanding of these sense objects and to act appropriately with respect to them, otherwise clinging to them may load to complete and utter dereliction. If we examine the case history of any person who has sunk into dereliction, we always find that it has come about through his clinging fast to some desirable sense object. Actually every single thing a human being does has its origin in sensuality. Whether we love, became angry, hate, feel envious murder, or commit suicide, the ultimate cause must be some sense object. If we investigate what is it that drives human beings to work energetically, or to do anything at all for that matter, we find it a all desire to get things of one kind or another. People arrive, study, and earn what money they can, and then go off in search of pleasure - in the form of colours and shapes, sounds, odours, tastes, and tactile objects - which is what keeps them going. Even merit making in order to go to heaven has its origins simply in a wish based on sensuality. Taken together, all the trouble and chaos in the world has its origin in sensuality. "The danger of sensuality lies in the power of sensual attachment. For this reason the Buddha reckoned clinging to sensuality as the primary form of attachment. It is a real world problem. Whether the world is to be completely destroyed, or whatever is to happen, is bound to depend on this very sensual clinging. It behoves us to examine ourselves to find out in what ways we are attached to sensuality and how firmly, and whether it is not perhaps within our power to give it up. Speaking in worldly terms, attachment to sensuality is a very good thing. It conduces family love, to diligence and energy in the search for wealth and fame, and so on. But if looked at from the spiritual point of view, it is seen to be the secret entrance for suffering and torment. Spiritually speaking, attachment to sensuality is something to be kept under control. And if all suffering is to be eliminated, sensual attachment has to be done away with completely. "2) Attachment to opinions (Ditthupadana). Clinging to views and opinions is not difficult to detect and identity once we do a little introspection. Ever since we were born into the world, we have been receiving instruction and training, which has given rise to ideas and opinions. In speaking here of opinions, what we have in mind is the kind of ideas one hangs on to and refuses to let go of. To cling to one's own ideas and opinions is quite natural and is not normally condemned or disapproved of. But it is no less grave a danger than attachment to attractive and desirable objects. It can happen that preconceived ideas and opinions to which we had always clung obstinately come to be destroyed. For this reason it is necessary that we continually amend our views, making them progressively more correct, better, higher higher, changing false views into views that are closer and closer to the truth, and ultimately into the kind of views that incorporate the Four Noble Truths. "Obstinate and stubborn opinions have various origins, but in the main they are bound up with customs, traditions, ceremonies and religious doctrines. Stubborn personal convictions are not a matter of great importance. They are far less numerous than convictions stemming from long held popular traditions and ceremonies. Adherence to views is based on ignorance. Lacking knowledge, we develop our own personal views on things, based on our own original stupidity. For instance, we are convinced that things are desirable and worth clinging to, that they really endure, are worthwhile and are selves, instead of perceiving that they are just a delusion and a deception, transient, worthless, and devoid of selfhood. Once we have come to have certain ideas about something, we natually don't like to admit later on that we were mistaken. Even though we may occasionally see that we are wrong, we simply refuse to admit it. Obstinacy of this sort is to be considered a major obstacle to progress, rendering us incapable of changing for the better, incapable of modifying false religious convictions and other longstanding beliefs. This is likely to be a problem for people who hold to naive doctrine. Even though they may later come to see them as naive, they refuse to change on the grounds that their parents, grandparents, and ancestors all hold those same views. Or if they are not really interested in correcting and improving themselves, they may simply brush away any arguments against their old ideas with the remark that this is what they have always believed. For these very reasons, attachment to opinions is to be considered a dangerous defilement, a major danger, which, if we are to better ourselves at all, we ought to make all efforts to eliminate." 8185 From: Sarah Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 9:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Erik Hi Erik, Your other messages (to me) rather jumped the queue...back to this one as promised;-) --- rikpa21 wrote: Sarah:> > 2)Nibbana, > > even though it's unconditioned, is a reality with its own 'sabhava' > even if it > > lacks many/most the > > characteristics of other realities. Because we often use negative > terms to > > describe it (the > > un-this and un-that) it's very easy to be left with the idea that > there is > > nothing to be realized. E: > What about the non-affirming negation represented by the label > Nibbana can be positively known? I think I'll leave this question to the 'experts';-)) Or rather, please look under nibbana at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts S: > > Also, of > > course, all realities are not self and yet phassa 'contacts' > them..this doesn't > > make them > > non-existent. > E: > Phassa contacts mundane realities, which may have anatta as a > ultimate characteristic, but phassa isn't contacting that aspect of > them. That is the function of lokuttara panna. At any given moment, citta and its accompanying cetasikas (always including phassa) experience a reality as it is exactly. So for example, seeing experiences visible object accompanied by phassa and the rest. The nature or characteristic of both seeing and visible object is anatta and just as no one ever sees, seeing never experiences or touches any self or thing in visible object regardless of whether wrong view has or has not been eradicated. It is the moha, micha ditthi, sanna and other cetasikas accompanying the following cittas that make it seem otherwise. In other words, the nature of realities doesn’t change, but the understanding of this nature does. > S:> > 3) The only way that seeing can be known as anatta is by > > being aware of the essence of seeing when it appears > > at this moment. Whether sati arises at the exact > > moment of seeing or immediately following it in the > > mind-door process is not very important. What is > > important is to understand its nature when it appears. > > I can hear Erik ready to object! > E:> I am curious where in the Satipatthana Sutta this is mentioned, > because I've combed through it and haven't found this referenced > there. What I have found is this: "There is the case where he > discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that > arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an > unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a > fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further > appearance in the future of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The > same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, > tongue, body, & intellect.)" Erik, the third object of mindfulness is consciousness: ‘he lives contemplating consciousness in consciousness, ardent, clearly comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome in this world covetousness and grief...’ What is meant by consciousness (citta or vi~n~naana) is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching (through the body-sense) and mind-door experiencing. E:> This says to be mindful of the *fetters* arising dependent on *forms* > arising in dependence on the eye-sense. Nowhere does it say to be > mindful of the "essence of seeing". I have no idea how one would even > go about being mindful of such a thing. Is it possible to explain how > one is supposed to be mindful of the "essence of seeing"? What > in particular is one supposed to pay attention to, such that sati > finds a firm foundation for arising? One doesn’t go about anything, but at this moment there is the experiencing of visible object in front of us. Like you say, if there were no eye-sense or arammana (object) to be experienced there would be no seeing. On account of what is seen, the fetters arise. Understanding first in theory that what is seeing now is just a citta, a moment of experiencing, no self at all, can begin to help provide the necessary conditions for satipatthana to arise and be aware of its very characteristic or nature. (I’ll leave sabhava and essence for now;-)) > E:> Of all the meditations in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta, such as on the > five hindrances, the body, the Four Noble Truths, pleasant feeling, > unleasant feeling, I can't find any reference to this at all. Let me know if I’ve misunderstood you above. S:> > Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow, > > and it brings about the penetration of its > > characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by > > endeavouring, the manifestation of the (supramundane) > > path. Understanding knows the object in the way > > already stated, it brings about the penetration of the > > characteristics, and it brings about, by endeavouring, > > the manifestation of the > > path.................Understanding has the > > characteristic of penetrating the individual essences > > of states*. Its function is to abolish the darkness > > of delusion, which conceals the individual essences of > > states. It is manifested as non-delusion. Because of > > the words "One who is concentrated knows and sees > > correctly (A.v.3), its proximate cause is > > concentration...' > > > > *' 'A phenomenon's own essence (sako bhavo) or > > existing essence (samano va bhava) is its individual > > essence (sabhava). Cf Ch V111, note 68 where Pm gives > > the definition from saha-bhava (with essence). E:> This sounds like it's actually contradicting you Sarah! There is not > mention of penetrating the essence of "seeing" but rather the > essence of *what* (phenomenon) is being seen: as painful, > impermanent, and not-self. I can’t find any contradiction. By states or objects are meant these same realities found in the Satipatthana Sutta (and all the other suttas) such as seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on. E:>But consciousness is also mentioned as a > factor for understanding here, meaning consciousness of *what* is > being perceived, not the "essence of seeing". ‘Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow......understanding has the characteristic of penetrating the individual essence of states....’ In other words, seeing (consciousness or citta for this example) merely sees visible object (or colour)...it just sees but it doesn’t know anything about reality or about the visible object. It doesn’t mark it, remember it or like it, it just sees. On the other hand, it is pa~n~na which understands the characteristic of seeing or visible object or any other reality. It penetrates its ‘individual essence’. E:>To me this very clearly > appears to be referring to the nature of what is *being* seen--again, > the forms arisen in dependence on the eye-sense. That is a pretty big > difference. In fact, if read as the the essence of *what is being > seen*, it accords with the Satipatthana Sutta, because here it says > that understanding, using consciousness, investigates the > characteristics of its object, and comes to see them as impermanent, > painful, and not-self. Both the Satipatthana Sutta and the use of states in this quote above are referring to all conditioned realities that should be known and understood, including consciousness. I have an idea that the confusion is because you may have forgotten that seeing, hearing etc are also cittas, or moments of consciousness. E:> This makes even more sense to me if I just consider my own > experience. For example, I can discern the fetter of unarisen sensual > desire arising in me when I'm around my girlfriend. In this way I can > easily note the arising of this unarisen fetter, and likewise, some > time after taking a cold shower, if I'm lucky, the passing away of > this fetter. > > What I am still unable to do, however, is figure out how I'm supposed > to note any of the three characteristics of the "essence of seeing" > going on at the same time. Can you understasnd where I might have a > hard time discerning how one is supposed to recognize this > mysterious "essence of seeing", when it's so very simple to instead > observe the characteristics of all these obvious fetters like > kamachanda arising and passing away? I do understand. The development of awareness is not as simple as many believe at all. In your example above, as you say there are many, many moments of lobha. What about in between the lobha? Aren’t there also many, many moments of seeing, hearing, touching hardness and so on? Like you say, most of the time there is no awareness at all of any of these realities and we’re just lost in the lobha and the ‘story’. Erik, I really think that recognizing as you do here, just how little (or no awareness), there is of any other realities at these times is a very good stepping stone. When we think in our ignorance that there’s constant awareness, it’s very hard (read impossible) for satipatthana to develop. Studying and considering more about what are the realities now, even while dreaming about Aert (yr girlfriend) is the way that satipatthana will develop for sure. It has to be developed in daily life. S:> > As I have mentioned, there has to be awareness of the > > characteristic of 'essence' or nature of seeing over > > and over and over again. Direct understanding has to > > know its nature as being not-self and quite different > > from visible object, sanna and thinking. > E:> Again, to help with my obtuseness, how do do this? What > about "seeing" gives me enough of a hook to sink my sati into that I > can work with right now? How do I get "clear comprehension" of this > essence--because after all clear comprehension and mindfulness work > together, and I can't even get a clear comprehension of what > this "essence of seeing" refers to, let alone how I'd begin to > recognize this in any way even if I did had an idea what this is > supposed to mean! :) Just forget about ‘essence’ for now, I suggest, or just understand how different seeing is from hearing or from visible object or from clinging. There is no self that can get a clear comprehension or do anything. But these questions of yours about understanding these realities now show that already you appreciate the importance of hearing and considering details about dhammas wisely and realise that awareness doesn’t just arise at will without a lot of clear comprehension of what the objects are to be known. Erik, I appreciated this post of yours and the questions raised very much because they really relate to the practice of satipatthana right now. Many thanks for giving me the opportunity for these reflections, Sarah 8186 From: Jill Harrison Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 9:23pm Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Clinging > I am asking in all seriousness here, because this is obviously a > method many here in DSG advocate, and I am still scratching my head > after all this time about what I am missing that makes it so > difficult for me to understand how I'm supposed to come to see this, > let alone where to even begin. > i'm also a beginner, but i've found: Mindfulness in Plain English by Venerable Henepola Gunaratana, Henepola Gunaratana to be very helpful. 8187 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 9:51pm Subject: Re: Clinging Dear Erik, Just popping my head into dsg again---I better be careful because I'm starting to make a habit of it! Just a few quick comments, in a direct sort of way: > On that note, what practices would you suggest I try to come to the > point of discerning one of these moments arising and passing away? Struggling to find a "method" with a formula of "do such-and-such in order to have such-and-such experience" is bound to be a dead end because ultimately any such ritual is impotent, and the search for the effective ritual, the silver bullet, THE "technique" is silabbataparamasa---a fetter that hinders liberation. > I would imagine those with decades of experience noting the > arising and passing away of these moments should be readily able to > explain, in plain language, how I can replicate that experience > through my own diligent efforts. Buddha was much wiser and much more eloquent than I, but even he could not explain, in plain language, how to replicate that experience through diligent effort. The problem is that once you start to say "I'm going to do this to effect that", the mythical "I" is created and all efforts go into elaborating on that "I", protecting that "I", gratifying that "I", and magnifying that "I". And that "I" is remarkably resisient and sneaky. Soon this very "I" starts building up an elaborate set of words and concepts and systems to "convince itself" that it really doesn't believe in itself, rejects itself. Instead of prescribing a ritual to guarantee enlightenment, the Buddha described the nature of reality and suggested that we carefully consider his words, not just intellectually, but as they apply to each moment in the day. If you want to sit quietly in the corner, eyes closed, and "meditate", or to walk back and forth at a snail's pace, noting the lifting, raising, moving, touching, placing of the foot, that's fine. It may even be helpful...perhaps. There is a danger, though, that that "practice" takes on the appearance of a "method" that liberates, at which point it becomes a dead end. Buddhadasa's word about the kinds of clinging are certainly instructive. What kinds of clinging am I experiencing now? A whole rash of them are apparent in retrospect, as they occurred a second ago, or a few seconds ago. Sometimes it is less than a second ago. Sometimes there is a moment or two where there is awareness of vedana or tanha or bhava without elaboration. These moments are quite different from most moments and description of them is difficult. 8188 From: KennethOng Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 10:53pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Erik Hi all, Could I suggest that there is a standard way of writing this is Pali word or this is a Sankrist word. To me because I can get very perplex by Pali words meanings as I am not fimiliar with them. Soemtimes I feel that I miss out impt discussions here because of my lack of understanding of Pali words. The only source so far I have is from this link http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html for Pali word meaning. Maybe bold to represent Pali or Capitalize it. Could someone please kindly assist in pointing a good source of pali glossary other than the one I mentioned here. And a sankrist one also please. I could not find Phassa word in this Pali Glossary, is this a Sankrist word. A million thanks KO Sarah wrote: Hi Erik, Your other messages (to me) rather jumped the queue...back to this one as promised;-) --- rikpa21 wrote: Sarah:> > 2)Nibbana, > > even though it's unconditioned, is a reality with its own 'sabhava' > even if it > > lacks many/most the > > characteristics of other realities. Because we often use negative > terms to > > describe it (the > > un-this and un-that) it's very easy to be left with the idea that > there is > > nothing to be realized. E: > What about the non-affirming negation represented by the label > Nibbana can be positively known? I think I'll leave this question to the 'experts';-)) Or rather, please look under nibbana at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts S: > > Also, of > > course, all realities are not self and yet phassa 'contacts' > them..this doesn't > > make them > > non-existent. > E: > Phassa contacts mundane realities, which may have anatta as a > ultimate characteristic, but phassa isn't contacting that aspect of > them. That is the function of lokuttara panna. At any given moment, citta and its accompanying cetasikas (always including phassa) experience a reality as it is exactly. So for example, seeing experiences visible object accompanied by phassa and the rest. The nature or characteristic of both seeing and visible object is anatta and just as no one ever sees, seeing never experiences or touches any self or thing in visible object regardless of whether wrong view has or has not been eradicated. It is the moha, micha ditthi, sanna and other cetasikas accompanying the following cittas that make it seem otherwise. In other words, the nature of realities doesn’t change, but the understanding of this nature does. > S:> > 3) The only way that seeing can be known as anatta is by > > being aware of the essence of seeing when it appears > > at this moment. Whether sati arises at the exact > > moment of seeing or immediately following it in the > > mind-door process is not very important. What is > > important is to understand its nature when it appears. > > I can hear Erik ready to object! > E:> I am curious where in the Satipatthana Sutta this is mentioned, > because I've combed through it and haven't found this referenced > there. What I have found is this: "There is the case where he > discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that > arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an > unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a > fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further > appearance in the future of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The > same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, > tongue, body, & intellect.)" Erik, the third object of mindfulness is consciousness: ‘he lives contemplating consciousness in consciousness, ardent, clearly comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome in this world covetousness and grief...’ What is meant by consciousness (citta or vi~n~naana) is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching (through the body-sense) and mind-door experiencing. E:> This says to be mindful of the *fetters* arising dependent on *forms* > arising in dependence on the eye-sense. Nowhere does it say to be > mindful of the "essence of seeing". I have no idea how one would even > go about being mindful of such a thing. Is it possible to explain how > one is supposed to be mindful of the "essence of seeing"? What > in particular is one supposed to pay attention to, such that sati > finds a firm foundation for arising? One doesn’t go about anything, but at this moment there is the experiencing of visible object in front of us. Like you say, if there were no eye-sense or arammana (object) to be experienced there would be no seeing. On account of what is seen, the fetters arise. Understanding first in theory that what is seeing now is just a citta, a moment of experiencing, no self at all, can begin to help provide the necessary conditions for satipatthana to arise and be aware of its very characteristic or nature. (I’ll leave sabhava and essence for now;-)) > E:> Of all the meditations in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta, such as on the > five hindrances, the body, the Four Noble Truths, pleasant feeling, > unleasant feeling, I can't find any reference to this at all. Let me know if I’ve misunderstood you above. S:> > Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow, > > and it brings about the penetration of its > > characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by > > endeavouring, the manifestation of the (supramundane) > > path. Understanding knows the object in the way > > already stated, it brings about the penetration of the > > characteristics, and it brings about, by endeavouring, > > the manifestation of the > > path.................Understanding has the > > characteristic of penetrating the individual essences > > of states*. Its function is to abolish the darkness > > of delusion, which conceals the individual essences of > > states. It is manifested as non-delusion. Because of > > the words "One who is concentrated knows and sees > > correctly (A.v.3), its proximate cause is > > concentration...' > > > > *' 'A phenomenon's own essence (sako bhavo) or > > existing essence (samano va bhava) is its individual > > essence (sabhava). Cf Ch V111, note 68 where Pm gives > > the definition from saha-bhava (with essence). E:> This sounds like it's actually contradicting you Sarah! There is not > mention of penetrating the essence of "seeing" but rather the > essence of *what* (phenomenon) is being seen: as painful, > impermanent, and not-self. I can’t find any contradiction. By states or objects are meant these same realities found in the Satipatthana Sutta (and all the other suttas) such as seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on. E:>But consciousness is also mentioned as a > factor for understanding here, meaning consciousness of *what* is > being perceived, not the "essence of seeing". ‘Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow......understanding has the characteristic of penetrating the individual essence of states....’ In other words, seeing (consciousness or citta for this example) merely sees visible object (or colour)...it just sees but it doesn’t know anything about reality or about the visible object. It doesn’t mark it, remember it or like it, it just sees. On the other hand, it is pa~n~na which understands the characteristic of seeing or visible object or any other reality. It penetrates its ‘individual essence’. E:>To me this very clearly > appears to be referring to the nature of what is *being* seen--again, > the forms arisen in dependence on the eye-sense. That is a pretty big > difference. In fact, if read as the the essence of *what is being > seen*, it accords with the Satipatthana Sutta, because here it says > that understanding, using consciousness, investigates the > characteristics of its object, and comes to see them as impermanent, > painful, and not-self. Both the Satipatthana Sutta and the use of states in this quote above are referring to all conditioned realities that should be known and understood, including consciousness. I have an idea that the confusion is because you may have forgotten that seeing, hearing etc are also cittas, or moments of consciousness. E:> This makes even more sense to me if I just consider my own > experience. For example, I can discern the fetter of unarisen sensual > desire arising in me when I'm around my girlfriend. In this way I can > easily note the arising of this unarisen fetter, and likewise, some > time after taking a cold shower, if I'm lucky, the passing away of > this fetter. > > What I am still unable to do, however, is figure out how I'm supposed > to note any of the three characteristics of the "essence of seeing" > going on at the same time. Can you understasnd where I might have a > hard time discerning how one is supposed to recognize this > mysterious "essence of seeing", when it's so very simple to instead > observe the characteristics of all these obvious fetters like > kamachanda arising and passing away? I do understand. The development of awareness is not as simple as many believe at all. In your example above, as you say there are many, many moments of lobha. What about in between the lobha? Aren’t there also many, many moments of seeing, hearing, touching hardness and so on? Like you say, most of the time there is no awareness at all of any of these realities and we’re just lost in the lobha and the ‘story’. Erik, I really think that recognizing as you do here, just how little (or no awareness), there is of any other realities at these times is a very good stepping stone. When we think in our ignorance that there’s constant awareness, it’s very hard (read impossible) for satipatthana to develop. Studying and considering more about what are the realities now, even while dreaming about Aert (yr girlfriend) is the way that satipatthana will develop for sure. It has to be developed in daily life. S:> > As I have mentioned, there has to be awareness of the > > characteristic of 'essence' or nature of seeing over > > and over and over again. Direct understanding has to > > know its nature as being not-self and quite different > > from visible object, sanna and thinking. > E:> Again, to help with my obtuseness, how do do this? What > about "seeing" gives me enough of a hook to sink my sati into that I > can work with right now? How do I get "clear comprehension" of this > essence--because after all clear comprehension and mindfulness work > together, and I can't even get a clear comprehension of what > this "essence of seeing" refers to, let alone how I'd begin to > recognize this in any way even if I did had an idea what this is > supposed to mean! :) Just forget about ‘essence’ for now, I suggest, or just understand how different seeing is from hearing or from visible object or from clinging. There is no self that can get a clear comprehension or do anything. But these questions of yours about understanding these realities now show that already you appreciate the importance of hearing and considering details about dhammas wisely and realise that awareness doesn’t just arise at will without a lot of clear comprehension of what the objects are to be known. Erik, I appreciated this post of yours and the questions raised very much because they really relate to the practice of satipatthana right now. Many thanks for giving me the opportunity for these reflections, Sarah 8189 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 5:22am Subject: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo Dear Venerable Dhammapiyo, Thank you for your kind and encouraging words. I find it not easy to talk about the practice as if it were something we should do, different from what we are doing right now. It seems so much just part of life, the study, the considering, the moments when there is direct awareness; It all goes together, and each assists the development of the others. Writing on the internet there are many reminders of the nature of realities, or reading the newspaper, the death and sorrow we read about remind me of the paticcasamupada (dependent origination) and how actually death is happening right now : the momentary death of a moment of seeing which falls away to be replaced by some other conditioned dhamma. Yesterday I went for a long walk in the New Zealand wilderness where I am now holidaying. In one part there was a foul smell and I soon saw the rotting carcase of a large cow in the swamp. How does this relate to the practice and Abhidhamma? There was smelling (a type of citta)and smell (a rupa). then so quickly some slight degree of dosa (aversion)- a cetasika that arose because of several conditions. Then there was very quickly the thought that "soon I will die and be like this" and that thinking was underlaid by detachment and calm so is a level of samatha. And then there was some understanding of the difference between the understanding that was at the level of samatha and that that was of satipatthana. There was not understanding of the degree of vipassana. Nor was there samatha at the level of upacara (access concentration). And yet confidence (saddha) (another cetasika - not self)was strong. We read in the suttas about a monk seeing a corpse, or some other object, and how he immediately became enlightened. Learning about these different moments in our own life one knows how it must have been for those monks. One sees the way that understanding develops and is confident, to whatever degree is suitable, of what the path is. No one can say when enough understanding will be developed so that such moments could condition magga citta (path moment). It might be next week or it might be a thousand lifetimes later- or much more. It doesn't matter; what is most important is learning what the buddha really taught and seeing it over and over. I believe it is not so much a matter of doing and trying but of learning to see. The dhammas in the Abhidhamma are here and now. We don't have to go anywhere or do anything; but there does have to be sufficient conditions. There should be awe and respect for the Dhamma so that one studies not with the aim of getting something, but rather of genuinely testing out what is heard against this moment. The more we listen and consider and investigate directly, then for sure there are more conditions been built up for insight. In the very beginning there are only conditions for ignorance and craving so almost everyone tries so hard to see. But the sort of seeing that the Buddha meant is detached. Thus real insight comes not from trying and wanting but through fulfilling the correct conditions. Then there are moments, maybe a few more every year, where awareness arises just because it must, and this is deeper than when we try to make it come about. Then awareness too is known as anatta, as not under control of anyone. However, this doesn't mean 'well it's all conditioned, I'll just let it happen'. So I am not saying 'don't try to be aware", but by being awake to lobha(craving) we know it is always trying to slip in. It can be extremely refined. Also I feel the moments when there is only heedlessness are very natural , conditioned , not self: we don't need to be frightened of unwholesome moments as they are only conditioned dhammas- so insignificant and fleeting- we should see them as they are. Then again it is not the middle way if we tolerate the kilesa either, then we are not sincere... Another point. I find different reminders and different ways of considering very helpful. Otherwise there is a tendency, because life has become easier (through more understanding, or samattha or sila), to get comfortable and coast. Reading different suttas reminds us of different realities and the complex ways they are conditioned; it helps us see these dhammas as anatta when they appear in daily life These are just my reflections. I think there are not rules we should follow because everyone's accumulations are vastly different. I like what Dan wrote about this:"Instead of prescribing a ritual to guarantee enlightenment, the Buddha described the nature of reality and suggested that we carefully consider his words, not just intellectually, but as they apply to each moment in the day." Anumodana on your great interest for Dhamma as shown by your life as a Bhikkhu in the sasana of the Buddha. robert Dear Robert K., I am deeply touched by the clear and concise explanation. It is excellent! Sadhu! Sadhu! Sahdu! If you would be so kind, could you communicate some things about actual practice? It would be very helpful to many surely! Metta and Karuna Dhammapiyo Bhante ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Epstein" Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 10:47 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E > > --- <> wrote: > > --- : > > > _______ > > Dear Robert E., > > Vipassana means special or profound seeing. That is, insight into the > > true nature of dhammas, realities. These dhammas are analysed and > > explained by the Sammasamabuddha in the most careful way in the > > Abhidhamma. They are also explained throughout the rest of the > > Tipitaka but in a less comprehensive way. > > The Buddha's teaching are sometimes called DhammaVinaya (the > > teachings and discipline). And these are recorded in the Tipitaka > > (the pali canon). Ti means three and so it is divided into 1) Vinaya > > (rules for monks and nuns). 2)Suttanta - individual discourses to > > various people on diverse topics and 3) Abhidhamma > > People have different accumulations and hence there are differences > > as to which aspects of the DhammaVinaya are most appealing. However, > > even one who devotes most time to suttanta or vinaya will have to > > know much about the khandas, the ayatanas(sense fields), and the > > dhatus(elements) , the different conditions; as these are, as the > > visuddhimagga says "the soil in which understanding grows". These are > > all found in the suttanta and even a little in the vinaya . But it is > > only in the Abhidhamma where they are elucidated in full detail. The > > Abhidhamma details all that the realities that we experience in daily > > life as well as those that we aspire to. Understanding Abhidhamma is > > synonymous with with understanding life, with vipassana . (By > > understanding I mean not as an academic understands but as direct and > > deep understanding of whatever appears at the 6doors.) > > here is an url: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tipintr4.htm > > robert 8190 From: Sarah Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 6:35am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Erik Dear Kenneth, My apologies. Phassa (contact) is first of the 7 universal cetasikas (mental factors) which accompanies every citta (consciousness) and in brief it 'contacts' the object so that citta, e.g seeing or hearing can experience it. Usually we put the translation in brackets if they are Pali words which haven't been discussed much. We try to encourage everyone to use Pali rather than Sanskrit words here as this is a Theravada (Pali canon) list. I know this is hard fro those more familiar with Sanskrit and so it's not a rigid rule. Any words I use will certainly be Pali rather than Sanskrit. You can find a glossary for most words used on the homepage under files and perhaps it would be useful to print it out and keep it handy for anyone new to the list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Pali_Glossary We've had some detailed discussion about phassa before which you can probably find under phassa: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts or search for phassa at; http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ (password:metta) Finally I'd encourage you and anyone else who is interested to study mor about phassa and other cetasikas to read Nina's book 'Cetasikas' which is well-worth purchasing but can also be found on line at: http://www.dhammastudy.com/ I hope this has answered your question and thank you for bringing it to my attention - i'm sure there are many others in the same position as you. Btw, I'm appreciating your contributions and especially the one you wrote to Dan and Cybele (I think) with regard to the attacks and the importance on reflecting on the dhamma at these times. Look f/w to more, Sarah --- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi all, > Could I suggest that there is a standard way of writing this is Pali word or > this is a Sankrist word. To me because I can get very perplex by Pali words > meanings as I am not fimiliar with them. Soemtimes I feel that I miss out > impt discussions here because of my lack of understanding of Pali words. The > only source so far I have is from this link > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html for Pali word meaning. Maybe > bold to represent Pali or Capitalize it. Could someone please kindly assist > in pointing a good source of pali glossary other than the one I mentioned > here. And a sankrist one also please. I could not find Phassa word in this > Pali Glossary, is this a Sankrist word. > A million thanks > KO > > Sarah wrote: Hi Erik, > > Your other messages (to me) rather jumped the queue...back to this one as > promised;-) > > --- rikpa21 wrote: > > Sarah:> > 2)Nibbana, > > > even though it's unconditioned, is a reality with its own 'sabhava' > > even if it > > > lacks many/most the > > > characteristics of other realities. Because we often use negative > > terms to > > > describe it (the > > > un-this and un-that) it's very easy to be left with the idea that > > there is > > > nothing to be realized. > > E: > What about the non-affirming negation represented by the label > > Nibbana can be positively known? > > I think I'll leave this question to the 'experts';-)) Or rather, please look > under nibbana at: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts > > > S: > > Also, of > > > course, all realities are not self and yet phassa 'contacts' > > them..this doesn't > > > make them > > > non-existent. > > > E: > Phassa contacts mundane realities, which may have anatta as a > > ultimate characteristic, but phassa isn't contacting that aspect of > > them. That is the function of lokuttara panna. > > At any given moment, citta and its accompanying cetasikas (always including > phassa) experience a reality as it is exactly. So for example, seeing > experiences visible object accompanied by phassa and the rest. The nature or > characteristic of both seeing and visible object is anatta and just as no one > ever sees, seeing never experiences or touches any self or thing in visible > object regardless of whether wrong view has or has not been eradicated. It is > the moha, micha ditthi, sanna and other cetasikas accompanying the following > cittas that make it seem otherwise. In other words, the nature of realities > doesn’t change, but the understanding of this nature does. > > > S:> > 3) The only way that seeing can be known as anatta is by > > > being aware of the essence of seeing when it appears > > > at this moment. Whether sati arises at the exact > > > moment of seeing or immediately following it in the > > > mind-door process is not very important. What is > > > important is to understand its nature when it appears. > > > I can hear Erik ready to object! > > > E:> I am curious where in the Satipatthana Sutta this is mentioned, > > because I've combed through it and haven't found this referenced > > there. What I have found is this: "There is the case where he > > discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that > > arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an > > unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a > > fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further > > appearance in the future of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The > > same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, > > tongue, body, & intellect.)" > > Erik, the third object of mindfulness is consciousness: > > ‘he lives contemplating consciousness in consciousness, ardent, clearly > comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome in this world > covetousness and grief...’ > > What is meant by consciousness (citta or vi~n~naana) is seeing, hearing, > smelling, tasting, touching (through the body-sense) and mind-door > experiencing. > > E:> This says to be mindful of the *fetters* arising dependent on *forms* > > arising in dependence on the eye-sense. Nowhere does it say to be > > mindful of the "essence of seeing". I have no idea how one would even > > go about being mindful of such a thing. Is it possible to explain how > > one is supposed to be mindful of the "essence of seeing"? What > > in particular is one supposed to pay attention to, such that sati > > finds a firm foundation for arising? > > One doesn’t go about anything, but at this moment there is the experiencing > of > visible object in front of us. Like you say, if there were no eye-sense or > arammana (object) to be experienced there would be no seeing. On account of > what is seen, the fetters arise. Understanding first in theory that what is > seeing now is just a citta, a moment of experiencing, no self at all, can > begin > to help provide the necessary conditions for satipatthana to arise and be > aware > of its very characteristic or nature. (I’ll leave sabhava and essence for > now;-)) > > > E:> Of all the meditations in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta, such as on the > > five hindrances, the body, the Four Noble Truths, pleasant feeling, > > unleasant feeling, I can't find any reference to this at all. > > Let me know if I’ve misunderstood you above. > > S:> > Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow, > > > and it brings about the penetration of its > > > characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by > > > endeavouring, the manifestation of the (supramundane) > > > path. Understanding knows the object in the way > > > already stated, it brings about the penetration of the > > > characteristics, and it brings about, by endeavouring, > > > the manifestation of the > > > path.................Understanding has the > > > characteristic of penetrating the individual essences > > > of states*. Its function is to abolish the darkness > > > of delusion, which conceals the individual essences of > > > states. It is manifested as non-delusion. Because of > > > the words "One who is concentrated knows and sees > > > correctly (A.v.3), its proximate cause is > > > concentration...' > > > > > > *' 'A phenomenon's own essence (sako bhavo) or > > > existing essence (samano va bhava) is its individual > > > essence (sabhava). Cf Ch V111, note 68 where Pm gives > > > the definition from saha-bhava (with essence). > > E:> This sounds like it's actually contradicting you Sarah! There is not > > mention of penetrating the essence of "seeing" but rather the > > essence of *what* (phenomenon) is being seen: as painful, > > impermanent, and not-self. > > I can’t find any contradiction. By states or objects are meant these same > realities found in the Satipatthana Sutta (and all the other suttas) such as > seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on. > > E:>But consciousness is also mentioned as a > > factor for understanding here, meaning consciousness of *what* is > > being perceived, not the "essence of seeing". > > ‘Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow......understanding has the > characteristic of penetrating the individual essence of states....’ > > In other words, seeing (consciousness or citta for this example) merely sees > visible object (or colour)...it just sees but it doesn’t know anything about > reality or about the visible object. It doesn’t mark it, remember it or like > it, it just sees. On the other hand, it is pa~n~na which understands the > characteristic of seeing or visible object or any other reality. It > penetrates > its ‘individual essence’. > > E:>To me this very clearly > > appears to be referring to the nature of what is *being* seen--again, > > the forms arisen in dependence on the eye-sense. That is a pretty big > > difference. In fact, if read as the the essence of *what is being > > seen*, it accords with the Satipatthana Sutta, because here it says > > that understanding, using consciousness, investigates the > > characteristics of its object, and comes to see them as impermanent, > > painful, and not-self. > > Both the Satipatthana Sutta and the use of states in this quote above are > referring to all conditioned realities that should be known and understood, > including consciousness. I have an idea that the confusion is because you may > have forgotten that seeing, hearing etc are also cittas, or moments of > consciousness. > > E:> This makes even more sense to me if I just consider my own > > experience. For example, I can discern the fetter of unarisen sensual > > desire arising in me when I'm around my girlfriend. In this way I can > > easily note the arising of this unarisen fetter, and likewise, some > > time after taking a cold shower, if I'm lucky, the passing away of > > this fetter. > > > > What I am still unable to do, however, is figure out how I'm supposed > > to note any of the three characteristics of the "essence of seeing" > > going on at the same time. Can you understasnd where I might have a > > hard time discerning how one is supposed to recognize this > > mysterious "essence of seeing", when it's so very simple to instead > > observe the characteristics of all these obvious fetters like > > kamachanda arising and passing away? > > I do understand. The development of awareness is not as simple as many > believe > at all. In your example above, as you say there are many, many moments of > lobha. What about in between the lobha? Aren’t there also many, many moments > of > seeing, hearing, touching hardness and so on? Like you say, most of the time > there is no awareness at all of any of these realities and we’re just lost in > the lobha and the ‘story’. > > Erik, I really think that recognizing as you do here, just how little (or no > awareness), there is of any other realities at these times is a very good > stepping stone. When we think in our ignorance that there’s constant > awareness, > it’s very hard (read impossible) for satipatthana to develop. Studying and > considering more about what are the realities now, even while dreaming about > Aert (yr girlfriend) is the way that satipatthana will develop for sure. It > has > to be developed in daily life. > > S:> > As I have mentioned, there has to be awareness of the > > > characteristic of 'essence' or nature of seeing over > > > and over and over again. Direct understanding has to > > > know its nature as being not-self and quite different > > > from visible object, sanna and thinking. > > > E:> Again, to help with my obtuseness, how do do this? What > > about "seeing" gives me enough of a hook to sink my sati into that I > > can work with right now? How do I get "clear comprehension" of this > > essence--because after all clear comprehension and mindfulness work > > together, and I can't even get a clear comprehension of what > > this "essence of seeing" refers to, let alone how I'd begin to > > recognize this in any way even if I did had an idea what this is > > supposed to mean! :) > > Just forget about ‘essence’ for now, I suggest, or just understand how > different seeing is from hearing or from visible object or from clinging. > There > is no self that can get a clear comprehension or do anything. But these > questions of yours about understanding these realities now show that already > you appreciate the importance of hearing and considering details about > dhammas > wisely and realise that awareness doesn’t just arise at will without a lot of > clear comprehension of what the objects are to be known. > > Erik, I appreciated this post of yours and the questions raised very much > because they really relate to the practice of satipatthana right now. > > Many thanks for giving me the opportunity for these reflections, > > Sarah 8191 From: Sarah Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 7:02am Subject: clinging and welcome Jill Dear Jill, thanks for your recommendation below...I like the title;-)) Actually we're all beginners here and I apprciate that Erik , in spite of his many, many years of dhamma study and practice, realizes how very long the path is. I'd be interested to know where you're from and how you found your way here or anything about your interest in dhamma. This isn't compulsory but just a way for us to get to know and welcome new members! Anway, welcome here and I'm glad you found us. Sarah p.s Kenneth, still looking forward to your intro one day;-)) --- Jill Harrison wrote: > > I am asking in all seriousness here, because this is obviously a > > method many here in DSG advocate, and I am still scratching my head > > after all this time about what I am missing that makes it so > > difficult for me to understand how I'm supposed to come to see this, > > let alone where to even begin. > > > > i'm also a beginner, but i've found: > Mindfulness in Plain English > by Venerable Henepola Gunaratana, Henepola Gunaratana > to be very helpful. > 8192 From: Herman Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 7:56am Subject: Practise Hi all, I am not selective in the suttas I read, and most of them desribe the Buddha in a sitting meditation position, prior to him speaking. The introductions to the suttas I have read, and these introductions are as much a part of the suttas as what others may consider the "meat" of the suttas, leave no doubt in this little mind that the method of the Buddha was seated meditation. There has been discussion previously as to whether or not seated meditation is explicitly prescribed in the suttas. Is it possible that seated meditation is so implicit in everything the Buddha did, that it was considered labouring an obvious point to have mentioned it the discursive sections of the Tipitaka?? NZ was ixcellent (sic). Our knees are just fine. Love Herman 8193 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:08am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Dear Howard, --- Howard wrote: > > If I remember this correctly, this referred to > > bhavanga(?), which certainly ceases to rearise > after > > parinibbaana, by my understanding of the canon. > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No, I think it was a reference something to > the effect of the mind > being originally luminous, but covered by > adventitious defilements that is > sometimes associated in commentaries with bhavanga. Really! This is interesting. Any idea of what commentary (sorry again if I've missed it)? I'd be very interested in finding this idea (an originally luminous mind, covered by adventitious defilements) anywhere in the Pali canon. > (BTW, I'm not sure > whether the notion of bhavanga citta occurs in the > suttas.) -------------------------------------------------- I'm not sure either, not at all sure. You know, last time we chatted off-list, I expressed some grave reservations about the abhidhamma, and the conviction that it was of far less significance than the other two baskets. Fickle fellow that I am, I seem to've swung back into a more standard Theravadin view. At the time I think I was reacting against some of Jon's comments regarding the path. I REALLY didn't want to give up my path--unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that Jon was right, and yet another view lies in ruins (damn--I thought they were already all kaput!) > -------------------------------------------------- > > > Unfortunately, it seems to open a door for the > > positing of some sort of 'cosmic consciousness', > which > > concept I believe is clearly alien to the > Theravada. > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't even have a clue what "cosmic > consciousness" would be. But > awareness without an object, beyond all conditions > and conditioning, unborn, > and deathless would be nibbana to me. > --------------------------------------------------- Well, by my reading of Mr. Webster, 'boundless awareness' could certainly be a synonym for 'cosmic consciousness'--an expression I've heard often, and for a long time. I didn't mean to be insulting, though. Shalom! mike 8194 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 0:45pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] clinging and welcome Jill Dear Sarah, I practise Mahayana Buddhism focusing on Pure Land Practises. After a few years of practising, I begining to realise that there is a need to learn Thervada also because the foundations of Buddhism is there. In Thervada, I also learn a lot of wonderful and helpful Buddhism concepts and practises and I have benefitted greatly from it. These concepts have assisted me in understanding Mahayana Buddhism better. In the end I realise I like both of them equally (oops attachment). Living the Buddhists ways, has been the greatest discovery of all my life. It has greatly assist me in making my life much happier (oops another attachement) :). My life change and becomes easier, and Buddhism has help me in my life in so many ways that i cannot descibed. But I have to admit that I still have many weaknesses especially laziness and forgetful and worst petty and also very proud of myself. Actually I was trying to find ways to be more mindful so that I am more aware and not be easily angry or proud. My mindful periods are very brief, morning mediation, eating or brushing teeth, then driving. The forgetful period starts when i start the working hours and till evening sometimes even after work till late at nite . Is there ways to learn to be more mindful and also on the hand does not affect my work. Any kind of suggestions will be deeply be appreciated. Also sometimes I wonder how to spend my time at weekend after family commitment, any helpful thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Only recently I happen to go into this group because I went to the dharmaring sites. From there I went to Sangha group chat and later on discover this chat group. Honestly the group is intellectual and an eye opener and I could learn a lot of Thervada Buddhism from the kind pple here. I like to take this opportunity to express my gratidute and thanks for the wonderful pple here who contributed many views that assist me in my understanding of Buddhism and practises. My personal data, I am married with two children and I am 30 years old. I am a Singaporean. With kind regards KO Sarah wrote: Dear Jill, thanks for your recommendation below...I like the title;-)) Actually we're all beginners here and I apprciate that Erik , in spite of his many, many years of dhamma study and practice, realizes how very long the path is. I'd be interested to know where you're from and how you found your way here or anything about your interest in dhamma. This isn't compulsory but just a way for us to get to know and welcome new members! Anway, welcome here and I'm glad you found us. Sarah p.s Kenneth, still looking forward to your intro one day;-)) --- Jill Harrison wrote: > > I am asking in all seriousness here, because this is obviously a > > method many here in DSG advocate, and I am still scratching my head > > after all this time about what I am missing that makes it so > > difficult for me to understand how I'm supposed to come to see this, > > let alone where to even begin. > > > > i'm also a beginner, but i've found: > Mindfulness in Plain English > by Venerable Henepola Gunaratana, Henepola Gunaratana > to be very helpful. > 8195 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 2:17pm Subject: Hello Kenneth (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] clinging and welcome Jill) --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Dear Sarah, > I practise Mahayana Buddhism focusing on Pure Land Practises. After a few years > of practising, I begining to realise that there is a need to learn Thervada also > because the foundations of Buddhism is there. In Thervada, I also learn a lot > of wonderful and helpful Buddhism concepts and practises and I have benefitted > greatly from it. These concepts have assisted me in understanding Mahayana > Buddhism better. In the end I realise I like both of them equally (oops > attachment). > Living the Buddhists ways, has been the greatest discovery of all my life. It > has greatly assist me in making my life much happier (oops another attachement) > :). My life change and becomes easier, and Buddhism has help me in my life in > so many ways that i cannot descibed. But I have to admit that I still have many > weaknesses especially laziness and forgetful and worst petty and also very proud > of myself. > Actually I was trying to find ways to be more mindful so that I am more aware > and not be easily angry or proud. My mindful periods are very brief, morning > mediation, eating or brushing teeth, then driving. The forgetful period starts > when i start the working hours and till evening sometimes even after work till > late at nite . Is there ways to learn to be more mindful and also on the hand > does not affect my work. Any kind of suggestions will be deeply be appreciated. > Also sometimes I wonder how to spend my time at weekend after family > commitment, any helpful thoughts would be greatly appreciated. > Only recently I happen to go into this group because I went to the dharmaring > sites. From there I went to Sangha group chat and later on discover this chat > group. Honestly the group is intellectual and an eye opener and I could learn a > lot of Thervada Buddhism from the kind pple here. I like to take this > opportunity to express my gratidute and thanks for the wonderful pple here who > contributed many views that assist me in my understanding of Buddhism and > practises. > My personal data, I am married with two children and I am 30 years old. I am a > Singaporean. > With kind regards > KO Kenneth, I have enjoyed your direct and sincere posts, including our discussions on the somewhat heated subject of the attack on the U.S. I am happy to hear a bit about your background and personal history. This has led me to realize that I never posted an intro myself. I am happy to hear about your family. I have a three year old daughter myself, although I am a little older than you [I'm a late starter]. One question: Could you say a word about the Pure Land practices? I am familiar with Ch'an/Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, but I have only heard briefly about Pure Land Buddhism before. I would be interested in a little talk on that if you feel you would like to. Regards, Robert E. ====================== 8196 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 2:21pm Subject: Re: Practise Dear Herman, Thank you for your post below. I am also curious about the relative importance of sitting meditation. Below is a post I sent to D-L yesterday: I have had three excellent replies, but would like to hear from DSG members as well. "I read the Mahasatipatthana Sutta you mentioned, at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/index.html#dn22 This is very interesting, it doesn't say that Breath is one of the Great Frames of Reference: It mentions body, feelings, mind, and mind- objects. Breath would be one of the mind-objects? So it seems that sitting and walking meditation, and concentration on the breath as the primary object is not the ONLY way to meditate - but just one way among many? Why does Buddhism (at least here in Australia) only seem to emphasise sitting on the cushion and watching the breath, I wonder." metta, Christine --- Herman wrote: > Hi all, > > I am not selective in the suttas I read, and most of them desribe the > Buddha in a sitting meditation position, prior to him speaking. > > The introductions to the suttas I have read, and these introductions > are as much a part of the suttas as what others may consider > the "meat" of the suttas, leave no doubt in this little mind that the > method of the Buddha was seated meditation. > > There has been discussion previously as to whether or not seated > meditation is explicitly prescribed in the suttas. > > Is it possible that seated meditation is so implicit in everything > the Buddha did, that it was considered labouring an obvious point to > have mentioned it the discursive sections of the Tipitaka?? > > > NZ was ixcellent (sic). Our knees are just fine. > > Love > > Herman 8197 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 2:48pm Subject: Hi from Robert E. Dear Friends, Well, this is a little late, but I was inspired by Kenneth to present a bio. My recollection is that I sort of introduced myself when I first popped in here as a visitor, but not really in any detail. I live in Washington, D.C., in the U.S., and I am originally from New York. My wife has a government job, and we have a three-year old daughter. I am in my mid-fourties, but I have the personality of someone younger in many ways. Let's say I haven't had a great interest in growing up! I have a background in music, played jazz saxaphone in bands when younger, as well as singing from pop to lieder, writing poetry for many years, and involvements in drama. I have a college degree [B.A.] in philosophy, which explains my tendency to complicate things when I talk or write. I became interested in Zen when I was a teenager, later in T'ai Chi, which I studied for 10 years, then yoga, which I studied and taught for almost 15 years after that. I studied a number of different meditation and spiritual systems, including an interesting New Age version of Agni Yoga [purifying inner fire meditation] for about 8 years. From my yoga teaching, I became interested in massage, since guiding touch seemed to be very effective in giving students greater awareness and mobility. I studied and was licensed in massage and established a practice in deep tissue and healing massage, along with yoga teaching, for a number of years in New York. I studied a number of interesting massage techniques, such as Shiatsu, Reiki, and Cranio-Sacral work [based on Osteopathy]. Along the way I managed to take a seminary program and was ordained as an Interfaith Minister in the late '90s. I have performed one wedding and for a while was giving home-made services to a small group at home. Meanwhile, I studied acting in New York for almost a decade and became an acting teacher, and began formulating a long-term acting course which has continued through my move to DC a few years ago. I have now been teaching acting for about 15 years, and I now have my full-time work as an acting teacher, working with about four groups a week, and doing my lesson plans and communications at home. At home during the day, I have primary responsibility for caring for our three-year old, with a little help from babysitters. Raising my daughter is my first responsiblity, a very pleasurable one, but I manage to keep on top of my business as well. My daughter is kind enough to let me write an occasional email during the day but I do most of it late at night. At a certain point in my yoga career, my own yoga teacher announced that he was engaging in intensive work in Vipassana meditation. He disappeared for a long time and did a number of lengthy retreats at the Insight Meditation Centre in Barre, Mass., in the U.S., which is visited by many major Vipassana teachers from around the world. After several years, he returned and offered some of his closer students a chance to go into a short retreat under his direction. We had something like a four-day retreat but it was very intensive from my point of view and I found it a life-changing initiation. On top of this, he was kind enough to give me some private instruction and I got a simple, but deep, introduction to Vipassana practice, which has been the model for my meditation for a number of years now. At the same time, I have spent many years studying and contemplating the koans and writings of the great Zen masters, some of the Advaita Vedanta masters in India, such as Ramana Maharshi, and Tibetan writings as well. I have been especially influenced by the Chinese BLUE CLIFF RECORD [Ch'an], the DIAMOND SUTRA and Hui-Neng's PLATFORM SUTRA, as well as the LANKAVATARA SUTRA. Ch'an Masters Hui Hai, Chao-Chou and 15th century Zen Master and poet Ikkyu have also been influential. I am currently enjoying being educated in the Pali Canon here on dsg, while continuing my interest in Ch'an/Zen and Tibetan Dzogchen. I am also revivifying my interest in playing music. I recently purchased a bass clarinet and a soprano saxaphone, which brings my collection up to 2 clarinets, three saxes, a piano and a guitar. Our older cat recently passed away, leaving us with one very neurotic but sweet cat named Smallcat. [She's actually quite large]. Thanks for allowing me to introduce myself. Sorry I'm not very good at being brief. Regards, Robert E. ============================= ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8198 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 3:10pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] clinging and welcome Jill Dear Kenneth, --- KennethOng wrote: > I have to > admit that I still have many weaknesses especially > laziness and forgetful and worst petty and also very > proud of myself. I know you know that these are impersonal phenomena, arising and subsiding according to conditions. Attributing them to 'yourself' is just a form of maana and, worse, self-view, I think. mike 8199 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 3:10pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Practise Dear Christine, I think your question will be answered by reading the Anapanasati Sutta, THE SUTRA ON THE FULL AWARENESS OF THE BREATHING, in which the Buddha says that the breath is the foundation for experiencing the four foundations of mindfulness and the seven factors of awakening. This site has a complete translation by Thannisaro Bikkhu of Saigon: http://maxpages.com/drfu6/Anapanasati_Sutra I'd be interested in your comments after reading this. Best, Robert E. =================================== --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Dear Herman, > > Thank you for your post below. > I am also curious about the relative importance of sitting > meditation. Below is a post I sent to D-L yesterday: I have had > three excellent replies, but would like to hear from DSG members as > well. > > "I read the Mahasatipatthana Sutta you mentioned, at > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/index.html#dn22 > > This is very interesting, it doesn't say that Breath is one of the > Great Frames of Reference: It mentions body, feelings, mind, and mind- > objects. Breath would be one of the mind-objects? So it seems that > sitting and walking meditation, and concentration on the breath as > the primary object is not the ONLY way to meditate - but just one way > among many? Why does Buddhism (at least here in Australia) only seem > to emphasise sitting on the cushion and watching the breath, I > wonder." > > metta, > Christine > > --- Herman wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I am not selective in the suttas I read, and most of them desribe > the > > Buddha in a sitting meditation position, prior to him speaking. > > > > The introductions to the suttas I have read, and these > introductions > > are as much a part of the suttas as what others may consider > > the "meat" of the suttas, leave no doubt in this little mind that > the > > method of the Buddha was seated meditation. > > > > There has been discussion previously as to whether or not seated > > meditation is explicitly prescribed in the suttas. > > > > Is it possible that seated meditation is so implicit in everything > > the Buddha did, that it was considered labouring an obvious point > to > > have mentioned it the discursive sections of the Tipitaka?? > > > > > > NZ was ixcellent (sic). Our knees are just fine. > > > > Love > > > > Herman