9400 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Nov 18, 2001 8:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention) is controllable... --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Howard: > I was always pretty good in school. But I always fail schools such as > these you refer to! ;-)) [My prejudicial view is that anyone who thinks that > advanced levels (or even moderate levels) of insight are easily attainable is > deluded.] > --------------------------------------------------- Boy do I think you're right about this. It's more like: when you get tired of banging your head against the wall, then it's time to move on and bang your head against the next wall. Robert Ep. 9401 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Nov 18, 2001 9:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Robert and Howard, > > May I add the the 'blur' is conceptual, a construction > by avijja (and other conditions) from a very great > many moments of consciousness. In other words each > moment is quite clear (even if akusala and > deluded)--the confusion occurs in the retrospective > pax~n~natti/papa~n~ca. That's the way I see it > anyway.. > > mike But what type of citta is it that apprehends this confused retrospective view, and how does it coordinate with the ongoing stream of present cittas? Best, Robert > .--- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Hi, Robert - > > > > > > I would like to address myself to one point > > you make, a > > point I have > > > seen before and which continues to perplex me. In > > a message dated > > 11/18/01 > > > 12:40:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > > > > > > > As you know I am a bit of (actually, a lot of) a > > stickler for the > > > > reliability of the Theravada texts. I believe > > the reason for the > > > > phenomena you note is the speed of the arising > > and passing of > > cittas. > > > > So that, in a split second there could have been > > thousands of > > > > processes of seeing, hearing, thinking, > > touching, tasting, etc. > > It > > > > happens so fast that it seems to blur together. > > > > > > > =========================== > > > It seems to blur together to *whom* or to > > *what*? In > > Abhidhamma, that > > > which is doing the knowing are the individual > > cittas. Each citta > > knows its > > > object. WHAT can be seeing the "blur". It seems to > > me that this > > notion is > > > based on our conventional observation of things > > such as our > > observing of a > > > torch being moved in a circle, and "we" see a > > circle of fire, or > > our looking > > > at a movie screen and seeing continuity instead of > > a sequence of > > frames. But > > > at the level of "abhidhammic reality" each > > individual citta is > > seeing a > > > single object, and there IS NO overarching > > something to be seeing > > a "blur". > > > Do you follow my problem here? (There seems to be > > a conflation > > going on > > > here.) The individual dhamma/citta view just > > doesn't seem to > > adequately > > > explain actual experience. > > > And when the theory also posits cittas (the > > bhavanga > > cittas), which > > > all have the very same object, but it is an object > > of awareness not > > possible > > > to be aware of (!), so that we have unaware > > moments of awareness ;- > > ), the > > > theory becomes all the more an ad hoc, strained > > one. > > > > > > With metta, > > > Howard > > >++++++++++++++ > > > > Dear Howard, > > Well my reply is that I think the theory explains > > the actual > > experience very well. The example of the movie > > screen is a reasonable > > analogy to explain how the moments are taken as a > > whole. > > Remember the individual moments don't come into > > existence out of > > nothing. Each one is conditioned by the previous one > > and hence there > > is continuity. > > The reason we can't see all this clearly is not a > > mystery it is > > because of ignorance, a most powerful force and > > conditioning factor > > that clouds vision.You ask "what can be seeing the > > blur"? Well avijja > > (ignorance) darts among what is unreal (people, > > beings, self) and > > does not dart among paramattha dhammas. Avijja is > > very real and is in > > a sense the 'overaching something' you ask about. > > It is only because we hear about these matters that > > curiosity arises > > and so there is the beginning of investigation > > (dhamma-vicaya) into > > the actual nature of this process. > > I would guess for one like Sariputta the distinction > > between cittas > > is as clear as the lines on my hand. Why? Because of > > developed wisdom. > > best wishes > > robert 9402 From: Sarah Date: Sun Nov 18, 2001 11:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] meththa meditation Dear Christine, Rob K, Ranil, Mike, Nina, Rob Ep & All, I’ve been finding it very helpful to reflect on all your posts about metta. Many thanks. robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- >..... Surely self-centeredness is not > metta. t and earlier he wrote: > > > Do we really need to love ourselves anymore? I appreciated these and other reminders. When we feel down or depressed it may seem right to hear about ‘loving oneself’ or ‘being kind to oneself’. Like Christine, in my work I’ve always ‘given out’ a lot to others and have often got tired or stressed. Friends have then told me with kindness to take more care of myself, be kinder to myself and so on. However, I think the problem when we get depressed or stressed (and isn’t it just a lot of dosa at those times?) has nothing to do with moments of genuine concern and care for others which are ‘light’ and bring no harm at all. The problem stems from the strong attachment to ourselves. We cling so much to our pleasant feelings and have so much attachment most the day. When the pleasant feelings don’t last or life doesn’t work out how we’d wish, we feel depressed and sad. Once at a funeral, K.Sujin reminded me that the tears were not for the deceased, but for ourselves and the loss of our own pleasant feelings. Isn’t this so true? Don’t we cry or feel sad because of the loss or pleasant experiences? Christine:> > Don't you think love is, by its very nature, unity? and, if you > have > > feelings of self-loathing, wouldn't those feelings of self-loathing > > inevitably become part of your relationship with the loved one/s, > and > > therefore contaminate what you radiate during metta practice? If we have thoughts of self-loathing, doesn’t it again show the importance we pay to ourselves? We may need to get conventional help (counselling or medicine) at these times but the dhamma can help a lot if we’re brave and honest enough to consider and develop awareness. Aren’t we comparing ourselves with others with conceit and dwelling on ‘my’ defects and ‘my’ problems at these times? Don’t we really take a self to exist in actuality? As you suggest, at these times of ‘self’-concern’ there isn’t any concern for others at all and therefore there cannot be metta, which as some of us have suggested, should have other beings as object. Of course, as we know, the near enemy of metta is attachment too. So most of what we take for being kindness, metta or love for our ‘loved ones’ is usually attachment in one guise or other, I find. Metta is the quality of kindness and friendship to another being that we meet or see or speak to, regardless of who he or she is, such as when we tend the sick as in the example from the Vinaya I gave yesterday. So as Rob said, ‘do we really need to love ourselves anymore?’ After King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika concluded that indeed there was no one dearer than themselves, the Buddha spoke these lines in Udana, 5-1, ‘Dear’ (Masefield trans): ‘Having explored all quarters with the mind, one would simply not attain that dearer than the self in any place; thus is the self dear separately to others - therefore one desiring self should not harm another.’ The commentary adds: ‘.....One would simply not attain that dearer than the self in any place (n’ev’ajjhagaapiyataram attanaa kvaci): whatever man, seeking out with every endeavour someone else (more) excessively dear than the self, would neither attain nor behold (such) in any place, anywhere in the (ten) quarters.Thus is the self dear separately to others (evam piyo puthu attaa paresa.m): thus is the self alone dear separately, severally, to this and that being, by way of the non-discovery of anyone dearer than the self. Therefore one desiring self should not harm another (tasmaa na hi.mse param attakaama): since each being holds the self dear in that way, is one desiring happiness for that self, one for whom dukkha is repulsive, therefore one desiring self, in wanting well-being and happiness for that self, should not harm, should not kill, should not even antagonise with the hand....and so on, another being, upwards from and including even a mere ant or (other) samll insect. for when dukkha is caused by oneself to some other, that (dukkha) is, after an interval of time, observed in one’s (own) self, as though it were passing over therefrom. for this is the law of karma.’ I think I may have quoted these lines before, but thank you for all for giving me the well-needed opportunity to reflect and type them out again This particular udana has always been very meaningful to me. Thanks Rob, for this useful quote too (amongst others): > > > In the Cariya-pitaka- athakatha (see bodhi net of views p323) it > > > says "The destruction of self-love and the development of love > for > > > others are the means for the accomplishing of the paramis". > > > robert May we all learn to see the danger of self-love . Sarah 9403 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 0:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Robert, > You seem to be positing avijja as a citta, one that is clouded and apprehends > other citta through its ignorant view. I am sure you do not mean that, and I am > still wondering how you are positing 'ignorance' as a force which can 'see things' > in an imperfect or blurred way. Is ignorance not a state or condition in which > deluded cittas arise and condition one another? Or do you mean to say that it is > a kind of thing in itself that actually 'darts around' confusing different objects > with each other? > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > ========== Dear Robert E. Ignorance is a cetasika and it is part of the paticasamupada (dependent origination) It is a key link, along with lobha (craving, attachment) that obsures vision and keeps the wheel of birth and death spinning. It is a power of immense proportions indeed. It arises in assocaition with all akusala cittas , but is also a conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as conascence paccaya). Visuddhimagga XVII 43: " it (avijja) prevents knowing the meaning of collection in the aggregates(khandas), the meaning of actuating in the bases(ayatanas)…..the meaning of reality in the truths…Also it prevents knowing the meaning of dukkha described in the four ways as `oppression etc'..Furthermore it is ignorance because it conceals the physical bases and objects of eyeconsciousness etc and the dependent origination."endquote We see how its function is to conceal what should be known. In brief we can say it is an ignorance of the true nature of paramattha dhammas and the intricate ways they condition each other. The commentary to the UDANA (excellent translation by Peter Masefield from PTS)defines it(p71,vol1, enlightenement chapter) "it is ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on within samsara.., it is ignorance since it darts among those things which do not actually exist (i.e.men, women) and since it does not dart among those things that do exist "(i.e.it cannot understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas). best wishes robert > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Hi, Robert - > > > > > > I would like to address myself to one point you make, a > > point I have > > > seen before and which continues to perplex me. In a message dated > > 11/18/01 > > > 12:40:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > > > > > > > As you know I am a bit of (actually, a lot of) a stickler for the > > > > reliability of the Theravada texts. I believe the reason for the > > > > phenomena you note is the speed of the arising and passing of > > cittas. > > > > So that, in a split second there could have been thousands of > > > > processes of seeing, hearing, thinking, touching, tasting, etc. > > It > > > > happens so fast that it seems to blur together. > > > > > > > =========================== > > > It seems to blur together to *whom* or to *what*? In > > Abhidhamma, that > > > which is doing the knowing are the individual cittas. Each citta > > knows its > > > object. WHAT can be seeing the "blur". It seems to me that this > > notion is > > > based on our conventional observation of things such as our > > observing of a > > > torch being moved in a circle, and "we" see a circle of fire, or > > our looking > > > at a movie screen and seeing continuity instead of a sequence of > > frames. But > > > at the level of "abhidhammic reality" each individual citta is > > seeing a > > > single object, and there IS NO overarching something to be seeing > > a "blur". > > > Do you follow my problem here? (There seems to be a conflation > > going on > > > here.) The individual dhamma/citta view just doesn't seem to > > adequately > > > explain actual experience. > > > And when the theory also posits cittas (the bhavanga > > cittas), which > > > all have the very same object, but it is an object of awareness not > > possible > > > to be aware of (!), so that we have unaware moments of awareness ;- > > ), the > > > theory becomes all the more an ad hoc, strained one. > > > > > > With metta, > > > Howard > > >++++++++++++++ > > > > Dear Howard, > > Well my reply is that I think the theory explains the actual > > experience very well. The example of the movie screen is a reasonable > > analogy to explain how the moments are taken as a whole. > > Remember the individual moments don't come into existence out of > > nothing. Each one is conditioned by the previous one and hence there > > is continuity. > > The reason we can't see all this clearly is not a mystery it is > > because of ignorance, a most powerful force and conditioning factor > > that clouds vision.You ask "what can be seeing the blur"? Well avijja > > (ignorance) darts among what is unreal (people, beings, self) and > > does not dart among paramattha dhammas. Avijja is very real and is in > > a sense the 'overaching something' you ask about. > > It is only because we hear about these matters that curiosity arises > > and so there is the beginning of investigation (dhamma-vicaya) into > > the actual nature of this process. > > I would guess for one like Sariputta the distinction between cittas > > is as clear as the lines on my hand. Why? Because of developed wisdom. > > best wishes > > robert 9404 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 0:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] meththa meditation Dear Sarah, Thanks for this which all makes a lot of sense to me. I was wondering if you'd like to tackle a passage in the Vissuddhimagga which is harder to understand: ix8 Metta should first of all "be developed only to oneself, doing it repeastedly thus: may I be happy..." The next sections notes that someone may question this because it is not in the Tipitaka and that in the patisambhidimagga and vibhanga no mention is made of developing metta to oneself. The answer is that for jhana this can't succeed by way of taking oneself as an object. And later ix9 it makes it clear that developing to oneself means "just as I want to be happy and dread pain so do others..." Thus making oneself as an example. I think the meaning is basically that we considr how we like to be treated and thought of and so we should think of others in the same way. I can also see how a not so careful reading of the text could lead to the conclusion that one should be trying to love oneself more. I'd like you to read over ix8-10 and see what you think. best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Christine, Rob K, Ranil, Mike, Nina, Rob Ep & All, > > I've been finding it very helpful to reflect on all your posts about metta. > Many thanks. > > robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- > > >..... Surely self-centeredness is not > > metta. t > > and earlier he wrote: > > > > > Do we really need to love ourselves anymore? > > I appreciated these and other reminders. When we feel down or depressed it may > seem right to hear about `loving oneself' or `being kind to oneself'. Like > Christine, in my work I've always `given out' a lot to others and have often > got tired or stressed. Friends have then told me with kindness to take more > care of myself, be kinder to myself and so on. > > However, I think the problem when we get depressed or stressed (and isn't it > just a lot of dosa at those times?) has nothing to do with moments of genuine > concern and care for others which are `light' and bring no harm at all. The > problem stems from the strong attachment to ourselves. We cling so much to our > pleasant feelings and have so much attachment most the day. When the pleasant > feelings don't last or life doesn't work out how we'd wish, we feel depressed > and sad. > > Once at a funeral, K.Sujin reminded me that the tears were not for the > deceased, but for ourselves and the loss of our own pleasant feelings. Isn't > this so true? Don't we cry or feel sad because of the loss or pleasant > experiences? > > Christine:> > Don't you think love is, by its very nature, unity? and, if you > > have > > > feelings of self-loathing, wouldn't those feelings of self- loathing > > > inevitably become part of your relationship with the loved one/s, > > and > > > therefore contaminate what you radiate during metta practice? > > If we have thoughts of self-loathing, doesn't it again show the importance we > pay to ourselves? We may need to get conventional help (counselling or > medicine) at these times but the dhamma can help a lot if we're brave and > honest enough to consider and develop awareness. Aren't we comparing ourselves > with others with conceit and dwelling on `my' defects and `my' problems at > these times? Don't we really take a self to exist in actuality? As you suggest, > at these times of `self'-concern' there isn't any concern for others at all and > therefore there cannot be metta, which as some of us have suggested, should > have other beings as object. > > Of course, as we know, the near enemy of metta is attachment too. So most of > what we take for being kindness, metta or love for our `loved ones' is usually > attachment in one guise or other, I find. Metta is the quality of kindness and > friendship to another being that we meet or see or speak to, regardless of who > he or she is, such as when we tend the sick as in the example from the Vinaya I > gave yesterday. > > So as Rob said, `do we really need to love ourselves anymore?' > > After King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika concluded that indeed there was no one > dearer than themselves, the Buddha spoke these lines in Udana, 5- 1, `Dear' > (Masefield trans): > > `Having explored all quarters with the mind, one would simply not attain that > dearer than the self in any place; thus is the self dear separately to others > - therefore one desiring self should not harm another.' > > The commentary adds: > > `.....One would simply not attain that dearer than the self in any place > (n'ev'ajjhagaapiyataram attanaa kvaci): whatever man, seeking out with every > endeavour someone else (more) excessively dear than the self, would neither > attain nor behold (such) in any place, anywhere in the (ten) quarters.Thus is > the self dear separately to others (evam piyo puthu attaa paresa.m): thus is > the self alone dear separately, severally, to this and that being, by way of > the non-discovery of anyone dearer than the self. Therefore one desiring self > should not harm another (tasmaa na hi.mse param attakaama): since each being > holds the self dear in that way, is one desiring happiness for that self, one > for whom dukkha is repulsive, therefore one desiring self, in wanting > well-being and happiness for that self, should not harm, should not kill, > should not even antagonise with the hand....and so on, another being, upwards > from and including even a mere ant or (other) samll insect. for when dukkha is > caused by oneself to some other, that (dukkha) is, after an interval of time, > observed in one's (own) self, as though it were passing over therefrom. for > this is the law of karma.' > > I think I may have quoted these lines before, but thank you for all for giving > me the well-needed opportunity to reflect and type them out again This > particular udana has always been very meaningful to me. > > Thanks Rob, for this useful quote too (amongst others): > > > > > In the Cariya-pitaka- athakatha (see bodhi net of views p323) it > > > > says "The destruction of self-love and the development of love > > for > > > > others are the means for the accomplishing of the paramis". > > > > robert > > May we all learn to see the danger of self-love . > > Sarah > > > 9405 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 2:09am Subject: [dsg] Anusaya-kilesa Hi Robert K " It arises in assocaition with all akusala cittas , but is also a > conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as > conascence paccaya)." This sound very interesting, could you elaborate on "this conditioning factor for many kusala cittas". Is this the same as Anusaya-kilesa. Some pple interpret it as latent tendecies, is it correct. Does kusala cittas has anusaya Kilesa as it has define like a sediment in the citta in the Summary of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII . With thanks Ken O > > Dear Robert E. > Ignorance is a cetasika and it is part of the paticasamupada > (dependent origination) It is a key link, along with lobha (craving, > attachment) that obsures vision and keeps the wheel of birth and > death spinning. It is a power of immense proportions indeed. > It arises in assocaition with all akusala cittas , but is also a > conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as > conascence paccaya). > > Visuddhimagga > XVII 43: " it (avijja) prevents knowing the meaning of > collection in the aggregates(khandas), the meaning of actuating in the > bases(ayatanas)…..the meaning of reality in the truths…Also it prevents knowing the meaning of dukkha described in the four ways as `oppression > etc'..Furthermore it is ignorance because it conceals the physical bases and objects of eyeconsciousness etc and the dependent origination."endquote > We see how its function is to conceal what should be known. > > In brief we can say it is an ignorance of the true nature of > paramattha dhammas and the intricate ways they condition each other. > The commentary to the UDANA (excellent translation by Peter Masefield > from PTS)defines it(p71,vol1, enlightenement chapter) "it is > ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on > within samsara.., it is ignorance since it > darts among those things which do not actually exist (i.e.men, > women) and since it does not dart among those things that do > exist "(i.e.it cannot understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas). > best wishes > robert > 9406 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 2:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Music Dear Nina, I'm going to have to point it out to you, it's Herman, not Hermann :-) I hope you don't mind. I do appreciate the time you take to answer my posts. I would like to find a way of expressing my appreciation of Buddhaghosa, without distorting the reality of the situation. Marcel Dupre, in his youth, played a concert series of the entire organ works of Bach, from memory, over ten consecutive nights. This feat is utterly incredible, and is worthy of the highest praise. Matched by none in his day, or the days to come. Yet he played the works of Bach, not Dupre. Thomas Aquinas was perhaps the greatest medieval mind. He wrote countless books based on a few biblical books, and what was written after them. Yet I would never recommend anyone to read Thomas Aquinas, simply because it is Thomas Aquinas' rendition of Jesus, as in Dupre's version of Bach. The words of Jesus are so pure, so simple and so few. And a thousand have come since, and added their praise, their appreciation, and their version of Jesus. Can one expand on the perfect, the sublime? And so it is with Buddhaghosa (for me). A great, incomparable mind, yet, only an interpretor, allbeit a great one. The actual words of Jesus would fill less than twenty pages. Happily there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of the unquestioned words of the Buddha. Why hang on the lips of those who also revere him, when what he spoke is known to us? I would love to sit quietly in your house as your fingers glide over the keyboard. I did once play the continuo part of a Haendel flute sonata in church. Much effort, no skill i'm afraid. I look forward to your notes re conceit Thank you Herman(n) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > op 15-11-2001 11:40 schreef hhofman@d... op > hhofman@d...: > > > > > After high school I was apprenticed to a pipe organ builder, working > > both in Australia and the Netherlands. I did learn to play the organ > > then, was church organist for some time, as well as teaching a number > > of pupils. > > > > Some of my boys are very musical. This may sound like pride, but I > > understand full well that they are what they are, not much to do with > > me. The younger one of mine got his first guitar less than two years > > ago. The band he is in with my older son and some friends just won > > the NSW Battle of the Bands. It is all conditions, and wise attention. > > > > My wife's oldest boy recently received a ranking of 95% in his final > > exams. His middle brother is a farm hand who loves being with the > > animals all day. The youngest one watches the Simpsons all day and > > all night. Everyone is different, and each must find their own way. > > > > We differ on a number of issues, Nina, including (I quote from > > NanaVira) Cittavíthi, 'mental process, cognitive series'. > > Visuddhimagga, Ch. XIV etc. It is, perhaps, not superfluous to remark > > that this doctrine, of which so much use is made in the Visuddhimagga > > (and see also the Abhidhammatthasangaha), is a pure scholastic > > invention and has nothing at all to do with the Buddha's Teaching > > (or, indeed, with anything else). (I unquote) > > Dear Hermann, I was delighted with your letter, and fascinated to hear about > your life, your musical background, the different accumulations of your > boys. How it is all conditioned! We have a lot in common in this respect, I > also used to play the organ. > Now Vis Ch XIV and the mental process. Yes, I understand what you mean, > Hermann. A. Sujin said that each person is unique and therefore there are no > rules about what someone should do, develop or study. Everybody is very free > as to what he wants to study. And Ch XIV is complex, such a lot of material > in one chapter. Not only in the Vis. but also in the scriptures the > processes have been dealt with: the "Path of Discrimination"(Treatise on > Knowledge, Ch XVII, Behaviour, cariya) and the "Conditional Relations" > (patthana, feeling Triplet, Investigation Ch, under Proximity and > Repetition). But I understand it if you do not want to take up these works. > Now, Hermann, what about our own life just now. In this way we can find out > more. > We see something pleasant and like it. The seeing is something we undergo, > it is passive, it is result, vipaka. Then follow our reactions, we like what > we see. Javana cittas which are kusala cittas or akusala cittas, in this > case with clinging, thus akusala cittas. We hear a harsh sound. Hearing is > another chapter of our life. Hearing we undergo, we cannot choose it. Our > reactions: usually dislike. Then quite another chapter, smelling: we smell > an unpleasant odour: smelling and then our reactions. Thus we go on from one > sequence to another sequence of cittas that experience objects through six > doors. From birth to death, we are in the cycle of birth and death. We have > to be born, we have to see, hear, undergo all the sense impressions, whether > we like it or not. Seeing is conditioned by visible object and eyesense, > hearing by earsense and sound. Entirely different experiences arisen because > of different conditions. Thus, part of the sequence of cittas we are able to > experience. The Buddha who knew all taught the sequence of cittas in detail, > but we should not try to count cittas, to catch them. We cannot choose what > type of citta arises, we are not the owner of cittas. We can learn more > about cittas as right understanding is developed. > I am always amazed at the consistency of Buddhaghosa, he wrote such an > enormous amount of commentaries, and never a contradiction. When there are > differences in classifications it is usually a matter of what is stressed, > of explaining certain aspects. He keeps on stressing vipassana, the three > characteristics of impermanence, dukkha, anatta, developing understanding of > the khandhas, elements, ayatanas. I collect such texts for Robert K. who > likes this so much. But I stop raving about Buddhaghosa now, I am not at the > right address here, I feel :) . > As to chitchat, yes, I am personally inclined "to say it with music" (today > Loeillet and Handel with the nephews, Veracini for Pa and Oscar). Now, we > can talk with different types of cittas, we can also speak with real concern > for someone, with metta, with generosity, with sympathetic joy, thus with > kusala cittas. The same goes for writing E mails, this is a good reminder > for me. I used to think that talking about flowers etc is akusala, but A. > Sujin taught me differently. We can learn that there are different moments > when we talk. I should remind myself again and again that when we do not > develop dana, observe sila, develop samatha or satipatthana, we act, speak > and think with akusala cittas. > Yes, I shall write more about conceit, it is always around the corner, even > when we laugh. I appreciate Jon's additional reminder of conceit. > I have read so many posts of you and then it is nice to hear about your > personal life. With best wishes, Nina. 9407 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 4:27am Subject: [dsg] Ultimate Reality Hi Howard: >To me, the term 'ultimate reality' is misleading when applied to conditioned dhammas. k: From what I have read, Abhidhamma classify them as conditioned dhammas. Hmm but it seems to me that ultimate reality may not be a good translation for what it suppose to mean. To me they are just classifying dhammas into until a stage where it could not be break down anymore. Ultimate tends to bring some kind of "Supreme" meaning. I would say a bit of negativity there. Maybe someone could think of a better word to use. >> Feeling is an ultimate reality> > > though bc of the function of vedana. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I disagree with you here. Feeling is dependent upon contact. k: Oh, I just using their Abidhamma terms here, they classify vedana as ultimate reality. In Abidhamma, these cetasikas rise together and in a sense function together instanteously and I interpret that contact don't comes before feeling (maybe I wrong here) in one citta. So if dependent origination say that contact arise before vedana, then Abidhamma says they rise simultaneous, for this part I am confuse. Hope someone here could clarify this. Kind regards Ken O --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 11/18/01 10:18:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, > ashkenn@y... writes: > > > > k: Seeing is not an utlimate reality. Seeing is dependent of the > > combination of four elements that produce an object and the eye sense > > thought process that enable us to see. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I agree with you. To me, the term 'ultimate reality' is > misleading > when applied to conditioned dhammas. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Feeling is an ultimate reality> > > though bc of the function of vedana. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I disagree with you here. Feeling is dependent upon contact. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Furthermore, isn't suffering is also> > > a concept. Suffering is the resultant of our akusala tendecies. It > is > > not an ultimate reality. > > > > > ============================== > Just one cautionary note. Abidhammikas don't use the term > 'ultimate > reality' in a sense that precludes it from being conditioned. I find > that use > of the term a bit odd, but so long as it has a consistent meaning in > that > context, there is no problem. In Abhidhamma, I believe that a paramattha > > dhamma is any dhamma that is directly observable through a sense door as > > opposed to being (the referent of a) mere concept. We're headed for > misunderstanding when we conflate the Abhidhammic defintion with > another. > > With metta. > Howard > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a > bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, > a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9408 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 4:31am Subject: Re: meththa meditation Dear Mick, Sarah, Christine, Robert, Manji and all. What is meththa? To me simply "friendliness". Meththa towards yourself… Accept yourself as you are, Be friendly with yourself… Its OK for you to go wrong, Forgive yourself unconditionally. Its OK for yourself not to perform well as others Be happy with yourself (now to handle the situation here we need wisdom) See the things in reality… Accept reality… Do what you have to do… (now back to metha) Accept yourself as you are (Confidence) Have confidence in yourself Don’t be afraid of what others would say… (now wisdom and metha towards others) See them in reality… Why they are in that way… Accept them and their actions in friendliness (now meththa towards others) Feel the liking towards them within you growing and overflowing towards them Forgive them and accept them (now back to yourself) Feel the friendliness you yourself have given yourself Feel the calmness within you by accepting yourself as you are…… Feel the calmness within you by accepting others as they are……………. Now my question session; If you cannot accept yourself, forgive yourself how can you do it for others? If you don’t have meththa towards yourself: Scenario: This person wants to see "Right view". He reads the samma ditti suththa in majima nikaya. Out of the 16 ways Sariyuth Thero has given he contemplates on the 2nd that is Ahara or Food. He sees food is a conditional item for life and he sees how difficult it is to get food, what and what (not) is being done to get food. And he sees all this is to keep the "body" alive and as he does not have meththa towards himself…… (so he...) his body is gone so does his life…. Do we really need to love ourselves anymore? Dear Robert; yes we do…if we forget ourselves and try to meththa others… we may be going in a false path. Ofcourse the feeling of Karuna - not standing others dukka – can arise without we being in the center. Some previous question: Attachment to the "suka vedana" in meditation. Isnt it Akusala? Yes attachement is Akusala. But isnt it a very small akusala. Very small comparing the times we don’t do meditation. Also we should not confuse "Channda" – the "want" to do some thing with loba. Manji; a small note on self as we are talking a lot about ourself. Sila purifies self Samadi sees through self Prangna (wisdom) understands that there is no self. Previously Mike told that samadhi may do more akusala… However I am confused over this… mike; hope you will unconfuse me ;-) But the way I think is… When you try to meditate you will remember the kusala and akusala things you have done more clearly. This (mostly akusala) is an obstacle to our meditation. Therefore to take care of this only we have to do the 4 gardian meditations at the start and metha being one to forgive and accept yourself and to have the unconditional friendship with yourself. The word love: Mike; My addition to Christine's comment. As I have heard the word love is having attachment in it. Or love is with attachment. When you remove the attachment part you get meththa… Robert wrote: I would think that to love yourself and others would be very different from the kind of self-involvement, self-promotion, etc., that refers only to the ego and its insecurities. That is not love. Accepted sir… In these little days I have learnt much and much and would like to thank all my Dhamma friends here. Thank you Sarah for the encouragement you give… and mike… you were talking about satipattana in one of your previous emails. Would like to know how to apply satipattana in every moment… ~much meththa to all Ranil 9409 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi Howard ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Continuity seen by *what*"? Each citta sees what it sees (in a moment - does that have duration?), and then ceases. BTW, did the citta, now *gone*, really exist as a separate paramattha dhamma? Was it a separate thing with sabhava, somehow conditioned by other, earlier separate, self-existing things (as in the collision of billiard balls, or particles in pre-quantum physics), and now annihilated? This seems to me to be, at the very same time, a form of substantialism and annihilationism. -------------------------------------------------- k: Our conscious is passed from one form to another when one cease from this form. Then I think, if we think from this light, there shouldn't be any substanlism and annihilationism. Because each citta condition the next in Abhidhamma. Similarily the conscious of the present form condition the next form and this present conscious also condition the next conscious. Robert K: You ask "what can be seeing the blur"? Well avijja > > (ignorance) darts among what is unreal (people, beings, self) and > > does not dart among paramattha dhammas. Avijja is very real and is in > > a sense the 'overaching something' you ask about. k: To me Robert K explaination could be confusing as he is mixing convention with absolute. On his first part he say abt concepts (pple, beings, self) and on the second part he say abt absolute (paramattha dhammas). He is not wrong though. However, i would not say that Avijja is in a sense "overarching something", cittas can never overarch because one cittas needs to cease before the next one citta arise. To me this "overarching something" is due to concepts (ppe, beings, self) that we use to think for so many countless lifes and these concepts have their root cause in Avijja (maybe that is what Robert K is saying). > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > So - avijja is some sort of "super-dhamma" which not only exists, > but exists beyond the moment? This makes pa~n~na sound like an eternalistic Christ, and avijja an eternalistic Antichrist! > ------------------------------------------------ k: I don't think he is implying that ignorance is a "super-dhamma". To me ignorance is a conditioned dhamma. Ignorance conditions our present conscious and our present conscious condition ignorance which in future conditions our next conscious as said in the Dependent Origination, assuming we have not eradicate ignorance in this life. Similarly to panna that also conditions in such a way. No cetasikas could be super dhamma because they are all conditioned, which implies that they are not permanent, hence I think it should not be view as eternalistic. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Wouldn't you think, then, that in at least one sutta the Buddha > (or Sariputta or another chief disciple) would have talked in Abhidhammic terms about the notion of "cittas", about individual mindstates each of which exists for a moment (as the entirety of experience), has essence, and then being utterly annihilated is followed by a separate, successor mindstate? > ---------------------------------------------------- k: This is a difficult part, why it is not state clearly in the sutta and this is hard to accept. Similarly it is hard for the Thervadans to accept Mahayana point of view in certain Buddhist concepts eg PureLand. Personally, as long as it helps to understand the dhamma better, it is good enough. I think we have to put faith and accept that Buddha teachings that are imparted comes in many different ways or form, even though it is extremely hard to substantiate or to believe at times. Kind regards Ken O --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > I still find a problem here which I will address in context. In a > > message dated 11/18/01 6:15:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > Dear Howard, > > Well my reply is that I think the theory explains the actual > > > experience very well. The example of the movie screen is a reasonable > > analogy to explain how the moments are taken as a whole. > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't think it is. The frames pass by on the screen, and the > watcher, standing back, produces a continuous image as a result of > watching > them. But when the cittas *are* the frames, they are also the "watchers" > - > there is no overseer, standing back, confronting those cittas. They, > with and > without their wisdom and other concomitants, are *it*. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Remember the individual moments don't come into existence out of > > nothing. Each one is conditioned by the previous one and hence there > > is continuity. > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Continuity seen by *what*"? Each citta sees what it sees (in a > moment > - does that have duration?), and then ceases. BTW, did the citta, now > *gone*, > really exist as a separate paramattha dhamma? Was it a separate thing > with > sabhava, somehow conditioned by other, earlier separate, self-existing > things > (as in the collision of billiard balls, or particles in pre-quantum > physics), > and now annihilated? This seems to me to be, at the very same time, a > form of > substantialism and annihilationism. > -------------------------------------------------- > > > The reason we can't see all this clearly is not a mystery it is > > because of ignorance, a most powerful force and conditioning factor > > that clouds vision.You ask "what can be seeing the blur"? Well avijja > > (ignorance) darts among what is unreal (people, beings, self) and > > does not dart among paramattha dhammas. Avijja is very real and is in > > a sense the 'overaching something' you ask about. > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > So - avijja is some sort of "super-dhamma" which not only exists, > but > exists beyond the moment? This makes pa~n~na sound like an eternalistic > Christ, and avijja an eternalistic Antichrist! > ------------------------------------------------ > > > It is only because we hear about these matters that curiosity arises > > and so there is the beginning of investigation (dhamma-vicaya) into > > the actual nature of this process. > > I would guess for one like Sariputta the distinction between cittas > > is as clear as the lines on my hand. > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Wouldn't you think, then, that in at least one sutta the Buddha > (or > Sariputta or another chief disciple) would have talked in Abhidhammic > terms > about the notion of "cittas", about individual mindstates each of which > exists for a moment (as the entirety of experience), has essence, and > then > being utterly annihilated is followed by a separate, successor > mindstate? > ---------------------------------------------------- > Why? Because of developed wisdom.> > > best wishes > > 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) 9410 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anusaya-kilesa --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert K > > " It arises in association with all akusala cittas , but is also a > > conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as > > conascence paccaya)." > > > This sound very interesting, could you elaborate on "this conditioning > factor for many kusala cittas". Is this the same as Anusaya- kilesa. Some > pple interpret it as latent tendecies, is it correct. Does kusala cittas > has anusaya Kilesa as it has define like a sediment in the citta in the > Summary of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII . > _____________________ Dear Ken O, Yes I think that's right, and good question. However, I wasn't thinking of that aspect. I was thinking of the way ignorance can condition good deeds in various ways. Visuddhimagga XVii63 "his non- abandonment of that ignorance about the 4 noble truths in particular prevents him from recognising as suffering the kind of suffering called the fruit of merit...he embarks upon the formation of merit .." Also xvii64 "not knowing bhikkus, in ignorance he forms the formation of merit...as soon as a bhikkhus ignorance is abandoned and clear vision arises ..he does not even form formations of merit" This, of course is not implying that merit is wrong, just that it can often be conditioned by ignorance. best wishes robert > > > > > > > Dear Robert E. > > Ignorance is a cetasika and it is part of the paticasamupada > > (dependent origination) It is a key link, along with lobha (craving, > > attachment) that obsures vision and keeps the wheel of birth and > > death spinning. It is a power of immense proportions indeed. > > It arises in assocaition with all akusala cittas , but is also a > > conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as > > conascence paccaya). > > > > Visuddhimagga > > XVII 43: " it (avijja) prevents knowing the meaning of > > collection in the aggregates(khandas), the meaning of actuating in the > > bases(ayatanas)…..the meaning of reality in the truths…Also it prevents > knowing the meaning of dukkha described in the four ways as `oppression > > etc'..Furthermore it is ignorance because it conceals the physical bases > and objects of eyeconsciousness etc and the dependent > origination."endquote > > We see how its function is to conceal what should be known. > > > > In brief we can say it is an ignorance of the true nature of > > paramattha dhammas and the intricate ways they condition each other. > > The commentary to the UDANA (excellent translation by Peter Masefield > > from PTS)defines it(p71,vol1, enlightenement chapter) "it is > > ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on > > within samsara.., it is ignorance since it > > darts among those things which do not actually exist (i.e.men, > > women) and since it does not dart among those things that do > > exist "(i.e.it cannot understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas). > > best wishes > > robert > > > > 9411 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:48am Subject: Re: Nibbana -- Dear Jon and Howard, Jim Anderson very kindly researched the commentary and translated it for us. Here is the relevant part: Itv-a I 167> siitibhavissantii ti accantavuupasamena sa"nkhaaradarathapa.tippassaddhiyaa siitalii bhavissanti, appa.tisandhika-nirodhena nirujjhissantii ti attho. na kevala.m vedayitaani yeva sabbepi pana khii.naasava-santaane pa~ncakkhandhaa nirujjhissanti. vedayitasiisena desanaa kataa. [both PTS and CSCD versions agree, I didn't check the Budsir version] Roughly translated: "will become cool" -- will become cool with absolute calm, with the tranquillization of the anxiety of the formations, the meaning is: 'will cease with the non-rebirth-linking-cessation'. Not just the sensed alone but all the five aggregates in the continuum of a canker-waned one will cease also. A teaching with the 'sensed' as head is made."end translation. best wishes robert - In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob (and Howard) > > Rob, thanks for this very pertinent quote, and my apologies for the delay > in responding. > > I intersperse below, for comparison, the corresponding passage from the P. > Masefield translation (PTS 2000). > > --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > > > Dear Howard and Jon, > > From the Itivuttaka (no.38 PTS). > > I use Nyanaponika's translation (wheel 251/253) > > This was said by the Blessed one, sopken by the holy One , and > > thus have I heard: > > there are , o monks, two aspects of Nibbana; the Nibbana element > > with the groups of existence still remainin > > (saupadisesa-nibbanadhatu) and the Nibbana-element with no > > groups remaining (anupadisesa -nibbana dhatu). > > What is the Nibbana element with groups of existence still > > remaing? in that case , o monks, a monk is an arahant; he is > > taint free..but there still remain with him(until death) the > > five sense organs that have not yet disappeared and through > > which he still experiences what is pleasant and unpleasant, as > > well as bodily ease and pain. The extinction of greed, hatred > > and delusion in him, this is called the nibbana element with the > > groups of existence still remaining. > > PM "On this one's part, it is the destruction of lust, the destruction of > hatred, the destruction of delusion that is spoken of as that > nibbana-element that is with substrate-remnant." > > > And what is the Nibbana-element with no groups remaining? In > > that case a monk is an arahant..in him those feelings no longer > > relished , will even here (at his death) come to extinction. > > This is called the Nibbana-element with no groups of existence > > remaining. endquote > > PM "On this one's part, all that is sensed right here, not being rejoiced > in, will become cold; it is this that is spoken of as that nibbana- element > that is without substrate-remnant." > > I am not sure if there is anything new here. I simply observe that what > is being discussed is the 'nibbana-element', rather than, say, the citta > that experiences that element, although obviously is a reference to one > and the same moment. > > The first kind of nibbana-element is equated with the *destruction of > lust, hatred and delusion*, the second with the *becoming cold of all that > is sensed* after that destruction has occurred. > > There is a further passage in the PM translation, which I think is of a > verse summarising the prose text of the sutta. This reads as follows-- > > "These two nibbana elements .. ; > -- one element -- that with substrate-remnant, in which becoming's lead > is totally destroyed -- pertains to these seen conditions here; > -- that without substrate-remnant, wherein becomings entirely cease, > pertains to the hereafter. > Those whose hearts are liberated .. , being those for whom becoming's lead > is totally destroyed, delight .. in destruction -- these constant ones > abandon all becomings." > > Howard, I read the passage from Rob's post as confirming what you suggest > in your reply to that post, namely the cessation of all sense-door > functions and associated mind-door states. It is possible that is is also > intended to include other mind-door moments; presumably the commentary > would make this clear. > > The emphasis in the verse passage seems to be on the end of 'becoming' > (ie. birth?). I take this to mean that the moment of death (cuti citta) > is not followed by a moment of birth (patisandhi citta). > > As far as I know, the Pali texts take the matter no further than this, but > I intend to keep an eye out for further relevant material. > > Jon 9412 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 3:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/19/01 3:01:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Dear Robert E. > Ignorance is a cetasika and it is part of the paticasamupada > (dependent origination) It is a key link, along with lobha (craving, > attachment) that obsures vision and keeps the wheel of birth and > death spinning. It is a power of immense proportions indeed. > It arises in assocaition with all akusala cittas , but is also a > conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as > conascence paccaya). > > Visuddhimagga > XVII 43: " it (avijja) prevents knowing the meaning of > collection in the > aggregates(khandas), the meaning of actuating in the > bases(ayatanas)…..the > meaning of reality in the truths…Also it prevents knowing the > meaning of > dukkha described in the four ways as `oppression > etc'..Furthermore it is > ignorance because it conceals the physical bases and objects of > eyeconsciousness etc and the dependent origination."endquote > We see how its function is to conceal what should be known. > > In brief we can say it is an ignorance of the true nature of > paramattha dhammas and the intricate ways they condition each other. > The commentary to the UDANA (excellent translation by Peter Masefield > from PTS)defines it(p71,vol1, enlightenement chapter) "it is > ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on > within samsara.., it is ignorance since it > darts among those things which do not actually exist (i.e.men, > women) and since it does not dart among those things that do > exist "(i.e.it cannot > understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas). > best wishes > robert > ============================ If I may chime in: This makes me "feel much better" about aspects of the matter (while, as you might expect from one as incorrigible as I, not fully satisfied ;-). I tend to think of avijja not as a simple thing, but as multi-layered and multi-constructed, being in part a mere absence of wisdom, but also consisting in part of active misunderstandings of many sorts, and also being in part - and this *may* be closest to the avijja cetasika sense - a general dimming of clarity and increase in confusion. In any case, my primary difficulty is with the atomistic theory of conciousness in general and its explanatory capability. It is when I see problems in that area arising that I raise questions, such as bringing up the business of an overarching something that grasps, with/without wisdom, an entire process of cittas, like a "self"/observer standing back from the screen, and also with regard to cittas being "real things" which are then annihilated, both such notions pointing away from no-self/emptiness. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9413 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 4:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/19/01 9:14:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Continuity seen by *what*"? Each citta sees what it sees (in a > moment - does that have duration?), and then ceases. BTW, did the citta, > now *gone*, really exist as a separate paramattha dhamma? Was it a > separate thing with sabhava, somehow conditioned by other, earlier > separate, self-existing things (as in the collision of billiard balls, or > particles in pre-quantum physics), and now annihilated? This seems to me > to be, at the very same time, a form of substantialism and > annihilationism. > -------------------------------------------------- > > k: Our conscious is passed from one form to another when one cease from > this form. Then I think, if we think from this light, there shouldn't be > any substanlism and annihilationism. Because each citta condition the > next in Abhidhamma. Similarily the conscious of the present form > condition the next form and this present conscious also condition the next > conscious. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I understand that features of subsequent cittas are conditioned by the features of the current citta. If that were not so, there would be complete randomness. But the arising and destruction of separate, self-existing units constituting the entirety of experience while each exists is reminiscent of the old action-at-distance of Neutonian mechanics, and it has the flavor of an atta-view. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Robert K: You ask "what can be seeing the blur"? Well avijja > > > (ignorance) darts among what is unreal (people, beings, self) and > > > does not dart among paramattha dhammas. Avijja is very real and is in > > > a sense the 'overaching something' you ask about. > > k: To me Robert K explaination could be confusing as he is mixing > convention with absolute. On his first part he say abt concepts (pple, > beings, self) and on the second part he say abt absolute (paramattha > dhammas). He is not wrong though. However, i would not say that Avijja > is in a sense "overarching something", cittas can never overarch because > one cittas needs to cease before the next one citta arise. To me this > "overarching something" is due to concepts (ppe, beings, self) that we use > to think for so many countless lifes and these concepts have their root > cause in Avijja (maybe that is what Robert K is saying). > > > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > So - avijja is some sort of "super-dhamma" which not only exists, > > but exists beyond the moment? This makes pa~n~na sound like an > eternalistic Christ, and avijja an eternalistic Antichrist! > > ------------------------------------------------ > > k: I don't think he is implying that ignorance is a "super-dhamma". To > me ignorance is a conditioned dhamma. Ignorance conditions our present > conscious and our present conscious condition ignorance which in future > conditions our next conscious as said in the Dependent Origination, > assuming we have not eradicate ignorance in this life. Similarly to panna > that also conditions in such a way. No cetasikas could be super dhamma > because they are all conditioned, which implies that they are not > permanent, hence I think it should not be view as eternalistic. > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Wouldn't you think, then, that in at least one sutta the Buddha > > (or Sariputta or another chief disciple) would have talked in > Abhidhammic terms about the notion of "cittas", about individual > mindstates each of which exists for a moment (as the entirety of > experience), has essence, and then being utterly annihilated is followed > by a separate, successor mindstate? > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > k: This is a difficult part, why it is not state clearly in the sutta and > this is hard to accept. Similarly it is hard for the Thervadans to accept > Mahayana point of view in certain Buddhist concepts eg PureLand. > Personally, as long as it helps to understand the dhamma better, it is > good enough. I think we have to put faith and accept that Buddha teachings > that are imparted comes in many different ways or form, even though it is > extremely hard to substantiate or to believe at times. > > > > > Kind regards > Ken O > =============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9414 From: m. nease Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 5:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate Reality Hi Kenneth, I agree, I've never really liked that translation either. In any event, the important meaning as I understand it is something like the fundamental components of a moment of experience--ultimate only in the sense of (theoretically) irreducible. This is not science or philosophy, it is, in my opinion, just a conceptual structure for trying to understand, intellectually, the nature of experience (not to be mistaken for or substitued for direct, profound understanding). Anyone can pick it (spoken abhidhamma theory) to pieces. It isn't meant to stand up in a court of law, or a debate (though it sometimes can), or a laboratory--just to assist in the understanding of the present moment of experience, IMHO. mike --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Howard: > > >To me, the term 'ultimate reality' is misleading > when applied to > conditioned dhammas. > > k: From what I have read, Abhidhamma classify them > as conditioned > dhammas. Hmm but it seems to me that ultimate > reality may not be a good > translation for what it suppose to mean. To me they > are just classifying > dhammas into until a stage where it could not be > break down anymore. > Ultimate tends to bring some kind of "Supreme" > meaning. I would say a bit > of negativity there. Maybe someone could think of a > better word to use. > > > > >> Feeling is an ultimate reality> > > > though bc of the function of vedana. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I disagree with you here. Feeling is > dependent upon contact. > > k: Oh, I just using their Abidhamma terms here, they > classify vedana as > ultimate reality. In Abidhamma, these cetasikas > rise together and in a > sense function together instanteously and I > interpret that contact don't > comes before feeling (maybe I wrong here) in one > citta. So if dependent > origination say that contact arise before vedana, > then Abidhamma says they > rise simultaneous, for this part I am confuse. Hope > someone here could > clarify this. > > > > > Kind regards > Ken O > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Ken - > > > > In a message dated 11/18/01 10:18:48 AM Eastern > Standard Time, > > ashkenn@y... writes: > > > > > > > k: Seeing is not an utlimate reality. Seeing > is dependent of the > > > combination of four elements that produce an > object and the eye sense > > > thought process that enable us to see. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I agree with you. To me, the term 'ultimate > reality' is > > misleading > > when applied to conditioned dhammas. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Feeling is an ultimate reality> > > > though bc of the function of vedana. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I disagree with you here. Feeling is > dependent upon contact. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Furthermore, isn't suffering is also> > > > a concept. Suffering is the resultant of our > akusala tendecies. It > > is > > > not an ultimate reality. > > > > > > > > ============================== > > Just one cautionary note. Abidhammikas > don't use the term > > 'ultimate > > reality' in a sense that precludes it from being > conditioned. I find > > that use > > of the term a bit odd, but so long as it has a > consistent meaning in > > that > > context, there is no problem. In Abhidhamma, I > believe that a paramattha > > > > dhamma is any dhamma that is directly observable > through a sense door as > > > > opposed to being (the referent of a) mere concept. > We're headed for > > misunderstanding when we conflate the Abhidhammic > defintion with > > another. > > > > With metta. > > Howard > > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: > A star at dawn, a > > bubble > > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer > cloud, a flickering lamp, > > a > > phantom, and a dream./ (From the > Diamond Sutra) 9415 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 5:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate Reality Hi Mike Could you assist in explaining my confusion as stated below. I am still hoping either you or anyone in the list could explain it. Kind regards Ken O > > Howard: > > I disagree with you here. Feeling is > dependent upon contact. > > k: Oh, I just using their Abidhamma terms here, they > classify vedana as ultimate reality. In Abidhamma, these cetasikas > rise together and in a sense function together instanteously and I > interpret that contact don't comes before feeling (maybe I wrong here) in one citta. So if dependent origination say that contact arise before vedana, then Abidhamma says they rise simultaneous, for this part I am confuse. Hope someone here could clarify this. > > > > > Kind regards > Ken O 9416 From: m. nease Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 5:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meththa meditation Hi Again Ranil, Can you choose what you like and dislike? Liking and disliking are both akusala, regardless of the object. Pa~n~naa can recognize these when they arise (or very soon thereafter) conditioning detachment from them. This is good to know. Of course friendliness is good--easy to confuse with liking, though. Pa~n~naa can know the difference. Well, enough from me already. mike --- ranil gunawardena wrote: > Dear Mick, Sarah, Christine, Robert, Manji and all. > > What is meththa? > To me simply "friendliness". > > Meththa towards yourself… > > Accept yourself as you are, > Be friendly with yourself… > Its OK for you to go wrong, > Forgive yourself unconditionally. > > Its OK for yourself not to perform well as others > Be happy with yourself > (now to handle the situation here we need wisdom) > See the things in reality… > Accept reality… > Do what you have to do… > (now back to metha) > Accept yourself as you are > (Confidence) > Have confidence in yourself > Don’t be afraid of what others would say… > (now wisdom and metha towards others) > See them in reality… > Why they are in that way… > Accept them and their actions in friendliness > (now meththa towards others) > Feel the liking towards them within you growing and > overflowing towards them > Forgive them and accept them > (now back to yourself) > Feel the friendliness you yourself have given > yourself > Feel the calmness within you by accepting yourself > as you are…… > Feel the calmness within you by accepting others as > they are……………. > > Now my question session; > If you cannot accept yourself, forgive yourself how > can you do it for > others? > > If you don’t have meththa towards yourself: > Scenario: This person wants to see "Right view". He > reads the samma ditti > suththa in majima nikaya. Out of the 16 ways > Sariyuth Thero has given he > contemplates on the 2nd that is Ahara or Food. He > sees food is a conditional > item for life and he sees how difficult it is to get > food, what and what > (not) is being done to get food. And he sees all > this is to keep the "body" > alive and as he does not have meththa towards > himself…… (so he...) his body > is gone so does his life…. > > Do we really need to love ourselves anymore? > Dear Robert; yes we do…if we forget ourselves and > try to meththa others… we > may be going in a false path. Ofcourse the feeling > of Karuna - not standing > others dukka – can arise without we being in the > center. > > Some previous question: > Attachment to the "suka vedana" in meditation. Isnt > it Akusala? > Yes attachement is Akusala. But isnt it a very small > akusala. Very small > comparing the times we don’t do meditation. Also we > should not confuse > "Channda" – the "want" to do some thing with loba. > > Manji; a small note on self as we are talking a lot > about ourself. > > Sila purifies self > Samadi sees through self > Prangna (wisdom) understands that there is no self. > > Previously Mike told that samadhi may do more > akusala… > However I am confused over this… mike; hope you will > unconfuse me ;-) > But the way I think is… > When you try to meditate you will remember the > kusala and akusala things you > have done more clearly. This (mostly akusala) is an > obstacle to our > meditation. Therefore to take care of this only we > have to do the 4 gardian > meditations at the start and metha being one to > forgive and accept yourself > and to have the unconditional friendship with > yourself. > > > The word love: > Mike; My addition to Christine's comment. As I have > heard the word love is > having attachment in it. Or love is with attachment. > When you remove the > attachment part you get meththa… > > Robert wrote: > I would think that to love yourself and others would > be very different from > the kind of self-involvement, self-promotion, etc., > that refers only to the > ego and its insecurities. That is not love. > > Accepted sir… > > > In these little days I have learnt much and much and > would like to thank all > my Dhamma friends here. Thank you Sarah for the > encouragement you give… and > mike… you were talking about satipattana in one of > your previous emails. > Would like to know how to apply satipattana in every > moment… > > ~much meththa to all > Ranil 9417 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 5:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anusaya-kilesa Hi Robert K, hmm I still not very clear, could you explain more on anusaya kilesa and ignorance. What is their relationship, if any? Second question. Does kusala cittas has anusaya kilesa (in its citta component) as it has define like a sediment in the citta in the Summary of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII . Kind regards and thanks Ken O --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi Robert K > > > > " It arises in association with all akusala cittas , but is also a > > > conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as > > > conascence paccaya)." > > > > > > This sound very interesting, could you elaborate on "this > conditioning > > factor for many kusala cittas". Is this the same as Anusaya- > kilesa. Some > > pple interpret it as latent tendecies, is it correct. Does kusala > cittas > > has anusaya Kilesa as it has define like a sediment in the citta in > the > > Summary of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII . > > _____________________ > > > Dear Ken O, > Yes I think that's right, and good question. However, I wasn't > thinking of that aspect. I was thinking of the way ignorance can > condition good deeds in various ways. Visuddhimagga XVii63 "his non- > abandonment of that ignorance about the 4 noble truths in particular > prevents him from recognising as suffering the kind of suffering > called the fruit of merit...he embarks upon the formation of merit .." > Also xvii64 "not knowing bhikkus, in ignorance he forms the formation > of merit...as soon as a bhikkhus ignorance is abandoned and clear > vision arises ..he does not even form formations of merit" > > This, of course is not implying that merit is wrong, just that it can > often be conditioned by ignorance. > best wishes > robert 9418 From: m. nease Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 5:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate Reality Hi Kenneth, I understand your point. Contact and feeling are both mental factors which arise with every moment of every kind of consciousness, as I understand it. Conditioned origination is to not to be understood as one thing leading sequentially to another in time as I understand it--just that each 'link' is dependent on the one 'listed' before it--not necessarily preceding it in time. Not certain about this (I'm no expert on paticcasamuppaada--maybe someone else can do better)--hope this helps. mike --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Mike > > Could you assist in explaining my confusion as > stated below. I am still > hoping either you or anyone in the list could > explain it. > > > > Kind regards > Ken O > > > > > > Howard: > > > I disagree with you here. Feeling is > > dependent upon contact. > > > > k: Oh, I just using their Abidhamma terms here, > they > > classify vedana as ultimate reality. In > Abidhamma, these cetasikas > > rise together and in a sense function together > instanteously and I > > interpret that contact don't comes before feeling > (maybe I wrong here) > in one citta. So if dependent origination say that > contact arise before > vedana, then Abidhamma says they rise simultaneous, > for this part I am > confuse. Hope someone here could clarify this. > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > Ken O 9419 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi Howard > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, I understand that features of subsequent cittas are > conditioned by the features of the current citta. If that were not so, there would be complete randomness. But the arising and destruction of separate, self-existing units constituting the entirety of experience while each exists is reminiscent of the old action-at-distance of Neutonian mechanics, and it has the flavor of an atta-view. > ---------------------------------------------------------- k: I am confuse. I thought conscious as explained in Dependent Orgination, is pass from one form to another and some old action is passed as condition to the next action in the next form, does that consitute an atta-view? I sorry, maybe I do not get what you are trying to say. ------------------------------------------- Your post to Robert K, In any case, my primary difficulty is with the atomistic theory > of conciousness in general and its explanatory capability. It is when I see problems in that area arising that I raise questions, such as bringing > up the business of an overarching something that grasps, with/without wisdom, an entire process of cittas, like a "self"/observer standing back from the screen, and also with regard to cittas being "real things" which are then annihilated, both such notions pointing away from no->self/emptiness. ------------------------------------------- k: Would you kindly explain what is your understanding or your views on no self and how does such "citta being "real things" which are then annihilated", point away from no self/emptiness. Secondly its relation to the rebirth cycle. Kind Regards Ken O 9420 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Rob K and Jim Many thanks for going to the trouble to chase this one down. Just for a change, the commentary is pretty much as I would have expected! Much appreciated. Jon --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > -- > Dear Jon and Howard, > Jim Anderson very kindly researched the commentary and translated it > for us. Here is the relevant part: > > Itv-a I 167> siitibhavissantii ti accantavuupasamena > sa"nkhaaradarathapa.tippassaddhiyaa siitalii bhavissanti, > appa.tisandhika-nirodhena nirujjhissantii ti attho. na kevala.m > vedayitaani > yeva sabbepi pana khii.naasava-santaane pa~ncakkhandhaa > nirujjhissanti. > vedayitasiisena desanaa kataa. [both PTS and CSCD versions agree, I > didn't > check the Budsir version] > > Roughly translated: > "will become cool" -- will become cool with absolute calm, with the > tranquillization of the anxiety of the formations, the meaning > is: 'will > cease with the non-rebirth-linking-cessation'. Not just the sensed > alone but > all the five aggregates in the continuum of a canker-waned one will > cease > also. A teaching with the 'sensed' as head is made."end translation. > best wishes > robert > > > - In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Rob (and Howard) > > > > Rob, thanks for this very pertinent quote, and my apologies for the > delay > > in responding. > > > > I intersperse below, for comparison, the corresponding passage from > the P. > > Masefield translation (PTS 2000). > > > > --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > > > > Dear Howard and Jon, > > > From the Itivuttaka (no.38 PTS). > > > I use Nyanaponika's translation (wheel 251/253) > > > This was said by the Blessed one, sopken by the holy One , and > > > thus have I heard: > > > there are , o monks, two aspects of Nibbana; the Nibbana element > > > with the groups of existence still remainin > > > (saupadisesa-nibbanadhatu) and the Nibbana-element with no > > > groups remaining (anupadisesa -nibbana dhatu). > > > What is the Nibbana element with groups of existence still > > > remaing? in that case , o monks, a monk is an arahant; he is > > > taint free..but there still remain with him(until death) the > > > five sense organs that have not yet disappeared and through > > > which he still experiences what is pleasant and unpleasant, as > > > well as bodily ease and pain. The extinction of greed, hatred > > > and delusion in him, this is called the nibbana element with the > > > groups of existence still remaining. > > > > PM "On this one's part, it is the destruction of lust, the > destruction of > > hatred, the destruction of delusion that is spoken of as that > > nibbana-element that is with substrate-remnant." > > > > > And what is the Nibbana-element with no groups remaining? In > > > that case a monk is an arahant..in him those feelings no longer > > > relished , will even here (at his death) come to extinction. > > > This is called the Nibbana-element with no groups of existence > > > remaining. endquote > > > > PM "On this one's part, all that is sensed right here, not being > rejoiced > > in, will become cold; it is this that is spoken of as that nibbana- > element > > that is without substrate-remnant." > > > > I am not sure if there is anything new here. I simply observe that > what > > is being discussed is the 'nibbana-element', rather than, say, the > citta > > that experiences that element, although obviously is a reference to > one > > and the same moment. > > > > The first kind of nibbana-element is equated with the *destruction > of > > lust, hatred and delusion*, the second with the *becoming cold of > all that > > is sensed* after that destruction has occurred. > > > > There is a further passage in the PM translation, which I think is > of a > > verse summarising the prose text of the sutta. This reads as > follows-- > > > > "These two nibbana elements .. ; > > -- one element -- that with substrate-remnant, in which becoming's > lead > > is totally destroyed -- pertains to these seen conditions here; > > -- that without substrate-remnant, wherein becomings entirely > cease, > > pertains to the hereafter. > > Those whose hearts are liberated .. , being those for whom > becoming's lead > > is totally destroyed, delight .. in destruction -- these constant > ones > > abandon all becomings." > > > > Howard, I read the passage from Rob's post as confirming what you > suggest > > in your reply to that post, namely the cessation of all sense-door > > functions and associated mind-door states. It is possible that is > is also > > intended to include other mind-door moments; presumably the > commentary > > would make this clear. > > > > The emphasis in the verse passage seems to be on the end > of 'becoming' > > (ie. birth?). I take this to mean that the moment of death (cuti > citta) > > is not followed by a moment of birth (patisandhi citta). > > > > As far as I know, the Pali texts take the matter no further than > this, but > > I intend to keep an eye out for further relevant material. > > > > Jon 9421 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Mike - > > (Uh, wait a minute. What is your status now? Are you still callable as > "Mike"?) Yep, still plain old layman mike. Ordination still might happen but there are un foreseen obstacles, legal etc. We'll see... > So at each moment there is no blur, but then, as a kind of conceptual > summing up there is a blur? (I seem to find that my mind is becoming a total > blur at such thoughts! ;-)) Well, I borrowed this blur--I think I should return it to Robert, my apologies if it's a little soiled, Rob. If I may fall back and regroup my aggregates, I guess I'll have to play the 'movie' card again. Not a blur, but a conceptual assemblage of a whole lot of moments of consciousness and their attendant factors (whether 'atomistic' or not) which can seem very clear. (As I'm sure you know, the mental factor 'vitakka' can take concept as an object. By the way, I do think Robert's comments re. avijja as a 'positive' and extremely potent force are very pertinent). I do take your point, Howard, about this kind of 'particular' reference to cittas. In my opinion it doesn't really matter whether they each have a discrete, separate 'existence' or not--as I tried to communicate to Kenneth, I think all this theoretical structure is just a way of trying to get a verbal/conceptual frame of reference for the ever-moving moment of experience, so that we can think about it and discuss it on an intellectual level. Since I habitually reason from the general to the specific, I don't really have a problem when I run into a detail that seems logically problematic-I just take a step back and see if that point, accepted for argument's sake with whatever reservations, seems to fit into the 'big picture' as I understand it so far. If you'll forgive my playing the 'arrow' card in the same hand, "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn063.html Of course to me this means (among other things) that to reject the Dhamma according to the Theravada on the grounds of (what I see as) minute points of intellecutal detail is to throw the baby out with the bath (if I may also play the baby and bath cards). Does it really matter if the moments in a continuum of experience are discrete or not? Does it matter whether sunlight hits us in waves or particles? Or experience of it is the same either way I think. I know I shouldn't argue with you, Howard. We both know you're a smarter man than I am and know the Dhamma better, including the Theravada I think. I just hope you aren't too smart for your own good. > Great to hear from you, Mike! I wish you all the very best!!! Ditto and back at you, Howard--if you figure out a better approach to getting that arrow out I hope you'll let me know. Whether you do or not, keep in touch, eh? Your Friend, mike 9422 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 8:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anusaya, pariyutthana, vitikkama Dear Ken O, Moha (ignorance) can be anusaya-moha and pariyutthana-moha. Anusaya means inherent tendency or latent tendency. Pariyutthana means rising up. The ignorance that arises together with the akusala consciousness is called pariyutthana moha. Even at the moment of performing good deeds or wholesome actions anusaya moha is present, it is latent, waiting to arise. When it goes beyond the stage of pariyutthana it is called vitikkama and then unwholesome deeds are performed Nina van Gorkom writes: -http://www.dhammastudy.com/listening6.html Akusala cittas can be coarse, medium or subtle. The coarse defilements, vitikkama kilesa, are the unwholesome actions through body, speech or mind, such as killing, stealing or lying. The medium defilements, pariyutthana kilesa, are the akusala cetasikas which arise with the citta but which do not have the intensity to motivate unwholesome deeds at that moment. Akusala cittas can be classified according to their roots, hetus ,in three groups: lobha-mula-cittas, which are rooted in moha, ignorance, and in attachment, lobha; dosa-mula-cittas, which are rooted in moha and dosa, aversion; moha-mula-cittas which have moha as their only root. Besides the roots there are other akusala cetasikas which arise with these akusala cittas. The subtle defilements, anusaya, do not arise with akusala citta, but they are latent tendencies; they lie dormant, they are like microbes investing the body. We do not notice them, but they are there, accumulated in the citta; they are pertinacious and they condition the arising of defilements again and again. The inherent or latent tendencies have been accumulated from life to life. The first javana cittas of every living being who is born are lobha-mulacittas, cittas rooted in attachment. These are conditioned by the latent tendencies accumulated in the past. End quote robert dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert K, > > hmm I still not very clear, could you explain more on anusaya kilesa and > ignorance. What is their relationship, if any? > > > Second question. Does kusala cittas has anusaya kilesa (in its citta > component) as it has define like a sediment in the citta in the Summary > of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII . > > > > Kind regards and thanks > Ken O > > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- In > dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > Hi Robert K > > > > > > " It arises in association with all akusala cittas , but is also a > > > > conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as > > > > conascence paccaya)." > > > > > > > > > This sound very interesting, could you elaborate on "this > > conditioning > > > factor for many kusala cittas". Is this the same as Anusaya- > > kilesa. Some > > > pple interpret it as latent tendecies, is it correct. Does kusala > > cittas > > > has anusaya Kilesa as it has define like a sediment in the citta in > > the > > > Summary of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII . > > > _____________________ > > > > > > Dear Ken O, > > Yes I think that's right, and good question. However, I wasn't > > thinking of that aspect. I was thinking of the way ignorance can > > condition good deeds in various ways. Visuddhimagga XVii63 "his non- > > abandonment of that ignorance about the 4 noble truths in particular > > prevents him from recognising as suffering the kind of suffering > > called the fruit of merit...he embarks upon the formation of merit .." > > Also xvii64 "not knowing bhikkus, in ignorance he forms the formation > > of merit...as soon as a bhikkhus ignorance is abandoned and clear > > vision arises ..he does not even form formations of merit" > > > > This, of course is not implying that merit is wrong, just that it can > > often be conditioned by ignorance. > > best wishes > > robert > > 9423 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 8:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas ---Dear Howard, Comments interspersed: In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > ============================ > If I may chime in: This makes me "feel much better" about aspects of > the matter (while, as you might expect from one as incorrigible as I, not > fully satisfied ;-). I tend to think of avijja not as a simple thing, but as > multi-layered and multi-constructed, being in part a mere absence of wisdom, > but also consisting in part of active misunderstandings of many sorts, and > also being in part - and this *may* be closest to the avijja cetasika sense - > a general dimming of clarity and increase in confusion. ++++++ Moha (ignorance ) is always a root of all kilesa. So it is associated with all types of ditthi(wrong view). The heart of all these wrong views is that ignorance obscures the true nature of reality. +++++++ > In any case, my primary difficulty is with the atomistic theory of > conciousness in general and its explanatory capability. It is when I see > problems in that area arising that I raise questions, such as bringing up the > business of an overarching something that grasps, with/without wisdom, an > entire process of cittas, like a "self"/observer standing back from the > screen, and also with regard to cittas being "real things" which are then > annihilated, both such notions pointing away from no-self/emptiness. > > +++++++++++++++++++++ Remember what Suan wrote recently: "The fact that paramattha dhammas are sunnyata (empty of self and self-belongings) does not negate their existence or their truth status." the Buddha says: SnXXII 94 Rupa that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say it EXISTS. Feeling...perception..volitional formations..consciouness..that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change..I too say that it exists." Paramattha dhammas exist but not in the way we usually imagine things to exist. They are so ephemeral that time itself can only be properly understood in relation to the arising and passing. So many different conditions must coincide for even one moment of seeing, for example, to arise - yet we take seeing for granted; and we think it lasts, think we can control it. best wishes robert 9424 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 4:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/19/01 11:55:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > ---Dear Howard, > Comments interspersed: > In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > > ============================ > > If I may chime in: This makes me "feel much better" about > aspects of > > the matter (while, as you might expect from one as incorrigible as > I, not > > fully satisfied ;-). I tend to think of avijja not as a simple > thing, but as > > multi-layered and multi-constructed, being in part a mere absence > of wisdom, > > but also consisting in part of active misunderstandings of many > sorts, and > > also being in part - and this *may* be closest to the avijja > cetasika sense - > > a general dimming of clarity and increase in confusion. > ++++++ > Moha (ignorance ) is always a root of all kilesa. So it is associated > with all types of ditthi(wrong view). The heart of all these wrong > views is that ignorance obscures the true nature of reality. --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. But what *is* ignorance? Just an absence? If not, what is it the presence of? It isn't some sort of substance. Is it a function? A process? What is it? (In some ways, the term 'avijja' seems to be a conventional one expressing a conventional concept.) --------------------------------------------------------------- > +++++++ > > In any case, my primary difficulty is with the atomistic > theory of > > conciousness in general and its explanatory capability. It is when > I see > > problems in that area arising that I raise questions, such as > bringing up the > > business of an overarching something that grasps, with/without > wisdom, an > > entire process of cittas, like a "self"/observer standing back from > the > > screen, and also with regard to cittas being "real things" which > are then > > annihilated, both such notions pointing away from no-self/emptiness. > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > Remember what Suan wrote recently: > "The fact that paramattha dhammas are sunnyata (empty of self and > self-belongings) does not negate their existence or their truth > status." > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree with that. Dhammas exist, but not inherently with essence or own-being. They are neither nothing at all nor are they self-existent entities. They are things-in-relation. ------------------------------------------------------ > > the Buddha says: > SnXXII 94 > Rupa that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this > the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say it > EXISTS. Feeling...perception..volitional > formations..consciouness..that is impermanent, suffering and > subject to change..I too say that it exists." > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Did the Buddha, himself, capitalize the first 'exists'? ;-)) Yes, I agree that these things exist. That is, they are not nothing. But they ARE (my caps ;-) nothing IN-AND-OF-THEMSELVES. Their existence is, as you say so well below, not as we imagine it to be. Their existence as separate entities is merely conventional and ultimately false. ------------------------------------------------------- > > Paramattha dhammas exist but not in the way we usually imagine things > to exist. They are so ephemeral that time itself can only be properly > understood in relation to the arising and passing. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. And it is not only their ephemeral nature that makes them different from the way they seem, but also their dependent nature, and that dependency being a dependency on similarly ephemeral and dependent things makes these "things" quite empty. They are sunya - swollen, hollow. ---------------------------------------------------------- So many different > > conditions must coincide for even one moment of seeing, for example, > to arise - yet we take seeing for granted; and we think it lasts, > think we can control it. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes. I've been coming to see more and more clearly the uncontrollability of things. The notion that we are or can be in any sort of ultimate control of things is a kind of sad joke. And when we buy into that joke the humor turns to tragedy. Impersonality is what there is, with little real ability to control anything, and no *controller* to be found anywhere in any case. ------------------------------------------------------------- > > best wishes > 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) 9425 From: Sarah Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] discernment or realities- yoga/tai chi Dear Rob Ep (& Howard), --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > I don't think you were too blunt, Sarah. In a sense, I think it means that > you > just enjoy the yoga in its own right, as something to 'do' and experience, > and > that is actually a much more 'enlightened' state, I would say, than doing it > with > striving and expectation. The strain that we often have on our involvements > to > somehow elevate us above the flow of life, simply creates more stress and > disappointment. But to do something so consistently, because it is something > you > have a predilection for, can't really be argued against. .................... Sarah: I’m not sure about the ‘enlightened’ part, but yes, I think these kinds of activity are something we have a predilection for just as Nina and Herman do for playing/listening to Bach. .................... > However, I take it that you perhaps have some 'aversion' to the potential for > Hindu philosophy to enter into the scene. I'm sure in 20 years, you've been > confronted with some Hindu beliefs accompanying your yoga friends' practice. > Correct me if I'm wrong about the above, but I think it might be an > interesting > issue [or not], how we react to philosophies that are different than our own? .................... Sarah: I think it’s interesting too and your tolerant and ‘positive’ attitude is a great example for us all, Rob. Actually, I think there are 2 issues here: Firstly is the question of aversion and any other unwholesome tendencies with regard to other teachings/philosophies. Of course this is never helpful and I’m glad to be reminded about it. Secondly, though, is a question of what we find most useful and so on with limited time. For example, without wishing to avoid facing up to any unwholesome tendencies, I question whether it’s helpful to try and develop knowledge or expertise in other philosophies which don’t help us develop more detachment from the idea of self, unless they are either relevant to our work or are objects of attachment (and aren’t there plenty enough of them?). Simply, like Frank once mentioned, I’d rather be reading a sutta or posts here on a Saturday evening than listening to a talk on another philosophy. If I need a break I’ll do some yoga or watch something on TV. This doesn’t mean that it always works out as planned at all. In fact it seldom does and as we know, anytime is a good time for wholesome mental states and awareness to arise;-) .................... > I > spent many years trying to figure out what the right 'view' is, even now I > struggle between aspects of Theravada and Mahayana. But those conflicts have > somewhat taken a back burner to the attempt to discern the reality that is > present > for awareness. And that is kind of a relief. .................... Sarah: I actually feel very fortunate that I’ve never had this kind of struggle. I don’t think it helps to get hung up on the labels either, but more valuable to learn more about discerning the realities as you suggest.... .................... > A former associate of mine had an 'enlightening' experience when he was > attempting > to reconcile different instructions from different strains of Buddhism. One > meditation method proposed that you cut all thoughts off at the root. > Another > method proposed that you allow thoughts to flow and simply observe them as > thoughts. He got to a point where he was very upset trying to choose which > method > was right and which one to use, when he suddenly realized that the conflict > he was > engaging with was also a thought. In that moment he observed the present > thought > and the whole conflict just popped like a bubble. .................... Sarah; Yes, exactly the point. All the choosing and idea of choices is done with the idea of self that needs to ‘do’ as we’ve discussed so much, without any awareness. A moment of awareness of thinking or doubt or wondring or confusion is far more valuable than any ‘choice’ or ‘working it out’. Good story, Rob. .................... > Anyway, I'll stop rambling, but I'll be interested to see what you think of > this > theme. ..................... Sarah; I think anytime we get lost in the concepts and stories , we can see there’s no awareness or understanding at all. It reminds me a little of the discussion I had with Christine who was wondering about sitting meditation versus study and then what kind of study in what order. Really, what we do or what is done will depend on conditions anyway. We may plan to read a sutta and then fall asleep. Or we may plan to read the messages here and then fail to get a connection. In the end it isn’t whether we turn right or left that will make the difference, but the understanding that is developed at this very moment. How does that sound? Actually, you rather remind me of my 3 brothers with your gentle prodding and probing;-)) ..................... >As for the yoga itself, I would tend to think that the attention to breathing > and > posture that yoga promotes, the fine use of awareness and concentration, > could or > should lead to a greater ability to discern the present reality. Do you see > that > as a possibility? .................... Sarah: I think this is very similar to Herman and Nina’s Bach discussion. Are yogis or Bach lovers more able to discern present realities and if so is it a result of the awareness and concentration developed in their ‘practise’? Personally, I don’t think so at all. The conditions the Buddha taught for developing the ‘right’ factors of the 8fold or 5fold path were hearing, considering and applying the Teachings. If someone has never heard or considered the truth of anatta or the nature of different realities, the so-called awareness and concentration developed in these activities will not be the samma-ones discussed by the Buddha so much. As we know, concentration can be with attachment and wrong view of self. A burglar, for example, also finetunes his concentration while robbing houses! However, with more understanding and appreciation of wholesome states and by consideration and discussion as we’re doing here, certainly whatever interests or pursuits we follow, are more likely to be followed with more skilful states, don’t you think? Sorry, if I’m not quite agreeing.....hope you keep up your yoga and Tai chi nonetheless...they are wonderful antidotes to too much computer sitting;-) Sarah > ====================== 9426 From: Sarah Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Seeing Hi Ken O, I think we need to distinguish between latent tendencies and mental factors arising. Just as we don't say there is anger at every moment for us now, even though the latent tendency has not been eradicated, so we don't say for the arahats or the Buddha that there is panna (wisdom) at every moment, even though all defilements have been eradicated. Also I'd like to suggest that the conditional relations between one citta and the next and between the accumulation of panna is far more complicated than just considering latent tendencies. If we're considering the characteristics of seeing, visible object and eye-base and how they are known, I'm not sure it's useful to talk about the latent tendency of panna at these moments. Sarah Hope your boss is in a good mood when you ask him about your trip to Bkk btw;-) --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > Let us quote from > > Summary of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII > > "Anusaya-kilesa is a very fine kilesa. When kilesa has not been > eradicated, the anusaya-kilesa would settle like sediment in the cittas > that arise and fall away in continuation, like a seed, a paccaya for > pariyutthana-kilesa to arise. All kilesa would be completely eradicated, > never to arise again, when the lokuttara-magga-citta clearly realizes the > ariya-sacca-dhamma by experiencing the characteristics of nibbana > according to the levels of the magga-citta, which completely eradicates > kilesa according to the levels of the specific magga-citta." > > I was basing my argument on the function of latent tendecies in kilesa. > To me panna accumulation is due to this function of latent tendecies. As > one reach enlightment, such latent tendicies become Panna as all kilesa > element will have been eradicated. That is how a Buddha could study each > cittas with perfect clarity. Hence even though citta falls and rise > instanteously, there is still latent tendecies of Panna. Since there is > kilesa in each rise and fall citta of those who are not enlighted, why > can't there be a latent tendecies of Panna that rise and fall, once one is > enlighted. 9427 From: Sarah Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Seeing Hi Herman. --- hhofman@d... wrote: > Hi all, > > Just a quick question thrown in here. > > Ken O says each citta conditions the next one. Not just Ken O either;-) Could ther be thinkng about what has just been seen if there wasn't seeing a moment ago? > > Does this mean that a vipaka citta is again creating kamma ? (please > say no, I couldn't bear the endless hall of mirrors that would > otherwise follow :-) NO.....happy? (I think others have come in with more details, but let me know if it's still unclear...) > > No problems with Maths ( I am surprised a girl could be any good at > it :-) ) Well, Herman, I'm beginning to realise that your new bride must have a lot of patience to put up with you;-)) > > All the best Likewise....am enjoying your musical discussions with Nina too;-) Sarah 9428 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anusaya, pariyutthana, vitikkama Hi Robert --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > Dear Ken O, > Moha (ignorance) can be anusaya-moha and pariyutthana-moha. Anusaya > means inherent tendency or latent tendency. Pariyutthana means > rising up. The ignorance that arises together with the akusala > consciousness is called pariyutthana moha. > Even at the moment of performing good deeds or wholesome actions > anusaya moha is present, it is latent, waiting to arise. > > When it goes beyond the stage of pariyutthana it is called vitikkama > and then unwholesome deeds are performed > Nina van Gorkom writes: > -http://www.dhammastudy.com/listening6.html > Akusala cittas can be coarse, medium or subtle. The coarse > defilements, vitikkama kilesa, are the unwholesome actions through > body, speech or mind, such as killing, stealing or lying. The medium > defilements, pariyutthana kilesa, are the akusala cetasikas which > arise with the citta but which do not have the intensity to motivate > unwholesome deeds at that moment. Akusala cittas > can be classified according to their roots, hetus ,in three groups: > lobha-mula-cittas, which are rooted in moha, ignorance, and in > attachment, lobha; dosa-mula-cittas, which are rooted in moha and > dosa, aversion; moha-mula-cittas which have moha as their only root. > Besides the roots there are other akusala cetasikas which arise with > these akusala cittas. > > The subtle defilements, anusaya, do not arise with akusala citta, > but they are latent tendencies; they lie dormant, they are like > microbes investing the body. We do not notice them, but they are > there, accumulated in the citta; they are pertinacious and they > condition the arising of defilements again and again. The inherent or > latent tendencies have been accumulated from life to life. The first > javana cittas of every living being who is born are lobha-mulacittas, > cittas rooted in attachment. These are conditioned by the latent > tendencies accumulated in the past. End quote > robert k: thanks for the clearer explaination, so does that implies that kusala citta also have this latent tendecies. Just like to be sure so that i do not interpret wrongly. with thanks Ken O 9429 From: Sarah Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Commentary on Samannaphala/KenO Hi Rob Ep, just butting in here in brief;-) --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Hi, Christine and Ken. > I prefer to think that different lifestyles are appropriate for different > people > in different stages. For some becoming a monk or recluse and focussing > totally on > discernment is the right thing at a particular point. For someone else, this > would just be an affectation or a form of increased suffering. To be > discerning > in the midst of family life or surgery, is ultimately the same thing as > leading > the 'holy life'. What's more important is that it serves the individual's > capacity and predilection so that they are most free to practice mindfulness. I fully agree with your comments and sentiments.....it's more a question of what is appropriate for us all and the lifestyle that comes naturally. Awareness or discernment can arise in any walk of life, depending on understanding and conditions. No reason at all why one could be a surgeon or concert pianist with just as much awareness as a forest-dweller or monk. That's why there are so many references to the holy life referring to the development of wholesome states, especially the development of satipatthana, rather than a particular situation. As I said before, I also agreed with Ken O's comments about the appropriate lifestyle for the monk. Sarah 9430 From: Sarah Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:48pm Subject: RE: [dsg] meththa meditation Manji, I inadvertently left your name out from my post yesterday when I thanked everyone for their helpful comments on metta. Sorry for that;-) I really appreciated your reminders to develop awareness here and to develop more understanding of all rea;ities as not self. As you say, when there is awareness, there isn't any self-hate or any other aversion or unwholesome state at those moments. Thanks again, Sarah --- manji wrote: > Christine, > > Please be understanding "there is suffering", first noble truth. > Maybe sometimes memories arise and difficulty arises, maybe sometimes > "self" concept arises along with moments of aversion or clinging and > difficulty arises. > > Maybe what can help is understanding first noble truth, there is > suffering. Really make a sincere effort to see "right now". Mindfulness > arises and seeing suffering. > > Then maybe, compassion arises towards others. Understanding "there > is suffering". > > So even metta is conditioned. Arising and falling. So maybe right > now there is conditioning metta. :) So sometimes I am thinking that > right now seeing dhamma... Mindfulness... Etc. These are most powerful > antidotes to conventional realities of self-hate and low-self esteem > etc. > > Understanding right now dhamma with mindfulness, also understanding > that these dhamma are not "self". So even great moments of suffering, > not self :) > > So maybe cultivating a real and living metta, through wisdom and the > very process... The path. :) > 9431 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:52pm Subject: [dsg] latent tendecies Hi Sarah Is there a latent tendency for panna then, since there is latent tendecies for defilement, is there a latent tendecies for wisdom? I do not believe that Buddha's panna is not present in every cittas. I more incline it is in every citta or not he will not be able to explain all the citta in such detail and esp to the workings of paccaya. Kind regards Ken O --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Ken O, > > I think we need to distinguish between latent tendencies and mental > factors > arising. Just as we don't say there is anger at every moment for us now, > even > though the latent tendency has not been eradicated, so we don't say for > the > arahats or the Buddha that there is panna (wisdom) at every moment, even > though > all defilements have been eradicated. > > Also I'd like to suggest that the conditional relations between one > citta and > the next and between the accumulation of panna is far more complicated > than > just considering latent tendencies. If we're considering the > characteristics of > seeing, visible object and eye-base and how they are known, I'm not sure > it's > useful to talk about the latent tendency of panna at these moments. > > Sarah > > Hope your boss is in a good mood when you ask him about your trip to Bkk > btw;-) > > > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > > > > Let us quote from > > > > Summary of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII > > > > "Anusaya-kilesa is a very fine kilesa. When kilesa has not been > > eradicated, the anusaya-kilesa would settle like sediment in the > cittas > > that arise and fall away in continuation, like a seed, a paccaya for > > pariyutthana-kilesa to arise. All kilesa would be completely > eradicated, > > never to arise again, when the lokuttara-magga-citta clearly realizes > the > > ariya-sacca-dhamma by experiencing the characteristics of nibbana > > according to the levels of the magga-citta, which completely > eradicates > > kilesa according to the levels of the specific magga-citta." > > > > I was basing my argument on the function of latent tendecies in > kilesa. > > To me panna accumulation is due to this function of latent tendecies. > As > > one reach enlightment, such latent tendicies become Panna as all > kilesa > > element will have been eradicated. That is how a Buddha could study > each > > cittas with perfect clarity. Hence even though citta falls and rise > > instanteously, there is still latent tendecies of Panna. Since there > is > > kilesa in each rise and fall citta of those who are not enlighted, why > > can't there be a latent tendecies of Panna that rise and fall, once > one is > > enlighted. 9432 From: Sarah Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] hello all! Hi Mike, Glad to see you getting on well in the internet cafe and hoping you're still finding the 'live' discussions and talks uplifting. --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > --- Sarah wrote: > > > Later I talked > > about what makes Buddhism > > distinct from other religions and in particular > > anatta, no being, no God and so > > on. > > No God, really? What about Brahma Sahampatti(sp)? who > beseeched the Buddha to teach? Lots of gods, I > think--just in different roles from that of the > Christian variety. A matter of perspective, perhaps? OK, Ok, good point! Many gods in the texts.... perhaps I should have said, no omniscient God and as we understand there is no self, we also understand there are no other beings or gods in actuality...merely conventional terms..... Does that pass? Thanks, pls feel free to 'pick' any holes anytime;-) Sarah p.s. I think your comment to me on metta has been answered by Nina and my later post to all..let me know if we still don't quite agree;-) 9433 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi Mike I did not know that there is a legal consideration before one could be a monk. Would you like share me what kind of legality issues are there if you do not mind? With thanks Ken O P.S. - I got no problem with cittas as discrete units :). In fact all of us are a combination of discrete units :). 9434 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 0:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate realities Howard (and Ken, Mike and others (including Erik)) --- upasaka@a... wrote > Just one cautionary note. Abidhammikas don't use the term > 'ultimate > reality' in a sense that precludes it from being conditioned. I find > that use > of the term a bit odd, but so long as it has a consistent meaning in > that > context, there is no problem. In Abhidhamma, I believe that a paramattha > > dhamma is any dhamma that is directly observable through a sense door as > > opposed to being (the referent of a) mere concept. We're headed for > misunderstanding when we conflate the Abhidhammic defintion with > another. I suspect most people find the term ‘ultimate’ (a translation of the Pali ‘paramattha’) used in conjunction with ‘reality’ (Pali: ‘dhamma’) a strange pairing, initially. The term ‘paramattha’ is, I believe, more often found in conjunction with ‘truth’ (‘sacca’), where its import is easier to see. I just checked Nyanatiloka’s Buddhist Dictionary, and thought that some might find the discussion there useful (although not, of course, authoritative). I have pasted it below. Of particular interest to one or two of our members (are you there, Erik?) will be the comment at the end about the importance given in the Madhyamika school of Mahayana to the distinction between ultimate truths and conventional truths Jon From Nyanatiloka, ‘Buddhist Dictionary’ http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_p2.htm “paramattha (-sacca, -vacana, -desaná): 'truth (or term, exposition) that is true in the highest (or ultimate) sense', as contrasted with the 'conventional truth' (vohára-sacca), which is also called 'commonly accepted truth' (sammuti-sacca; in Skr: samvrti-satya). The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is in accordance whith undeluded insight into reality. In that ultimate sense, existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, woman or person, or of the rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech (vohára-vacana). It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, in distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it does not employ conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in the highest sense (paramattha-dhammá). But also in the Sutta Pitaka there are many expositions in terms of ultimate language (paramattha-desaná), namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements (dhátu) or sense-bases (áyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) are applied. The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context, because it "would not be right to say that 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, etc." It should be noted, however, that also statements of the Buddha couched in conventional language, are called 'truth' (vohára-sacca), being correct on their own level, which does not contradict the fact that such statements ultimately refer to impermanent and impersonal processes. The two truths - ultimate and conventional - appear in that form only in the commentaries, but are implied in a sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or direct) meaning' (nítattha, q.v.) and 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect Qne (Tathágata) uses without misapprehending them." See also S. I. 25. The term paramattha, in the sense here used, occurs in the first para. of the Kathávatthu, a work of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (s. Guide, p. 62). (App: vohára). The commentarial discussions on these truths (Com. to D. 9 and M. 5) have not yet been translated in full. On these see K N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (London, 1963), pp. 361ff. In Maháyana, the Mádhyamika school has given a prominent place to the teaching of the two truths.” [ends] 9435 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 0:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Commentary on Samannaphala Christine --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Hi everyone, > Just a few questions on: > Restraint of the Sense Faculties verse 64: (p.38) The Discourse on > the Fruits of Reclusehip > > "And how, great king, does the bhikkhu guard the doors of his sense > faculties? Herein, great king, having seen a form with the eye, the > bhikkhu does not grasp at the sign or the details. Since, if he were > to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye, evil > unwholesome states such as covetousness and grief might assail him, > he practises restraint, guards the faculty of the eye, and achieves > restraint over the faculty of the eye." and so on and so forth, for > ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. Here is the earlier discussion on 'sign and details' ('nimitta and anubyancanna') that I referred to in my recent reply. As i mentioned, it is not easy to understand, so don't feel daunted if at first it doesn't make sense! Jon In message # 8949, I said: This is written from my office on Monday morning, which seems another world altogether from the sights, sounds and smells of just 24 hours ago, but in the absolute sense is, as we know in theory at least, different only in terms of the shape-and-form and detail (nimitta and anupayancanna -- sometimes translated as 'outward appearance and particulars') appearing through those doorways. The actual experiencing of objects through the various doorways remains the same in its essential nature throughout, and it is this essential nature that is the object of the understanding that we are urged to develop. In message # 9019, Sarah said: Would you kindly elaborate on the nimitta and anupayancanna as mentioned above and the distinction between them in this context. In message # 9070, I said: I would be very happy to, but I’m afraid I don’t know much about this area, except that it’s an important aspect of both sila and satipatthana. As I understand it, when impressions are received through the sense-doors there will inevitably be paying attention with kilesa to the ‘sign’ (shape-and-form/nimitta) and ‘particulars’ (details/anubya~njana) of those sense-impressions. It seems to mean the absence of the guarding of the sense-doors. I don’t know any more than this. Further study required, for sure. I am hoping Nina will have something to say about it in her writings on the trip, since it came up for discussion and Nalanda and again at Patna. In the meantime, here are some references to get started with— Nyanatiloka’s ‘Buddhist Dictionary’: 1/ ‘Nimitta’ is defined as ‘mark, sign; image; target, object; cause, condition’, with the comment that, ‘These meanings are used in, and adapted to, many contexts’. Several doctrinal usages are discussed, of which #3 is— <<'Outward appearance': of one who has sense-control it is said- that "he does not seize upon the general appearance” of an object (na nimittaggáhí; M. 38, D. 2; …).>> 2/ There is further discussion under the 4 kinds of morality consisting of purification (catupárisuddhi-síla), as follows: <<(2) Restraint of the senses (indriya-samvara-síla). "Whenever the monk perceives a form with the eye, a sound with the ear, an odour with the nose, a taste with the tongue, an impression with the body, an object with the mind, *he neither adheres to the appearance [J: nimitta?] as a whole, nor to its parts [J: anubyancana?]*. And he strives to ward off that through which evil and unwholesome things, greed and sorrow, would arise, if he remained with unguarded senses; and he watches over his senses, restrains his senses" (M 38).>> Visudhimagga I, 42, 54 At I, 42, a discussion of ‘Virtue as restraint of sense faculties’: <<‘On seeing a visible object with the eye, he apprehends *neither the signs nor the particulars* through which, if he left the eye faculty unguarded, evil and unprofitable states of covetousness and grief might invade him, he enters upon the way of its restraint, he guards the eye faculty, he undertakes the restraint of the eye faculty. … [and so on for the other sense doors] …’ (M.i, 180) [This] is virtue of restraint of the sense faculties.>> At I, 54, an explanation of the 2 terms: <<”Apprehends neither the signs”: he does not apprehend the sign of woman or man, or any sign that is a basis for defilement such as the sign of beauty, etc.: he stops at what is merely seen. “Nor the particulars”: he does not apprehend any aspect classed as hand, foot , smile, laughter, talk, looking ahead, looking aside, etc., which has acquired the name ‘particular (anubya~njana)’ because of its particularising ( anu anu bya~njanato) defilements, because of its making them manifest themselves. He only apprehends what is really there.>> Hope this is helpful. 9436 From: m. nease Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate realities Jon, I think this gap is so important to bridge and I do it so badly--I'm keeping a copy of this on my 'desktop' for future reference. Thanks-- mike --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Howard (and Ken, Mike and others (including Erik)) > > --- upasaka@a... wrote > > > Just one cautionary note. Abidhammikas > don't use the term > > 'ultimate > > reality' in a sense that precludes it from being > conditioned. I find > > that use > > of the term a bit odd, but so long as it has a > consistent meaning in > > that > > context, there is no problem. In Abhidhamma, I > believe that a paramattha > > > > dhamma is any dhamma that is directly observable > through a sense door as > > > > opposed to being (the referent of a) mere concept. > We're headed for > > misunderstanding when we conflate the Abhidhammic > defintion with > > another. > > I suspect most people find the term ‘ultimate’ (a > translation of the Pali > ‘paramattha’) used in conjunction with ‘reality’ > (Pali: ‘dhamma’) a > strange pairing, initially. The term ‘paramattha’ > is, I believe, more > often found in conjunction with ‘truth’ (‘sacca’), > where its import is > easier to see. > > I just checked Nyanatiloka’s Buddhist Dictionary, > and thought that some > might find the discussion there useful (although > not, of course, > authoritative). I have pasted it below. > > Of particular interest to one or two of our members > (are you there, Erik?) > will be the comment at the end about the importance > given in the > Madhyamika school of Mahayana to the distinction > between ultimate truths > and conventional truths > > Jon > > From Nyanatiloka, ‘Buddhist Dictionary’ > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_p2.htm > > “paramattha (-sacca, -vacana, -desaná): > > 'truth (or term, exposition) that is true in the > highest (or ultimate) > sense', as contrasted with the 'conventional truth' > (vohára-sacca), which > is also called 'commonly accepted truth' > (sammuti-sacca; in Skr: > samvrti-satya). > > The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes > used conventional > language and sometimes the philosophical mode of > expression which is in > accordance whith undeluded insight into reality. In > that ultimate sense, > existence is a mere process of physical and mental > phenomena within which, > or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding > substance can ever be > found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, > woman or person, or of the > rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being > valid in the ultimate > sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech > (vohára-vacana). > > It is one of the main characteristics of the > Abhidhamma Pitaka, in > distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it > does not employ > conventional language, but deals only with > ultimates, or realities in the > highest sense (paramattha-dhammá). But also in the > Sutta Pitaka there are > many expositions in terms of ultimate language > (paramattha-desaná), > namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups > (khandha), elements > (dhátu) or sense-bases (áyatana), and their > components; and wherever the 3 > characteristics (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) are applied. The > majority of Sutta > texts, however, use the conventional language, as > appropriate in a > practical or ethical context, because it "would not > be right to say that > 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, etc." > > It should be noted, however, that also statements of > the Buddha couched in > conventional language, are called 'truth' > (vohára-sacca), being correct on > their own level, which does not contradict the fact > that such statements > ultimately refer to impermanent and impersonal > processes. > > The two truths - ultimate and conventional - appear > in that form only in > the commentaries, but are implied in a > sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or > direct) meaning' (nítattha, q.v.) and 'implicit > meaning (to be inferred)' > (neyyattha). Further, the Buddha repeatedly > mentioned his reservations > when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These > are merely names, > expressions, turns of speech, designations in common > use in the world, > which the Perfect Qne (Tathágata) uses without > misapprehending them." See > also S. I. 25. > The term paramattha, in the sense here used, occurs > in the first para. of > the Kathávatthu, a work of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (s. > Guide, p. 62). (App: > vohára). > > The commentarial discussions on these truths (Com. > to D. 9 and M. 5) have > not yet been translated in full. On these see K N. > Jayatilleke, Early > Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (London, 1963), pp. > 361ff. > > In Maháyana, the Mádhyamika school has given a > prominent place to the > teaching of the two truths.” > [ends] 9437 From: Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 1:01am Subject: Moha wasBhavanga Cittas In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > ++++++ > > Moha (ignorance ) is always a root of all kilesa. So it is associated > > with all types of ditthi(wrong view). The heart of all these wrong > > views is that ignorance obscures the true nature of reality. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Okay. But what *is* ignorance? Just an absence? If not, what is it the > presence of? It isn't some sort of substance. Is it a function? A process? > What is it? (In some ways, the term 'avijja' seems to be a conventional one > expressing a conventional concept.) > --------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Howard, This is a hard question. Whatever there is, is only citta, cetasika and rupa(leaving aside nibbana). Anything else is simply concept. I guess we all have no problem grasping that lobha (desire) is a dhamma - it is so obvious whenever we crave something, get hungry etc. Moha, too, is a dhamma but it is so unobvious! But it is there. It has functions, characteristics. It is present but subordinate at times when there is craving because the craving is more obvious. At times when we are not sure of the nature of this moment it is more obvious. We tend to think "I" am confused, I don't know, but it is just moha performing its function of obscuring reality. It is, of course, considerably more complex than I make it sound here. Sankhara-khanda comprises all cetasikas and each moment different, conditioned conglomerates of many different cetasikas arise that make up sankhara khanda. Even each cetasika is not exactly the same as the previous ones. Especially, Moha, that arises with all akusala moments, and is intricately conditioned by the other cetasikas that arise concurrently with it, is hard to know. It is, as you have often pointed out, not really right if we think of cetasikas as some sort of indivisible atom floating around. Final comment at the bottom: > > +++++++ > > > In any case, my primary difficulty is with the atomistic > > theory of > > > conciousness in general and its explanatory capability. It is when > > I see > > > problems in that area arising that I raise questions, such as > > bringing up the > > > business of an overarching something that grasps, with/without > > wisdom, an > > > entire process of cittas, like a "self"/observer standing back from > > the > > > screen, and also with regard to cittas being "real things" which > > are then > > > annihilated, both such notions pointing away from no- self/emptiness. > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > Remember what Suan wrote recently: > > "The fact that paramattha dhammas are sunnyata (empty of self and > > self-belongings) does not negate their existence or their truth > > status." > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I agree with that. Dhammas exist, but not inherently with essence or > own-being. They are neither nothing at all nor are they self- existent > entities. They are things-in-relation. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > the Buddha says: > > SnXXII 94 > > Rupa that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this > > the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say it > > EXISTS. Feeling...perception..volitional > > formations..consciouness..that is impermanent, suffering and > > subject to change..I too say that it exists." > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Did the Buddha, himself, capitalize the first 'exists'? ;-)) > Yes, I agree that these things exist. That is, they are not nothing. > But they ARE (my caps ;-) nothing IN-AND-OF-THEMSELVES. Their existence is, > as you say so well below, not as we imagine it to be. Their existence as > separate entities is merely conventional and ultimately false. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Paramattha dhammas exist but not in the way we usually imagine things > > to exist. They are so ephemeral that time itself can only be properly > > understood in relation to the arising and passing. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes. And it is not only their ephemeral nature that makes them > different from the way they seem, but also their dependent nature, and that > dependency being a dependency on similarly ephemeral and dependent things > makes these "things" quite empty. They are sunya - swollen, hollow. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > So many different > > > conditions must coincide for even one moment of seeing, for example, > > to arise - yet we take seeing for granted; and we think it lasts, > > think we can control it. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Yes. I've been coming to see more and more clearly the > uncontrollability of things. The notion that we are or can be in any sort of > ultimate control of things is a kind of sad joke. And when we buy into that > joke the humor turns to tragedy. Impersonality is what there is, with little > real ability to control anything, and no *controller* to be found anywhere in > any case. > ------------------------------------------------------------- Well said! best wishes robert 9438 From: Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 1:23am Subject: Re: Moha wasBhavanga Cittas Sorry , I should have said "sankhara khanda comprises all cetasikas EXCEPT vedana and sanna...."--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > ++++++ > > > Moha (ignorance ) is always a root of all kilesa. So it is > associated > > > with all types of ditthi(wrong view). The heart of all these > wrong > > > views is that ignorance obscures the true nature of reality. > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Okay. But what *is* ignorance? Just an absence? If not, what > is it the > > presence of? It isn't some sort of substance. Is it a function? A > process? > > What is it? (In some ways, the term 'avijja' seems to be a > conventional one > > expressing a conventional concept.) > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Dear Howard, > This is a hard question. Whatever there is, is only citta, cetasika > and rupa(leaving aside nibbana). Anything else is simply concept. > I guess we all have no problem grasping that lobha (desire) is a > dhamma - it is so obvious whenever we crave something, get hungry > etc. Moha, too, is a dhamma but it is so unobvious! But it is there. > It has functions, characteristics. It is present but subordinate at > times when there is craving because the craving is more obvious. At > times when we are not sure of the nature of this moment it is more > obvious. We tend to think "I" am confused, I don't know, but it is > just moha performing its function of obscuring reality. > It is, of course, considerably more complex than I make it sound > here. Sankhara-khanda comprises all cetasikas and each moment > different, conditioned conglomerates of many different cetasikas > arise that make up sankhara khanda. Even each cetasika is not exactly > the same as the previous ones. Especially, Moha, that arises with all > akusala moments, and is intricately conditioned by the other > cetasikas that arise concurrently with it, is hard to know. > It is, as you have often pointed out, not really right if we think of > cetasikas as some sort of indivisible atom floating around. > Final comment at the bottom: > > > > +++++++ > > > > In any case, my primary difficulty is with the atomistic > > > theory of > > > > conciousness in general and its explanatory capability. It is > when > > > I see > > > > problems in that area arising that I raise questions, such as > > > bringing up the > > > > business of an overarching something that grasps, with/without > > > wisdom, an > > > > entire process of cittas, like a "self"/observer standing back > from > > > the > > > > screen, and also with regard to cittas being "real things" > which > > > are then > > > > annihilated, both such notions pointing away from no- > self/emptiness. > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > Remember what Suan wrote recently: > > > "The fact that paramattha dhammas are sunnyata (empty of self > and > > > self-belongings) does not negate their existence or their truth > > > status." > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > I agree with that. Dhammas exist, but not inherently with > essence or > > own-being. They are neither nothing at all nor are they self- > existent > > entities. They are things-in-relation. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > the Buddha says: > > > SnXXII 94 > > > Rupa that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this > > > the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say it > > > EXISTS. Feeling...perception..volitional > > > formations..consciouness..that is impermanent, suffering and > > > subject to change..I too say that it exists." > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > Did the Buddha, himself, capitalize the first 'exists'? ;- )) > > Yes, I agree that these things exist. That is, they are not > nothing. > > But they ARE (my caps ;-) nothing IN-AND-OF-THEMSELVES. Their > existence is, > > as you say so well below, not as we imagine it to be. Their > existence as > > separate entities is merely conventional and ultimately false. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Paramattha dhammas exist but not in the way we usually imagine > things > > > to exist. They are so ephemeral that time itself can only be > properly > > > understood in relation to the arising and passing. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Yes. And it is not only their ephemeral nature that makes > them > > different from the way they seem, but also their dependent nature, > and that > > dependency being a dependency on similarly ephemeral and dependent > things > > makes these "things" quite empty. They are sunya - swollen, hollow. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > So many different > > > > conditions must coincide for even one moment of seeing, for > example, > > > to arise - yet we take seeing for granted; and we think it lasts, > > > think we can control it. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > Yes. I've been coming to see more and more clearly the > > uncontrollability of things. The notion that we are or can be in > any sort of > > ultimate control of things is a kind of sad joke. And when we buy > into that > > joke the humor turns to tragedy. Impersonality is what there is, > with little > > real ability to control anything, and no *controller* to be found > anywhere in > > any case. > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Well said! > best wishes > robert 9439 From: m. nease Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 1:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] hello all! Hi Sarah (and Nina), --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Glad to see you getting on well in the internet cafe > and hoping you're still > finding the 'live' discussions and talks uplifting. Actually I'm getting a little more time on-line at the Foundation and still finding the live discussions quite edifying--if only they had them every day... At the moment I'm typing from Sukin's shop--hello from Sukin... > perhaps I should have said, no omniscient God and as > we understand there is no > self, we also understand there are no other beings > or gods in > actuality...merely conventional terms..... > > Does that pass? Of course-- > Thanks, pls feel free to 'pick' any holes anytime;-) I really was just giving you a hard time. Still the presence of gods in the suttas made me feel a little less hostile towards religions... > Sarah > > p.s. I think your comment to me on metta has been > answered by Nina and my later > post to all..let me know if we still don't quite > agree;-) Yes, in fact I agree completely with you both--all my posts on the subject were pretty half-baked. Is it too late to chalk it up to jet lag? Thanks to you both for the corrections. mike 9440 From: m. nease Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 2:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Moha wasBhavanga Cittas Robert and Howard, --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > Howard: > > Did the Buddha, himself, capitalize the > first 'exists'? ;-)) > > Yes, I agree that these things exist. That > is, they are not > nothing. > > But they ARE (my caps ;-) nothing > IN-AND-OF-THEMSELVES. Their > existence is, > > as you say so well below, not as we imagine it to > be. Their > existence as > > separate entities is merely conventional and > ultimately false. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Paramattha dhammas exist but not in the way we > usually imagine > things > > > to exist. They are so ephemeral that time itself > can only be > properly > > > understood in relation to the arising and > passing. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Yes. And it is not only their ephemeral > nature that makes > them > > different from the way they seem, but also their > dependent nature, > and that > > dependency being a dependency on similarly > ephemeral and dependent > things > > makes these "things" quite empty. They are sunya - > swollen, hollow. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > So many different > > > > conditions must coincide for even one moment of > seeing, for > example, > > > to arise - yet we take seeing for granted; and > we think it lasts, > > > think we can control it. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > Yes. I've been coming to see more and more > clearly the > > uncontrollability of things. The notion that we > are or can be in > any sort of > > ultimate control of things is a kind of sad joke. > And when we buy > into that > > joke the humor turns to tragedy. Impersonality is > what there is, > with little > > real ability to control anything, and no > *controller* to be found > anywhere in > > any case. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Well said! Very well said, both--thanks. mike 9441 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 5:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate realities Hi Jon and Mike I got no problem of its use just suggesting maybe could we find and explore other better word. Ken O --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > I think this gap is so important to bridge and I do it > so badly--I'm keeping a copy of this on my 'desktop' > for future reference. Thanks-- > > mike > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Howard (and Ken, Mike and others (including Erik)) > > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote > > > > > Just one cautionary note. Abidhammikas > > don't use the term > > > 'ultimate > > > reality' in a sense that precludes it from being > > conditioned. I find > > > that use > > > of the term a bit odd, but so long as it has a > > consistent meaning in > > > that > > > context, there is no problem. In Abhidhamma, I > > believe that a paramattha > > > > > > dhamma is any dhamma that is directly observable > > through a sense door as > > > > > > opposed to being (the referent of a) mere concept. > > We're headed for > > > misunderstanding when we conflate the Abhidhammic > > defintion with > > > another. > > > > I suspect most people find the term ‘ultimate’ (a > > translation of the Pali > > ‘paramattha’) used in conjunction with ‘reality’ > > (Pali: ‘dhamma’) a > > strange pairing, initially. The term ‘paramattha’ > > is, I believe, more > > often found in conjunction with ‘truth’ (‘sacca’), > > where its import is > > easier to see. > > > > I just checked Nyanatiloka’s Buddhist Dictionary, > > and thought that some > > might find the discussion there useful (although > > not, of course, > > authoritative). I have pasted it below. > > > > Of particular interest to one or two of our members > > (are you there, Erik?) > > will be the comment at the end about the importance > > given in the > > Madhyamika school of Mahayana to the distinction > > between ultimate truths > > and conventional truths > > > > Jon > > > > From Nyanatiloka, ‘Buddhist Dictionary’ > > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_p2.htm > > > > “paramattha (-sacca, -vacana, -desaná): > > > > 'truth (or term, exposition) that is true in the > > highest (or ultimate) > > sense', as contrasted with the 'conventional truth' > > (vohára-sacca), which > > is also called 'commonly accepted truth' > > (sammuti-sacca; in Skr: > > samvrti-satya). > > > > The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes > > used conventional > > language and sometimes the philosophical mode of > > expression which is in > > accordance whith undeluded insight into reality. In > > that ultimate sense, > > existence is a mere process of physical and mental > > phenomena within which, > > or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding > > substance can ever be > > found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, > > woman or person, or of the > > rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being > > valid in the ultimate > > sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech > > (vohára-vacana). > > > > It is one of the main characteristics of the > > Abhidhamma Pitaka, in > > distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it > > does not employ > > conventional language, but deals only with > > ultimates, or realities in the > > highest sense (paramattha-dhammá). But also in the > > Sutta Pitaka there are > > many expositions in terms of ultimate language > > (paramattha-desaná), > > namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups > > (khandha), elements > > (dhátu) or sense-bases (áyatana), and their > > components; and wherever the 3 > > characteristics (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) are applied. The > > majority of Sutta > > texts, however, use the conventional language, as > > appropriate in a > > practical or ethical context, because it "would not > > be right to say that > > 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, etc." > > > > It should be noted, however, that also statements of > > the Buddha couched in > > conventional language, are called 'truth' > > (vohára-sacca), being correct on > > their own level, which does not contradict the fact > > that such statements > > ultimately refer to impermanent and impersonal > > processes. > > > > The two truths - ultimate and conventional - appear > > in that form only in > > the commentaries, but are implied in a > > sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or > > direct) meaning' (nítattha, q.v.) and 'implicit > > meaning (to be inferred)' > > (neyyattha). Further, the Buddha repeatedly > > mentioned his reservations > > when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These > > are merely names, > > expressions, turns of speech, designations in common > > use in the world, > > which the Perfect Qne (Tathágata) uses without > > misapprehending them." See > > also S. I. 25. > > The term paramattha, in the sense here used, occurs > > in the first para. of > > the Kathávatthu, a work of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (s. > > Guide, p. 62). (App: > > vohára). > > > > The commentarial discussions on these truths (Com. > > to D. 9 and M. 5) have > > not yet been translated in full. On these see K N. > > Jayatilleke, Early > > Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (London, 1963), pp. > > 361ff. > > > > In Maháyana, the Mádhyamika school has given a > > prominent place to the > > teaching of the two truths.” > > [ends] 9442 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 5:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:__[DhammaStudyGroup]_Bon voyage/Welcome Mike Hi, Tadao --- ppp wrote: > Hi, Sarah: > I am busy during the summer 2002, but I will think about going to > Thailand the summer 2003. I am qurioius about knowing the general > atmousphere of the Thai Sangha. tadao From what I can gather, there has been a definite change for the worse since the time you were in Bangkok. Certainly there has been a high 'scandal rate' of late. But one should be careful not to impute the same lack of good vinaya to all monks. As I recall, however, even in your days it was not easy to find a place where proper observance of the vinaya was encouraged. Jon 9443 From: Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 0:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/19/01 9:09:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Yes, I understand that features of subsequent cittas are > > conditioned by the features of the current citta. If that were not so, > there would be complete randomness. But the arising and destruction of > separate, self-existing units constituting the entirety of experience > while each exists is reminiscent of the old action-at-distance of > Neutonian mechanics, and it has the flavor of an atta-view. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > k: I am confuse. I thought conscious as explained in Dependent > Orgination, is pass from one form to another and some old action is passed > as condition to the next action in the next form, does that consitute an > atta-view? I sorry, maybe I do not get what you are trying to say. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Certainly the nature of subsequent events are conditioned by events that precede them. But nothing is "passed along". But this is not my point. The dhamma/citta theory of discrete mind-moments each arising out of nothing, but because of previous such mind-moments, being a real entity while existing, and then being annihilated is a *theory*, and one which was propounded in the Abhidhamma Pitaka but not in the Sutta Pitaka. These mind moments, being separate, real entities with essence have "core", and are not "hollow". That aspect of the theory, at least under its more extreme interpretations, is a form of substantialism from my perspective. And the idea of the destruction of such inherent existents constitutes a form of annihilationism. I understand that your background is Mahayanist. In that case, if you would read some of Nagarjuna, you will get what I am talking about. ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Your post to Robert K, > In any case, my primary difficulty is with the atomistic theory > > of conciousness in general and its explanatory capability. It is when I > see problems in that area arising that I raise questions, such as > bringing > > up the business of an overarching something that grasps, with/without > wisdom, an entire process of cittas, like a "self"/observer standing back > from the screen, and also with regard to cittas being "real things" which > are then annihilated, both such notions pointing away from > no->self/emptiness. > ------------------------------------------- > > k: Would you kindly explain what is your understanding or your views on > no self and how does such "citta being "real things" which are then > annihilated", point away from no self/emptiness. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Please see my earlier comments. -------------------------------------------- Secondly its relation > to the rebirth cycle. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: What do you want to discuss about the rebirth cycle? ---------------------------------------------- > > > > Kind Regards > Ken O > > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9444 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Eightfold Path (esp. right effort) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > I think that one who has never heard a word of Dhamma could still > end > up practicing the Buddha's path (very unlikely but still possible), and > that > practice, if it in fact is the full practice, missing nothing, could > eventually lead to full enlightenment. Such a person would, indeed, be a > paccekabuddha (or, missing all the perfections, a lesser approximation > of that). I personally don't think anyone can stumble onto the Buddha's path. But I was really following a slightly different point. If a person who has never heard the dhamma develops, for example, samatha, is that person developing the path factor of right concentration, would you say? (... and if not, what is the difference between that person developing samatha and someone who has heard the dhamma developing samatha?) Likewise for the other factors of the path that you understand are to be developed separately (except, of course, samma ditthi). Jon 9445 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 6:08am Subject: Bhavanga Cittas [Howard] Hi Howard, Interesting comments you make, but I still have a question or two. _________________________ Howard: > But this is not my point. The dhamma/citta theory of discrete > mind-moments each arising out of nothing, but because of previous such > mind-moments, being a real entity while existing, and then being annihilated > is a *theory*, and one which was propounded in the Abhidhamma Pitaka but not > in the Sutta Pitaka. Dan: This is propounded in the Abhidhamma Pitaka? Are you sure? ___________________________________ Howard: > These mind moments, being separate, real entities with > essence have "core", and are not "hollow". That aspect of the theory, at > least under its more extreme interpretations, is a form of substantialism > from my perspective. And the idea of the destruction of such inherent > existents constitutes a form of annihilationism. Dan: I don't think you need to go so far as to say "under its more extreme interpretations." It is prima facie a form a substantialism--one that was recognized very early in Theravada tradition and explicitly argued against. For example, see Kattavatthu. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > Your post to Robert K, > > In any case, my primary difficulty is with the atomistic theory > > > of conciousness in general and its explanatory capability. It is when I > > see problems in that area arising that I raise questions, such as > > bringing > > > up the business of an overarching something that grasps, with/without > > wisdom, an entire process of cittas, like a "self"/observer standing back > > from the screen, and also with regard to cittas being "real things" which > > are then annihilated, both such notions pointing away from > > no->self/emptiness. > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > k: Would you kindly explain what is your understanding or your views on > > no self and how does such "citta being "real things" which are then > > annihilated", point away from no self/emptiness. > > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Please see my earlier comments. > -------------------------------------------- > Secondly its relation > to the rebirth cycle. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > What do you want to discuss about the rebirth cycle? > ---------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Kind Regards > > Ken O > > > > > ============================ > With metta, > Howard > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9446 From: Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 1:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittasn Hi, Mike - In a message dated 11/19/01 9:58:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, mlnease@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Hi, Mike - > > > > (Uh, wait a minute. What is your status now? Are you still > callable as > > "Mike"?) > > Yep, still plain old layman mike. Ordination still might happen but there > are un foreseen obstacles, legal etc. We'll see... > > > So at each moment there is no blur, but then, as a kind of > conceptual > > summing up there is a blur? (I seem to find that my mind is becoming a > total > > blur at such thoughts! ;-)) > > Well, I borrowed this blur--I think I should return it to Robert, my > apologies > if it's a little soiled, Rob. If I may fall back and regroup my > aggregates, I > guess I'll have to play the 'movie' card again. Not a blur, but a > conceptual assemblage of a whole lot of moments of consciousness and > their attendant factors (whether 'atomistic' or not) which can seem very > clear. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: My question was *where* this "assembling" takes place. There is no something which stands back and looks at the flow of cittas, because it is only each citta that constitutes an act of knowing! It sounds like we're discussing what Nagelcalled a "view from nowhere"! ----------------------------------------------------------- (As I'm sure you know, the mental factor 'vitakka' can take concept > > as an object. By the way, I do think Robert's comments re. avijja as > a 'positive' and extremely potent force are very pertinent). I do take > your > point, Howard, about this kind of 'particular' reference to cittas. In my > opinion it doesn't really matter whether they each have a discrete, > separate 'existence' or not--as I tried to communicate to Kenneth, I think > all this theoretical structure is just a way of trying to get a > verbal/conceptual frame of reference for the ever-moving moment of > experience, so that we can think about it and discuss it on an intellectual > > level. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I also feel more comfortable about these notions when I don't look too carefully at them! ;-)) --------------------------------------------------------- Since I habitually reason from the general to the specific, I don't > > really have a problem when I run into a detail that seems logically > problematic-I just take a step back and see if that point, accepted for > argument's sake with whatever reservations, seems to fit into the 'big > picture' as I understand it so far. If you'll forgive my playing the > 'arrow' > card in the same hand, > > "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with > poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him > with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed > until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a > priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow > removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who > wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I > > know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know > his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which > I > was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the > bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, > hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded > was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft > with > which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, > or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded > was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a > monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know > whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, > a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man > would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. > > Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn063.html > --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, hmm! Not to get bogged down in theorizing. a vert good idea! (Actually, that is a major part of my emphasis. I think that it is very easy to over-theorize, and my comments are directed only to question some of the elaborate theoretical scaffoldingthat has been erected, not to erect any of my own. I prefer to follow a simple Buddhist practice of observing the precepts, calming and focusing the mind, and examining dhammas. --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Of course to me this means (among other things) that to reject the > Dhamma according to the Theravada on the grounds of (what I see as) > minute points of intellecutal detail is to throw the baby out with the bath > (if I > may also play the baby and bath cards). Does it really matter if the > moments in a continuum of experience are discrete or not? Does it matter > whether sunlight hits us in waves or particles? Or experience of it is the > > same either way I think. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I am a Buddhist, not a Theravadin or a Mahayanist, though I'm closer to Theravada. Nagarjuna over-theorizes in my estimation as well! The thing is - there are loads of "good Theravadins", including many, many brilliant and consistently practicing Theravadin monks who have grave reservations about Abhidhamma. Theravadins, however, they do remain, drinking of, washing in, and swimming in that bath water. ----------------------------------------------------- > > I know I shouldn't argue with you, Howard. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Hey! We're not arguing! We're talking. :-) ----------------------------------------------------- We both know you're a > smarter man than I am and know the Dhamma better, > including the > Theravada I think. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Nonsense! Neither one of us knows all that much about how "smart" the other is, and my formal knowledge of the Dhamma is very limited. Also, as far as "smart" is concerned, I wouldn't give you all that much for "smart". There are worlds full of "smart" dummies who don't have a clue about "the way things are", being so caught up in their minds that they are totally out of touch. I'll take one serious practitioner with a good heart in trade for 10,000 such intellectuals. -------------------------------------------------- I just hope you aren't too smart for your own good. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Hmmm. An odd thing for you to say, Mike. I find it a bit surprising, and not very pleasant. (Perhaps I misunderstand.) ------------------------------------------------- > Great to hear from you, Mike! I wish you all the very best!!!> > > Ditto and back at you, Howard--if you figure out a better approach to > getting that arrow out I hope you'll let me know. Whether you do or not, > keep in touch, eh? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Certainly. ------------------------------------------------- > > Your Friend, > > 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) 9447 From: Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 1:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate realities Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/20/01 3:32:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > I suspect most people find the term ‘ultimate’ (a translation of the Pali > ‘paramattha’) used in conjunction with ‘reality’ (Pali: ‘dhamma’) a > strange pairing, initially. The term ‘paramattha’ is, I believe, more > often found in conjunction with ‘truth’ (‘sacca’), where its import is > easier to see. > =========================== Yes. I, for one, am far more comfortable with the the idea of "ultimate truth" than that of "ultimate dhamma". With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9448 From: Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 1:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Moha wasBhavanga Cittas Hi, Mike (and Robert) - After quoting Robert and me, you write: "Very well said, both--thanks." ========================== Thanks. Yes, I found this back & forth with Robert extremely pleasant and rewarding! With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/20/01 5:18:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, mlnease@y... writes: > Robert and Howard, > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > > Howard: > > > Did the Buddha, himself, capitalize the > > first 'exists'? ;-)) > > > Yes, I agree that these things exist. That > > is, they are not > > nothing. > > > But they ARE (my caps ;-) nothing > > IN-AND-OF-THEMSELVES. Their > > existence is, > > > as you say so well below, not as we imagine it to > > be. Their > > existence as > > > separate entities is merely conventional and > > ultimately false. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Paramattha dhammas exist but not in the way we > > usually imagine > > things > > > > to exist. They are so ephemeral that time itself > > can only be > > properly > > > > understood in relation to the arising and > > passing. > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Yes. And it is not only their ephemeral > > nature that makes > > them > > > different from the way they seem, but also their > > dependent nature, > > and that > > > dependency being a dependency on similarly > > ephemeral and dependent > > things > > > makes these "things" quite empty. They are sunya - > > swollen, hollow. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > So many different > > > > > conditions must coincide for even one moment of > > seeing, for > > example, > > > > to arise - yet we take seeing for granted; and > > we think it lasts, > > > > think we can control it. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Howard: > > > Yes. I've been coming to see more and more > > clearly the > > > uncontrollability of things. The notion that we > > are or can be in > > any sort of > > > ultimate control of things is a kind of sad joke. > > And when we buy > > into that > > > joke the humor turns to tragedy. Impersonality is > > what there is, > > with little > > > real ability to control anything, and no > > *controller* to be found > > anywhere in > > > any case. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Well said! > > Very well said, both--thanks. > > mike > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9449 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 6:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi Howard > Howard: > Certainly the nature of subsequent events are conditioned by > events that precede them. But nothing is "passed along". k: I thought something was passed between each cittas that conditions the other. To me at least, accumulations of panna as well as moha is also passed (unless someone tell me i am wrong in my interpretation). >Howard: But this is not my point. The dhamma/citta theory of discrete > mind-moments each arising out of nothing, but because of previous such > mind-moments, being a real entity while existing, and then being > annihilated is a *theory*, and one which was propounded in the Abhidhamma Pitaka but not in the Sutta Pitaka. k: I dont think that they think each arise out of nothing, their stand is that each arise due to the conditioning of the previous citta. Their chief factor in conditioning is Moha. Moha is a conditioning factor which I think is very logical because it does rhymes with Dependent Orignation where moha is the chief. Even for Mahayana, ignorance is also the chief cause of conditioning in samasara. Howard: These mind moments, being separate, real entities with essence have "core", and are not "hollow". That aspect of the theory, at least under its more extreme interpretations, is a form of substantialism > from my perspective. And the idea of the destruction of such inherent > existents constitutes a form of annihilationism. I understand that your > background is Mahayanist. In that case, if you would read some of > Nagarjuna, you will get what I am talking about. > ------------------------------------------------------- k: I don't think the Abhidhammic theory supports a core, in my view, they think such cittas are also a condition dhamma. To them whatever is condition is not a core and definitely without any real existence or you have said hollow. Hence whatever is condition, will cease. Citta goes to nowhere when it cease, similar to Mahayana, no one knows where does feelings goes when it has pass away or it ceases to exist from the moment. Abhidhammic also acknowlegde that feeling is condition likewise for Mahayana. k: Would you like to share with me what Nagarjuna says about conscious. Any good link to recommend or books to buy so that I could better understand. I always like to explore other systems of Buddhism and I feel each systems or school of thoughts assist one another to understand Buddhism. Kind regards Ken O 9450 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 0:40pm Subject: Samannaphala verse 65 Dear All, It occurs to me I could be sinking into the quicksand of too much detail in this commentary......however, a few rambling questions: Verse 65 The Samannaphala Sutta commentary Bhikkhu Bodhi. "And how, great king, is the bhikkhu endowed with mindfulness and clear comprehension? Herein, great king, in going forward and returning, the bhikkhu acts with clear comprehension. In looking ahead and looking aside, he acts with clear comprehension. In bending and stretching the limbs, he acts with clear comprehension. In wearing his robes and cloak and using his almsbowl, he acts with clear comprehension. In eating, drinking, chewing, and tasting, he acts with clear comprehension. In defecating and urinating, he acts with clear comprehension. In going, standing, sitting, lying down, waking up, speaking, and remaining silent, he acts with clear comprehension. In this way, great king, the bhikkhu is endowed with mindfulness and clear comprehension." Commentary on this verse pp.96- 134 The commentary states that clear comprehension is fourfold: clear comprehension of purposefulness, clear comprehension of suitability, clear comprehension of the resort, and clear comprehension of non- delusion. Within clear comprehension of purposefulness.....p.98 'One arouses rapture having the Buddha as object....one arouses rapture having the Sangha as object.......' I'm assuming this doesn't mean the everyday use of 'rapture' as in 'The Prime Minister was given a rapturous welcome by Party members'. What is 'rapture' in the Buddhist sense, and 'how' does one arouse it, and 'why' would one wish to? Is 'rapture' the same as 'jhana'? What is meant by the 'Sangha' in this verse.?....it seems to mean different things to different people. For example, many people refer only to ordained Bhikkhus, others refer to every Buddhist who has ever lived (as per the Communion of Saints in the Christian sense), and still others refer to just their meditation group, or buddhist email group as their sangha. Which version, if any, would be defined as 'object'? Any reason why the third jewel the Dhamma isn't used as an object? - doesn't seem the way of a commentator to leave out something they could talk about for a page and a half.. (:-)) Sorry - this part got a bit tedious.....38 pages on one verse...) I have always practiced meditation by watching the breath (rising and falling of the abdomen).........having the Buddha as object, is this recollecting his wonderful qualities,....I think RobertK recently mentioned Buddhanusati (in the context of using this rather than metta towards oneself) - but I found this a little artificial to do.....no 'pleasant' feelings... Jon said in a recent post, "Let me say at the outset, because I think this is very important, that no-one is asking us to change, or to try to change, any of what is happening now, naturally. In other words, the teaching is not about 'slowing down' the present moment, or contriving to reduce the speed, variety or strength of sense impressions. That would be trying to change the reality of the present moment in some manner, rather than simply understanding it more for what it is." In 'Clear comprehension of non-delusion' - I understand (theoretically) that it is not 'a self who goes forward, the action of going forward is not produced by a self' , but the commentary goes into such long descriptions of 'raising the foot', 'bringing it forward' 'shifting it away', 'dropping the foot', 'bringing the new foot forward' - it seems very much to be encouraging just that 'slowing down' and examining of the action commonly taught in Walking Meditation in Retreats, but is this what is discouraged, in Jon's paragraph above? metta, Christine 9451 From: Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 9:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Eightfold Path (esp. right effort) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/20/01 9:08:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > I think that one who has never heard a word of Dhamma could still > > end > > up practicing the Buddha's path (very unlikely but still possible), and > > that > > practice, if it in fact is the full practice, missing nothing, could > > eventually lead to full enlightenment. Such a person would, indeed, be a > > paccekabuddha (or, missing all the perfections, a lesser approximation > > of that). > > I personally don't think anyone can stumble onto the Buddha's path. But I > was really following a slightly different point. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: So the only paccekabuddhas would be folks who in some previous lifetime had heard the Dhamma? Is this notion expressed somewhere in the tipitaka or commentaries? ------------------------------------------------------- > > If a person who has never heard the dhamma develops, for example, samatha, > is that person developing the path factor of right concentration, would > you say? (... and if not, what is the difference between that person > developing samatha and someone who has heard the dhamma developing > samatha?) > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I would think that anyone who has attained jhanas (or *perhaps* even neighborhood concentration) has developed right concentration to some extent, the extent being determined by the degree of mastery. (That, of course, does not imply the mastering of right mindfulness and other factors, or the attaining of wisdom.) ---------------------------------------------------- > > Likewise for the other factors of the path that you understand are to be > developed separately (except, of course, samma ditthi). ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Even samma ditthi could be developed as an outgrowth of the other factors. And, of course, even without hearing the "official" Dhamma, a number of its ideas such as impermanence and the sense of unreality to life can be found elsewhere (to "seed" the process): Consider Shakespeare, for example. If all this is impossible, then no "pure" paccekabuddhas could ever arise. ---------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > =========================== \With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9452 From: Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 9:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas [Howard] Hi, Dan - In a message dated 11/20/01 9:09:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, dhd5@c... writes: > Hi Howard, > Interesting comments you make, but I still have a question or two. > _________________________ > Howard: > > But this is not my point. The dhamma/citta theory of discrete > > mind-moments each arising out of nothing, but because of previous > such > > mind-moments, being a real entity while existing, and then being > annihilated > > is a *theory*, and one which was propounded in the Abhidhamma Pitaka > but not > > in the Sutta Pitaka. > > Dan: > This is propounded in the Abhidhamma Pitaka? Are you sure? ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I'm not. It's my impression, but there is very little about anything that I am sure of! Kalupahana, for example, exonerates the Abhidhamma Pitaka, but not the commentaries. I'm sure no expert on this. But looking at Abhidhamma as expressed by Khun Sujin, Nina, et al, that is the impression I get. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > ___________________________________ > Howard: > > These mind moments, being separate, real > entities with > > essence have "core", and are not "hollow". That aspect of the > theory, at > > least under its more extreme interpretations, is a form of > substantialism > > from my perspective. And the idea of the destruction of such > inherent > > existents constitutes a form of annihilationism. > > Dan: > I don't think you need to go so far as to say "under its more extreme > interpretations." It is prima facie a form a substantialism--one that > was recognized very early in Theravada tradition and explicitly argued > against. For example, see Kattavatthu. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I am aware of the Kattavatthu attempting to correct substantialist interpretations. It simply seems to me that it is *far* easier to make such interpretations of the Abhidhamma Pitaka than the Sutta Pitaka. But were I to find that I am attempting to knock down a straw man, hardly anything could please me more. ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9453 From: Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 1:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/20/01 10:02:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > > Howard: > > Certainly the nature of subsequent events are conditioned by > > events that precede them. But nothing is "passed along". > > k: I thought something was passed between each cittas that conditions the > other. To me at least, accumulations of panna as well as moha is also > passed (unless someone tell me i am wrong in my interpretation). > > > >Howard: But this is not my point. The dhamma/citta theory of discrete > > mind-moments each arising out of nothing, but because of previous such > > mind-moments, being a real entity while existing, and then being > > annihilated is a *theory*, and one which was propounded in the > Abhidhamma Pitaka but not in the Sutta Pitaka. > > k: I dont think that they think each arise out of nothing, their stand is > that each arise due to the conditioning of the previous citta. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: You're correct, Ken. I didn't put that at all well. ---------------------------------------------------- Their > chief factor in conditioning is Moha. Moha is a conditioning > factor > which I think is very logical because it does rhymes with Dependent > Orignation where moha is the chief. Even for Mahayana, ignorance is also > the chief cause of conditioning in samasara. > > > Howard: These mind moments, being separate, real entities with essence > have "core", and are not "hollow". That aspect of the theory, at least > under its more extreme interpretations, is a form of substantialism > > from my perspective. And the idea of the destruction of such inherent > > existents constitutes a form of annihilationism. I understand that your > > background is Mahayanist. In that case, if you would read some of > > Nagarjuna, you will get what I am talking about. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > k: I don't think the Abhidhammic theory supports a core, in my view, > they think such cittas are also a condition dhamma. To them whatever is > condition is not a core and definitely without any real existence or you > have said hollow. Hence whatever is condition, will cease. Citta goes > to nowhere when it cease, similar to Mahayana, no one knows where does > feelings goes when it has pass away or it ceases to exist from the moment. > Abhidhammic also acknowlegde that feeling is condition likewise for > Mahayana. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Whatever ceases, going to nowhere, could not have substantial, inherent existence. It cannot be a "thing" in our usual sense of "thing". It must have merely conventional existence, being a separate "thing"only in a manner of speaking. -------------------------------------------------- > > > k: Would you like to share with me what Nagarjuna says about conscious. > Any good link to recommend or books to buy so that I could better > understand. I always like to explore other systems of Buddhism and I feel > each systems or school of thoughts assist one another to understand > Buddhism. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that getting into a discussion of Nagarjuna would be inappropriate for this list. I do highly recommend the following book: The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, translated and commentary by Jay L. Garfield, Oxford University Press, 1995, ISBN 0-19-509336-4 (pbk). This gives a translation of and an excellent commentary (I think) on Nagarjuna's primary work, his Mulamadhyamakakarika. There is another translation from somewhat of a Theravadin viewpoint by Kalupahana which has some interesting features as well, but I prefer Garfield's text. ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Kind regards > Ken O > ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9454 From: m. nease Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 6:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittasn Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > I just hope you aren't too smart for your own > good. > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Hmmm. An odd thing for you to say, Mike. I > find it a bit surprising, > and not very pleasant. (Perhaps I misunderstand.) > ------------------------------------------------- Sorry about that--no offense intended, I assure you. Well, I've said far too much already... Cheers, mike 9455 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 7:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Dear Mike, It may not surprise you to learn that I think the 'blur' phenomena is a bigger problem than mere bathwater. It may in fact affect the baby. I see Howard's question as an exceedingly important one: it doesn't just challenge the single unit citta theory. It implicitly posits a consiousness that is not dependent on the arising moment, but stands back from it and observes the accumulation of cittas. This consciousness, that can be confused about the nature of cittas, that either observes them in their singular functions, or else fails to keep up with them and 'blurs' them, what is it? It seems to me that it re-establishes the field of continuous consciousness that Abidhamma goes to a great lot of trouble to avoid. If the impression created by more than one moment cannot be accounted for by a simple passage of the qualities of one citta to the next or in another way, I think it brings an unacknowledged element of continuous consciousness needed to account for real human experience into play. That would seem to put Abhidhamma and Mahayana in much more of the same boat than it has previously seemed. Hope this doesn't sound hopelessly indecipherable. I can't seem to talk any other way about this topic right now. Best, Robert ========================== --- mlnease@y... wrote: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Hi, Mike - > > > > (Uh, wait a minute. What is your status now? Are you still callable as > > "Mike"?) > > Yep, still plain old layman mike. Ordination still might happen but there > are un foreseen obstacles, legal etc. We'll see... > > > So at each moment there is no blur, but then, as a kind of > conceptual > > summing up there is a blur? (I seem to find that my mind is becoming a > total > > blur at such thoughts! ;-)) > > Well, I borrowed this blur--I think I should return it to Robert, my apologies > if it's a little soiled, Rob. If I may fall back and regroup my aggregates, I > guess I'll have to play the 'movie' card again. Not a blur, but a > conceptual assemblage of a whole lot of moments of consciousness and > their attendant factors (whether 'atomistic' or not) which can seem very > clear. (As I'm sure you know, the mental factor 'vitakka' can take concept > as an object. By the way, I do think Robert's comments re. avijja as > a 'positive' and extremely potent force are very pertinent). I do take your > point, Howard, about this kind of 'particular' reference to cittas. In my > opinion it doesn't really matter whether they each have a discrete, > separate 'existence' or not--as I tried to communicate to Kenneth, I think > all this theoretical structure is just a way of trying to get a > verbal/conceptual frame of reference for the ever-moving moment of > experience, so that we can think about it and discuss it on an intellectual > level. Since I habitually reason from the general to the specific, I don't > really have a problem when I run into a detail that seems logically > problematic-I just take a step back and see if that point, accepted for > argument's sake with whatever reservations, seems to fit into the 'big > picture' as I understand it so far. If you'll forgive my playing the 'arrow' > card in the same hand, > > "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with > poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him > with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed > until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a > priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow > removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who > wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I > know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know > his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I > was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the > bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, > hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded > was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with > which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, > or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded > was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a > monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know > whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, > a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man > would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. > > Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn063.html > > Of course to me this means (among other things) that to reject the > Dhamma according to the Theravada on the grounds of (what I see as) > minute points of intellecutal detail is to throw the baby out with the bath (if > I > may also play the baby and bath cards). Does it really matter if the > moments in a continuum of experience are discrete or not? Does it matter > whether sunlight hits us in waves or particles? Or experience of it is the > same either way I think. > > I know I shouldn't argue with you, Howard. We both know you're a > smarter man than I am and know the Dhamma better, including the > Theravada I think. I just hope you aren't too smart for your own good. > > > Great to hear from you, Mike! I wish you all the very best!!! > > Ditto and back at you, Howard--if you figure out a better approach to > getting that arrow out I hope you'll let me know. Whether you do or not, > keep in touch, eh? > > Your Friend, > > mike 9456 From: m. nease Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 8:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi RobEp, Well, you may both be right--how would I know. Better I should just drop it. Best Wishes, mike --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Mike, > It may not surprise you to learn that I think the > 'blur' phenomena is a bigger > problem than mere bathwater. It may in fact affect > the baby. > > I see Howard's question as an exceedingly important > one: it doesn't just > challenge the single unit citta theory. It > implicitly posits a consiousness that > is not dependent on the arising moment, but stands > back from it and observes the > accumulation of cittas. This consciousness, that > can be confused about the nature > of cittas, that either observes them in their > singular functions, or else fails to > keep up with them and 'blurs' them, what is it? > > It seems to me that it re-establishes the field of > continuous consciousness that > Abidhamma goes to a great lot of trouble to avoid. > If the impression created by > more than one moment cannot be accounted for by a > simple passage of the qualities > of one citta to the next or in another way, I think > it brings an unacknowledged > element of continuous consciousness needed to > account for real human experience > into play. That would seem to put Abhidhamma and > Mahayana in much more of the same > boat than it has previously seemed. > > Hope this doesn't sound hopelessly indecipherable. > I can't seem to talk any other > way about this topic right now. > > Best, > Robert > > ========================== > > --- mlnease@y... wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > > > Hi, Mike - > > > > > > (Uh, wait a minute. What is your status > now? Are you still callable as > > > "Mike"?) > > > > Yep, still plain old layman mike. Ordination > still might happen but there > > are un foreseen obstacles, legal etc. We'll > see... > > > > > So at each moment there is no blur, but > then, as a kind of > > conceptual > > > summing up there is a blur? (I seem to find that > my mind is becoming a > > total > > > blur at such thoughts! ;-)) > > > > Well, I borrowed this blur--I think I should > return it to Robert, my apologies > > if it's a little soiled, Rob. If I may fall back > and regroup my aggregates, I > > guess I'll have to play the 'movie' card again. > Not a blur, but a > > conceptual assemblage of a whole lot of moments of > consciousness and > > their attendant factors (whether 'atomistic' or > not) which can seem very > > clear. (As I'm sure you know, the mental factor > 'vitakka' can take concept > > as an object. By the way, I do think Robert's > comments re. avijja as > > a 'positive' and extremely potent force are very > pertinent). I do take your > > point, Howard, about this kind of 'particular' > reference to cittas. In my > > opinion it doesn't really matter whether they each > have a discrete, > > separate 'existence' or not--as I tried to > communicate to Kenneth, I think > > all this theoretical structure is just a way of > trying to get a > > verbal/conceptual frame of reference for the > ever-moving moment of > > experience, so that we can think about it and > discuss it on an intellectual > > level. Since I habitually reason from the general > to the specific, I don't > > really have a problem when I run into a detail > that seems logically > > problematic-I just take a step back and see if > that point, accepted for > > argument's sake with whatever reservations, seems > to fit into the 'big > > picture' as I understand it so far. If you'll > forgive my playing the 'arrow' > > card in the same hand, > > > > "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow > thickly smeared with > > poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & > relatives would provide him > > with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't > have this arrow removed > > until I know whether the man who wounded me was a > noble warrior, a > > priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I > won't have this arrow > > removed until I know the given name & clan name of > the man who > > wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, > medium, or short... until I > > know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or > golden-colored... until I know > > his home village, town, or city... until I know > whether the bow with which I > > was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until > I know whether the > > bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, > bamboo threads, sinew, > > hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft > with which I was wounded > > was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the > feathers of the shaft with > > which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a > stork, a hawk, a peacock, > > or another bird... until I know whether the shaft > with which I was wounded > > was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water > buffalo, a langur, or a > > monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow > removed until I know > > whether the shaft with which I was wounded was > that of a common arrow, > > a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an > oleander arrow.' The man > > would die and those things would still remain > unknown to him. > > > > Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta > > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn063.html > > > > Of course to me this means (among other things) > that to reject the > > Dhamma according to the Theravada on the grounds > of (what I see as) > > minute points of intellecutal detail is to throw > the baby out with the bath (if > > I > > may also play the baby and bath cards). Does it > really matter if the > > moments in a continuum of experience are discrete > or not? Does it matter > > whether sunlight hits us in waves or particles? > Or experience of it is the > > same either way I think. > > > > I know I shouldn't argue with you, Howard. We > both know you're a > > smarter man than I am and know the Dhamma better, > including the > > Theravada I think. I just hope you aren't too > smart for your own good. > > > > > Great to hear from you, Mike! I wish you > all the very best!!! > > > > Ditto and back at you, Howard--if you figure out a > better approach to > > getting that arrow out I hope you'll let me know. > Whether you do or not, > > keep in touch, eh? > > > > Your Friend, > > > > mike 9458 From: Sarah Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 9:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mike in Bkk;-) Hi Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > > Actually I'm getting a little more time on-line at the > Foundation and still finding the live discussions > quite edifying--if only they had them every day... At > the moment I'm typing from Sukin's shop--hello from > Sukin... Glad to hear about the on-line time at the Foundation for your sake and our sakes;-) With regard to the discussions, they'll be action-packed when we arrive;-) Seriously, if you ever feel you'd like/it would be useful to have an extra quiet chat with Khun Sujin, she'll be happy to oblige, I know. Just mention it quietly to her or Khun Sujit (sp?), her kind sister. Meanwhile, I'm sure Sukin is also delighted to have you visit his shop and type and discuss dhamma with him. He's always very kind and considerate. Have you bumped into Erik there yet?? Hope to hear from both Sukin and Erik from time to time, just to know they're around too;-) > > I really was just giving you a hard time. Still the > presence of gods in the suttas made me feel a little > less hostile towards religions... Yes, it was a good point, well-taken. pls give me a hard time, anytime! > > p.s. I think your comment to me on metta has been > > answered by Nina and my later > > post to all..let me know if we still don't quite > > agree;-) > > Yes, in fact I agree completely with you both--all my > posts on the subject were pretty half-baked. Is it > too late to chalk it up to jet lag? Thanks to you > both for the corrections. Actually you've been making some excellent comments in your posts to Ranil, far better than I could manage in major jet-lag mode. I'm sure it must still all be a little (or lot) 'overwhelming' at times...such a really big lifestyle change in every sense of the word, except perhaps the paramatha dhamma sense of the word.....different concepts and papanca, but still just seeing, hearing, feeling and all the usual 'garbage' (read kilesa) that follow us around;-) Very best wishes, Sarah 9459 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 9:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Eightfold Path (esp. right effort) Dear Howard, In a way I think it comes down to how unique we believe the Buddha's teaching to be. Some of us will probably look at the Buddha's principles as naturally occurring in the world, and that one who is enlightened would naturally understand these principles of anatta, anicca and dukha. Others may look at the teaching of these principles, along with the eightfold path and the four noble truths and see these as absolutely unique to the Buddha, and only arising as a possibility because of his appearance in the world. This latter view would be partly formed by logic, partly by practice and experience, and partly it would be an article of religious faith. Believing in the Buddha's principles and path are something different than believing in the Buddha's personal omniscience and complete perfection of every action. I personally would not lose my faith in the principles if I were to find out that the Buddha had human qualities and made mistakes on a 'human' level. This would not bother me at all. My belief in Buddhism is not based on the Buddha's perfection. Maybe that is why it is easier for me to doubt certain things in the teachings if they don't make sense to me. Those who believe absolutely in the Buddha's words will tell me that I don't understand the complete meaning of what I am reading, and they're probably right. But it's never been my nature to swallow a teaching whole, or to believe that every word that is reported to have been said by Buddha, must, by divine ordination, necessarily be his actual teaching. That leaves me in the sorry position of having more doubt than those who have absolute faith. It also makes it harder for me to follow the path completely. I have more uncertainty about this or that point. In some ways I'm jealous of those who feel certain of where the steps lie and exactly what is required to walk them. At this point in my life I wish I had that certainty. Somewhere in the teachings the Buddha says that every person has to eventually sit down and examine their own mind and clear up their own doubts so that they can progress on the path. I don't remember if this is Mahayana or Theravada, but it makes a lot of sense to me. I do believe that the Buddha's appearance in the world and his decades of teaching the way out of delusion and suffering, is indeed unique and more comprehensive than any other single teaching. Moses' recorded preaching took place in a period of days. Hindu teachings are an eclectic assortment of various teachers' words. Lao Tzu is said to have scrawled the Tao Te Ching on a pice of parchment in exchange for being allowed to leave China by the gatekeeper. But the Buddha engaged with people of his time for decades and taught from the beginning of his enlightenment to his parinibbana. In that sense it is an absolutely unique teaching, filled with enormous detail, by perhaps the most discerning of the world teachers. Anyway, once again I'll stop rambling. I just wanted to establish that some of what we believe is by direct observation and insight, but much of it is carried by belief and faith. And this is unavoidable. I just think we may want to be clear about where our faith comes into it, to fill in the gaps in our discernment. Is it possible to come upon the principles of Buddhism through one's own personal discernment, without hearing the Dhamma, or hearing of the Buddha? I tend to think that it is possible, along with you, Howard, while others only believe that the intercession of the Buddha's words and presence make this possible. And I believe that is a matter of faith and belief, depending on where you stand in Buddhism. Best, Robert Ep. =============================== --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 11/20/01 9:08:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, > jonoabb@y... writes: > > > > Howard > > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > > > I think that one who has never heard a word of Dhamma could still > > > end > > > up practicing the Buddha's path (very unlikely but still possible), and > > > that > > > practice, if it in fact is the full practice, missing nothing, could > > > eventually lead to full enlightenment. Such a person would, indeed, be a > > > paccekabuddha (or, missing all the perfections, a lesser approximation > > > of that). > > > > I personally don't think anyone can stumble onto the Buddha's path. But I > > was really following a slightly different point. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > So the only paccekabuddhas would be folks who in some previous > lifetime had heard the Dhamma? Is this notion expressed somewhere in the > tipitaka or commentaries? > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > If a person who has never heard the dhamma develops, for example, samatha, > > is that person developing the path factor of right concentration, would > > you say? (... and if not, what is the difference between that person > > developing samatha and someone who has heard the dhamma developing > > samatha?) > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I would think that anyone who has attained jhanas (or *perhaps* even > neighborhood concentration) has developed right concentration to some extent, > the extent being determined by the degree of mastery. (That, of course, does > not imply the mastering of right mindfulness and other factors, or the > attaining of wisdom.) > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > Likewise for the other factors of the path that you understand are to be > > developed separately (except, of course, samma ditthi). > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Even samma ditthi could be developed as an outgrowth of the other > factors. And, of course, even without hearing the "official" Dhamma, a number > of its ideas such as impermanence and the sense of unreality to life can be > found elsewhere (to "seed" the process): Consider Shakespeare, for example. > If all this is impossible, then no "pure" paccekabuddhas could ever arise. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Jon > > > =========================== > \With metta, > Howard > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9460 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 9:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Aw, Mike, I didn't mean to imply that *I* know anything. I just wanted to argue about it! Regards, Robert Ep. =============================== --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi RobEp, > > Well, you may both be right--how would I know. Better > I should just drop it. > > Best Wishes, > > mike > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Mike, > > It may not surprise you to learn that I think the > > 'blur' phenomena is a bigger > > problem than mere bathwater. It may in fact affect > > the baby. > > > > I see Howard's question as an exceedingly important > > one: it doesn't just > > challenge the single unit citta theory. It > > implicitly posits a consiousness that > > is not dependent on the arising moment, but stands > > back from it and observes the > > accumulation of cittas. This consciousness, that > > can be confused about the nature > > of cittas, that either observes them in their > > singular functions, or else fails to > > keep up with them and 'blurs' them, what is it? > > > > It seems to me that it re-establishes the field of > > continuous consciousness that > > Abidhamma goes to a great lot of trouble to avoid. > > If the impression created by > > more than one moment cannot be accounted for by a > > simple passage of the qualities > > of one citta to the next or in another way, I think > > it brings an unacknowledged > > element of continuous consciousness needed to > > account for real human experience > > into play. That would seem to put Abhidhamma and > > Mahayana in much more of the same > > boat than it has previously seemed. > > > > Hope this doesn't sound hopelessly indecipherable. > > I can't seem to talk any other > > way about this topic right now. > > > > Best, > > Robert > > > > ========================== > > > > --- mlnease@y... wrote: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, Mike - > > > > > > > > (Uh, wait a minute. What is your status > > now? Are you still callable as > > > > "Mike"?) > > > > > > Yep, still plain old layman mike. Ordination > > still might happen but there > > > are un foreseen obstacles, legal etc. We'll > > see... > > > > > > > So at each moment there is no blur, but > > then, as a kind of > > > conceptual > > > > summing up there is a blur? (I seem to find that > > my mind is becoming a > > > total > > > > blur at such thoughts! ;-)) > > > > > > Well, I borrowed this blur--I think I should > > return it to Robert, my apologies > > > if it's a little soiled, Rob. If I may fall back > > and regroup my aggregates, I > > > guess I'll have to play the 'movie' card again. > > Not a blur, but a > > > conceptual assemblage of a whole lot of moments of > > consciousness and > > > their attendant factors (whether 'atomistic' or > > not) which can seem very > > > clear. (As I'm sure you know, the mental factor > > 'vitakka' can take concept > > > as an object. By the way, I do think Robert's > > comments re. avijja as > > > a 'positive' and extremely potent force are very > > pertinent). I do take your > > > point, Howard, about this kind of 'particular' > > reference to cittas. In my > > > opinion it doesn't really matter whether they each > > have a discrete, > > > separate 'existence' or not--as I tried to > > communicate to Kenneth, I think > > > all this theoretical structure is just a way of > > trying to get a > > > verbal/conceptual frame of reference for the > > ever-moving moment of > > > experience, so that we can think about it and > > discuss it on an intellectual > > > level. Since I habitually reason from the general > > to the specific, I don't > > > really have a problem when I run into a detail > > that seems logically > > > problematic-I just take a step back and see if > > that point, accepted for > > > argument's sake with whatever reservations, seems > > to fit into the 'big > > > picture' as I understand it so far. If you'll > > forgive my playing the 'arrow' > > > card in the same hand, > > > > > > "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow > > thickly smeared with > > > poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & > > relatives would provide him > > > with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't > > have this arrow removed > > > until I know whether the man who wounded me was a > > noble warrior, a > > > priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I > > won't have this arrow > > > removed until I know the given name & clan name of > > the man who > > > wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, > > medium, or short... until I > > > know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or > > golden-colored... until I know > > > his home village, town, or city... until I know > > whether the bow with which I > > > was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until > > I know whether the > > > bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, > > bamboo threads, sinew, > > > hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft > > with which I was wounded > > > was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the > > feathers of the shaft with > > > which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a > > stork, a hawk, a peacock, > > > or another bird... until I know whether the shaft > > with which I was wounded > > > was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water > > buffalo, a langur, or a > > > monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow > > removed until I know > > > whether the shaft with which I was wounded was > > that of a common arrow, > > > a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an > > oleander arrow.' The man > > > would die and those things would still remain > > unknown to him. > > > > > > Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta > > > > > > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn063.html > > > > > > Of course to me this means (among other things) > > that to reject the > > > Dhamma according to the Theravada on the grounds > > of (what I see as) > > > minute points of intellecutal detail is to throw > > the baby out with the bath (if > > > I > > > may also play the baby and bath cards). Does it > > really matter if the > > > moments in a continuum of experience are discrete > > or not? Does it matter > > > whether sunlight hits us in waves or particles? > > Or experience of it is the > > > same either way I think. > > > > > > I know I shouldn't argue with you, Howard. We > > both know you're a > > > smarter man than I am and know the Dhamma better, > > including the > > > Theravada I think. I just hope you aren't too > > smart for your own good. > > > > > > > Great to hear from you, Mike! I wish you > > all the very best!!! > > > > > > Ditto and back at you, Howard--if you figure out a > > better approach to > > > getting that arrow out I hope you'll let me know. > > Whether you do or not, > > > keep in touch, eh? > > > > > > Your Friend, > > > > > > mike 9461 From: Sarah Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 0:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] meththa meditation Dear Rob K, I’ve been appreciating all your posts recently;-) I’ve been quite busy, so only got a chance to have another look at the Vis. passages you mentioned as I was getting ready to go to bed last night..As a result, I had lots of useful reflection on metta as I was falling asleep:-) I’m not sure I’ll be able to add anything much to your comments here, but I’m happy to have another chance to consider further. --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Thanks for this which all makes a lot of sense to me. > I was wondering if you'd like to tackle a passage in the > Vissuddhimagga which is harder to understand: ix8 Metta should first > of all "be developed only to oneself, doing it repeastedly thus: may > I be happy..." The next sections notes that someone may question > this because it is not in the Tipitaka and that in the > patisambhidimagga and vibhanga no mention is made of developing metta > to oneself. The answer is that for jhana this can't succeed by way of > taking oneself as an object. And later ix9 it makes it clear that > developing to oneself means "just as I want to be happy and dread > pain so do others..." Thus making oneself as an example. > > I think the meaning is basically that we considr how we like to be > treated and thought of and so we should think of others in the same > way. I can also see how a not so careful reading of the text could > lead to the conclusion that one should be trying to love oneself > more. I'd like you to read over ix8-10 and see what you think. I think we understand the lines in a similar way. If we reflect on what we appreciate when we’re with others, don’t we appreciate kind words and gestures, consideration, friendliness, assistance, humility and so on. Isn’t it so true that we really find ourselves so very dear. And so, others find themselves just as dear and would also like to hear kind words, experience consideration, friendliness and so on. Hence by reflecting on the qualities we appreciate with kusala cittas, it can be a condition for metta and the other brahma viharas to be developed towards others. If we’re giving something to another, for example, there is concern for the other’s benefit and there is bound to be some metta even if we don’t ‘name’ it. However, for metta or other wholesome states to develop, there has to be the understanding of which moments are wholesome and which are unwholesome (as you, of course, know so well). If we’re just thinking of ourselves and hoping we’ll be happy, is the citta really wholesome? Is it really calm at that moment? Only awareness can be aware of what the nature of the citta really is. If there is wise reflection on the quality of real metta or generosity shown earlier in the day, it can be wholesome and calm at this time or it can be conceit and attachment again. It just depends. I think as it says in the text, by reflecting on what makes us happy, by using ‘ourselves’ as examples, it can be a way to condition metta for other beings. It’s not a matter of wishing ourselves to be happy, which is bound (I think) to be with attachment. However, if we reflect thus: ‘...Just as I want to be happy and dread pain, as I want to live and not to die, so do other beings, too.’, making himself the example, then desire for other beings’ welfare and happiness arises in him’. I’d forgotten that these lines are then followed by the same verse from the Udana I quoted the other day. And so, I think the first line you quote that metta should first of all ‘..be developed only to oneself’ is explained by the following ones that ‘it does not conflict’ with the other texts which clearly show metta is never towards oneself because here it ‘refers to (making oneself) an example.’ Later (1X, 92) we read: ‘As to the characteristic, etc., lovingkindness is characterized here as promoting the aspect of welfare. Its function is to prefer welfare. It is manifested as the removal of annoyance. Its proximate cause is seeing lovableness in beings. it succeeds when it makes ill will subside, and it fails when it produces (selfish) affection’ Thanks Rob, I find all these reminders very helpful. Sarah 9462 From: Sarah Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 0:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies Hi Ken O, Sometimes you ask what seems like a simple question and yet the answer may not be so simple for me;-) --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah > > > Is there a latent tendency for panna then, since there is latent > tendecies for defilement, is there a latent tendecies for wisdom? As far as I know, ‘latent tendencies’ are usually a translation of ‘anusaya’ which refer to the unwholesome roots and tendencies. However, 3 of the sobhana (‘beautiful) cetasikas (mental factors) are also roots, i.e alobha (non-attachment), adosa (non-aversion) and amoha (panna or wisdom). So as long as there is this root (not for every being), then I think we could talk about a latent tendency of wisdom perhaps. All sobhana cittas are accompanied by adosa and amoha, but not necessarily by panna. > > I do not believe that Buddha's panna is not present in every cittas. I > more incline it is in every citta or not he will not be able to explain > all the citta in such detail and esp to the workings of paccaya. Firstly, for arahats that have eradicated defilements, they have maha-kiriya cittas (inoperative cittas, i.e not producing kamma) instead of kusala citta which perform the function of javana. These are not necessarily all accompanied by wisdom. In the Buddha’s case, they may all be accompanied by wisdom, I don’t know. However, both the other arahats and the Buddha also have cittas which are not accompanied by sobhana cetasikas as I mentioned before, because these cittas are ahetuka (without root). So, your question is, if panna does not accompany every citta, how could he explain all the details and know all realities? The answer is because of the extraordinary wisdom of the Buddha. First, though, we have to understand that now, wisdom does not and cannot accompany the actual moments of seeing, hearing and other ‘non-root’ cittas as discussed. However the same characteristic of seeing ‘appears’ or is ‘known’ by panna accompanying the javana cittas in the mind door process which follows so rapidly. For all intents and purposes we say that panna knows ‘seeing’ which arises at this moment and it’s really irrelevant that, to be very precise, there is an infintesimally small time difference between when seeing sees the visible object and when its characteristic appears to panna. When understanding begins to develop, this becomes clearer, I think and find. In the same way, the Buddha’s extraordinary wisdom knows all realities. Some people find it hard to accept that the characteristic appearing through the mind-door process can be the same as the reality that just arose in the sense-door process, for example. Jonothan mentioned the discussion in India about the analogy of the water dripping through paper. I was thinking of a perfect photocopy. The copy is not the original, but if it is a perfect copy, for all intents and purposes it is the same. (though lawyers don’t always agree;-) ...<.and how are you going on this, these days, Howard, or shouldn't I ask?> I’ve got a bit carried away from your questions, Ken...The reason I think it’s helpful here to give these details is because otherwise people (like yourself) have the idea of constant wisdom or attaining a state with wisdom at every moment. Thanks for the challenge;-) Sarah p.s You’re just a ‘natural’ abhidhammist by accumulations, I’d say;-) 9463 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 1:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi Mike Good for you Mike, I also try not to argue with Robert Ep. . I am extremely glad that sometimes he let me off. Have you meet anything interesting so far in your stay there. Please kindly share some with me. I always like your discussions and sharing here. Do not forget to say thank to Sukin for me for his books that he has send to me. By the way do you have any details that I could send some money for donations to the foundation that have kindly printed these books (off list). Kind regards Ken O --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Aw, Mike, > I didn't mean to imply that *I* know anything. > I just wanted to argue about it! > > Regards, > Robert Ep. > > =============================== > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > > Hi RobEp, > > > > Well, you may both be right--how would I know. Better > > I should just drop it. > > > > Best Wishes, > > > > mike > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Dear Mike, > > > It may not surprise you to learn that I think the > > > 'blur' phenomena is a bigger > > > problem than mere bathwater. It may in fact affect > > > the baby. > > > > > > I see Howard's question as an exceedingly important > > > one: it doesn't just > > > challenge the single unit citta theory. It > > > implicitly posits a consiousness that > > > is not dependent on the arising moment, but stands > > > back from it and observes the > > > accumulation of cittas. This consciousness, that > > > can be confused about the nature > > > of cittas, that either observes them in their > > > singular functions, or else fails to > > > keep up with them and 'blurs' them, what is it? > > > > > > It seems to me that it re-establishes the field of > > > continuous consciousness that > > > Abidhamma goes to a great lot of trouble to avoid. > > > If the impression created by > > > more than one moment cannot be accounted for by a > > > simple passage of the qualities > > > of one citta to the next or in another way, I think > > > it brings an unacknowledged > > > element of continuous consciousness needed to > > > account for real human experience > > > into play. That would seem to put Abhidhamma and > > > Mahayana in much more of the same > > > boat than it has previously seemed. > > > > > > Hope this doesn't sound hopelessly indecipherable. > > > I can't seem to talk any other > > > way about this topic right now. > > > > > > Best, > > > Robert > > > > > > ========================== > > > > > > --- mlnease@y... wrote: > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, Mike - > > > > > > > > > > (Uh, wait a minute. What is your status > > > now? Are you still callable as > > > > > "Mike"?) > > > > > > > > Yep, still plain old layman mike. Ordination > > > still might happen but there > > > > are un foreseen obstacles, legal etc. We'll > > > see... > > > > > > > > > So at each moment there is no blur, but > > > then, as a kind of > > > > conceptual > > > > > summing up there is a blur? (I seem to find that > > > my mind is becoming a > > > > total > > > > > blur at such thoughts! ;-)) > > > > > > > > Well, I borrowed this blur--I think I should > > > return it to Robert, my apologies > > > > if it's a little soiled, Rob. If I may fall back > > > and regroup my aggregates, I > > > > guess I'll have to play the 'movie' card again. > > > Not a blur, but a > > > > conceptual assemblage of a whole lot of moments of > > > consciousness and > > > > their attendant factors (whether 'atomistic' or > > > not) which can seem very > > > > clear. (As I'm sure you know, the mental factor > > > 'vitakka' can take concept > > > > as an object. By the way, I do think Robert's > > > comments re. avijja as > > > > a 'positive' and extremely potent force are very > > > pertinent). I do take your > > > > point, Howard, about this kind of 'particular' > > > reference to cittas. In my > > > > opinion it doesn't really matter whether they each > > > have a discrete, > > > > separate 'existence' or not--as I tried to > > > communicate to Kenneth, I think > > > > all this theoretical structure is just a way of > > > trying to get a > > > > verbal/conceptual frame of reference for the > > > ever-moving moment of > > > > experience, so that we can think about it and > > > discuss it on an intellectual > > > > level. Since I habitually reason from the general > > > to the specific, I don't > > > > really have a problem when I run into a detail > > > that seems logically > > > > problematic-I just take a step back and see if > > > that point, accepted for > > > > argument's sake with whatever reservations, seems > > > to fit into the 'big > > > > picture' as I understand it so far. If you'll > > > forgive my playing the 'arrow' > > > > card in the same hand, > > > > > > > > "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow > > > thickly smeared with > > > > poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & > > > relatives would provide him > > > > with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't > > > have this arrow removed > > > > until I know whether the man who wounded me was a > > > noble warrior, a > > > > priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I > > > won't have this arrow > > > > removed until I know the given name & clan name of > > > the man who > > > > wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, > > > medium, or short... until I > > > > know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or > > > golden-colored... until I know > > > > his home village, town, or city... until I know > > > whether the bow with which I > > > > was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until > > > I know whether the > > > > bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, > > > bamboo threads, sinew, > > > > hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft > > > with which I was wounded > > > > was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the > > > feathers of the shaft with > > > > which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a > > > stork, a hawk, a peacock, > > > > or another bird... until I know whether the shaft > > > with which I was wounded > > > > was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water > > > buffalo, a langur, or a > > > > monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow > > > removed until I know > > > > whether the shaft with which I was wounded was > > > that of a common arrow, > > > > a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an > > > oleander arrow.' The man > > > > would die and those things would still remain > > > unknown to him. > > > > > > > > Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn063.html > > > > > > > > Of course to me this means (among other things) > > > that to reject the > > > > Dhamma according to the Theravada on the grounds > > > of (what I see as) > > > > minute points of intellecutal detail is to throw > > > the baby out with the bath (if > > > > I > > > > may also play the baby and bath cards). Does it > > > really matter if the > > > > moments in a continuum of experience are discrete > > > or not? Does it matter > > > > whether sunlight hits us in waves or particles? > > > Or experience of it is the > > > > same either way I think. > > > > > > > > I know I shouldn't argue with you, Howard. We > > > both know you're a > > > > smarter man than I am and know the Dhamma better, > > > including the > > > > Theravada I think. I just hope you aren't too > > > smart for your own good. > > > > > > > > > Great to hear from you, Mike! I wish you > > > all the very best!!! > > > > > > > > Ditto and back at you, Howard--if you figure out a > > > better approach to > > > > getting that arrow out I hope you'll let me know. > > > Whether you do or not, > > > > keep in touch, eh? > > > > > > > > Your Friend, > > > > > > > > mike 9464 From: Sarah Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 1:38am Subject: Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? Dear All, From time to time questions are raised about the authenticity of the Buddha’s word in the Abhidhamma and ancient Commentaries. When I was pulling out dusty Vinaya texts the other day, I pulled out a copy of ‘the Inception of Discipline (or the Historical Introduction) and The Vinaya Nidaana’, Jayawickrama’s translation of the Baahiranidaana of Buddhaghosa’s Samantapaasaadikaa, the Vinaya commentary. As I’m really very ignorant about the historical details, I’d like to quote occasional passages (in no particular order) when I have time, because I think they may be of interest to some. Of course anyone’s free to question or disagree as usual;-) If anyone has other relevant quotes and passages from other texts, please feel very free to add these too. The first chapter discusses the ‘First Great Convocation’, in other words the First Council of arahats who rehearsed the ‘Dhamma and the Vinaya’.Just to clarify, Dhamma and Vinaya, includes the Abhidhamma texts: “Thus this Word of the Buddha which is uniform in sentiment...was rehearsed together.and not only this, but other divers distinctions in compilation to be met with in the Three pitakas...have been determined when it was thus rehearsed together in seven months” (Smp.33) Jayawickrama, in his introduction says ‘Ultimately Buddhaghosa traces the vinaya, as well as the rest of the sayings of the Buddha in their present form, to the first Great convocation and explains the meanings of the words, “by whom was it said, when and for what reason?” (Smp.34) In dealing with the significance of the words, “by whom this was retained in mind, handed down by whom and established in whom” he traces the history of the Vinaya from the Tathagata (Smp.35) in successive stages, to each of the 3 Convocations and finally to the Vinaya Recital of Maha-Arittha in Ceylon under the presidentshop of Mahinda (Smp.106) His primary aim is to establish that it is the Vinaya in its pristine purity that he is commenting upon. Therefore it is imperative that the stages by which it has reached him should be traced. The succession of Teachers from Upali brought it down to the time of the 2nd convocation and the Theras “again rehearsed the entire Dhamma and the Vinaya..even in the same manner as it was rehearsed by the elder Mahakassapa” (Smp.38) Back to the text itself and the ‘First Great Convocation’: ‘....For it has been said, “Thereupon the venerable Mahakassapa adressed the monks...........Subsequently he said, “Let us, friends, rehearse the Dhamma and the Vinaya......” The monks rejoined, “If that be so, Sir, may the Elder select the monks (for the Convocation).” The Elder rejected many hundreds and thousands of monks in the categories of wordling, Stream-Entrant, Once-Returner, Non-Returner, and Dry Visioned Arahant and canker-waned Arahant, all of whom were versed in the Teachings consisting of the entire ninefold Dispen?ation of the Teacher and chose 499 canker-waned monks who alone were proficient with regard to the learning in all aspects of the Teachings in the entire Three Baskets, had attained mastery in analytical knowledge, were of no mean achievement, and for the greater part were classified by the Exalted One as an expert each in his field in the distinct spheres of the threefold knowledge. Regarding them it has been said, “Thereupon the venerable Mahakassapa selected five hundred Arahants less one.” There are plenty of very lengthy footnotes and I’m happy to add any or discuss any points.. Otherwise, as I said, I’ll just add parts which may be of interest, taking extracts here and there from the text, introduction and footnotes (or even the pali at the back if needbe;-) Sarah 9465 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 4:05am Subject: Re: meththa meditation Dear Mike and all friends Thank you very much for all your taking part. I learnt much from your contributions. And Nina, once replying I forgot to include your name... I appologize... And a small quote from another Dhamma friend... "we all have meththa within us... we have to grow it" "to a beginer (like me) its ok just to know whether you have meththa is present or not (at a particular moment)" ~meththa Ranil 9466 From: Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 6:09am Subject: No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana Dear Robert Kirkpatrick, Howard, Robert Epstein, And Friends How are you? The follwoing quote from Section 89, Dhammapada Atthakathaa clearly tells us that there is no consciousness component in Parinibbaana after the death of an Arahant. I tried my best to provide as lateral a translation as possible - syntatically in particular - while making sure that the readers can read as natural English as possible. If you found any unclear points in the translation, please let me know. My present translation has been influenced by Nibbaanadhaatu Sutta Atthakathaa in Itivutta Atthakathaa. "Parinibbutaa naama arahattapattito patthaaya kilesavattassa khepitattaa sa-upaadisesena, carimacittanirodhena khandhavattassa khepitattaa anupaadisesena caati dviihi parinibbaanehi parinibbutaa, anupaadaano viya padiipo apannattikabhaavaam gataati attho." "`Parinibbutaa' is the ultimate cool by means of two-way complete extinguishments, one with the existential residues emptied of defilement machinery ever since attainment of Arahatta awakening, and the other without the existential residues emptied of psychophysical machinery by termination of the last mind (the dying consciousness). It has the meaning of reaching the state of the undefined reality like the lamp without fuel." Parinibbaana - complete extinguishment Kilesavatta - defilement machinery (vatta is literally circle, cycle, or round. We have 'Vicious Circle' in English) Khandhavatta - psychophysical machinery Apannattikabhaavaam - the state of undefined reality Upaadisesa - existential residues (upaadi is merely another name of pancakkhadhaa). Upaadi means phenomena taken strongly by craving or attachment (tanhaa). As such, we can know for sure that Anupaadisesa Nibbaana is emptied of the five khandhaas. Therefore, after the death of an Arahant, the scenario of nibbaana having the consciousness component (viññaanakkhandho) is out of the question. There is no textual support for such a scenario. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org 9467 From: Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 2:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi, Mike (and Rob) - In a message dated 11/20/01 11:12:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, mlnease@y... writes: > Hi RobEp, > > Well, you may both be right--how would I know. Better > I should just drop it. > > Best Wishes, > > mike > ============================ Or ALL of us could be WAY wrong, not really having a clue as to how things actually are at all, and, perhaps, as you tended to suggest, Mike, maybe we ought not to take all this theorizing so seriously, just accepting the basic facts of anicca, dukkha, and anatta, the importance of stay mindful, focussed, loving, and calm, and getting on with the practice, trusting that reality, with the Buddha's guidance, will show us the way home! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9468 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 7:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies Hi Sarah, >However, both the other arahats and the Buddha also have cittas which > are not accompanied by sobhana cetasikas as I mentioned before, because these cittas are ahetuka (without root). > What is the difference between amoha and panna? Why panna and not amoha? Why can't it accompanied by amoha rather than panna since amoha is a root just like moha? Citta is instanteous is for conditioned pple but may not be instanteous for those who are enlighted. Similar for those living in the celestial, their one day is about our fifty years. So time is realative. Abt citta not present in every cittas for those in Arahant. Commentaries please to support your case. What I believe what you have conclude are deducing from the workings of cittas. Could you kindly provide substantive argument from the commentaries. >Some people find it hard to accept that the characteristic appearing > through the mind-door process can be the same as the reality that just arose in the sense-door process, for example. Jonothan mentioned the discussion in India about the analogy of the water dripping through paper. I was thinking of a perfect photocopy. The copy is not the original, but >if it is a perfect copy, for all intents and purposes it is the same. k: I dont buy the idea, copying is having a constant meaning without change. Objects and its characteristics could be the same for the mind door and sense door process, but the process are always conditioned, hence one is able to choose kusala or akusala citta for that objects. So using copying is like the same problem like what you say below abt "constant wisdom". > I’ve got a bit carried away from your questions, Ken...The reason I > think it’s helpful here to give these details is because otherwise people (like yourself) have the idea of constant wisdom or attaining a state with wisdom at every moment. k: We know that anusaya is present in all akusala cittas, I have asked Robert K to reconfirm whether anusaya is also present in Kusala cittas, so far no reconfirm answer yet, could you kindly answer this question. As for Buddha wisdom, I have my reservation. Constant wisdom is not a good word to describe Buddha wisdom. I do not know how to describe it either in Abhidhammic way :). Kind regards Ken O 9469 From: Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 2:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Eightfold Path (esp. right effort) Hi, Robert - Thanks for this post. I'll just add here a comment or two about what I think is unique about the Buddha's teaching, but which, since it is reality-based, could be discovered independently by others (who then become paccekabuddhas or buddhas, themselves). I believe that intention-view of kamma, anatta/su~n~nata, paticcasamupada (sp?), and satipatthana are those aspects of the Dhamma which are most distinctive. The intention-view of kamma revolutionized realm of morality, as I see it, setting it on a proper footing. The teachings on no/not-self, emptiness, and dependent arising, all interrelated, form the core of the Dhamma in terms of theory, and they are unfathomably deep, and the four foundations of mindfulness (with the needed support of sila and samatha) forms the core of the practice, and these are not normally found in their fullness other than in the teaching of a buddha (or in the mind of a paccekabuddha). That's my perspective. With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/21/01 12:27:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > Dear Howard, > In a way I think it comes down to how unique we believe the Buddha's > teaching to > be. Some of us will probably look at the Buddha's principles as naturally > occurring in the world, and that one who is enlightened would naturally > understand > these principles of anatta, anicca and dukha. Others may look at the > teaching of > these principles, along with the eightfold path and the four noble truths > and see > these as absolutely unique to the Buddha, and only arising as a possibility > because of his appearance in the world. This latter view would be partly > formed > by logic, partly by practice and experience, and partly it would be an > article of > religious faith. > > Believing in the Buddha's principles and path are something different than > believing in the Buddha's personal omniscience and complete perfection of > every > action. I personally would not lose my faith in the principles if I were > to find > out that the Buddha had human qualities and made mistakes on a 'human' > level. > This would not bother me at all. My belief in Buddhism is not based on the > Buddha's perfection. Maybe that is why it is easier for me to doubt > certain > things in the teachings if they don't make sense to me. Those who believe > absolutely in the Buddha's words will tell me that I don't understand the > complete > meaning of what I am reading, and they're probably right. But it's never > been my > nature to swallow a teaching whole, or to believe that every word that is > reported > to have been said by Buddha, must, by divine ordination, necessarily be his > actual > teaching. > > That leaves me in the sorry position of having more doubt than those who > have > absolute faith. It also makes it harder for me to follow the path > completely. I > have more uncertainty about this or that point. In some ways I'm jealous > of those > who feel certain of where the steps lie and exactly what is required to > walk them. > At this point in my life I wish I had that certainty. > > Somewhere in the teachings the Buddha says that every person has to > eventually sit > down and examine their own mind and clear up their own doubts so that they > can > progress on the path. I don't remember if this is Mahayana or Theravada, > but it > makes a lot of sense to me. > > I do believe that the Buddha's appearance in the world and his decades of > teaching > the way out of delusion and suffering, is indeed unique and more > comprehensive > than any other single teaching. Moses' recorded preaching took place in a > period > of days. Hindu teachings are an eclectic assortment of various teachers' > words. > Lao Tzu is said to have scrawled the Tao Te Ching on a pice of parchment in > exchange for being allowed to leave China by the gatekeeper. But the > Buddha > engaged with people of his time for decades and taught from the beginning > of his > enlightenment to his parinibbana. In that sense it is an absolutely unique > teaching, filled with enormous detail, by perhaps the most discerning of > the world > teachers. > > Anyway, once again I'll stop rambling. I just wanted to establish that > some of > what we believe is by direct observation and insight, but much of it is > carried by > belief and faith. And this is unavoidable. I just think we may want to be > clear > about where our faith comes into it, to fill in the gaps in our > discernment. > > Is it possible to come upon the principles of Buddhism through one's own > personal > discernment, without hearing the Dhamma, or hearing of the Buddha? I tend > to > think that it is possible, along with you, Howard, while others only > believe that > the intercession of the Buddha's words and presence make this possible. > And I > believe that is a matter of faith and belief, depending on where you stand > in > Buddhism. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > =============================== > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > > > In a message dated 11/20/01 9:08:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > jonoabb@y... writes: > > > > > > > Howard > > > > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > > > > > I think that one who has never heard a word of Dhamma could > still > > > > end > > > > up practicing the Buddha's path (very unlikely but still possible), > and > > > > that > > > > practice, if it in fact is the full practice, missing nothing, could > > > > eventually lead to full enlightenment. Such a person would, indeed, > be a > > > > paccekabuddha (or, missing all the perfections, a lesser > approximation > > > > of that). > > > > > > I personally don't think anyone can stumble onto the Buddha's path. > But I > > > was really following a slightly different point. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > So the only paccekabuddhas would be folks who in some previous > > lifetime had heard the Dhamma? Is this notion expressed somewhere in the > > tipitaka or commentaries? > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > If a person who has never heard the dhamma develops, for example, > samatha, > > > is that person developing the path factor of right concentration, would > > > you say? (... and if not, what is the difference between that person > > > developing samatha and someone who has heard the dhamma developing > > > samatha?) > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I would think that anyone who has attained jhanas (or *perhaps* > even > > neighborhood concentration) has developed right concentration to some > extent, > > the extent being determined by the degree of mastery. (That, of course, > does > > not imply the mastering of right mindfulness and other factors, or the > > attaining of wisdom.) > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Likewise for the other factors of the path that you understand are to > be > > > developed separately (except, of course, samma ditthi). > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Even samma ditthi could be developed as an outgrowth of the other > > factors. And, of course, even without hearing the "official" Dhamma, a > number > > of its ideas such as impermanence and the sense of unreality to life can > be > > found elsewhere (to "seed" the process): Consider Shakespeare, for > example. > > If all this is impossible, then no "pure" paccekabuddhas could ever > arise. > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > =========================== > > \With metta, > > Howard > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9470 From: Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 3:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana Hi, Suan - In a message dated 11/21/01 9:11:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, abhidhammika@y... writes: > Dear Robert Kirkpatrick, Howard, Robert Epstein, And Friends > > How are you? > > The follwoing quote from Section 89, Dhammapada Atthakathaa clearly > tells us that there is no consciousness component in Parinibbaana > after the death of an Arahant. > > I tried my best to provide as lateral a translation as possible - > syntatically in particular - while making sure that the readers can > read as natural English as possible. If you found any unclear points > in the translation, please let me know. My present translation has > been influenced by Nibbaanadhaatu Sutta Atthakathaa in Itivutta > Atthakathaa. > > "Parinibbutaa naama arahattapattito patthaaya kilesavattassa > khepitattaa sa-upaadisesena, carimacittanirodhena khandhavattassa > khepitattaa anupaadisesena caati dviihi parinibbaanehi > parinibbutaa, anupaadaano viya padiipo apannattikabhaavaam gataati > attho." > > "`Parinibbutaa' is the ultimate cool by means of two-way complete > extinguishments, one with the existential residues emptied of > defilement machinery ever since attainment of Arahatta awakening, and > the other without the existential residues emptied of psychophysical > machinery by termination of the last mind (the dying consciousness). > It has the meaning of reaching the state of the undefined reality > like the lamp without fuel." > > Parinibbaana - complete extinguishment > Kilesavatta - defilement machinery (vatta is literally circle, cycle, > or round. We have 'Vicious Circle' in English) > Khandhavatta - psychophysical machinery > Apannattikabhaavaam - the state of undefined reality > > Upaadisesa - existential residues (upaadi is merely another name of > pancakkhadhaa). Upaadi means phenomena taken strongly by craving or > attachment (tanhaa). > > As such, we can know for sure that Anupaadisesa Nibbaana is emptied > of the five khandhaas. Therefore, after the death of an Arahant, the > scenario of nibbaana having the consciousness component > (viññaanakkhandho) is out of the question. There is no textual > support for such a scenario. > > > > With regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > =============================== Thank you for this. Certainly, taken at face value, this commentary suggests parinibbana as a kind of nullity. A couple matters remain: (1) The exact meaning of Apannattikabhaavaam - the state of undefined reality, and the exact meaning of vi~n~nana, which I take as the dualistic operation of separating out an individualized object from the potential field of awareness, a special type of knowing/~nana. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9471 From: Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 8:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies --- Dear Ken, I'll just very briefly touch on some of your questions here: In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > >However, both the other arahats and the Buddha also have cittas which > > are not accompanied by sobhana cetasikas as I mentioned before, because > these cittas are ahetuka (without root). > > > > What is the difference between amoha and panna? Why panna and not amoha? > Why can't it accompanied by amoha rather than panna since amoha is a root > just like moha? > ++++++++++++++ Robert:Amoha and panna are synonyms for the same dhamma. Remember, though, this is a classification that is wide ranging and includes many degrees and types of wisdom(amoha, panna). ++++++++ > Citta is instanteous is for conditioned pple but may not be instanteous > for those who are enlighted. Similar for those living in the celestial, > their one day is about our fifty years. So time is realative. ++++++++++++++ Robert:Time is a concept but it can be understood only in relation to the rise and fall of namas including citta. Whether god, man or fly the speed of the arising and passing is infinitely rapid according to the texts. +++++++ Abt citta > not present in every cittas for those in Arahant. Commentaries please to > support your case. What I believe what you have conclude are deducing > from the workings of cittas. Could you kindly provide substantive > argument from the commentaries. > > > >Some people find it hard to accept that the characteristic appearing > > through the mind-door process can be the same as the reality that just > arose in the sense-door process, for example. Jonothan mentioned the > discussion in India about the analogy of the water dripping through paper. > I was thinking of a perfect photocopy. The copy is not the original, but > >if it is a perfect copy, for all intents and purposes it is the same. > > k: I dont buy the idea, copying is having a constant meaning without > change. Objects and its characteristics could be the same for the mind > door and sense door process, but the process are always conditioned, hence > one is able to choose kusala or akusala citta for that objects. So using > copying is like the same problem like what you say below abt "constant > wisdom". > > > > I've got a bit carried away from your questions, Ken...The reason I > > think it's helpful here to give these details is because otherwise > people (like yourself) have the idea of constant wisdom or attaining a > state with wisdom at every moment. > > k: We know that anusaya is present in all akusala cittas, I have asked > Robert K to reconfirm whether anusaya is also present in Kusala cittas, so > far no reconfirm answer yet, could you kindly answer this question. As > for Buddha wisdom, I have my reservation. Constant wisdom is not a good > word to describe Buddha wisdom. I do not know how to describe it either in > Abhidhammic way :). +++++++++ Robert: Things like the anusaya being present even when there is kusala citta we can infer as being so. And yet it is not necessarily helpful to think about it in this way. Nor is it present in the way that the wholesome roots are present in a kusala moment. I think it is already complex enough trying to understand the moment as it arises - is it kusala or akusala or vipaka or kiriya? This is what can be known by direct insight. The Abhidhamma, is explained not so that we can answer every thought that comes to mind or so that we can compare it with other philosophies or ways of thinking , but it is taught for the sole purpose of developing insight leading out of samsara. ========= best wishes robert 9472 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 8:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] meththa meditation Dear Sarah [and Jon and Robert K. and Mike], I think this post of yours, Sarah, is very sweet and reflective and I found it helpful in considering the cultivation [not through effort of course] of kusala cittas and mettha. I enjoyed your response to Robert K in this interesting post. Please forgive me then if I take a ripe opportunity here to ask for advice on a few technical points. I will quote the relevant portion below, and then take off from there. I think they are interesting questions, some of which have arisen lately and have not been resolved. Your clear statement below gives me a good opportunity to frame them again, in what I think may be a more answerable form: >>> If we’re just thinking of ourselves and hoping we’ll be happy, is the citta > really wholesome? Is it really calm at that moment? Only awareness can be aware > of what the nature of the citta really is. If there is wise reflection on the > quality of real metta or generosity shown earlier in the day, it can be > wholesome and calm at this time or it can be conceit and attachment again. It > just depends. >>> My question is this, as I try to understand the nature of the cittas, and the relationship between cittas and accompanying cetasikas: If 'only awareness can be aware of what the nature of the citta really is', is awareness [sati?] the reflection of a mindful citta upon a previous citta? Or is the awareness a cetasika through which the citta is able to acknowledge its own property? I am just a little confused about how the mechanism of being aware of a citta's true quality would work. Since you know I am particularly keen on the subject of awareness, and interested to see how mindfulness arises and relates to the content of this or that citta's experience, it seems like a good opportunity to take another look at how this happens. Right now I have the idea that as a particular citta experiences something, there may be deluded cetasikas misinforming it as to what is really there, or there may be mindful, discerning cetasikas accomanying the citta, which would include sati or satipatthana, and give the citta a much greater grasp of what is really taking place in that moment. If you can confirm or clarify this, I would be very grateful. It also leads back to that other issue of how a particular citta or cetasika can take in the 'blur' of other cittas seeming to move by very fast, when in fact they are really coming quite discretely one at a time. I am still trying to understand whether this posits a sort of 'watcher' consciousness which stands apart from the individual cittas and which lasts for longer than the single cittas, or whether there is another way in which certain cittas or cetasikas attempt to 'take stock' of the general flow of cittas going by and assess them wrongly as a 'blurred continuous' event or rightly as a series of single events connected one to the next, like beads on a string. [Of course there would be no string, I guess, just beads]. One more issue along these lines that has come up lately is the nature of ignorance or delusion. Rob K. and Jon, I believe, if I remember correctly, have spoken of this as a positive state or object of some kind which directly interferes with discernment. Pardon me if I don't quite have that right. I would more tend to think that delusion would be a general way of indicating a particular citta or cetasika which contained untrue perception or mistaken material in its experience, rather than a separate force or object that exists independently of some particular arising. I wonder how you would explain this? I don't think that those who are speaking this way mean to establish delusion/ignorance as a 'real object', ie, an entity or permanent force or being of some kind, a kind of Mara-like figure that has its own intention of deluding. I would expect that it would be more of what I said, an ignorant quality to a given citta, or a particular kind of cetasika which just doesn't do the right job and comes up with the wrong information about reality. I could even imagine that a deluded consciousness or mental factor of this kind could be responsible for positing the kind of 'blur' that was spoken of as the mistaken way of apprehending the accumulation of individual citta-moments that arise. This mistaken consciousness would not actually be viewing multiple cittas as a 'blur' while standing apart from them. Rather it would be a kind of single thought of its own in which it 'imagined' such a blur existing in place of an actual perception, and thus substituted its own mistaken notion for a real moment of seeing. In other words, it would be a kind of mistake on top of a mistake. This citta might fancy itself a kind of intellectual citta. It would first ignore the sense-moment and mistake a mental moment for a real moment of perception. And it would then say about its own mistaken perceptual object, really a thought-form, 'these moments are all part of a continous movement' based on its own mis-perception. Thanks for anything you can say to these questions. Perhaps Nina has said something about these issues that I could be directed to, if that is also appropriate. I know she's the expert on these mechanics. Regards, Robert Ep. ===================== --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob K, > > I’ve been appreciating all your posts recently;-) > > I’ve been quite busy, so only got a chance to have another look at the Vis. > passages you mentioned as I was getting ready to go to bed last night..As a > result, I had lots of useful reflection on metta as I was falling asleep:-) I’m > not sure I’ll be able to add anything much to your comments here, but I’m happy > to have another chance to consider further. > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for this which all makes a lot of sense to me. > > I was wondering if you'd like to tackle a passage in the > > Vissuddhimagga which is harder to understand: ix8 Metta should first > > of all "be developed only to oneself, doing it repeastedly thus: may > > I be happy..." The next sections notes that someone may question > > this because it is not in the Tipitaka and that in the > > patisambhidimagga and vibhanga no mention is made of developing metta > > to oneself. The answer is that for jhana this can't succeed by way of > > taking oneself as an object. And later ix9 it makes it clear that > > developing to oneself means "just as I want to be happy and dread > > pain so do others..." Thus making oneself as an example. > > > > I think the meaning is basically that we considr how we like to be > > treated and thought of and so we should think of others in the same > > way. I can also see how a not so careful reading of the text could > > lead to the conclusion that one should be trying to love oneself > > more. I'd like you to read over ix8-10 and see what you think. > > I think we understand the lines in a similar way. If we reflect on what we > appreciate when we’re with others, don’t we appreciate kind words and gestures, > consideration, friendliness, assistance, humility and so on. Isn’t it so true > that we really find ourselves so very dear. And so, others find themselves just > as dear and would also like to hear kind words, experience consideration, > friendliness and so on. > > Hence by reflecting on the qualities we appreciate with kusala cittas, it can > be a condition for metta and the other brahma viharas to be developed towards > others. If we’re giving something to another, for example, there is concern for > the other’s benefit and there is bound to be some metta even if we don’t ‘name’ > it. However, for metta or other wholesome states to develop, there has to be > the understanding of which moments are wholesome and which are unwholesome (as > you, of course, know so well). > > If we’re just thinking of ourselves and hoping we’ll be happy, is the citta > really wholesome? Is it really calm at that moment? Only awareness can be aware > of what the nature of the citta really is. If there is wise reflection on the > quality of real metta or generosity shown earlier in the day, it can be > wholesome and calm at this time or it can be conceit and attachment again. It > just depends. > > I think as it says in the text, by reflecting on what makes us happy, by using > ‘ourselves’ as examples, it can be a way to condition metta for other beings. > It’s not a matter of wishing ourselves to be happy, which is bound (I think) to > be with attachment. > > However, if we reflect thus: ‘...Just as I want to be happy and dread > pain, as I want to live and not to die, so do other beings, too.’, making > himself the example, then desire for other beings’ welfare and happiness arises > in him’. > > I’d forgotten that these lines are then followed by the same verse from the > Udana I quoted the other day. > > And so, I think the first line you quote that metta should first of all ‘..be > developed only to oneself’ is explained by the following ones that ‘it does not > conflict’ with the other texts which clearly show metta is never towards > oneself because here it ‘refers to (making oneself) an example.’ > > Later (1X, 92) we read: > > ‘As to the characteristic, etc., lovingkindness is characterized here as > promoting the aspect of welfare. Its function is to prefer welfare. It is > manifested as the removal of annoyance. Its proximate cause is seeing > lovableness in beings. it succeeds when it makes ill will subside, and it > fails when it produces (selfish) affection’ > > Thanks Rob, I find all these reminders very helpful. > > Sarah 9473 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 8:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies Hi Robert K, > Robert: Things like the anusaya being present even when there is > kusala citta we can infer as being so. And yet it is not necessarily > helpful to think about it in this way. Nor is it present in the way > that the wholesome roots are present in a kusala moment. > I think it is already complex enough trying to understand the moment > as it arises - is it kusala or akusala or vipaka or kiriya? This is > what can be known by direct insight. The Abhidhamma, is explained > not so that we can answer every thought that comes to mind or so that > we can compare it with other philosophies or ways of thinking , but > it is taught for the sole purpose of developing insight leading out > of samsara. > > ========= > best wishes > robert k: Personally I asked these questions so that there is a thorough conceptual understanding. It is impt bc it helps to understand the dhamma better and to help us to develop insight when we are practising. Kind regards Ken O 9474 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 9:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies > Robert: Things like the anusaya being present even when there is > kusala citta we can infer as being so. And yet it is not necessarily > helpful to think about it in this way. Nor is it present in the way > that the wholesome roots are present in a kusala moment. > I think it is already complex enough trying to understand the moment > as it arises - is it kusala or akusala or vipaka or kiriya? This is > what can be known by direct insight. The Abhidhamma, is explained > not so that we can answer every thought that comes to mind or so that > we can compare it with other philosophies or ways of thinking , but > it is taught for the sole purpose of developing insight leading out > of samsara. Well put. It is good to enter this into the discussion. 9475 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 10:01am Subject: absolute realities Dear Jon, I have here the Co in Pali to M.N.5, No Blemishes, about paramatthadesana, I shall translate: Buddhassa Bhagavato duvidhaa desanaa: sammuttidesanaa, paramatthadesanaa caa ti. There is a twofold teaching of the Buddha, the Blessed One: the teaching in the conventional way and the teaching by way of ultimate realities. Tattha puggalo, satto, itthii, puriso, khattiyo, braama.no, devo, Maaro ti evaruupa sammutidesanaa. There is a human, a being, a woman, a man, a man of the warrior caste, a brahman, a god, and Mara. Such is the teaching in the conventional way. Anicca.m, dukkha.m, anattaa, khandhaa, dhaatuu, aayatanaani, satipa.t.thaanaa ti evaruupaa paramattha desanaa. Impermanence, dukkha, anattaa, the aggregates, elements, sensefields, satipa.t.thaana. Such is the teaching by way of ultimate realities. Tattha Bhagavaa, ye sammutivasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa moha.m pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m sammuti desana.m deseti. Here the Blessed One taught to those in the conventional way who by means of it, after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. Ye pana paramatthavasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa moha.m pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m paramatthadesana.m deseti. But who by means of ultimate realities after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction, to those he taught by way of ultimate realities. You gave me some ideas for my India talks, very helpful. I shall write about nimitta. Ultimate realities: some people do not like this, but it is difficult to find the perfect translation. A. Sujin stressed that words are not so important, they are just the means to explain realities so that these can be directly understood without needing words, without having to think about them in words. More about that later on, I like your tips as to what to write about, Nina. 9476 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 10:01am Subject: cankamma Dear Num, I am inclined not try to find too much behind the word cankamma. When sitting or lying down for a long time, one should change posture, we all do. The Buddha and the monks did some walking just to change posture. Nothing else, just walking naturally. Not walking slowly to induce sati, that is lobha and it hinders the development. Take care of yourself, do not play tennis, but maybe some cankamma instead? Best wishes for a speedy recovery, Nina. 9477 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 11:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Mike > > Good for you Mike, I also try not to argue with Robert Ep. . I am > extremely glad that sometimes he let me off. :] Robert Ep. 9478 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 11:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? This is extremely interesting, Sarah. Could you clarify for a confused worldling, exactly who is speaking in these quotes, and is it a part of the Abhidhamma commentaries, a part of the Vinaya itself, or is it all from the introduction to the Vinaya? Thanks, Robert Ep. ====================== --- Sarah wrote: > Dear All, > > From time to time questions are raised about the authenticity of the Buddha’s > word in the Abhidhamma and ancient Commentaries. When I was pulling out dusty > Vinaya texts the other day, I pulled out a copy of ‘the Inception of Discipline > (or the Historical Introduction) and The Vinaya Nidaana’, Jayawickrama’s > translation of the Baahiranidaana of Buddhaghosa’s Samantapaasaadikaa, the > Vinaya commentary. > > As I’m really very ignorant about the historical details, I’d like to quote > occasional passages (in no particular order) when I have time, because I think > they may be of interest to some. Of course anyone’s free to question or > disagree as usual;-) If anyone has other relevant quotes and passages from > other texts, please feel very free to add these too. > > The first chapter discusses the ‘First Great Convocation’, in other words the > First Council of arahats who rehearsed the ‘Dhamma and the Vinaya’.Just to > clarify, Dhamma and Vinaya, includes the Abhidhamma texts: > > “Thus this Word of the Buddha which is uniform in sentiment...was > rehearsed together.and not only this, but other divers distinctions in > compilation to be met with in the Three pitakas...have been determined when it > was thus rehearsed together in seven months” (Smp.33) > > Jayawickrama, in his introduction says ‘Ultimately Buddhaghosa traces the > vinaya, as well as the rest of the sayings of the Buddha in > their present form, to the first Great convocation and explains the meanings of > the words, “by whom was it said, when and for what reason?” (Smp.34) In dealing > with the significance of the words, “by whom this was retained in mind, handed > down by whom and established in whom” he traces the history of the Vinaya from > the Tathagata (Smp.35) in successive stages, to each of the 3 Convocations and > finally to the Vinaya Recital of Maha-Arittha in Ceylon under the presidentshop > of Mahinda (Smp.106) His primary aim is to establish that it is the Vinaya in > its pristine purity that he is commenting upon. Therefore it is imperative that > the stages by which it has reached him should be traced. The succession of > Teachers from Upali brought it down to the time of the 2nd convocation and the > Theras “again rehearsed the entire Dhamma and the Vinaya..even in the same > manner as it was rehearsed by the elder Mahakassapa” (Smp.38) > > Back to the text itself and the ‘First Great Convocation’: > > ‘....For it has been said, “Thereupon the venerable Mahakassapa > adressed the monks...........Subsequently he said, “Let us, friends, rehearse > the Dhamma and the Vinaya......” The monks rejoined, “If that be so, Sir, may > the Elder select the monks (for the Convocation).” > > The Elder rejected many hundreds and thousands of monks in the categories of > wordling, Stream-Entrant, Once-Returner, Non-Returner, and Dry Visioned Arahant > and canker-waned Arahant, all of whom were versed in the Teachings consisting > of the entire ninefold Dispensation of the Teacher and chose 499 canker-waned > monks who alone were proficient with regard to the learning in all aspects of > the Teachings in the entire Three Baskets, had attained mastery in analytical > knowledge, were of no mean achievement, and for the greater part were > classified by the Exalted One as an expert each in his field in the distinct > spheres of the threefold knowledge. Regarding them it has been said, > “Thereupon the venerable Mahakassapa selected five hundred Arahants less one.” > > > There are plenty of very lengthy footnotes and I’m happy to add any or discuss > any points.. Otherwise, as I said, I’ll just add parts which may be of > interest, taking extracts here and there from the text, introduction and > footnotes (or even the pali at the back if needbe;-) > > Sarah 9479 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 11:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana Dear Suan, Thank you for this fascinating translation. I love hearing the literal meanings of the separate words. It is still possible to piece these words together, but it certainly gives a much better sense of the exact meaning intended. Oh, I feel like such a trouble-maker, but I still have a seed of doubt left over from this wonderful translation. It is not that I am hunting for one. In fact it is my suspicion that it is the Buddha who has supplied this seed in his own words. Let me tell you what concerns me here. It is the final statement. I can agree that there is no doubt that he is saying that the consciousness is cooled out and snuffed out according to this description. But why on earth does he then say that the final state of the Arahant in Parinibbana is not extinguishment, or void of all experiences, or anything like that. Instead he says: > It has the meaning of reaching the state of the undefined reality > like the lamp without fuel. reaching the state of the undefined reality. reaching the state of the undefined reality. Well, I don't know about anyone else, but reaching the state of the undefined reality to me means that he has reached a state in which his reality is undefined by any remaining fragment of distinguishing consciousness, but that he is still in a state of existence in which his reality is undefined. This does not mean that there is no existent of any kind, only that all consciousness has been cooled and is no longer present. The idea of an underlying beingness or awareness that is however totally disengaged from any experience does not seem to me to be ruled out here. An undefined reality is awfully intruiging, don't you think? I would certainly know exactly what this statement of the Buddha's is pointing to. It would be the reality of the lamp when the flame has been snuffed out. But the lamp is still there, it is just no longer burning. Robert Ep. ============================== --- abhidhammika@y... wrote: > > > > Dear Robert Kirkpatrick, Howard, Robert Epstein, And Friends > > How are you? > > The follwoing quote from Section 89, Dhammapada Atthakathaa clearly > tells us that there is no consciousness component in Parinibbaana > after the death of an Arahant. > > I tried my best to provide as lateral a translation as possible - > syntatically in particular - while making sure that the readers can > read as natural English as possible. If you found any unclear points > in the translation, please let me know. My present translation has > been influenced by Nibbaanadhaatu Sutta Atthakathaa in Itivutta > Atthakathaa. > > "Parinibbutaa naama arahattapattito patthaaya kilesavattassa > khepitattaa sa-upaadisesena, carimacittanirodhena khandhavattassa > khepitattaa anupaadisesena caati dviihi parinibbaanehi > parinibbutaa, anupaadaano viya padiipo apannattikabhaavaam gataati > attho." > > "`Parinibbutaa' is the ultimate cool by means of two-way complete > extinguishments, one with the existential residues emptied of > defilement machinery ever since attainment of Arahatta awakening, and > the other without the existential residues emptied of psychophysical > machinery by termination of the last mind (the dying consciousness). > It has the meaning of reaching the state of the undefined reality > like the lamp without fuel." > > Parinibbaana - complete extinguishment > Kilesavatta - defilement machinery (vatta is literally circle, cycle, > or round. We have 'Vicious Circle' in English) > Khandhavatta - psychophysical machinery > Apannattikabhaavaam - the state of undefined reality > > Upaadisesa - existential residues (upaadi is merely another name of > pancakkhadhaa). Upaadi means phenomena taken strongly by craving or > attachment (tanhaa). > > As such, we can know for sure that Anupaadisesa Nibbaana is emptied > of the five khandhaas. Therefore, after the death of an Arahant, the > scenario of nibbaana having the consciousness component > (viññaanakkhandho) is out of the question. There is no textual > support for such a scenario. > > > > With regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > http://www.bodhiology.org > 9480 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 11:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Eightfold Path (esp. right effort) --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > Thanks for this post. I'll just add here a comment or two about what I > think is unique about the Buddha's teaching, but which, since it is > reality-based, could be discovered independently by others (who then become > paccekabuddhas or buddhas, themselves). I believe that intention-view of > kamma, anatta/su~n~nata, paticcasamupada (sp?), and satipatthana are those > aspects of the Dhamma which are most distinctive. The intention-view of kamma > revolutionized realm of morality, as I see it, setting it on a proper > footing. The teachings on no/not-self, emptiness, and dependent arising, all > interrelated, form the core of the Dhamma in terms of theory, and they are > unfathomably deep, and the four foundations of mindfulness (with the needed > support of sila and samatha) forms the core of the practice, and these are > not normally found in their fullness other than in the teaching of a buddha > (or in the mind of a paccekabuddha). That's my perspective. > > With metta, > Howard Howard, I think your description gives a good overview of the unique genius of the Buddha's spiritual teaching. My only point is to agree with you that since it is reality-based, as you say, it is possible for a rare individual to discover these principles himself. Whether or not this is true, it certainly helps most of us worldlings to have the Buddha's enormous, copious bounty of help. I think that it is important, however, to remember that the Buddha wanted us to follow the path, not worship him, and that he did not intend to be regarded as a God, which would also be an obstacle to awakening. Best, Robert Ep. ===================================== > In a message dated 11/21/01 12:27:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, > epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > > > > > Dear Howard, > > In a way I think it comes down to how unique we believe the Buddha's > > teaching to > > be. Some of us will probably look at the Buddha's principles as naturally > > occurring in the world, and that one who is enlightened would naturally > > understand > > these principles of anatta, anicca and dukha. Others may look at the > > teaching of > > these principles, along with the eightfold path and the four noble truths > > and see > > these as absolutely unique to the Buddha, and only arising as a possibility > > because of his appearance in the world. This latter view would be partly > > formed > > by logic, partly by practice and experience, and partly it would be an > > article of > > religious faith. > > > > Believing in the Buddha's principles and path are something different than > > believing in the Buddha's personal omniscience and complete perfection of > > every > > action. I personally would not lose my faith in the principles if I were > > to find > > out that the Buddha had human qualities and made mistakes on a 'human' > > level. > > This would not bother me at all. My belief in Buddhism is not based on the > > Buddha's perfection. Maybe that is why it is easier for me to doubt > > certain > > things in the teachings if they don't make sense to me. Those who believe > > absolutely in the Buddha's words will tell me that I don't understand the > > complete > > meaning of what I am reading, and they're probably right. But it's never > > been my > > nature to swallow a teaching whole, or to believe that every word that is > > reported > > to have been said by Buddha, must, by divine ordination, necessarily be his > > actual > > teaching. > > > > That leaves me in the sorry position of having more doubt than those who > > have > > absolute faith. It also makes it harder for me to follow the path > > completely. I > > have more uncertainty about this or that point. In some ways I'm jealous > > of those > > who feel certain of where the steps lie and exactly what is required to > > walk them. > > At this point in my life I wish I had that certainty. > > > > Somewhere in the teachings the Buddha says that every person has to > > eventually sit > > down and examine their own mind and clear up their own doubts so that they > > can > > progress on the path. I don't remember if this is Mahayana or Theravada, > > but it > > makes a lot of sense to me. > > > > I do believe that the Buddha's appearance in the world and his decades of > > teaching > > the way out of delusion and suffering, is indeed unique and more > > comprehensive > > than any other single teaching. Moses' recorded preaching took place in a > > period > > of days. Hindu teachings are an eclectic assortment of various teachers' > > words. > > Lao Tzu is said to have scrawled the Tao Te Ching on a pice of parchment in > > exchange for being allowed to leave China by the gatekeeper. But the > > Buddha > > engaged with people of his time for decades and taught from the beginning > > of his > > enlightenment to his parinibbana. In that sense it is an absolutely unique > > teaching, filled with enormous detail, by perhaps the most discerning of > > the world > > teachers. > > > > Anyway, once again I'll stop rambling. I just wanted to establish that > > some of > > what we believe is by direct observation and insight, but much of it is > > carried by > > belief and faith. And this is unavoidable. I just think we may want to be > > clear > > about where our faith comes into it, to fill in the gaps in our > > discernment. > > > > Is it possible to come upon the principles of Buddhism through one's own > > personal > > discernment, without hearing the Dhamma, or hearing of the Buddha? I tend > > to > > think that it is possible, along with you, Howard, while others only > > believe that > > the intercession of the Buddha's words and presence make this possible. > > And I > > believe that is a matter of faith and belief, depending on where you stand > > in > > Buddhism. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > > > =============================== > > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Hi, Jon - > > > > > > In a message dated 11/20/01 9:08:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > > jonoabb@y... writes: > > > > > > > > > > Howard > > > > > > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > > > > > > > I think that one who has never heard a word of Dhamma could > > still > > > > > end > > > > > up practicing the Buddha's path (very unlikely but still possible), > > and > > > > > that > > > > > practice, if it in fact is the full practice, missing nothing, could > > > > > eventually lead to full enlightenment. Such a person would, indeed, > > be a > > > > > paccekabuddha (or, missing all the perfections, a lesser > > approximation > > > > > of that). > > > > > > > > I personally don't think anyone can stumble onto the Buddha's path. > > But I > > > > was really following a slightly different point. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > So the only paccekabuddhas would be folks who in some previous > > > lifetime had heard the Dhamma? Is this notion expressed somewhere in the > > > tipitaka or commentaries? > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > If a person who has never heard the dhamma develops, for example, > > samatha, > > > > is that person developing the path factor of right concentration, would > > > > you say? (... and if not, what is the difference between that person > > > > developing samatha and someone who has heard the dhamma developing > > > > samatha?) > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I would think that anyone who has attained jhanas (or *perhaps* > > even > > > neighborhood concentration) has developed right concentration to some > > extent, > > > the extent being determined by the degree of mastery. (That, of course, > > does > > > not imply the mastering of right mindfulness and other factors, or the > > > attaining of wisdom.) > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Likewise for the other factors of the path that you understand are to > > be > > > > developed separately (except, of course, samma ditthi). > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Even samma ditthi could be developed as an outgrowth of the other > > > factors. And, of course, even without hearing the "official" Dhamma, a > > number > > > of its ideas such as impermanence and the sense of unreality to life can > > be > > > found elsewhere (to "seed" the process): Consider Shakespeare, for > > example. > > > If all this is impossible, then no "pure" paccekabuddhas could ever > > arise. > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > =========================== > > > \With metta, > > > Howard 9481 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 11:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > Robert:Time is a concept but it can be understood only in relation to > the rise and fall of namas including citta. Whether god, man or fly > the speed of the arising and passing is infinitely rapid according to > the texts. > +++++++ Robert, I hate to be a stickler, but it is impossible for the passage of namas, including cittas to be 'infinitely rapid' except with reference to something that is slower, like an apprehending consciousness which is observing them go by and trying to grasp them as an experience. If there is only the passage of one citta to the next, one nama to the next with no additional consciousness observing them, then their speed of passage can only be neither fast nor slow. There is no speed without a point of reference. If according to the commentaries, the passage is extremely rapid, they are inherently positing an observer consciousness for whom it is seen as fast. Best, Robert Ep. 9482 From: m. nease Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 5:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi Kenneth, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Have > you meet anything > interesting so far in your stay there. Just a few good friends and the usual defilements. > Please > kindly share some with me. Nothing worth hearing I'm afraid, Kenneth. > Do > not forget to say > thank to Sukin for me for his books that he has send > to me. Will do, Kenneth. > By the way do > you have any details that I could send some money > for donations to the > foundation that have kindly printed these books (off > list). Not sure--I think Sukin might be able to help and will cc. this reply to him. mike 9483 From: m. nease Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 5:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? Interesting stuff, Sarah, Of course you'll never convince those who think that Budhhaghosa made it all up and that the dispensation consists of only two baskets (the Dvipitaka?). Oh, well... mike --- Sarah wrote: > Dear All, > > From time to time questions are raised about the > authenticity of the Buddha’s > word in the Abhidhamma and ancient Commentaries. > When I was pulling out dusty > Vinaya texts the other day, I pulled out a copy of > ‘the Inception of Discipline > (or the Historical Introduction) and The Vinaya > Nidaana’, Jayawickrama’s > translation of the Baahiranidaana of Buddhaghosa’s > Samantapaasaadikaa, the > Vinaya commentary. > > As I’m really very ignorant about the historical > details, I’d like to quote > occasional passages (in no particular order) when I > have time, because I think > they may be of interest to some. Of course anyone’s > free to question or > disagree as usual;-) If anyone has other relevant > quotes and passages from > other texts, please feel very free to add these too. > > The first chapter discusses the ‘First Great > Convocation’, in other words the > First Council of arahats who rehearsed the ‘Dhamma > and the Vinaya’.Just to > clarify, Dhamma and Vinaya, includes the Abhidhamma > texts: > > “Thus this Word of the Buddha which is > uniform in sentiment...was > rehearsed together.and not only this, but other > divers distinctions in > compilation to be met with in the Three > pitakas...have been determined when it > was thus rehearsed together in seven months” > (Smp.33) > > Jayawickrama, in his introduction says ‘Ultimately > Buddhaghosa traces the > vinaya, as well as the rest of the sayings of the > Buddha in > their present form, to the first Great convocation > and explains the meanings of > the words, “by whom was it said, when and for what > reason?” (Smp.34) In dealing > with the significance of the words, “by whom this > was retained in mind, handed > down by whom and established in whom” he traces the > history of the Vinaya from > the Tathagata (Smp.35) in successive stages, to each > of the 3 Convocations and > finally to the Vinaya Recital of Maha-Arittha in > Ceylon under the presidentshop > of Mahinda (Smp.106) His primary aim is to establish > that it is the Vinaya in > its pristine purity that he is commenting upon. > Therefore it is imperative that > the stages by which it has reached him should be > traced. The succession of > Teachers from Upali brought it down to the time of > the 2nd convocation and the > Theras “again rehearsed the entire Dhamma and the > Vinaya..even in the same > manner as it was rehearsed by the elder Mahakassapa” > (Smp.38) > > Back to the text itself and the ‘First Great > Convocation’: > > ‘....For it has been said, “Thereupon the > venerable Mahakassapa > adressed the monks...........Subsequently he said, > “Let us, friends, rehearse > the Dhamma and the Vinaya......” The monks rejoined, > “If that be so, Sir, may > the Elder select the monks (for the Convocation).” > > The Elder rejected many hundreds and thousands of > monks in the categories of > wordling, Stream-Entrant, Once-Returner, > Non-Returner, and Dry Visioned Arahant > and canker-waned Arahant, all of whom were versed in > the Teachings consisting > of the entire ninefold Dispensation of the Teacher > and chose 499 canker-waned > monks who alone were proficient with regard to the > learning in all aspects of > the Teachings in the entire Three Baskets, had > attained mastery in analytical > knowledge, were of no mean achievement, and for the > greater part were > classified by the Exalted One as an expert each in > his field in the distinct > spheres of the threefold knowledge. Regarding them > it has been said, > “Thereupon the venerable Mahakassapa selected five > hundred Arahants less one.” > > > There are plenty of very lengthy footnotes and I’m > happy to add any or discuss > any points.. Otherwise, as I said, I’ll just add > parts which may be of > interest, taking extracts here and there from the > text, introduction and > footnotes (or even the pali at the back if needbe;-) > > Sarah 9484 From: m. nease Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 5:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana Dear Suan, I appreciate your points and your translation, as always. Could you please explain your translation, 'machinery'? Thanks in advance, mike --- abhidhammika@y... wrote: > > > > Dear Robert Kirkpatrick, Howard, Robert Epstein, And > Friends > > How are you? > > The follwoing quote from Section 89, Dhammapada > Atthakathaa clearly > tells us that there is no consciousness component in > Parinibbaana > after the death of an Arahant. > > I tried my best to provide as lateral a translation > as possible - > syntatically in particular - while making sure that > the readers can > read as natural English as possible. If you found > any unclear points > in the translation, please let me know. My present > translation has > been influenced by Nibbaanadhaatu Sutta Atthakathaa > in Itivutta > Atthakathaa. > > "Parinibbutaa naama arahattapattito patthaaya > kilesavattassa > khepitattaa sa-upaadisesena, carimacittanirodhena > khandhavattassa > khepitattaa anupaadisesena caati dviihi > parinibbaanehi > parinibbutaa, anupaadaano viya padiipo > apannattikabhaavaam gataati > attho." > > "`Parinibbutaa' is the ultimate cool by means of > two-way complete > extinguishments, one with the existential residues > emptied of > defilement machinery ever since attainment of > Arahatta awakening, and > the other without the existential residues emptied > of psychophysical > machinery by termination of the last mind (the dying > consciousness). > It has the meaning of reaching the state of the > undefined reality > like the lamp without fuel." > > Parinibbaana - complete extinguishment > Kilesavatta - defilement machinery (vatta is > literally circle, cycle, > or round. We have 'Vicious Circle' in English) > Khandhavatta - psychophysical machinery > Apannattikabhaavaam - the state of undefined reality > > Upaadisesa - existential residues (upaadi is merely > another name of > pancakkhadhaa). Upaadi means phenomena taken > strongly by craving or > attachment (tanhaa). > > As such, we can know for sure that Anupaadisesa > Nibbaana is emptied > of the five khandhaas. Therefore, after the death of > an Arahant, the > scenario of nibbaana having the consciousness > component > (viññaanakkhandho) is out of the question. There is > no textual > support for such a scenario. > > > > With regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > http://www.bodhiology.org 9485 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 5:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies Hi Robert K > ++++++++++++++ > > Robert:Time is a concept but it can be understood only in relation to > the rise and fall of namas including citta. Whether god, man or fly > the speed of the arising and passing is infinitely rapid according to > the texts. > +++++++ k: It is rapid for ordinary people but not so for enlighted person like Ven Sariputta. Remember I think once one is enlighted one able to see each citta with perfect clarity hence speed is a concept is relative here. It has becomes measurable for a person who is enlighted. If it is too fast, then how could Ven Sariputta or Buddha describe all these citta details in Abhidhamma and describe their speed. This is supported by what you said in your below comments, "is it kusala or akusala or vipaka or kiriya? This is what can be known by direct insight". > +++++++++ > > Robert: Things like the anusaya being present even when there is > kusala citta we can infer as being so. And yet it is not necessarily > helpful to think about it in this way. Nor is it present in the way > that the wholesome roots are present in a kusala moment. > I think it is already complex enough trying to understand the moment > as it arises - is it kusala or akusala or vipaka or kiriya? This is > what can be known by direct insight. k: Latent tendecies is impt because it is an impt factor for the path of cultivation. For a person who practise many lives, gross defilements are easily indentify and to be in sati, but the person who is not expose to latent tendecies, may not know that there is an underlying defilement. Hence one got to practise panna or sati as long as one is not an Arahant, underlying defilement will arise. Without understanding such latent tendecies then there is a in danger of such "unseen factors" in our path of cultivation. Kind regards Ken O 9486 From: Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 6:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert K > > > ++++++++++++++ > > > > Robert:Time is a concept but it can be understood only in relation to > > the rise and fall of namas including citta. Whether god, man or fly > > the speed of the arising and passing is infinitely rapid according to > > the texts. > > +++++++ > > k: It is rapid for ordinary people but not so for enlighted person like > Ven Sariputta. Remember I think once one is enlighted one able to see > each citta with perfect clarity hence speed is a concept is relative here. > It has becomes measurable for a person who is enlighted. If it is too > fast, then how could Ven Sariputta or Buddha describe all these citta > details in Abhidhamma and describe their speed. This is supported by what > you said in your below comments, "is it kusala or akusala or vipaka or > kiriya? This is what can be known by direct insight". > > > > +++++++++ Dear Ken O, This is sound reasoning but not, I believe, right. I think it is because we think there is subtle somthing that lasts , that can observe, that this idea occurs that the rate of rise and fall can be slowed down. Panna, amoha, if it is developed understands past, present or even future moments. There is no observer per se but panna arises just for an instant and performs its function of knowing and then another, different panna arises and performs its function. In a spit second, in the case of someone like Sariputta millions of moments of highly developed panna can arise and pass away and so much can be known. For us millions of moments of moha(ignorance ) arise and only occasionally do moments of rather weak panna arise and so it is all very unclear still. > > > > Robert: Things like the anusaya being present even when there is > > kusala citta we can infer as being so. And yet it is not necessarily > > helpful to think about it in this way. Nor is it present in the way > > that the wholesome roots are present in a kusala moment. > > I think it is already complex enough trying to understand the moment > > as it arises - is it kusala or akusala or vipaka or kiriya? This is > > what can be known by direct insight. > > > k: Latent tendecies is impt because it is an impt factor for the path of > cultivation. For a person who practise many lives, gross defilements are > easily indentify and to be in sati, but the person who is not expose to > latent tendecies, may not know that there is an underlying defilement. > Hence one got to practise panna or sati as long as one is not an Arahant, > underlying defilement will arise. Without understanding such latent > tendecies then there is a in danger of such "unseen factors" in our path > of cultivation. > > >+++++++++ Good point! best wishes robert 9487 From: Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 1:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Eightfold Path (esp. right effort) Yep!! ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/21/01 2:29:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > Howard, > I think your description gives a good overview of the unique genius of the > Buddha's spiritual teaching. My only point is to agree with you that since > it is > reality-based, as you say, it is possible for a rare individual to discover > these > principles himself. Whether or not this is true, it certainly helps most > of us > worldlings to have the Buddha's enormous, copious bounty of help. I think > that it > is important, however, to remember that the Buddha wanted us to follow the > path, > not worship him, and that he did not intend to be regarded as a God, which > would > also be an obstacle to awakening. > > Best, > Robert Ep /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9488 From: Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 1:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies Hi, "Roberts" ;-)) In a message dated 11/21/01 2:33:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > Robert, > I hate to be a stickler, but it is impossible for the passage of namas, > including > cittas to be 'infinitely rapid' except with reference to something that is > slower, > like an apprehending consciousness which is observing them go by and trying > to > grasp them as an experience. > > If there is only the passage of one citta to the next, one nama to the next > with > no additional consciousness observing them, then their speed of passage can > only > be neither fast nor slow. There is no speed without a point of reference. > > If according to the commentaries, the passage is extremely rapid, they are > inherently positing an observer consciousness for whom it is seen as fast. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > ============================= YES, EXACTLY!!! You have hit it on the head!! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9489 From: Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 8:42am Subject: concept, reality and awareness (RobE) --- Dear Rob E. Hear are two posts , one from Kom and one from me that you might be interested in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/1526 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/1753 best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah [and Jon and Robert K. and Mike], > I think this post of yours, Sarah, is very sweet and reflective and I found it > helpful in considering the cultivation [not through effort of course] of kusala > cittas and mettha. I enjoyed your response to Robert K in this interesting post. > > Please forgive me then if I take a ripe opportunity here to ask for advice on a > few technical points. I will quote the relevant portion below, and then take off > from there. I think they are interesting questions, some of which have arisen > lately and have not been resolved. Your clear statement below gives me a good > opportunity to frame them again, in what I think may be a more answerable form: > > >>> If we're just thinking of ourselves and hoping we'll be happy, is the citta > > really wholesome? Is it really calm at that moment? Only awareness can be aware > > of what the nature of the citta really is. If there is wise reflection on the > > quality of real metta or generosity shown earlier in the day, it can be > > wholesome and calm at this time or it can be conceit and attachment again. It > > just depends. >>> > > My question is this, as I try to understand the nature of the cittas, and the > relationship between cittas and accompanying cetasikas: > > If 'only awareness can be aware of what the nature of the citta really is', is > awareness [sati?] the reflection of a mindful citta upon a previous citta? Or is > the awareness a cetasika through which the citta is able to acknowledge its own > property? I am just a little confused about how the mechanism of being aware of a > citta's true quality would work. > > Since you know I am particularly keen on the subject of awareness, and interested > to see how mindfulness arises and relates to the content of this or that citta's > experience, it seems like a good opportunity to take another look at how this > happens. > > Right now I have the idea that as a particular citta experiences something, there > may be deluded cetasikas misinforming it as to what is really there, or there may > be mindful, discerning cetasikas accomanying the citta, which would include sati > or satipatthana, and give the citta a much greater grasp of what is really taking > place in that moment. If you can confirm or clarify this, I would be very > grateful. > > It also leads back to that other issue of how a particular citta or cetasika can > take in the 'blur' of other cittas seeming to move by very fast, when in fact they > are really coming quite discretely one at a time. I am still trying to understand > whether this posits a sort of 'watcher' consciousness which stands apart from the > individual cittas and which lasts for longer than the single cittas, or whether > there is another way in which certain cittas or cetasikas attempt to 'take stock' > of the general flow of cittas going by and assess them wrongly as a 'blurred > continuous' event or rightly as a series of single events connected one to the > next, like beads on a string. [Of course there would be no string, I guess, just > beads]. > > One more issue along these lines that has come up lately is the nature of > ignorance or delusion. Rob K. and Jon, I believe, if I remember correctly, have > spoken of this as a positive state or object of some kind which directly > interferes with discernment. Pardon me if I don't quite have that right. I would > more tend to think that delusion would be a general way of indicating a particular > citta or cetasika which contained untrue perception or mistaken material in its > experience, rather than a separate force or object that exists independently of > some particular arising. I wonder how you would explain this? I don't think that > those who are speaking this way mean to establish delusion/ignorance as a 'real > object', ie, an entity or permanent force or being of some kind, a kind of > Mara-like figure that has its own intention of deluding. I would expect that it > would be more of what I said, an ignorant quality to a given citta, or a > particular kind of cetasika which just doesn't do the right job and comes up with > the wrong information about reality. > > I could even imagine that a deluded consciousness or mental factor of this kind > could be responsible for positing the kind of 'blur' that was spoken of as the > mistaken way of apprehending the accumulation of individual citta- moments that > arise. This mistaken consciousness would not actually be viewing multiple cittas > as a 'blur' while standing apart from them. Rather it would be a kind of single > thought of its own in which it 'imagined' such a blur existing in place of an > actual perception, and thus substituted its own mistaken notion for a real moment > of seeing. > > In other words, it would be a kind of mistake on top of a mistake. This citta > might fancy itself a kind of intellectual citta. It would first ignore the > sense-moment and mistake a mental moment for a real moment of perception. And it > would then say about its own mistaken perceptual object, really a thought-form, > 'these moments are all part of a continous movement' based on its own > mis-perception. > > Thanks for anything you can say to these questions. Perhaps Nina has said > something about these issues that I could be directed to, if that is also > appropriate. I know she's the expert on these mechanics. > > Regards, > Robert Ep. > > ===================== > > --- Sarah wrote: > > Dear Rob K, > > > > I've been appreciating all your posts recently;-) > > > > I've been quite busy, so only got a chance to have another look at the Vis. > > passages you mentioned as I was getting ready to go to bed last night..As a > > result, I had lots of useful reflection on metta as I was falling asleep:-) I'm > > not sure I'll be able to add anything much to your comments here, but I'm happy > > to have another chance to consider further. > > > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > > Thanks for this which all makes a lot of sense to me. > > > I was wondering if you'd like to tackle a passage in the > > > Vissuddhimagga which is harder to understand: ix8 Metta should first > > > of all "be developed only to oneself, doing it repeastedly thus: may > > > I be happy..." The next sections notes that someone may question > > > this because it is not in the Tipitaka and that in the > > > patisambhidimagga and vibhanga no mention is made of developing metta > > > to oneself. The answer is that for jhana this can't succeed by way of > > > taking oneself as an object. And later ix9 it makes it clear that > > > developing to oneself means "just as I want to be happy and dread > > > pain so do others..." Thus making oneself as an example. > > > > > > I think the meaning is basically that we considr how we like to be > > > treated and thought of and so we should think of others in the same > > > way. I can also see how a not so careful reading of the text could > > > lead to the conclusion that one should be trying to love oneself > > > more. I'd like you to read over ix8-10 and see what you think. > > > > I think we understand the lines in a similar way. If we reflect on what we > > appreciate when we're with others, don't we appreciate kind words and gestures, > > consideration, friendliness, assistance, humility and so on. Isn't it so true > > that we really find ourselves so very dear. And so, others find themselves just > > as dear and would also like to hear kind words, experience consideration, > > friendliness and so on. > > > > Hence by reflecting on the qualities we appreciate with kusala cittas, it can > > be a condition for metta and the other brahma viharas to be developed towards > > others. If we're giving something to another, for example, there is concern for > > the other's benefit and there is bound to be some metta even if we don't `name' > > it. However, for metta or other wholesome states to develop, there has to be > > the understanding of which moments are wholesome and which are unwholesome (as > > you, of course, know so well). > > > > If we're just thinking of ourselves and hoping we'll be happy, is the citta > > really wholesome? Is it really calm at that moment? Only awareness can be aware > > of what the nature of the citta really is. If there is wise reflection on the > > quality of real metta or generosity shown earlier in the day, it can be > > wholesome and calm at this time or it can be conceit and attachment again. It > > just depends. > > > > I think as it says in the text, by reflecting on what makes us happy, by using > > `ourselves' as examples, it can be a way to condition metta for other beings. > > It's not a matter of wishing ourselves to be happy, which is bound (I think) to > > be with attachment. > > > > However, if we reflect thus: `...Just as I want to be happy and dread > > pain, as I want to live and not to die, so do other beings, too.', making > > himself the example, then desire for other beings' welfare and happiness arises > > in him'. > > > > I'd forgotten that these lines are then followed by the same verse from the > > Udana I quoted the other day. > > > > And so, I think the first line you quote that metta should first of all `..be > > developed only to oneself' is explained by the following ones that `it does not > > conflict' with the other texts which clearly show metta is never towards > > oneself because here it `refers to (making oneself) an example.' > > > > Later (1X, 92) we read: > > > > `As to the characteristic, etc., lovingkindness is characterized here as > > promoting the aspect of welfare. Its function is to prefer welfare. It is > > manifested as the removal of annoyance. Its proximate cause is seeing > > lovableness in beings. it succeeds when it makes ill will subside, and it > > fails when it produces (selfish) affection' > > > > Thanks Rob, I find all these reminders very helpful. > > > > Sarah 9490 From: Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 7:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies --- Dear Howard and Rob. E., Can I clarify your position a little. Do you agree that the Buddha taught that citta arises and passes away very very rapidly? Or do you think he didn't teach this but that people like Buddhaghosa dreamed it up to try to explain some things? robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, "Roberts" ;-)) > > In a message dated 11/21/01 2:33:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, > epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > > > Robert, > > I hate to be a stickler, but it is impossible for the passage of namas, > > including > > cittas to be 'infinitely rapid' except with reference to something that is > > slower, > > like an apprehending consciousness which is observing them go by and trying > > to > > grasp them as an experience. > > > > If there is only the passage of one citta to the next, one nama to the next > > with > > no additional consciousness observing them, then their speed of passage can > > only > > be neither fast nor slow. There is no speed without a point of reference. > > > > If according to the commentaries, the passage is extremely rapid, they are > > inherently positing an observer consciousness for whom it is seen as fast. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > > ============================= > YES, EXACTLY!!! You have hit it on the head!! > > With metta, > Howard > 9491 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 8:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] absolute realities Hi Nina You gave me some ideas for my India talks, very helpful. I shall write > about nimitta I also interested in Nimitta. After your talks, could I request your generous assitance in posting it in the Dhammastudy.com. I like to take this opportunity to praise the site for very good source of Abhidhamma teachings and their detail explanations. I hope one day, someone will post the whole commentary and the seven Abhidhamma books (just a dream :)). With thanks Ken O --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon, I have here the Co in Pali to M.N.5, No Blemishes, about > paramatthadesana, I shall translate: > Buddhassa Bhagavato duvidhaa desanaa: sammuttidesanaa, paramatthadesanaa > caa > ti. > There is a twofold teaching of the Buddha, the Blessed One: the teaching > in > the conventional way and the teaching by way of ultimate realities. > Tattha puggalo, satto, itthii, puriso, khattiyo, braama.no, devo, Maaro > ti > evaruupa sammutidesanaa. > There is a human, a being, a woman, a man, a man of the warrior caste, a > brahman, a god, and Mara. Such is the teaching in the conventional way. > Anicca.m, dukkha.m, anattaa, khandhaa, dhaatuu, aayatanaani, > satipa.t.thaanaa ti evaruupaa paramattha desanaa. > Impermanence, dukkha, anattaa, the aggregates, elements, sensefields, > satipa.t.thaana. Such is the teaching by way of ultimate realities. > Tattha Bhagavaa, ye sammutivasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m > pa.tivijjhitvaa > moha.m pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m sammuti desana.m > deseti. > Here the Blessed One taught to those in the conventional way who by > means of > it, after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and > abandoned > ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. > Ye pana paramatthavasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa moha.m > pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m paramatthadesana.m deseti. > But who by means of ultimate realities after having heard the teaching , > penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to > attain > distinction, to those he taught by way of ultimate realities. > > You gave me some ideas for my India talks, very helpful. I shall write > about > nimitta. Ultimate realities: some people do not like this, but it is > difficult to find the perfect translation. A. Sujin stressed that words > are > not so important, they are just the means to explain realities so that > these > can be directly understood without needing words, without having to > think > about them in words. More about that later on, I like your tips as to > what > to write about, Nina. 9492 From: Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 9:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies I add my hysterical laughter to this (whilst playing a very morose dirge on a pipe organ of WalMart proportions). See post 5328 Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, "Roberts" ;-)) > > In a message dated 11/21/01 2:33:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, > epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > > > Robert, > > I hate to be a stickler, but it is impossible for the passage of namas, > > including > > cittas to be 'infinitely rapid' except with reference to something that is > > slower, > > like an apprehending consciousness which is observing them go by and trying > > to > > grasp them as an experience. > > > > If there is only the passage of one citta to the next, one nama to the next > > with > > no additional consciousness observing them, then their speed of passage can > > only > > be neither fast nor slow. There is no speed without a point of reference. > > > > If according to the commentaries, the passage is extremely rapid, they are > > inherently positing an observer consciousness for whom it is seen as fast. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > > ============================= > YES, EXACTLY!!! You have hit it on the head!! > > With metta, > Howard > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9493 From: Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 9:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- > Dear Howard and Rob. E., > Can I clarify your position a little. Do you agree that the Buddha > taught that citta arises and passes away very very rapidly? Or do you > think he didn't teach this but that people like Buddhaghosa dreamed > it up to try to explain some things? Hi Robert, Perhaps it may be helpful to find where, specifically, in the Sutta Pitaka, the Buddha explicitly mentioned the speed at which cittas arise and pass away. I am not familiar with anything in the suttas where the Buddha mentioned anything about this sort of thing, but that doesn't mean much, since I have yet to read the entire Sutta Pitaka. Anywaay, as far as I'm concerned, I prefer to focus on things that have greater relevance in my day-to-day life, and the incredible rapidity of cittas posited in the Abhidhamma has been of no use to me in terms of helping me overcome my suffering. Color me a simpleton, but as I see it, the only question that matters to me is: how helpful is any teaching in terms of awakening here and now, to eradicating suffering at the root, once and for all? Until I can see a clear way to answer this one question everything else is moot. 9494 From: Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Thank you for this. Certainly, taken at face value, this commentary > suggests parinibbana as a kind of nullity. A couple matters remain: (1) The > exact meaning of Apannattikabhaavaam - the state of undefined reality, and > the exact meaning of vi~n~nana, which I take as the dualistic operation of > separating out an individualized object from the potential field of > awareness, a special type of knowing/~nana. Howard, As per usual, you play the gadfly to the hilt, and ask the killer questions, always seeming to get to the heart of the matter, no matter how subtle or tricky. Just wanted to pass on my continued appreciation for your points. 9495 From: Sarah Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 11:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? <1> Dear Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > This is extremely interesting, Sarah. Could you clarify for a confused > worldling, > exactly who is speaking in these quotes, and is it a part of the Abhidhamma > commentaries, a part of the Vinaya itself, or is it all from the introduction > to > the Vinaya? Thanks for your positive feedback, Rob. Sorry for any confusion..let me try a little better.....;-) Firstly. let me explain some abbreviations: Smp. = Samantapaasaadikaa. This is the commentary to the Vinaya by Buddhaghosa, compiled in the 5th century I believe, in Sri Lanka. This tome has been followed by Theravada monks in all Theravada Buddhist countries, but as far as I know, there is no English translation as yet. Baahiranidaana, The Inception of Discipline & the Vinaya Nidaana = the introductory chapter to the Smp. It is primarily meant to explain the origin of the Vinaya. Buddhaghosa’s aim in it is to establish ‘the authenticity of the Vinaya before proceeding to compile its commentary’. This is the text, translated into English by N.A. Jayawickrama, Sacred Books, that I’m quoting from. In other words, generally I’m quoting Buddhaghosa, but from time to time I quote from Jayawickrama’s introduction or his quotes from Smp. as I tried to indicate. Let me quickly run through the text again, clarifying if I think it may not be clear. Pls let me know if you’re still confused and please comment anytime I should clarify further: Refs to Baahiranidaana: > > The first chapter discusses the ‘First Great Convocation’, in other words > the > > First Council of arahats who rehearsed the ‘Dhamma and the Vinaya’.Just to > > clarify, Dhamma and Vinaya, includes the Abhidhamma texts: > > Quotes from Smp. included in Jayawickrama’s intro: > > “Thus this Word of the Buddha which is uniform in sentiment...was > > rehearsed together.and not only this, but other divers distinctions in > > compilation to be met with in the Three pitakas...have been determined when > it > > was thus rehearsed together in seven months” (Smp.33) > > > > Jayawickrama, in his introduction says ‘Ultimately Buddhaghosa traces the > > vinaya, as well as the rest of the sayings of the Buddha > in > > their present form, to the first Great convocation and explains the > meanings of > > the words, “by whom was it said, when and for what reason?” (Smp.34) In > dealing > > with the significance of the words, “by whom this was retained in mind, > handed > > down by whom and established in whom” he traces the history of the Vinaya > from > > the Tathagata (Smp.35) in successive stages, to each of the 3 Convocations > and > > finally to the Vinaya Recital of Maha-Arittha in Ceylon under the > presidentshop > > of Mahinda (Smp.106) His primary aim is to establish that it is the Vinaya > in > > its pristine purity that he is commenting upon. Therefore it is imperative > that > > the stages by which it has reached him should be traced. The succession of > > Teachers from Upali brought it down to the time of the 2nd convocation and > the > > Theras “again rehearsed the entire Dhamma and the Vinaya..even in the same > > manner as it was rehearsed by the elder Mahakassapa” (Smp.38) To clarify, this is the end of the quote of Jayawickrama including his quotes from Smp. Back to the text + Baahiranidaana: > > > > Back to the text itself and the ‘First Great Convocation’: > > > > ‘....For it has been said, “Thereupon the venerable Mahakassapa > > adressed the monks...........Subsequently he said, “Let us, friends, > rehearse > > the Dhamma and the Vinaya......” The monks rejoined, “If that be so, Sir, > may > > the Elder select the monks (for the Convocation).” > > > > The Elder rejected many hundreds and thousands of monks in the categories > of > > wordling, Stream-Entrant, Once-Returner, Non-Returner, and Dry Visioned > Arahant > > and canker-waned Arahant, all of whom were versed in the Teachings > consisting > > of the entire ninefold Dispensation of the Teacher and chose 499 > canker-waned > > monks who alone were proficient with regard to the learning in all aspects > of > > the Teachings in the entire Three Baskets, had attained mastery in > analytical > > knowledge, were of no mean achievement, and for the greater part were > > classified by the Exalted One as an expert each in his field in the > distinct > > spheres of the threefold knowledge. Regarding them it has been said, > > “Thereupon the venerable Mahakassapa selected five hundred Arahants less > one.” > > Back to Sarah: > > > > There are plenty of very lengthy footnotes and I’m happy to add any or > discuss > > any points.. Otherwise, as I said, I’ll just add parts which may be of > > interest, taking extracts here and there from the text, introduction and > > footnotes (or even the pali at the back if needbe;-) > > > > Sarah ___________ 9496 From: Sarah Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001 11:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? <1> Hi Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > Interesting stuff, Sarah, > > Of course you'll never convince those who think that > Budhhaghosa made it all up and that the dispensation > consists of only two baskets (the Dvipitaka?). Oh, > well... > > mike Thanks too, Mike. Actually, I'm writing it mostly for myself ;-) It's interesting for me and this is a way of reading/studying out loud which I like better than reading on my own... Like Christine with her really helpful commentary notes, it gives me a chance to question and clarify and let others join in.... I'm not really concerned about trying to convince anyone of anything, but it may be helpful for others (like myself) who would like to be more familiar with some of these historical 'facts'. No one has to 'accept' anything;-) S. 9497 From: Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 1:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? Dear Mike, I am in admiration of your venture (going forth). I am scared for myself because I am in admiration of your venture. Please don't read the following as a desire for an argument. For the last two thousand odd years the world has really had only a handful of pages of text that can be directly attributed to Jesus (then add the recent discovery of the Gospel of St Thomas). But look at the billions of people , divided over the thousands of denominations, clinging to the hundreds of interpretations of what Jesus said, and all call themselves the Christian Church. I doubt Jesus had this in mind. I am surer that Jesus sought the liberation of one and all. Institutional religion plays no part in this. In the end, institutional religion is an arrow pointing up it's own bottom. The Buddha appointed no successor! The Suttas start with , Thus have I heard, but I have never heard the Buddha saying , It is so because such and such said. St Paul and all the church fathers cannot add one single iota to the message of Jesus, but they can serve to confuse, as is apparent. What is the shortcoming of the Buddha, the self-realised one, that he needs Buddhaghosa to clarify his teaching? Thank you Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "m. nease" wrote: > Interesting stuff, Sarah, > > Of course you'll never convince those who think that > Budhhaghosa made it all up and that the dispensation > consists of only two baskets (the Dvipitaka?). Oh, > well... > > mike > > --- Sarah wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > From time to time questions are raised about the > > authenticity of the Buddha's > > word in the Abhidhamma and ancient Commentaries. > > When I was pulling out dusty > > Vinaya texts the other day, I pulled out a copy of > > `the Inception of Discipline > > (or the Historical Introduction) and The Vinaya > > Nidaana', Jayawickrama's > > translation of the Baahiranidaana of Buddhaghosa's > > Samantapaasaadikaa, the > > Vinaya commentary. > > > > As I'm really very ignorant about the historical > > details, I'd like to quote > > occasional passages (in no particular order) when I > > have time, because I think > > they may be of interest to some. Of course anyone's > > free to question or > > disagree as usual;-) If anyone has other relevant > > quotes and passages from > > other texts, please feel very free to add these too. > > > > The first chapter discusses the `First Great > > Convocation', in other words the > > First Council of arahats who rehearsed the `Dhamma > > and the Vinaya'.Just to > > clarify, Dhamma and Vinaya, includes the Abhidhamma > > texts: > > > > "Thus this Word of the Buddha which is > > uniform in sentiment...was > > rehearsed together.and not only this, but other > > divers distinctions in > > compilation to be met with in the Three > > pitakas...have been determined when it > > was thus rehearsed together in seven months" > > (Smp.33) > > > > Jayawickrama, in his introduction says `Ultimately > > Buddhaghosa traces the > > vinaya, as well as the rest of the sayings of the > > Buddha in > > their present form, to the first Great convocation > > and explains the meanings of > > the words, "by whom was it said, when and for what > > reason?" (Smp.34) In dealing > > with the significance of the words, "by whom this > > was retained in mind, handed > > down by whom and established in whom" he traces the > > history of the Vinaya from > > the Tathagata (Smp.35) in successive stages, to each > > of the 3 Convocations and > > finally to the Vinaya Recital of Maha-Arittha in > > Ceylon under the presidentshop > > of Mahinda (Smp.106) His primary aim is to establish > > that it is the Vinaya in > > its pristine purity that he is commenting upon. > > Therefore it is imperative that > > the stages by which it has reached him should be > > traced. The succession of > > Teachers from Upali brought it down to the time of > > the 2nd convocation and the > > Theras "again rehearsed the entire Dhamma and the > > Vinaya..even in the same > > manner as it was rehearsed by the elder Mahakassapa" > > (Smp.38) > > > > Back to the text itself and the `First Great > > Convocation': > > > > `....For it has been said, "Thereupon the > > venerable Mahakassapa > > adressed the monks...........Subsequently he said, > > "Let us, friends, rehearse > > the Dhamma and the Vinaya......" The monks rejoined, > > "If that be so, Sir, may > > the Elder select the monks (for the Convocation)." > > > > The Elder rejected many hundreds and thousands of > > monks in the categories of > > wordling, Stream-Entrant, Once-Returner, > > Non-Returner, and Dry Visioned Arahant > > and canker-waned Arahant, all of whom were versed in > > the Teachings consisting > > of the entire ninefold Dispensation of the Teacher > > and chose 499 canker-waned > > monks who alone were proficient with regard to the > > learning in all aspects of > > the Teachings in the entire Three Baskets, had > > attained mastery in analytical > > knowledge, were of no mean achievement, and for the > > greater part were > > classified by the Exalted One as an expert each in > > his field in the distinct > > spheres of the threefold knowledge. Regarding them > > it has been said, > > "Thereupon the venerable Mahakassapa selected five > > hundred Arahants less one." > > > > > > There are plenty of very lengthy footnotes and I'm > > happy to add any or discuss > > any points.. Otherwise, as I said, I'll just add > > parts which may be of > > interest, taking extracts here and there from the > > text, introduction and > > footnotes (or even the pali at the back if needbe;-) > > > > Sarah 9498 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 5:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? Hi Herman > The Buddha appointed no successor! k: That is true > > The Suttas start with , Thus have I heard, but I have never heard the > Buddha saying , It is so because such and such said. > > St Paul and all the church fathers cannot add one single iota to the > message of Jesus, but they can serve to confuse, as is apparent. > > What is the shortcoming of the Buddha, the self-realised one, that he > needs Buddhaghosa to clarify his teaching? k: Honestly speaking, we have to be fair that there are many good teachers after the Buddha that helps us understand the path better. For eg Nagarjuna and Hui Neng. It is still up to individual to decide for themselves. I rather find it insensitive to make such a statement bc Buddhaghosa is a widely respected venerable of the Thervadan Traditions. Kind regards Ken O 9499 From: Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 0:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/21/01 10:49:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Dear Howard and Rob. E., > Can I clarify your position a little. Do you agree that the Buddha > taught that citta arises and passes away very very rapidly? Or do you > think he didn't teach this but that people like Buddhaghosa dreamed > it up to try to explain some things? > robert > ========================== I don't think the Buddha discussed individual cittas per se in the suttas as they are discussed in the Abhidhamma. However, he certainly did discuss how quickly *thoughts* go by as compared to material objects. (And here, speaking of individual thoughts is using conventional language. Where one thought ends and another begins is at least in part a metter of convention.) Thoughts are mental objects, wheras sights, sounds, tactile objects etc are physical objects. I believe he was comparing the relative speeds of the flows of these different categories of object. None of this rules out such things as, for example, parallel processing of data of differing kinds, various functions operating in a continuous fashion instead of during point-instants in which no change/development occurs etc., none of which am inecessarily making any positive claims for. The discussion in the suttas was all quite empirical and conventional it seems to me. In any case, my point was not to take issue with the Buddha in his saying that mind changes more quickly than form, but rather with the idea that the citta theory could be compatible with that! I'm not proposing a psychological theory to account for the Buddha's observations, but simply expressing my problems in seeing the explanatory adequacy of an already existing theory. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9500 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 5:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samannaphala verse 65 Hi Christine, To me there are two views abt slowing down meditations, One view is that slowing down meditations helps to practise concentrations. Another view is that this meditation tries to helps us to be mindful of the body. By slowing down, we try to be mindful, usually when we walk, we forget that we are walking. We forget abt mindfullness in the body. Through such a slowing down practise, then after much practise then next time when we take a leisure walk, we become more and more mindful of the body. To me what Jon says is not wrong, he talking in another perspective, i think he is talking abt Vipassana. When in the first place how to control a self that is not controllable or where is there a self to control in the first place :). But to me, such slowing down meditation is a good practise as it helps to practise mindfullness of the body :). Cheers Ken O > > Jon said in a recent post, "Let me say at the outset, because I > think this is very important, that no-one is asking us to change, or > to try to change, any of what is happening now, naturally. In other > words, the teaching is not about 'slowing down' the present moment, > or contriving to reduce the speed, variety or strength of sense > impressions. That would be trying to change the reality of the > present moment in some manner, rather than simply understanding it > more for what it is." In 'Clear comprehension of non-delusion' - I > understand (theoretically) that it is not 'a self who goes forward, > the action of going forward is not produced by a self' , but the > commentary goes into such long descriptions of 'raising the > foot', 'bringing it forward' 'shifting it away', 'dropping the > foot', 'bringing the new foot forward' - it seems very much to be > encouraging just that 'slowing down' and examining of the action > commonly taught in Walking Meditation in Retreats, but is this what > is discouraged, in Jon's paragraph above? > > metta, > Christine 9501 From: Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 1:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies Hi, Herman - In a message dated 11/22/01 12:02:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@d... writes: > > I add my hysterical laughter to this (whilst playing a very morose > dirge on a pipe organ of WalMart proportions). > =========================== ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9502 From: Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 1:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana Hi, Erik - Thanks for the kind words. BTW, it's good to be seeing you posting!! How is everything? With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/22/01 12:09:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, rikpa21@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Thank you for this. Certainly, taken at face value, this > commentary > > suggests parinibbana as a kind of nullity. A couple matters remain: > (1) The > > exact meaning of Apannattikabhaavaam - the state of undefined > reality, and > > the exact meaning of vi~n~nana, which I take as the dualistic > operation of > > separating out an individualized object from the potential field of > > awareness, a special type of knowing/~nana. > > Howard, > > As per usual, you play the gadfly to the hilt, and ask the killer > questions, always seeming to get to the heart of the matter, no > matter how subtle or tricky. Just wanted to pass on my continued > appreciation for your points. > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9503 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 6:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies Hi Robert k > Dear Ken O, > This is sound reasoning but not, I believe, right. I think it is > because we think there is subtle somthing that lasts , that can > observe, that this idea occurs that the rate of rise and fall can be > slowed down. Panna, amoha, if it is developed understands past, > present or even future moments. There is no observer per se but panna > arises just for an instant and performs its function of knowing and > then another, different panna arises and performs its function. k: Maybe I am not clear, I am not saying abt an observer per se here. I am saying that seeing reality in each citta. Time and speed is realitive. Maybe to a enlighted person, each citta is seen as it is as it arise.(I not talking abt a constant wisdom here). There is no need for the next citta to observe the reminiscent of an earlier citta (due to sanna) that is usually the case for an unenlighted person. In a > spit second, in the case of someone like Sariputta millions of > moments of highly developed panna can arise and pass away and so much > can be known. For us millions of moments of moha(ignorance ) arise > and only occasionally do moments of rather weak panna arise and so it > is all very unclear still. > k: I feel that your reasoning is likely to lead to a misunderstanding that is a conscious of an observer per se and 'blur'. Let us take an example for the word "panna" that arise in our mind. To a enlighted person, one would know the arising of the mind door process of "p" before the arising mind door process of "a". To us it is just one momentary thought, but to an enlighted person they could see reality in each passing cittas of the millions of citta in the mind door process. Words could be remember in that millions of cittas because of sanna that link the letter together then recognise it. As we know that in each citta, there arise simataneously many cetasikas they work together and perform different functions simutaneously and the object of the citta could be the same. Kind regards Ken O 9504 From: Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 6:56am Subject: Re: No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana: To Howard, Bob E, Mike, Erik Dear Howard, Robert Epstein, Mike, And Erik How are you? Thank you for your profound questions. This post is merely to say that I have read your messages. The time I had a chance to read them has been very late in Canberra, and I am already sleepy. So I won't be able to post a considered reply now. But, as soon as possible, I will reply. I did know in advance, though, that the expression 'Apannattikabhaavam - the state of undefined reality' could pose some problems, and thought about writing further commentary on that expression. As I do not have Dhammapada Tiikaa (subcommentary) on my Chatthasangaayanaa CD-ROM, I would try to write a modern subcommentary on the expression - not in Paali -, but in English, of course. I have some insights on that expressions your questions did not address. So, even if my subcommentary may or may not answer your profound questions to your satisfaction, it could throw some light on your present puzzelment. Won't be long! With regards Suan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Previously on this list: The follwoing quote from Section 89, Dhammapada Atthakathaa clearly tells us that there is no consciousness component in Parinibbaana after the death of an Arahant. I tried my best to provide as lateral a translation as possible - syntatically in particular - while making sure that the readers can read as natural English as possible. If you found any unclear points in the translation, please let me know. My present translation has been influenced by Nibbaanadhaatu Sutta Atthakathaa in Itivutta Atthakathaa. "Parinibbutaa naama arahattapattito patthaaya kilesavattassa khepitattaa sa-upaadisesena, carimacittanirodhena khandhavattassa khepitattaa anupaadisesena caati dviihi parinibbaanehi parinibbutaa, anupaadaano viya padiipo apannattikabhaavaam gataati attho." "`Parinibbutaa' is the ultimate cool by means of two-way complete extinguishments, one with the existential residues emptied of defilement machinery ever since attainment of Arahatta awakening, and the other without the existential residues emptied of psychophysical machinery by termination of the last mind (the dying consciousness). It has the meaning of reaching the state of the undefined reality like the lamp without fuel." Parinibbaana - complete extinguishment Kilesavatta - defilement machinery (vatta is literally circle, cycle, or round. We have 'Vicious Circle' in English) Khandhavatta - psychophysical machinery Apannattikabhaavaam - the state of undefined reality Upaadisesa - existential residues (upaadi is merely another name of pancakkhadhaa). Upaadi means phenomena taken strongly by craving or attachment (tanhaa). As such, we can know for sure that Anupaadisesa Nibbaana is emptied of the five khandhaas. Therefore, after the death of an Arahant, the scenario of nibbaana having the consciousness component (viññaanakkhandho) is out of the question. There is no textual support for such a scenario. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org Replies Author Date 9470 Re: No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana upasaka@a... Wed 11/21/2001 9494 Re: No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana rikpa21@y... Thu 11/22/2001 9479 Re: No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana Robert Epstein Wed 11/21/2001 9484 Re: No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana m. nease Thu 11/22/2001 9505 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 7:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana Hi All One interesting site titled "Nibbana and Anatta". http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/nibban1.htm Kind regards Ken O --- abhidhammika@y... wrote: > > > Dear Howard, Robert Epstein, Mike, And Erik > > How are you? > > Thank you for your profound questions. This post is merely to say > that I have read your messages. > > The time I had a chance to read them has been very late in Canberra, > and I am already sleepy. So I won't be able to post a considered > reply now. But, as soon as possible, I will reply. > > I did know in advance, though, that the expression > 'Apannattikabhaavam - the state of undefined reality' could pose some > problems, and thought about writing further commentary on that > expression. As I do not have Dhammapada Tiikaa (subcommentary) on my > Chatthasangaayanaa CD-ROM, I would try to write a modern > subcommentary on the expression - not in Paali -, but in English, of > course. > > I have some insights on that expressions your questions did not > address. So, even if my subcommentary may or may not answer your > profound questions to your satisfaction, it could throw some light on > your present puzzelment. > > Won't be long! > > With regards > > Suan > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Previously on this list: > > > The follwoing quote from Section 89, Dhammapada Atthakathaa clearly > tells us that there is no consciousness component in Parinibbaana > after the death of an Arahant. > > I tried my best to provide as lateral a translation as possible - > syntatically in particular - while making sure that the readers can > read as natural English as possible. If you found any unclear points > in the translation, please let me know. My present translation has > been influenced by Nibbaanadhaatu Sutta Atthakathaa in Itivutta > Atthakathaa. > > "Parinibbutaa naama arahattapattito patthaaya kilesavattassa > khepitattaa sa-upaadisesena, carimacittanirodhena khandhavattassa > khepitattaa anupaadisesena caati dviihi parinibbaanehi > parinibbutaa, anupaadaano viya padiipo apannattikabhaavaam gataati > attho." > > "`Parinibbutaa' is the ultimate cool by means of two-way complete > extinguishments, one with the existential residues emptied of > defilement machinery ever since attainment of Arahatta awakening, and > the other without the existential residues emptied of psychophysical > machinery by termination of the last mind (the dying consciousness). > It has the meaning of reaching the state of the undefined reality > like the lamp without fuel." > > Parinibbaana - complete extinguishment > Kilesavatta - defilement machinery (vatta is literally circle, cycle, > or round. We have 'Vicious Circle' in English) > Khandhavatta - psychophysical machinery > Apannattikabhaavaam - the state of undefined reality > > Upaadisesa - existential residues (upaadi is merely another name of > pancakkhadhaa). Upaadi means phenomena taken strongly by craving or > attachment (tanhaa). > > As such, we can know for sure that Anupaadisesa Nibbaana is emptied > of the five khandhaas. Therefore, after the death of an Arahant, the > scenario of nibbaana having the consciousness component > (viññaanakkhandho) is out of the question. There is no textual > support for such a scenario. > > > > With regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > http://www.bodhiology.org > 9506 From: Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 10:39am Subject: speed of cittas [Erik] Erik, you wrote: > Perhaps it may be helpful to find where, specifically, in the Sutta > Pitaka, the Buddha explicitly mentioned the speed at which cittas > arise and pass away. I hope this will be helpful---AN. I, v (48): "Nothing, O monks, do I know that changes so rapidly as consciousness. Scarcely anything may be found that could be compared with this so rapidly changing consciousness." Here, "consciousness" is "citta". The commentary elaborates on this and creates the similes of billions of cittas arising and passing away in a flash of lightning. Billions in a flash? I don't know about the numbers, but if you think about all the mental activity occuring in a second, I bet you could describe 100 cittas without much trouble. Buddha talked about it. The commentators talked about it. Abhidhamma talks about it. Why do you think they did so? 9507 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 0:18pm Subject: Re: meththa meditation Dear All, Sorry to be so slow, but may I refer back to a topic discussed a few days ago, where I still need a little clarification? During the discussion on Metta, the argument was put that Metta ought not be directed to 'oneself'; that Metta ought always to be 'other-directed'. I have been wondering if the scriptures quoted were directed at people living in a practising community where each individual would be 'caught in the crossfire' (so to speak) of everyone else's radiated metta......and that there was no conception of the isolation of many people practicing now in the West. Does Metta actually affect the target being/s, or does it only affect the person initiating metta? i.e. in the form of making them more sensitive, kindly and other-directed? Perhaps altering the dynamics of their relationships with the other being /s- or maybe just creating a satisfying self-view of themselves as a caring person......... If 'self-directed metta' is an error, why do the majority of meditation courses/retreats teach both 'self directed' plus 'other directed metta, but suggest practicing 'self directed' first? If metta practice does actually affect the target being/s - wouldn't it be dependent on the strength and 'quality' of the feeling being radiated? New practitioners are warned not to initially choose someone of the opposite gender as this could arouse emotions other than loving-kindness. (Presumably only in the meditator, otherwise the world would be a little more chaotic than it is.) If a practitioner has been psychologically damaged at a "critical period" for development of attachment, trust, autonomy, individuation, etc. as a very young child - by, say, physical, sexual or emotional abuse - how would the idea of "using oneself as an example" work? - if the feelings held for oneself are tinged with loathing or disgust? "Just as for myself.....so also for.........?" metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ranil gunawardena" wrote: > Dear Mike and all friends > > Thank you very much for all your taking part. I learnt much from your > contributions. And Nina, once replying I forgot to include your name... I > appologize... > > And a small quote from another Dhamma friend... > "we all have meththa within us... we have to grow it" > "to a beginer (like me) its ok just to know whether you have meththa is > present or not (at a particular moment)" > > ~meththa > Ranil 9508 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 1:01pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana Hi Kenneth, Are you reading Nanavira Thera 'Clearing the Path' Notes on Dhamma (1960-65)??? I dipped into it a few weeks ago, and found some aspects puzzling. http://ww.geocities.com/Athens/9366/ctp-cont.htm metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi All > > One interesting site titled "Nibbana and Anatta". > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/nibban1.htm > Kind regards > Ken O 9509 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 1:04pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana Ooops...make that http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/ctp-cont.htm --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > Hi Kenneth, > > Are you reading Nanavira Thera 'Clearing the Path' Notes on Dhamma > (1960-65)??? > I dipped into it a few weeks ago, and found some aspects puzzling. > http://ww.geocities.com/Athens/9366/ctp-cont.htm > > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi All > > > > One interesting site titled "Nibbana and Anatta". > > > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/nibban1.htm > > > Kind regards > > Ken O 9510 From: m. nease Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 2:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? Hi Herman, --- hhofman@d... wrote: > I am in admiration of your venture (going forth). I > am scared for > myself because I am in admiration of your venture. You can stop being scared--looks like not working out. > Please don't read the following as a desire for an > argument. That's a bargain sir. > The Buddha appointed no successor! Right--just the Dhamma. > The Suttas start with , Thus have I heard, but I > have never heard the > Buddha saying , It is so because such and such said. > > St Paul and all the church fathers cannot add one > single iota to the > message of Jesus, but they can serve to confuse, as > is apparent. > > What is the shortcoming of the Buddha, the > self-realised one, that he > needs Buddhaghosa to clarify his teaching? I accept as a working hypothesis that the Buddha had no shortcomings (other than, perhaps, mortality). Explanations are necessary (whether by the Buddha or Sariputta e.g. in the suttas or others in the abhidhamma) for the rest of us, I think. Best Wishes Sir, mike 9511 From: Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 3:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? Dear Ken, I am not up to speed on the sensitivities of all the traditions around the globe. I am sorry if I offended anyone. I have previously written about my appreciation of Buddhaghosa. I hope we can agree that ultimately it is the message that is important, not so much the bearer of the message. I think there was reference in my post to institutional religions being pointers to themselves. This is what traditions do. They become things in themselves for themselves. Jon often writes about how the light of the Buddha's teaching will grow dimmer over the aeons. I believe that the attachment to tradidions is part of this process of losing sight of the reality of the Four Noble Truths, as set out by the Buddha. If you do things, because you have been taught to do them, without knowing or understanding why, then you are just building on the tradition that taught you to do these things. Eventually a river with no flow in it will silt up and become stagnant. And a stagnant river is not the parinibbana of the river. I read in the paper the other day that the very respected and influential Sinhalese Buddhists in Sri Lanka have managed to ban sport on all full moon days. I am sorry if I offend anyone, but I am very underwhelmed by such nonsense. It is not the outward things that defile a man. All the best, Ken Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Herman > > > The Buddha appointed no successor! > > k: That is true > > > > The Suttas start with , Thus have I heard, but I have never heard the > > Buddha saying , It is so because such and such said. > > > > St Paul and all the church fathers cannot add one single iota to the > > message of Jesus, but they can serve to confuse, as is apparent. > > > > What is the shortcoming of the Buddha, the self-realised one, that he > > needs Buddhaghosa to clarify his teaching? > > k: Honestly speaking, we have to be fair that there are many good > teachers after the Buddha that helps us understand the path better. For > eg Nagarjuna and Hui Neng. It is still up to individual to decide for > themselves. I rather find it insensitive to make such a statement bc > Buddhaghosa is a widely respected venerable of the Thervadan Traditions. > > > > > Kind regards > Ken O > 9512 From: Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 5:26pm Subject: [dsg] Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Eightfold Path (esp. right effort) Dear Jon > If a person who has never heard the dhamma develops, for example, samatha, > is that person developing the path factor of right concentration, would > you say? (... and if not, what is the difference between that person > developing samatha and someone who has heard the dhamma developing > samatha?) This thread has been very interesting and I hope it will continue. I suspect it will lead to an explanation of how and why the Dhamma is indispensable. Could it be that an uninstructed worldling could go so far as to actually see Nibbana but without attaining Path consciousness? I am thinking of the Mulapariyaya Sutta (MN 1): "He [the uninstructed worldling] perceives Nibbana as Nibbana. Perceiving Nibbana as Nibbana, he conceives things about Nibbana, he conceives things in Nibbana, he conceives things coming out of Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana as 'mine,' he delights in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you." Would it be Nibbana itself that is perceived in this case, or would it be only the concept of Nibbana? Kind regards Ken H. 9513 From: Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 7:24pm Subject: "engaged" [Christine] Hi Christine, I'm reading through some old posts, and I am enjoying your recent comments and questions immensely. At one point, you write: > Is the Buddha's attitude to pursuing human rights (engaged buddhism?) > recorded? Or are the varied situations in life that people find > themselves in secondary to learning the way out of Samsara? SN I, 3:10 (kosalasamyutta) addresses this question eloquently: "Now on that occasion a great mass of people had been put in bondage by King Pasenadi of Kosala--some with ropes, some with clogs, some with chains. Then, in the morning, a number of bhikkhus dressed...and saind to the Blessed One: 'Here, venerable sir, a great mass of people have been put in bondage by King Pasenadi of Kosala, some with ropes, some with clogs, some with chains.' "Then the Blessed One, having understood the meaning of this, on that occasion recited these verses: 'That bond, the wise say, is not strong Made of iron, wood, or rope; But infatuation with jewellery and earrings, Anxious concern for wives and children-- This, the wise say, is the strong bond, Degrading, supple, hard to escape. But even this they cut and wander forth, Unconcerned, having abandoned sensual pleasures.'" I read this in the context of the real root of suffering being craving born of ignorance, and not the external conditions (e.g. human rights) one may find oneself in. This is not to say that human rights are not important in an external way, but ultimately, the external conditions are superficial. One of my favorite passages addressing this issue is in the Kakacupama sutta (MN 21): "Bhikkhus, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two- handed saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards them would not be carrying out my teaching." The relevance of the passage is that it points out in stark terms that the real crux of the teaching is not so much struggling to find ways to avoid the saw but instead to develop wisdom and strength so that when the saw strikes, it does not give rise to suffering. Pursuit of human rights begins with the recognition of an injustice, then comes the pointing out of the injustice, the discussion of the injustice, the plans to rectify the injustice, etc. It is eerily similar to the words we read in Dhp. 3-4: "'He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me'..." Does Buddha then say, "Then, I must fight against this injustice and pursue my rights by making him behave better"? Not at all, he continues: "...those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred", and in verse 4: "...those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred." Buddha did not exhort us to battle against those awful other people who don't respect human rights like us good Buddhists do. The real issue is the development of the mind: "Whatever harm an enemy may do to an enemy, or a hater to a hater, an ill-directed mind inflicts on oneself greater harm." (Dhp. 42). Dan 9514 From: manji Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 7:37pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? A most auspicious post, maybe kamma can end here. Traditions, individuals... Kamma kamma. So tough to answer this post. -----Original Message----- From: hhofman@d... [mailto:hhofman@d...] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 6:05 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? Dear Ken, I am not up to speed on the sensitivities of all the traditions around the globe. I am sorry if I offended anyone. I have previously written about my appreciation of Buddhaghosa. I hope we can agree that ultimately it is the message that is important, not so much the bearer of the message. I think there was reference in my post to institutional religions being pointers to themselves. This is what traditions do. They become things in themselves for themselves. Jon often writes about how the light of the Buddha's teaching will grow dimmer over the aeons. I believe that the attachment to tradidions is part of this process of losing sight of the reality of the Four Noble Truths, as set out by the Buddha. If you do things, because you have been taught to do them, without knowing or understanding why, then you are just building on the tradition that taught you to do these things. Eventually a river with no flow in it will silt up and become stagnant. And a stagnant river is not the parinibbana of the river. I read in the paper the other day that the very respected and influential Sinhalese Buddhists in Sri Lanka have managed to ban sport on all full moon days. I am sorry if I offend anyone, but I am very underwhelmed by such nonsense. It is not the outward things that defile a man. All the best, Ken Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Herman > > > The Buddha appointed no successor! > > k: That is true > > > > The Suttas start with , Thus have I heard, but I have never heard the > > Buddha saying , It is so because such and such said. > > > > St Paul and all the church fathers cannot add one single iota to the > > message of Jesus, but they can serve to confuse, as is apparent. > > > > What is the shortcoming of the Buddha, the self-realised one, that he > > needs Buddhaghosa to clarify his teaching? > > k: Honestly speaking, we have to be fair that there are many good > teachers after the Buddha that helps us understand the path better. For > eg Nagarjuna and Hui Neng. It is still up to individual to decide for > themselves. I rather find it insensitive to make such a statement bc > Buddhaghosa is a widely respected venerable of the Thervadan Traditions. > > > > > Kind regards > Ken O > 9515 From: m. nease Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 7:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Eightfold Path (esp. right effort) Hi Ken, --- khow14@h... wrote: > Could it be that an uninstructed > worldling could > go so far as to actually see Nibbana but without > attaining Path > consciousness? I am thinking of the Mulapariyaya > Sutta (MN 1): > > "He [the uninstructed worldling] perceives Nibbana > as Nibbana. > Perceiving Nibbana as Nibbana, he conceives things > about > Nibbana, he conceives things in Nibbana, he > conceives things > coming out of Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana as > 'mine,' he delights > in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has not > comprehended it, I tell > you." > > Would it be Nibbana itself that is perceived in this > case, or would it > be only the concept of Nibbana? The matching passage for the 'learner' goes, "He directly knows nibbaana as nibbaana. Having directly known nibbaana as nibbaana, let him not conceive (himself as) nibbaana; let him not conceive (himself apart) from nibbaana; let him not conceive 'nibbaana is mine; let him not delight in nibbaana. What is the reason? In order that he may fully understand it, I declare." and for the arahat, "He directly knows nibbaana as nibbaana. Having directly known nibbaana as nibbaana, he does not conceive (himself as) nibbaana; he does not conceive (himself apart) from nibbaana; he does not conceive 'nibbaana is mine; he does not delight in nibbaana. What is the reason? Because it has been fully understand by him, I declare." So the puthujjana perceives, then conceives of; the learner and the arahat directly know. So the former seems to me to refer to concept (pa~n~natti), because perceived/conceived of rather than 'directly known'. Maybe someone with more Pali can help to clarify this. It isn't clear to me from the text or the commentary whether by 'learner' a puthujjana might be meant or only a sotaapanna (or potentially both). In one paragraph/sentence it seems to refer first to an 'kalyaanaputhujjana' as separate from a sotaapanna, then by the end of the sentence seems to exclude the 'kalayaanaputhujjana' and to refer specifically to a sotaapanna. As for the ordinary puthujjana though, s/he does clearly (I think) 'conceive of' nibbaana, rather than directly experiencing it as does the 'learner' and the arahant. I assume (again) that this direct experience refers to satipatthaana. If this is correct then the aarammana (of the learner and the arahat) must be paramatthadhamma, not pa~n~nati, I think. Anyway the question remains, for me, whether nibbaana can be directly experienced by any but ariyapuggala. In other words, is a sekkha always a sotaapanna (at least in the context of this sutta)? If so, the rest of us are only conceiving of nibbaana--i.e., the aarammana is pa~n~natti--right? mike 9516 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 10:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concept, reality and awareness (RobE) Dear Rob, I read the posts and yes, I did find them very interesting and informative. However, I don't see that they answered the question of 'speed', which implies that an observing citta is there simeoltaneously with the quickly passing cittas in order to observe them. I don't see how speed can exist except as a relative concept. However, the idea of thousands of cittas conditioning the 'object' for knowing by passing on successive clarity to the new cittas as they arise, is a comprehensible idea for me. Best, Robert Ep. ======== --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- Dear Rob E. > Hear are two posts , one from Kom and one from me that you might be > interested in: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/1526 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/1753 > best wishes > robert > > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Sarah [and Jon and Robert K. and Mike], > > I think this post of yours, Sarah, is very sweet and reflective and > I found it > > helpful in considering the cultivation [not through effort of > course] of kusala > > cittas and mettha. I enjoyed your response to Robert K in this > interesting post. > > > > Please forgive me then if I take a ripe opportunity here to ask for > advice on a > > few technical points. I will quote the relevant portion below, and > then take off > > from there. I think they are interesting questions, some of which > have arisen > > lately and have not been resolved. Your clear statement below > gives me a good > > opportunity to frame them again, in what I think may be a more > answerable form: > > > > >>> If we're just thinking of ourselves and hoping we'll be happy, > is the citta > > > really wholesome? Is it really calm at that moment? Only > awareness can be aware > > > of what the nature of the citta really is. If there is wise > reflection on the > > > quality of real metta or generosity shown earlier in the day, it > can be > > > wholesome and calm at this time or it can be conceit and > attachment again. It > > > just depends. >>> > > > > My question is this, as I try to understand the nature of the > cittas, and the > > relationship between cittas and accompanying cetasikas: > > > > If 'only awareness can be aware of what the nature of the citta > really is', is > > awareness [sati?] the reflection of a mindful citta upon a previous > citta? Or is > > the awareness a cetasika through which the citta is able to > acknowledge its own > > property? I am just a little confused about how the mechanism of > being aware of a > > citta's true quality would work. > > > > Since you know I am particularly keen on the subject of awareness, > and interested > > to see how mindfulness arises and relates to the content of this or > that citta's > > experience, it seems like a good opportunity to take another look > at how this > > happens. > > > > Right now I have the idea that as a particular citta experiences > something, there > > may be deluded cetasikas misinforming it as to what is really > there, or there may > > be mindful, discerning cetasikas accomanying the citta, which would > include sati > > or satipatthana, and give the citta a much greater grasp of what is > really taking > > place in that moment. If you can confirm or clarify this, I would > be very > > grateful. > > > > It also leads back to that other issue of how a particular citta or > cetasika can > > take in the 'blur' of other cittas seeming to move by very fast, > when in fact they > > are really coming quite discretely one at a time. I am still > trying to understand > > whether this posits a sort of 'watcher' consciousness which stands > apart from the > > individual cittas and which lasts for longer than the single > cittas, or whether > > there is another way in which certain cittas or cetasikas attempt > to 'take stock' > > of the general flow of cittas going by and assess them wrongly as > a 'blurred > > continuous' event or rightly as a series of single events connected > one to the > > next, like beads on a string. [Of course there would be no string, > I guess, just > > beads]. > > > > One more issue along these lines that has come up lately is the > nature of > > ignorance or delusion. Rob K. and Jon, I believe, if I remember > correctly, have > > spoken of this as a positive state or object of some kind which > directly > > interferes with discernment. Pardon me if I don't quite have that > right. I would > > more tend to think that delusion would be a general way of > indicating a particular > > citta or cetasika which contained untrue perception or mistaken > material in its > > experience, rather than a separate force or object that exists > independently of > > some particular arising. I wonder how you would explain this? I > don't think that > > those who are speaking this way mean to establish > delusion/ignorance as a 'real > > object', ie, an entity or permanent force or being of some kind, a > kind of > > Mara-like figure that has its own intention of deluding. I would > expect that it > > would be more of what I said, an ignorant quality to a given citta, > or a > > particular kind of cetasika which just doesn't do the right job and > comes up with > > the wrong information about reality. > > > > I could even imagine that a deluded consciousness or mental factor > of this kind > > could be responsible for positing the kind of 'blur' that was > spoken of as the > > mistaken way of apprehending the accumulation of individual citta- > moments that > > arise. This mistaken consciousness would not actually be viewing > multiple cittas > > as a 'blur' while standing apart from them. Rather it would be a > kind of single > > thought of its own in which it 'imagined' such a blur existing in > place of an > > actual perception, and thus substituted its own mistaken notion for > a real moment > > of seeing. > > > > In other words, it would be a kind of mistake on top of a mistake. > This citta > > might fancy itself a kind of intellectual citta. It would first > ignore the > > sense-moment and mistake a mental moment for a real moment of > perception. And it > > would then say about its own mistaken perceptual object, really a > thought-form, > > 'these moments are all part of a continous movement' based on its > own > > mis-perception. > > > > Thanks for anything you can say to these questions. Perhaps Nina > has said > > something about these issues that I could be directed to, if that > is also > > appropriate. I know she's the expert on these mechanics. > > > > Regards, > > Robert Ep. > > > > ===================== > > > > --- Sarah wrote: > > > Dear Rob K, > > > > > > I've been appreciating all your posts recently;-) > > > > > > I've been quite busy, so only got a chance to have another look > at the Vis. > > > passages you mentioned as I was getting ready to go to bed last > night..As a > > > result, I had lots of useful reflection on metta as I was falling > asleep:-) I'm > > > not sure I'll be able to add anything much to your comments here, > but I'm happy > > > to have another chance to consider further. > > > > > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > > > Thanks for this which all makes a lot of sense to me. > > > > I was wondering if you'd like to tackle a passage in the > > > > Vissuddhimagga which is harder to understand: ix8 Metta should > first > > > > of all "be developed only to oneself, doing it repeastedly > thus: may > > > > I be happy..." The next sections notes that someone may > question > > > > this because it is not in the Tipitaka and that in the > > > > patisambhidimagga and vibhanga no mention is made of developing > metta > > > > to oneself. The answer is that for jhana this can't succeed by > way of > > > > taking oneself as an object. And later ix9 it makes it clear > that > > > > developing to oneself means "just as I want to be happy and > dread > > > > pain so do others..." Thus making oneself as an example. > > > > > > > > I think the meaning is basically that we considr how we like to > be > > > > treated and thought of and so we should think of others in the > same > > > > way. I can also see how a not so careful reading of the text > could > > > > lead to the conclusion that one should be trying to love > oneself > > > > more. I'd like you to read over ix8-10 and see what you think. > > > > > > I think we understand the lines in a similar way. If we reflect > on what we > > > appreciate when we're with others, don't we appreciate kind words > and gestures, > > > consideration, friendliness, assistance, humility and so on. > Isn't it so true > > > that we really find ourselves so very dear. And so, others find > themselves just > > > as dear and would also like to hear kind words, experience > consideration, > > > friendliness and so on. > > > > > > Hence by reflecting on the qualities we appreciate with kusala > cittas, it can > > > be a condition for metta and the other brahma viharas to be > developed towards > > > others. If we're giving something to another, for example, there > is concern for > > > the other's benefit and there is bound to be some metta even if > we don't `name' > > > it. However, for metta or other wholesome states to develop, > there has to be > > > the understanding of which moments are wholesome and which are > unwholesome (as > > > you, of course, know so well). > > > > > > If we're just thinking of ourselves and hoping we'll be happy, is > the citta > > > really wholesome? Is it really calm at that moment? Only > awareness can be aware > > > of what the nature of the citta really is. If there is wise > reflection on the > > > quality of real metta or generosity shown earlier in the day, it > can be > > > wholesome and calm at this time or it can be conceit and > attachment again. It > > > just depends. > > > > > > I think as it says in the text, by reflecting on what makes us > happy, by using > > > `ourselves' as examples, it can be a way to condition metta for > other beings. > > > It's not a matter of wishing ourselves to be happy, which is > bound (I think) to > > > be with attachment. > > > > > > However, if we reflect thus: `...Just as I want to be > happy and dread > > > pain, as I want to live and not to die, so do other beings, > too.', making > > > himself the example, then desire for other beings' welfare and > happiness arises > > > in him'. > > > > > > I'd forgotten that these lines are then followed by the same > verse from the > > > Udana I quoted the other day. > > > > > > And so, I think the first line you quote that metta should first > of all `..be > > > developed only to oneself' is explained by the following ones > that `it does not > > > conflict' with the other texts which clearly show metta is never > towards > > > oneself because here it `refers to (making oneself) an example.' > > > > > > Later (1X, 92) we read: > > > > > > `As to the characteristic, etc., lovingkindness is characterized > here as > > > promoting the aspect of welfare. Its function is to prefer > welfare. It is > > > manifested as the removal of annoyance. Its proximate cause is > seeing > > > lovableness in beings. it succeeds when it makes ill will > subside, and it > > > fails when it produces (selfish) affection' > > > > > > Thanks Rob, I find all these reminders very helpful. > > > > > > Sarah > > > 9517 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 10:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendecies Dear Robert, Well, I really wasn't thinking of whether I thought the Buddha or Buddhaghosa was responsible for the concept of the rapid movement of cittas. I was interested in a logical inconsistency in the concept itself. It means that I am either missing an important piece of information about how cittas can apprehend a sense of the passage of large groups of other cittas and 'blur' them, or experience them as being 'greatly fast' and then 'slowing down' in satipatthana, or else there is a continuous observer consciousness sneaking into the equation which does not break down into the single citta theory. I am not well versed enough in the Suttas to be able to say whether Buddha explicitly said or implied that 1/ the passage of cittas is extremely rapid, or that 2/ cittas are only momentary and follow one at a time, as described in the Abhidhamma commentaries. Since I have always held the belief that consciousness is a continuous presence and that it is the *moments* within consciousness that rise and pass away, I have no problem with the idea of a very fast succession of conscious events. The 'speed' of this fastness would be in comparison to the relative slowness of the apprehending mental process, which is going on simeoltaneously and cannot keep up with the raw sense data arising and falling and being 'flashed' at it by the sense organs and the sense organ transmission. Or in the case of a purely mental process, the mental events would be moving faster than the mental processes can process or comprehend them, and thus it would also appear to be extremely fast. This would create the blur of the mental processes either picking up a merged image of something too fast for it to grasp, or putting together bits and pieces of that which is perceived or conceived, and then pasting them together to form a semblance of a reality imperfectly understood. As the mental faculties and perceptual process itself became 'sharper' with greater skill, wisdom and energy, the advanced person would pick up more of the individual moments and be able to see each arising reality for what it is. The problem comes into it when the consciousness itself, not only the arising phenomena, are see as arising only in discrete, separate units. There is no over-arching consciousness that can take it all in, either perfectly or imperfectly. So we are left with each single citta passing its material to the next. I can understand that a citta can pass on a 'blurred or glossed image' of a previous percept or a previous citta and pass this on to another one, which perhaps could distort it more. This would be a good definition of 'delusion' which would involve a series of specific realities mistaken for a less specific, more permanent object. This makes a lot of sense. But I cannot understand, and have not yet heard an explanation, of how a single consciousness which only has contact with a previous consciousness, can have an 'overall experience' of a succession of cittas being 'very fast'. This seems to torture the concept of a succession of single cittas in a row, even if each one is passing down the individual attributes or discoveries of the previous one. There can be no 'perception of a longer stream of cittas' in such a scheme, and that makes it difficult for me to understand how you are even saying that it works. The post you asked me to read which said that it takes hundreds of cittas which repeatedly go over an object until it finally becomes clear, gives an image of how cittas keep working over an object and passing down understanding from one to the next -- like an informational relay race -- to gradually firm up the understanding of what is being apprehended. It is an interesting description. But it still doesn't give any indication of a citta that would be capable of taking in the hundreds that are going by and seeing them as 'fast', 'slow', 'clear' or 'blurred'. So whether the Buddha or Buddhaghosa developed this concept, I am still left not understanding how it is possible within the theory of cittas of Abhidhamma. I think the reason that Abhidhamma may be very staunch about having only single-moment cittas and no continuous consciousness is that it clearly does not want to posit a consciousness that is like an 'super-object in space' that can hang around and take in all kinds of phenomena. I understand the danger in an image of consciousness that turns it into an ever-present entity. On the other hand, when only single cittas are admitted, Howard has noted some of the problems that may attend that model: cittas arising like little 'things' and then being 'annihilated'. The reason I think it is worth questioning our image of these things is that it is very possible that consciousness is neither a thing that hangs around with duration, nor a little thing that pops up and goes away. These may only be convenient ways of talking about consciousness, but it may be a 'middle way' problem where both descriptions take something away from the reality. It is important to me to get closer to the nature of consciousness because it directs my 'seeing' to a good extent. If I am looking for something that is really there for a moment only and then another and then another, that is one form of looking, if I am being mindful of a continuous ebb and flow of experience, that is going to give rise to a slightly different way of being mindful. As to whether the Buddha or Buddhaghosa is responsible for these concepts, I cannot answer. But I also have to say that this is not the most important issue to me. Even if Buddhaghosa derived this description from his enlightened understanding of the Buddha's teachings, I would not rule out its importance. I would listen very carefully to anything an Arahat or Master had to say. More important to me is what the reality is. And where there is a logical inconsistency there must be a potential clarification available. There are certain questions that are paradoxes that really cannot be answered and these the Buddha has asked us not to waste our time on, so as not to indulge in endless speculation or unbalance our minds through trying to conceive the inconceiveable. But I don't believe this is one of those areas. Thanks for anything you can say to the question of 'speed of cittas', and the cittas that perceive this speed and/or blur it. Best, Robert Ep. =============================== --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- > Dear Howard and Rob. E., > Can I clarify your position a little. Do you agree that the Buddha > taught that citta arises and passes away very very rapidly? Or do you > think he didn't teach this but that people like Buddhaghosa dreamed > it up to try to explain some things? > robert > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, "Roberts" ;-)) > > > > In a message dated 11/21/01 2:33:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > > > > > > Robert, > > > I hate to be a stickler, but it is impossible for the passage of > namas, > > > including > > > cittas to be 'infinitely rapid' except with reference to > something that is > > > slower, > > > like an apprehending consciousness which is observing them go by > and trying > > > to > > > grasp them as an experience. > > > > > > If there is only the passage of one citta to the next, one nama > to the next > > > with > > > no additional consciousness observing them, then their speed of > passage can > > > only > > > be neither fast nor slow. There is no speed without a point of > reference. > > > > > > If according to the commentaries, the passage is extremely rapid, > they are > > > inherently positing an observer consciousness for whom it is seen > as fast. > > > > > > Best, > > > Robert Ep. > > > > > ============================= > > YES, EXACTLY!!! You have hit it on the > head!! > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, > a bubble > > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering > lamp, a > > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond > Sutra) 9518 From: Sarah Date: Thu Nov 22, 2001 11:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] meththa meditation Dear Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah [and Jon and Robert K. and Mike], > I think this post of yours, Sarah, is very sweet and reflective and I found > it > helpful in considering the cultivation [not through effort of course] of > kusala > cittas and mettha. I enjoyed your response to Robert K in this interesting > post. .................... Sarah: Thanks as always.... Now, when I read your kind words, I know they’ll be followed by some tricky comments;-) I’m hoping the others may come to my rescue, but I’ll make a start anyway. .................... > Please forgive me then if I take a ripe opportunity here to ask for advice on > a > few technical points. I will quote the relevant portion below, and then take > off > from there. I think they are interesting questions, some of which have > arisen > lately and have not been resolved. Your clear statement below gives me a > good > opportunity to frame them again, in what I think may be a more answerable > form: .................... Sarah: we’ll see.... .................... > My question is this, as I try to understand the nature of the cittas, and the > relationship between cittas and accompanying cetasikas: > > If 'only awareness can be aware of what the nature of the citta really is', > is > awareness [sati?] the reflection of a mindful citta upon a previous citta? > Or is > the awareness a cetasika through which the citta is able to acknowledge its > own > property? I am just a little confused about how the mechanism of being aware > of a > citta's true quality would work. .................... Sarah: Awareness (sati) is a cetasika (mental factor) accompanying a citta (or several cittas) which is mindful or aware of any reality (paramatha dhamma) that appears to it. Remember the cittas and cetasikas work and co-ordinate together. Num gave us the analogy of painting a water colour whereby citta is the water and the cetasikas are the various colours. The colours need the water and vice versa. It’s helpful, as Ken O has argued so well, to understand the exact details and mechanics, but for awareness to be aware of a characteristic of reality, for example of metta, I don’t think it’s necessary to pinpoint in words whether it is metta, alobha or the citta that is the object at any given moment. In the beginning, just to know whether it is kusala or akusala or nama or rupa can be very helpful and gradually more can be known about the nature of the mental factor. .................... > Since you know I am particularly keen on the subject of awareness, and > interested > to see how mindfulness arises and relates to the content of this or that > citta's > experience, it seems like a good opportunity to take another look at how this > happens. .................... Sarah: Excellent and delighted to read about this interest. .................... > Right now I have the idea that as a particular citta experiences something, > there > may be deluded cetasikas misinforming it as to what is really there, or there > may > be mindful, discerning cetasikas accomanying the citta, which would include > sati > or satipatthana, and give the citta a much greater grasp of what is really > taking > place in that moment. If you can confirm or clarify this, I would be very > grateful. .................... Sarah: I would say that most the time there is ignorance (moha) which doesn’t misinform in the way that micha ditthi (wrong view) does, but just doesn’t know anything. What about the seeing that just passed or the hearing? Was anything known about it or about the visible object or sound that were just experienced? Mostly we live life in ignorance. Then there are all the times when there is a distorted view of what is experienced with ditthi. Occasionally, there are wholesome moments which are always accompanied by sati. If and only if we have heard and considered what realities really are (as distinct from concepts and not as a self), there may be occasional moments of sati at the level of satipatthana accompanying the cittas. .................... > It also leads back to that other issue of how a particular citta or cetasika > can > take in the 'blur' of other cittas seeming to move by very fast, when in fact > they > are really coming quite discretely one at a time. I am still trying to > understand > whether this posits a sort of 'watcher' consciousness which stands apart from > the > individual cittas and which lasts for longer than the single cittas, or > whether > there is another way in which certain cittas or cetasikas attempt to 'take > stock' > of the general flow of cittas going by and assess them wrongly as a 'blurred > continuous' event or rightly as a series of single events connected one to > the > next, like beads on a string. [Of course there would be no string, I guess, > just > beads]. .................... Sarah: I’ve been working hard to stay clear of the ‘blur’ thread and questions, but you have a particularly skilful way of drawing me in, Rob.... Like Ken O and Rob K say, there can be reasons why it’s helpful to talk about the speed of consciousness and indeed the Buddha described all realities in detail. This doesn’t mean at all, that all these details can or will ever be known or any attempt should be made to be aware of the speed or flow of cittas. This is merely thinking and usually with attachment and wrong view if an attempt is made to be aware of them. At the moment of awareness of one reality, say metta, just the nature of the characteristic of metta is known. There is no thought at all about processes, speeds or even beads;-). By developing awareness of realities, gradually it becomes easier to understand that there is no ‘watcher’, just different namas and rupas with different characteristics. Panna begins to understand how there are sense-door realities followed by mind-door realities and so on, none lasting for a split second. I really don’t think it’s a question of having to blindly accept all sorts of complicated abhidhammic details which are unrelated to daily life experience or having to have any blind faith at all. It’s a gradual process of accepting what has some relevance or some meaning today according to the limited understanding which may be different tomorrow. Rob K mentioned that he recently re-read the entire Visuddhimagga and how it seemed like a different text from when he’d read it before. I’d say this is how it is for me whatever I read. If I read a passage on metta today, it may have more significance than when I read the same passage last week even. With regard to any blur, I’ve forgotten the original context and I think the others gave some very helpful responses. Of course any cittas perform their functions perfectly. Seeing clearly sees visible object and so on. Even if our eyesight is not so good, moments of seeing still see their visible objects just as they’re conditioned to see them. If there is any awareness, it is either aware of a reality or not. Maybe we can say, however, in the beginning it is not strong or strongly developed so of course the nature and characteristics known are not as clear or as in ‘depth’ as for the highly developed awareness. For example, the highly developed awareness is aware of the characteristics of the arising, ‘existing’ and falling away of realities. In the beginning this is impossible. Also, I think that because any moments of awareness are infrequent and likely to be followed by ignorance, doubt and wondering, it can seem like it’s ‘blurry’ perhaps. Different moments and this is probably just thinking about the story. .................... Sarah: > One more issue along these lines that has come up lately is the nature of > ignorance or delusion. Rob K. and Jon, I believe, if I remember correctly, > have > spoken of this as a positive state or object of some kind which directly > interferes with discernment. Pardon me if I don't quite have that right. I > would > more tend to think that delusion would be a general way of indicating a > particular > citta or cetasika which contained untrue perception or mistaken material in > its > experience, rather than a separate force or object that exists independently > of > some particular arising. I wonder how you would explain this? .................... Sarah: Moha has the nature of just ‘not knowing’. “‘Delusion’ has the characteristic of blindness or opposition to knowledge” (Atth.) Most the time there is just ‘not knowing’, not necessarily ‘mistaken material’ or wrong view. Wrong view really does ‘interfere with discernment’. There just isn’t any discernment at the other moments of ignorance. “What on that occasion is dullness? The lack of knowledge, ov vision, which is there on that occasion; the lack of coordination, of judgment, of enlightenment, of penetration, the inability to comprehend, to grasp thoroughly; the inability to compare, to consider, to demonstrate; the folly, the childishness, the lack of intelligence; the dullness that is vagueness, obfuscation, ignorance, the Flood (ogha) of ignorance, the Bond (yoga) of ignorance, the bias of ignorance, the obsession of ignorance, the barrier of ignorance; the dullness that is the root of badness - this is the dullness that there then is.” (Dhammasdangani, Buddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics, 390) Like other cetasikas, it has its nature, characteristic, function and so on. Can there be awareness of moha? It’ll depend on individual accumulations, I think. What about now? Are we lost in a story of words with ignorance or are there moments of awareness. Perhaps there’ll be awareness of ignorance now, but it won’t be by trying or wanting to have it. .................... >I don't think > that > those who are speaking this way mean to establish delusion/ignorance as a > 'real > object', ie, an entity or permanent force or being of some kind, a kind of > Mara-like figure that has its own intention of deluding. I would expect that > it > would be more of what I said, an ignorant quality to a given citta, or a > particular kind of cetasika which just doesn't do the right job and comes up > with > the wrong information about reality. .................... Sarah: I think I’d say it just doesn’t come up with the right or any information. As I said, wrong view (ditthi) comes up with the wrong information. .................... > I could even imagine that a deluded consciousness or mental factor of this > kind > could be responsible for positing the kind of 'blur' that was spoken of as > the > mistaken way of apprehending the accumulation of individual citta-moments > that > arise. This mistaken consciousness would not actually be viewing multiple > cittas > as a 'blur' while standing apart from them. Rather it would be a kind of > single > thought of its own in which it 'imagined' such a blur existing in place of an > actual perception, and thus substituted its own mistaken notion for a real > moment > of seeing. .................... Sarah: I think this would be an excellent description of thinking with ditthi (wrong view). Of course there is ignorance accompanying all unwholesome cittas including these ones with wrong view. .................... > In other words, it would be a kind of mistake on top of a mistake. This > citta > might fancy itself a kind of intellectual citta. It would first ignore the > sense-moment and mistake a mental moment for a real moment of perception. > And it > would then say about its own mistaken perceptual object, really a > thought-form, > 'these moments are all part of a continous movement' based on its own > mis-perception. .................... Sarah: Exactly so, with many, many deviations.....There is no limit to the number of wrong views posible, but the categories of wrong views are neatly described in the Brahmajala Sutta. .................... > Thanks for anything you can say to these questions. Perhaps Nina has said > something about these issues that I could be directed to, if that is also > appropriate. I know she's the expert on these mechanics. ................... Sarah: That’s true. The following paragraph is taken from her translation of Khun Sujin’s talks in Cambodia (Ch 10, no 1) which she posted the other day and it may be helpful to re-read it now: ******************** . ‘...... Avijjå, ignorance, accompanies citta, it cannot arise with rúpa. Whenever we do not understand the truth of realities there is avijjå. If we study the Dhamma more in detail we shall know when there is akusala citta and when vipåkacitta, citta that is result of kamma. Avijjå cetasika is not conascent with vipåkacitta, but there is the latent tendency of avijjå, avijjånusaya, in each citta so long as avijjå has not been eradicated. More understanding of the details of the Dhamma is a condition for beginning to develop the paññå that realizes the truth, and then there will not be clinging to mere words and concepts.......’ ******************** I’m always glad to discuss these areas, Rob. I can’t think of any topic more useful than that of sati and its objects. Thanks again. Sarah p.s. did you see my response on the yoga/tai chi thread or were you too busy standing on your head?;-) (not that it needed a response I should add) ==================== 9519 From: Sarah Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 0:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meththa meditation Dear Christine, I just have a few minutes only left after my lengthy, verbose post to Rob Ep, so i'll just make some brief comments here and hope others will do better. I'm not an expert on metta;-) --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Dear All, > Sorry to be so slow, but may I refer back to a topic discussed a few > days ago, where I still need a little clarification? During the > discussion on Metta, the argument was put that Metta ought not be > directed to 'oneself'; that Metta ought always to be 'other-directed'. > I have been wondering if the scriptures quoted were directed at > people living in a practising community where each individual would > be 'caught in the crossfire' (so to speak) of everyone else's > radiated metta......and that there was no conception of the isolation > of many people practicing now in the West. I think the Teachings were for us all, regardless of our lifestyles. Even if we live in relative isolation (a joke in Hong Kong..), aren't there still many opportunities in a day for metta? What about when you talk to your dogs, milk the cows;-), drive to work and encounter other polite and impolite drivers, or on the bus, or at the hospital or speaking to the kids on the phone or here on the list and so on and so on.... Aren't there so many missed opportunities for all kinds of kusala in a day? There are for me, I know. Still, no use in clinging or wishing for more, otherwise it's just more attachment to oneself;-) > Does Metta actually affect the target being/s, or does it only affect > the person initiating metta? i.e. in the form of making them more > sensitive, kindly and other-directed? Aren't we affected when others show us kindness and considertion? Of course there are many different conditions at work, but most of us, most the time respond to courtesy and kindness, I think. >Perhaps altering the dynamics > of their relationships with the other being /s- or maybe just > creating a satisfying self-view of themselves as a caring > person........ sounds like the attachment to self again here... . > If 'self-directed metta' is an error, why do the majority of > meditation courses/retreats teach both 'self directed' plus 'other > directed metta, but suggest practicing 'self directed' first? pass... > If metta practice does actually affect the target being/s - wouldn't > it be dependent on the strength and 'quality' of the feeling being > radiated? Many, many conditions....time, place, person, recipient, accumulations and so on. If we show kindness to the old woman on the bus, we don't have to think about how she'll repond or how she has responded....ultimately we're not responsible for the other's reaction and cannot control it...just do our best with kusala cittas... >New practitioners are warned not to initially choose > someone of the opposite gender as this could arouse emotions other > than loving-kindness. (Presumably only in the meditator, otherwise > the world would be a little more chaotic than it is.) Rather than setting too many rules, I'd rather just see the value of helping or showing kindness to others when we have a chance..even if it's just the little ant on our path;-) > If a practitioner has been psychologically damaged at a "critical > period" for development of attachment, trust, autonomy, > individuation, etc. as a very young child - by, say, physical, sexual > or emotional abuse - how would the idea of "using oneself as an > example" work? - if the feelings held for oneself are tinged with > loathing or disgust? > "Just as for myself.....so also for.........?" This is a little more complex, but doesn't the person who has really suffered in these ways appreicate the value just as much of being treated well? just as this person has been abused and suffered so much which has caused such a lot of misery, so others also don't wish to experience such misery or be so tormented....Therefore let's see how we can make life pleasanter with kindness and without abuse for others.... When we are angry or impatient are we not also 'abusing'? Certainly there's no metta at these times. Nor is there any metta or other kind of skilful state when we have (negative) thoughts with dosa. It may seem that these are a result of others' actions, and of course others' actions are a condition for the mental states, but really they (the negative thoughts) are our 'own' accumulations and it is our 'own' vipaka to hear and suffer these unpleasant sounds and bodily experiences. Christine, I have to run and this is rather rushed.....and I'll be 'off' for the weekend...look forward to any more of your pertinent comments as always. metta, Sarah 9520 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 2:06am Subject: [dsg] Speed of cittas Hi All, I was thinking of the speed of cittas. When I was locking up the door, I realise that a few things "seem" to act simultaneously. a. My hand movement locking the door. b. At the same time I am looking at the door c. At the same time I was hearing the sound of the locking sound. d. At the same time my hand to move the fingers e. At the same time, the concept of this is the door and this is key f. At the same time, the concept of how to lock the door correctly. g. At the same time, feeling the coldness of the keys. I do not know how fast is citta speed, but I think it should be fast enough for us to do all these things at the same time ( or in a span of moment of our conditioned thoughts). Kind regards Ken O 9521 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 4:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept, reality and awareness (RobE) --- Dear Rob E. THe buddha said words to the effect that it is hard to give a simile or comparison that does justice to the speed of the rise and fall. The reason is that this is the only way to comprehend time actually. The commentators use the time it takes for a flash of lighting to occur and use this as the standard against which it is compared. They say billions in that space of time. You might say this is relative but I think it is fast no matter where or what existence. Even an insect that only lived for a few seconds would still have experienced trillions of absolute deaths in that time. I do not see where it says or implies that there is an observing citta to observe them at all if you mean something that is separate from the khandas. robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Rob, > I read the posts and yes, I did find them very interesting and informative. > However, I don't see that they answered the question of 'speed', which implies > that an observing citta is there simeoltaneously with the quickly passing cittas > in order to observe them. I don't see how speed can exist except as a relative > concept. > > However, the idea of thousands of cittas conditioning the 'object' for knowing by > passing on successive clarity to the new cittas as they arise, is a comprehensible > idea for me. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > ======== > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > > --- Dear Rob E. > > Hear are two posts , one from Kom and one from me that you might be > > interested in: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/1526 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/1753 > > best wishes > > robert > > > > > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Dear Sarah [and Jon and Robert K. and Mike], > > > I think this post of yours, Sarah, is very sweet and reflective and 9522 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 0:30am Subject: On Replying (...No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana: To Howard, Bob E, Mike) Hi, Suan - Thanks for replying. For *sure* take your time. Sometimes when one person asks several questions pertaining to a post, if the questions aren't completely trivial, and especially when several people ask questions, it may seem as though one is being given a "work assignment"! ;-)) Obviously, we all have lives that go well byond our participation on this list, and these "other lives" really do include obligations that cannot be ignored. So, if one takes actually quite a long time in replying to questions, or even if sometimes we should respond to a post by saying "Sorry, I just don't have the time to properly respond to this post, and will just have to let it go", I think that is perfectly legitimate and should be readily accepted by everyone of us with no further thought. Now, I completely realize that you merely say below that you can't give an *immediate* reply and that you will reply soon. It is very nice of you to send this immediate reply indicating that more will be forthcoming. What I am doing at this moment is actually using your current post as an opportunity for making the general point that particpating on this (and other) lists should be simply a joy, an oasis from the desert of everyday life, and shouldn't serve as a source of added life complexity. When we reply quickly and in an extended fashion, that's great, when we put off a reply it's great, when we give a cursory reply it's great, and when we say that we will have to forgo a reply entirely that's great as well! :-) Again, thanks for your reply, and I look forward to your further comments when it is time. With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/22/01 9:57:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, abhidhammika@y... writes: > > Dear Howard, Robert Epstein, Mike, And Erik > > How are you? > > Thank you for your profound questions. This post is merely to say > that I have read your messages. > > The time I had a chance to read them has been very late in Canberra, > and I am already sleepy. So I won't be able to post a considered > reply now. But, as soon as possible, I will reply. > > I did know in advance, though, that the expression > 'Apannattikabhaavam - the state of undefined reality' could pose some > problems, and thought about writing further commentary on that > expression. As I do not have Dhammapada Tiikaa (subcommentary) on my > Chatthasangaayanaa CD-ROM, I would try to write a modern > subcommentary on the expression - not in Paali -, but in English, of > course. > > I have some insights on that expressions your questions did not > address. So, even if my subcommentary may or may not answer your > profound questions to your satisfaction, it could throw some light on > your present puzzelment. > > Won't be long! > > With regards > > 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) 9523 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Erik] Hi, Dan - In a message dated 11/22/01 1:39:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, dalthorp@o... writes: > I hope this will be helpful---AN. I, v (48): "Nothing, O monks, do I > know that changes so rapidly as consciousness. Scarcely anything may > be found that could be compared with this so rapidly changing > consciousness." > ========================= Thank you for this quote! Do you (or anyone on the list) happen to know what Pali word is translated here as 'consciousness'? Is it 'vi~n~nana'? That would be interesting. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9524 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Erik] > > I hope this will be helpful---AN. I, v (48): "Nothing, O monks, do I > > know that changes so rapidly as consciousness. Scarcely anything may > > be found that could be compared with this so rapidly changing > > consciousness." > > > ========================= > Thank you for this quote! Do you (or anyone on the list) happen to > know what Pali word is translated here as 'consciousness'? Is it > 'vi~n~nana'? That would be interesting. The Pali word here is 'citta'. Howard, you really should get a copy of the CSCD, which has the entire Tipitaka, commentaries, subcommentaries, and additional gems (e.g. Abhidhammatha sangaha and commentaries) all in Pali, all on one CD. It is available for free (with a nominal postage and handling fee) from VRI (Goenka's group-- http://www.tipitaka.org/). It has a search engine so you can find all occurances of, say, 'citta.m' or 'citta' or 'cittani' or 'citt*' in all the Pali literature. There's also a dictionary on the disk. Don't worry if all the Pali you know is the hundred or so words thrown around on this list. You can still look up things like which word is used for what in this or that sutta, and you may find yourself learning more and more Pali as time passes. 9525 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 3:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Erik] Hi, Dan - In a message dated 11/23/01 10:27:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, dhd5@c... writes: > > Thank you for this quote! Do you (or anyone on the list) > happen to > > know what Pali word is translated here as 'consciousness'? Is it > > 'vi~n~nana'? That would be interesting. > > The Pali word here is 'citta'. > > =============================== Thank you for this! It is also interesting, but in a different way than if the word were 'vi~n~nana'. Doesn't 'citta' often mean 'thought'? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9526 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 9:19am Subject: [dsg] Re: No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana - Apology Hi All, After talking to one valuable post mate, I like to clarify that I could sense that this site is lean against Abhidhamma, and it is not my intention to do this. I just like to share that this site good article on the preception of negativity of Nibbana which the Venerable argue quite well against such a negativity perception. Once again, I am not against Abhidhamma and neither am I doing anything or promoting against it. I sincerely apologise for any misunderstanding caused. With my deepest apology Ken O > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > Hi All > > > > > > One interesting site titled "Nibbana and Anatta". > > > > > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/nibban1.htm > > > > > Kind regards > > > Ken O 9527 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 5:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Howard] Hi Howard, ________________________________ Thank you for this quote! Do you (or anyone on the list) > happen to > > know what Pali word is translated here as 'consciousness'? Is it > > 'vi~n~nana'? That would be interesting. > > The Pali word here is 'citta'. > > =============================== Thank you for this! It is also interesting, but in a different way than if the word were 'vi~n~nana'. Doesn't 'citta' often mean 'thought'? __________________________________ From my poor Pali, vi~n~na.na is a synonym of citta. Vi, means clearly, all over, spreading out, detail... ~N~na.na means knowledge. So vi~n~na.na means know clearly, or know in detail. That's a character of citta, a capability of knowing its arammana clearly. In Thai, for a layperson, nowadays vi~n~na.na also means ghost or spirit which kind of continue after death. I remember from Milinda-panha that King Milinda asked about jeta-bhuti which means sth exists after death. The debate ended up that there is only continuation of vi~n~na.na but jeta-bhuti is not existing. In 5 aggregations (khandha), vi~n~na.na khandha also means for citta-paramattha as well. I have similar problem, reading English translation is at times difficult. Yeap, sometime citta was translated as thought, sometime as consciousness, sometime as perception, and even more. Even in R.Davids's Pali-Eng. dictionary, the various definitions of citta is 3 pages long ! Just a non-expert input. I think Jim or other Pali gurus can give a clearer Pali root, meaning and definition. Num 9528 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 10:25am Subject: Cambodia Ch 11, no. 1 Cambodian Lectures by A. Sujin Boriharnwanaket. Chapter 11, no. 1 Dhamma Discussions in Hotel Gakkalok, Siem Reap (Part I) Question: I have a problem in daily life. I am a person who worries and who is tense. I like to sit and concentrate on something in order to get rid of my tenseness, but I can only concentrate, I do not know how to progress further. Sujin: What do you want to acquire? Answer: I want to acquire happiness, I hope for a great deal of happiness. I experience a lot of unhappiness in my life and if my suffering can disappear I will be happy and I wish happiness to last for a long time. I think that if I sit and concentrate there will be happiness. I believe that this is wholesome. Priya: I used to sit and concentrate for a long time, two hours daily, and I thought that this was happiness. I kept on concentrating, but was this real happiness? When I came to study the Dhamma I changed my ideas. I knew that when I concentrated I did not know anything, thus, this did not mean happiness, it was rather ignorance. But during the time I was concentrating I was not unhappy. When I came to study the Dhamma, I realized that I had lobha during the time I was sitting with concentration. Nina: We can verify everything ourselves. Acharn Sujin speaks about seeing what appears through the eyes, hearing sound that appears through the ears, and we can verify this. Seeing is not the same as thinking about what we have seen. Seeing or hearing are different from thinking of concepts of beings, people, a table or a chair. We can verify everything ourselves through the six doorways of the senses and the mind. There are only six worlds appearing one at a time through these doorways. We think that there are people, beings, a table or a chair, but in reality there are only nåma and rúpa, and we can prove this ourselves. Nipat: How can we prove this ourselves? By means of which? Nina: We should listen to the Dhamma very often; we need to hear about seeing and hearing, and then we shall have more understanding. This is a condition for sati to very gradually be aware of the characteristics that appear. However, we should remember that it is not self who develops understanding. Pradhib: I understand that when someone sits and concentrates, he accumulates akusala. Sujin: Some people think that it is akusala to sit and concentrate, but I feel that someone simplifies matters when he says that as soon as he is contented and relaxed there must be akusala citta. This shows that if someone does not understand realities, he does not know precisely when there is kusala citta and when akusala citta at the moment of feeling contented. Or someone may erroneously think that there is kusala citta and he may try with attachment to make it arise. In reality kusala citta can arise without the need to sit with concentration. Whenever there is right understanding, it is a kind of kusala. There are many kinds of kusala. Some people think that only giving things away is kusala. However, when one abstains from akusala it is kusala. When we listen to the Dhamma at this moment, there is kusala citta accompanied by paññå. This is kusala of a higher level than kusala of dåna, generosity, or síla, morality. Also other religions teach kusala of the level of dåna and of síla, but they do not teach the development of paññå that understands the true nature of realities; this is only taught in Buddhism. Other religions do not teach that the truth of realities is penetrated through the attainment of enlightenment. Priya: Kusala of the level of satipaììhåna is much higher than the development of samatha. We should listen to the Dhamma so that we have more understanding. When someone performs meritorious deeds, puñña, there is purity of citta. There are ten kinds of meritorious deeds that can be classified as threefold: as dåna, síla and bhåvanå, mental development. Dåna includes giving, transference of merit, that is, giving others the opportunity to rejoice in one¹s kusala, and rejoicing in the kusala of others. Síla includes: abstinence from akusala, kusala through body and speech, the observance of five or eight precepts and kusala such as helping other people. Nipat: Respectful behaviour through body, speech and mind towards people who are superior in age, in rank or superior with regard to kusala dhamma, is also kusala included in síla. Jaran: Do we have to remember each subject of the Dhamma we have learnt? Nipat: We should understand the Dhamma that is within ourselves, not in the texts. Fongchan: Does listening often to the Dhamma help our understanding? Sujin: Remembering is not the same as understanding. Kulavilo: If we listen to Acharn who explains the way to understand realities in daily life, it will help us to have more understanding 9529 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 10:25am Subject: Budhaghosa Dear Sarah, what a good idea to quote parts from the Co to the Vinaya, I find it very interesting. In India I bought " The Life and Work of Buddhaghosa", by B. Charan Law. He tells about the old commentaries Budhaghosa found in India and mentions that he mainly translated. As Robert once said, he seldom added his own opinion, as stated in the Visuddhimagga. Nina. 9530 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 11:12am Subject: Re: speed of cittas [Erik] Hi, Forgive me for butting in. One way to understand the discourse AN. I, v (48) is to see that this quickly changing mind as being fickle. Isn't it true? An fickle mind is undeveloped and uncultivated. And undeveloped and uncultivated mind brings much stress and suffering. I find it helpful to understand the discourse AN. I, v (48) with reading Anguttara Nikaya I.21-26 Abhavita Sutta Untamed http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an01-021.html and Anguttara Nikaya I.49-52 Pabhassara Suttas Luminous http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an01-049.html And of course there are many mental activities going on in a given instance, and that is one way to understand the discourse AN. I, v (48). Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., dalthorp@o... wrote: > Erik, you wrote: > > Perhaps it may be helpful to find where, specifically, in the Sutta > > Pitaka, the Buddha explicitly mentioned the speed at which cittas > > arise and pass away. > > I hope this will be helpful---AN. I, v (48): "Nothing, O monks, do I > know that changes so rapidly as consciousness. Scarcely anything may > be found that could be compared with this so rapidly changing > consciousness." > > Here, "consciousness" is "citta". The commentary elaborates on this > and creates the similes of billions of cittas arising and passing > away in a flash of lightning. Billions in a flash? I don't know about > the numbers, but if you think about all the mental activity occuring > in a second, I bet you could describe 100 cittas without much > trouble. > > Buddha talked about it. The commentators talked about it. Abhidhamma > talks about it. Why do you think they did so? 9531 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] meththa meditation Dear Sarah, Thanks for your thoughtful answers to my questions, which I have snipped below, but which were much appreciated. I have only one question about what you said: You said that cetasikas, such as sati for instance, can have one or more cittas as its object. Do the mental factors function independently of individual cittas? I had had the impression that the cetasikas were tied to their specific citta, but if that is not the case, that would be very interesting. Can a single occurence of sati take in a stream of several cittas? And if so, how does this work. Other than that, I am not raising any new issues in this post!!! But a few comments below: --- Sarah wrote: > I’m always glad to discuss these areas, Rob. I can’t think of any topic more > useful than that of sati and its objects. Thanks again. > > Sarah Well, I thank you again. You have a lot of patience with my incessant questions and challenges, and I appreciate it. > p.s. did you see my response on the yoga/tai chi thread or were you too busy > standing on your head?;-) (not that it needed a response I should add) > ==================== I wish I was standing on my head. Lately I've been too busy to stand on my head, I'm too busy running around on my feet. But I'm going to have to go back to look at that post. I have saved some posts that I couldn't answer at the time, and I believe that was one of them. Sometimes the more interesting or complicated messages wind up getting left for later, especially when there have been 35-40 new posts a day here lately! Yikes!! But I believe I have it on the queue.......... Best Regards, Robert Ep. 9532 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept, reality and awareness (RobE) Okay, Rob. I appreciate your response. I agree that from my standpoint a flash of lightning is incredibly fast. I'm just wondering 'for what' the cittas are incredibly fast. Obviously something slower than them. I still wonder what that 'slower' thing would be, since there is no human entity to take the cittas in. Best, Robert Ep. ================ --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- > > Dear Rob E. > THe buddha said words to the effect that it is hard to give a simile > or comparison that does justice to the speed of the rise and fall. > The reason is that this is the only way to comprehend time actually. > The commentators use the time it takes for a flash of lighting to > occur and use this as the standard against which it is compared. They > say billions in that space of time. > You might say this is relative but I think it is fast no matter where > or what existence. Even an insect that only lived for a few seconds > would still have experienced trillions of absolute deaths in that > time. I do not see where it says or implies that there is an > observing citta to observe them at all if you mean something that is > separate from the khandas. > robert > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Rob, > > I read the posts and yes, I did find them very interesting and > informative. > > However, I don't see that they answered the question of 'speed', > which implies > > that an observing citta is there simeoltaneously with the quickly > passing cittas > > in order to observe them. I don't see how speed can exist except > as a relative > > concept. > > > > However, the idea of thousands of cittas conditioning the 'object' > for knowing by > > passing on successive clarity to the new cittas as they arise, is a > comprehensible > > idea for me. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > > > ======== > > > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > > > --- Dear Rob E. > > > Hear are two posts , one from Kom and one from me that you might > be > > > interested in: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/1526 > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/1753 > > > best wishes > > > robert 9533 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 0:22pm Subject: Re: speed of cittas [Erik] Hi all, change in distance speed = ------------------- change in time How does the citta move? How does one measure the speed of the citta? Or rather, how does one measure the frequency of the citta rising and falling, namely, number of times a citta rises and falls in one second? Regards, Victor 9534 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 8:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Howard] Hi, num - In a message dated 11/23/01 1:07:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, srnsk@a... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > ________________________________ > > > Thank you for this quote! Do you (or anyone on the list) > > happen to > > > know what Pali word is translated here as 'consciousness'? Is it > > > 'vi~n~nana'? That would be interesting. > > > > The Pali word here is 'citta'. > > > > > =============================== > Thank you for this! It is also interesting, but in a different way than > if the word were 'vi~n~nana'. Doesn't 'citta' often mean 'thought'? > __________________________________ > > From my poor Pali, vi~n~na.na is a synonym of citta. Vi, means clearly, > all > over, spreading out, detail... ~N~na.na means knowledge. So vi~n~na.na > means know clearly, or know in detail. That's a character of citta, a > capability of knowing its arammana clearly. > > In Thai, for a layperson, nowadays vi~n~na.na also means ghost or spirit > which kind of continue after death. I remember from Milinda-panha that > King > Milinda asked about jeta-bhuti which means sth exists after death. The > debate > ended up that there is only continuation of vi~n~na.na but jeta-bhuti is > not > existing. > > > In 5 aggregations (khandha), vi~n~na.na khandha also means for > citta-paramattha as well. > > I have similar problem, reading English translation is at times difficult. > Yeap, sometime citta was translated as thought, sometime as consciousness, > sometime as perception, and even more. Even in R.Davids's Pali-Eng. > dictionary, the various definitions of citta is 3 pages long ! > > Just a non-expert input. I think Jim or other Pali gurus can give a clearer > > Pali root, meaning and definition. > > > Num > > ============================ Thanks for the info. It had been my impression that they were not quite synonyms, and that, outside of Abhidhamma, 'citta' is a general term much like the informal English word 'mind'. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9535 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 2:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Herman > > > The Buddha appointed no successor! > > k: That is true > > > > The Suttas start with , Thus have I heard, but I have never heard the > > Buddha saying , It is so because such and such said. > > > > St Paul and all the church fathers cannot add one single iota to the > > message of Jesus, but they can serve to confuse, as is apparent. > > > > What is the shortcoming of the Buddha, the self-realised one, that he > > needs Buddhaghosa to clarify his teaching? > > k: Honestly speaking, we have to be fair that there are many good > teachers after the Buddha that helps us understand the path better. For > eg Nagarjuna and Hui Neng. It is still up to individual to decide for > themselves. I rather find it insensitive to make such a statement bc > Buddhaghosa is a widely respected venerable of the Thervadan Traditions. > > Kind regards > Ken O Dear Ken, To be fair to Herman, I think his comment was in reference to Mike saying that 'you'll never convince those who are convinced that Buddhaghosa made it all up.' I think Herman's point here is that Buddhaghosa may well be an important teacher and commentator in the history of Buddhism, but we cannot assume that everyone should take his words to be the equal of the Buddha's. I think if people doubt the Buddha on a regular basis, it may be hard to think of them as being 'Buddhists'. But to have doubts about Buddhaghosa's commentaries should not shed a negative light on one's sincerity, no matter how much he may be revered as a teacher. Best, Robert Ep. 9536 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 2:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana: To Howard, Bob E, Mike, Erik Suan, I am very much looking forward to your 'subcommentary', particularly on the very interesting "Apannattikabhaavam". I really did enjoy your translation of the original verse. It seems very fresh. Why is it that the Buddha comes up with these little ways of saying things that are so enticing? Regards, Robert Ep. =============== --- abhidhammika@y... wrote: > > > Dear Howard, Robert Epstein, Mike, And Erik > > How are you? > > Thank you for your profound questions. This post is merely to say > that I have read your messages. > > The time I had a chance to read them has been very late in Canberra, > and I am already sleepy. So I won't be able to post a considered > reply now. But, as soon as possible, I will reply. > > I did know in advance, though, that the expression > 'Apannattikabhaavam - the state of undefined reality' could pose some > problems, and thought about writing further commentary on that > expression. As I do not have Dhammapada Tiikaa (subcommentary) on my > Chatthasangaayanaa CD-ROM, I would try to write a modern > subcommentary on the expression - not in Paali -, but in English, of > course. > > I have some insights on that expressions your questions did not > address. So, even if my subcommentary may or may not answer your > profound questions to your satisfaction, it could throw some light on > your present puzzelment. > > Won't be long! > > With regards > > Suan > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Previously on this list: > > > The follwoing quote from Section 89, Dhammapada Atthakathaa clearly > tells us that there is no consciousness component in Parinibbaana > after the death of an Arahant. > > I tried my best to provide as lateral a translation as possible - > syntatically in particular - while making sure that the readers can > read as natural English as possible. If you found any unclear points > in the translation, please let me know. My present translation has > been influenced by Nibbaanadhaatu Sutta Atthakathaa in Itivutta > Atthakathaa. > > "Parinibbutaa naama arahattapattito patthaaya kilesavattassa > khepitattaa sa-upaadisesena, carimacittanirodhena khandhavattassa > khepitattaa anupaadisesena caati dviihi parinibbaanehi > parinibbutaa, anupaadaano viya padiipo apannattikabhaavaam gataati > attho." > > "`Parinibbutaa' is the ultimate cool by means of two-way complete > extinguishments, one with the existential residues emptied of > defilement machinery ever since attainment of Arahatta awakening, and > the other without the existential residues emptied of psychophysical > machinery by termination of the last mind (the dying consciousness). > It has the meaning of reaching the state of the undefined reality > like the lamp without fuel." > > Parinibbaana - complete extinguishment > Kilesavatta - defilement machinery (vatta is literally circle, cycle, > or round. We have 'Vicious Circle' in English) > Khandhavatta - psychophysical machinery > Apannattikabhaavaam - the state of undefined reality > > Upaadisesa - existential residues (upaadi is merely another name of > pancakkhadhaa). Upaadi means phenomena taken strongly by craving or > attachment (tanhaa). > > As such, we can know for sure that Anupaadisesa Nibbaana is emptied > of the five khandhaas. Therefore, after the death of an Arahant, the > scenario of nibbaana having the consciousness component > (viññaanakkhandho) is out of the question. There is no textual > support for such a scenario. > > > > With regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > http://www.bodhiology.org 9537 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 2:59pm Subject: speed of cittas [Howard] > =============================== > Thank you for this! It is also interesting, but in a different way than > if the word were 'vi~n~nana'. Doesn't 'citta' often mean 'thought'? Sheesh. "Citta" is certainly translated in a number of different ways, depending on who's doing the translating and what is being translated. In most cases, I don't like "thought" because that has much more of a "discursive" feel to it, akin to vitakka. Also, there are lots of types of cittas that I can't squeeze into a "thought" basket, e.g. seeing. For the passage in question, AA explains the quote as moments of consciousness arising and vanishing very rapidly. B. Bodhi points out that the same language used in AN I, v.(48) is used in other places in the canon to refer to people changing their mind quickly. My inclination is to trust the commentaries unless there's pretty good reason not to. In this case, a moment's reflection convinces me that the number of cittas that arise and pass away in a second or two is enormous. For example, try paying close attention to what kinds of consciousness are arising and passing away at a time. In particular, see if hearing and seeing arise at the same moment. You may notice that they really don't. They really are separate and different kinds of consciousness. Then, you might notice that "thoughts" are in turn different from the seeing and hearing. These "thoughts" are popping up very frequently, but really they are not simultaneous with seeing and hearing as may become quite clear with further investigation. These different kinds of consciousness are arising and passing with great rapidity, alternating with each other, and always so ephemeral. Then, it becomes clear that there are a bunch of other kinds of consciousness popping up in between moments of seeing, hearing, thinking. It happens fast. Very fast. The suttas refer to it. The Abhidhamma refers to it. The commentaries discuss it. That it happens is clearly observable in practice. This there need be no doubt about. So is it helpful to hear and consider such things? Of course it is. Dan 9538 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 3:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Erik] --- dalthorp@o... wrote: > Erik, you wrote: > > Perhaps it may be helpful to find where, specifically, in the Sutta > > Pitaka, the Buddha explicitly mentioned the speed at which cittas > > arise and pass away. > > I hope this will be helpful---AN. I, v (48): "Nothing, O monks, do I > know that changes so rapidly as consciousness. Scarcely anything may > be found that could be compared with this so rapidly changing > consciousness." > > Here, "consciousness" is "citta". The commentary elaborates on this > and creates the similes of billions of cittas arising and passing > away in a flash of lightning. Billions in a flash? I don't know about > the numbers, but if you think about all the mental activity occuring > in a second, I bet you could describe 100 cittas without much > trouble. > > Buddha talked about it. The commentators talked about it. Abhidhamma > talks about it. Why do you think they did so? Well, I think it is significant too! It seems that they are talking about the speed of the mind compared to physical events and perhaps the perceptions that are tied to these physical events and move at a much slower speed. They are also I think talking about the speed at which awareness tries to 'capture' passing thoughts and experiences them slipping through its fingers. In such a case, the cetasika, 'awareness' of a certain kind, is grasping after the content or flow of thought, and is aware of its enormous speed. So there is some sort of relative judgment made here. If the Buddha says 'mental activity moves incredibly quickly, like lightning', or something to that effect, he is talking to people who normally observe and take in experiences at a much slower pace. If a car speeds by and we just see it in passing, and it appears as a blur, what is taking place? To some extent the eye cannot take it all in quickly enough to process it clearly. To some extent the mental processes are slower than the external event, so we can say that it occurred 'incredibly quickly'. If the mind is here said to move infinitely quicker than the speeding car, it cannot be that this super-fast mind is the one that is flustered by trying to capture the goings-on of the speeding car. It must be the mind which is flustered by the speeding car and by lightning, that is also flustered by the incredible speed of thought. So what is this 'slow mind' that cannot keep up with these incredibly fast events? Is it a series of slow cittas? Is is a set of slow-moving cetasikas that cannot take in what is happening? Is it moha? And is this 'slow mind' replaced by a more efficient one when one reaches the stage where realities are captured on that infinitesimal level? Either the cittas or cetasikas at that point have become much more refined and 'quick'. I would like to know what the proper way would be to talk about this process. Regards, Robert Ep. 9539 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 3:03pm Subject: Speed of cittas [Ken] Hi Ken, Comments interspersed: > I was thinking of the speed of cittas. When I was locking up the door, I > realise that a few things "seem" to act simultaneously. This is really great, Ken. Look a bit more closely and you may discover that they are really not acting simultaneously. > I do not know how fast is citta speed, but I think it should be fast > enough for us to do all these things at the same time... They are happening so fast that when we don't pay close attention, we are deluded into thinking they act simulataneously. Dan 9540 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 3:16pm Subject: Re: speed of cittas [Erik] Victor, you caught me! I was wondering if anyone would. Knowing that everyone recognizes that cheetahs are fast, I couldn't resist using the headline "Speed of cittas", despite its obvious silliness. Thanks for setting me straight. > change in distance > speed = ------------------- > change in time > > How does the citta move? If you really want to be technically correct, you define speed as the magnitude of the change in position per unit time! > Or rather, how does one measure the frequency of the citta rising and > falling, namely, number of times a citta rises and falls in one > second? I don't think it's necessary, desirable, or even possible. Suffice to say it is fast, as reported in the suttas, the abhidhamma, the commentaries, and in everyday experience. Dan 9541 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 3:23pm Subject: Re: speed of cittas [Erik] > One way to understand the discourse AN. I, v (48) is to see that this > quickly changing mind as being fickle. > Isn't it true? An fickle mind is undeveloped and uncultivated. And > undeveloped and uncultivated mind brings much stress and suffering. How true! But, AA defines it in the more Abhidhammic sense of cittas arising and passing with great rapidity. This makes perfect sense to me. This understanding of it just reeks with anatta and anicca; the "fickle mind" interpretation makes sense too, but in a less penetrating way that doesn't penetrate to the heart of the teaching as readily. Dan 9542 From: frank kuan Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 3:35pm Subject: lucid dreaming and seafood vegetarians I had an interesting lucid dream today. I was sitting on the beach in kauai, watching huge colorful fish swimming around for about 20 minutes. They all had such distinct personalities, and some of them popped their head out of the water to look at me curiously. the thought occured me, "something about this scene doesn't seem right. I'm home on the beach in kauai, that feels right, but something is odd. Maybe I'm lucid dreaming." So I got up, walked around, started looking for clues to determine if it's a lucid dream. There were very few people, only two in fact that i encountered, but this is after world trade center, and kauai doesn't get that much tourism anyway. so I kept searching. I came across an inland lagoon, (which doesn't exist! But didn't occur to me at the time) Then I thought, I'll test out if this is a dream by jumping in the water and breathe in some water to see what happens. If it's a dream, then I won't choke and drown. then I got scared, because it seemed SO REAL, and no one around to help if I drown. but somehow I felt bold and jumped in, and ... I could breathe in the water! I just swam around effortlessly and the ocean was lit, and there were colorful buildings, like I had discovered atlantis. One of the things I had resolved to do the next time I lucid dream was investigate the sense of smell. What I notice about lucid dreams is that: 1. Colors are extremely vivid 2. Visible objects cognizable to the eye are very convincing. If this were the only sense base I possess, then it would be very hard for me to tell reality from dream. 3. My dream worlds tend to be fairly serene and quiet, I'm not sure if audible sounds happen or if when I talk to people it's just mental telepathy which I take for granted as natural. I'm not sure my auditory faculty works very well in dreams, or works at all. 4. Tactile sensation seems to be very localized, and appear only when I really concentrate on it, like I have to create teh illusion on demand. for example, I know I should feel more pressure when I jump in water all over my body, but it was maybe only about 10% of the pressure that it should have been, and when I try to specifically touch things with my hand, it's like the sensation of touch happens with tape delay, like I create the illusion of pressure when I direct my attention at it. 5. I was underwater, so once again I'm thwarted on testing out the sense base of smell! Damn! 6. All right, lucid dream time. Traditionally, once I'm certain it's a dream, time to have some fun, where society's silly rules and physical laws of nature are subservient to my interests. Fly into space like superman? No problem. Do ridiculous dunks on a basketball court like that savage Vince Carter posterization of Frederic Weiss in the Olympics(*) or look for some hot mermaid babe action. Damn, I'm underwater. Can't fly, can't dunk, not a mermaid in sight. At least I'm swimming around like Aquaman, that's pretty cool at least. 7. I notice the clarity of my dreams is commensurate, directly proportional to my meditative concentration, qi, ching, vitality. For example, in my present state of eating in moderation, nutritously, not oversleeping generally (when I lucid dream it usually means I oversleep :-), strict celibacy, I notice that my ability to focus, concentrate, and the stability and convincingness of the dream is much sharper. When my vitality is not as high, then there are clues that it's a dream because it's harder and takes more effort to "look" at things with my dream visible sense base, and sometimes things change on me a few seconds later. when my health is good and vitality is high, the images persist much more like reality, and it takes less effort to perceive (with different sense bases). My question is, do other members lucid dream with all 6 sense bases? Which ones work better? Do they all work? -fk (*) The vince carter dunk I'm talking about, if you haven't seen it with your own eyes: Carter is 6'7". Weiss is SEVEN FOOT TWO INCHES. Carter jumps OVER Weiss so that his crotch completely clears Weiss's 7'2" HEAD!?!! while doing a savage windmill jam! It's unbelievable - arguably the greatest dunk of all time. 9543 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 4:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No Existential Residues In Parinibbaana --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Hi Kenneth, > > Are you reading Nanavira Thera 'Clearing the Path' Notes on Dhamma > (1960-65)??? > I dipped into it a few weeks ago, and found some aspects puzzling. > http://ww.geocities.com/Athens/9366/ctp-cont.htm I'd go all the way to 'very confusing' myself. Robert Ep. > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi All > > > > One interesting site titled "Nibbana and Anatta". > > > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/nibban1.htm > > > Kind regards > > Ken O 9544 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 0:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Speed of cittas [Ken] Hi, Dan - In a message dated 11/23/01 6:04:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, dalthorp@o... writes: > > Hi Ken, > > Comments interspersed: > > > I was thinking of the speed of cittas. When I was locking up the > door, I > > realise that a few things "seem" to act simultaneously. > > This is really great, Ken. Look a bit more closely and you may > discover that they are really not acting simultaneously. > > > I do not know how fast is citta speed, but I think it should be fast > > enough for us to do all these things at the same time... > > They are happening so fast that when we don't pay close attention, we > are deluded into thinking they act simulataneously. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: But who (or what) is this "we" who are so overwhelmed by the speed of cittas to think they act simultaneously when it is only the cittas, themselves, that are aware? You see, Dan, I don't really have any problem at all with the Buddha saying that the mind moves very quickly. I see it as a conventional observation that compared to the speed of change of "things"observed in the world, such as mountains, trees, rivers etc, the mind changes very quickly, from moment to moment. My problem is with the citta theory and its ramifications. --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dan > ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9545 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 5:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "engaged" [Christine] Dan, I think the Buddha's radical message on suffering here is meant for those who are advanced enough to contemplate a real detachment from personal suffering, the ability to see it as unreal, to avoid reacting negatively, etc. I don't believe that this should inform our view as to how to deal with human rights in the real world, not for ourselves, but for others. If Buddha in fact did not see the suffering of the enslaved masses of the local King at that time, I'm afraid I would have a serious problem with that. I don't believe that is his message. I believe that what he said was for the instruction of monks and other serious practitioners. At least I hope that is the case. Should we ignore the suffering of those for whom it appears as extremely real and torturesome? I remember some here making the point that we don't insist on finding out who manufactured the arrow before we allows the doctor to take it out. In the same way, we should end the suffering that presents itself to us first, and then work on the deeper level when those in bondage are free and able to sit down and have a conversation. We can't say that our purpose in life is to end suffering, and then ignore people in pain, because their brand of suffering is 'not the real kind'. If Buddhists don't work to insure human rights and end the *experience* of suffering in all its forms, we will wind up going very far down a very wrong path. This is the kind of thing that gives spiritual people a very bad reputation. Robert Ep. ================================= --- dalthorp@o... wrote: > Hi Christine, > I'm reading through some old posts, and I am enjoying your recent > comments and questions immensely. > > At one point, you write: > > > Is the Buddha's attitude to pursuing human rights (engaged > buddhism?) > > recorded? Or are the varied situations in life that people find > > themselves in secondary to learning the way out of Samsara? > > SN I, 3:10 (kosalasamyutta) addresses this question eloquently: > > "Now on that occasion a great mass of people had been put in bondage > by King Pasenadi of Kosala--some with ropes, some with clogs, some > with chains. Then, in the morning, a number of bhikkhus dressed...and > saind to the Blessed One: 'Here, venerable sir, a great mass of > people have been put in bondage by King Pasenadi of Kosala, some with > ropes, some with clogs, some with chains.' > > "Then the Blessed One, having understood the meaning of this, on that > occasion recited these verses: > 'That bond, the wise say, is not strong > Made of iron, wood, or rope; > But infatuation with jewellery and earrings, > Anxious concern for wives and children-- > This, the wise say, is the strong bond, > Degrading, supple, hard to escape. > But even this they cut and wander forth, > Unconcerned, having abandoned sensual pleasures.'" > > I read this in the context of the real root of suffering being > craving born of ignorance, and not the external conditions (e.g. > human rights) one may find oneself in. This is not to say that human > rights are not important in an external way, but ultimately, the > external conditions are superficial. One of my favorite passages > addressing this issue is in the Kakacupama sutta (MN 21): "Bhikkhus, > even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two- > handed saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards them would not > be carrying out my teaching." The relevance of the passage is that it > points out in stark terms that the real crux of the teaching is not > so much struggling to find ways to avoid the saw but instead to > develop wisdom and strength so that when the saw strikes, it does not > give rise to suffering. > > Pursuit of human rights begins with the recognition of an injustice, > then comes the pointing out of the injustice, the discussion of the > injustice, the plans to rectify the injustice, etc. It is eerily > similar to the words we read in Dhp. 3-4: "'He abused me, he struck > me, he overpowered me, he robbed me'..." Does Buddha then say, "Then, > I must fight against this injustice and pursue my rights by making > him behave better"? Not at all, he continues: "...those who harbor > such thoughts do not still their hatred", and in verse 4: "...those > who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred." Buddha did not > exhort us to battle against those awful other people who don't > respect human rights like us good Buddhists do. > > The real issue is the development of the mind: "Whatever harm an > enemy may do to an enemy, or a hater to a hater, an ill-directed mind > inflicts on oneself greater harm." (Dhp. 42). > > Dan 9546 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 6:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Howard] --- dalthorp@o... wrote: > My inclination is to trust the commentaries unless there's pretty > good reason not to. In this case, a moment's reflection convinces me > that the number of cittas that arise and pass away in a second or two > is enormous. For example, try paying close attention to what kinds of > consciousness are arising and passing away at a time. In particular, > see if hearing and seeing arise at the same moment. You may notice > that they really don't. They really are separate and different kinds > of consciousness. Then, you might notice that "thoughts" are in turn > different from the seeing and hearing. These "thoughts" are popping > up very frequently, but really they are not simultaneous with seeing > and hearing as may become quite clear with further investigation. > These different kinds of consciousness are arising and passing with > great rapidity, alternating with each other, and always so ephemeral. > Then, it becomes clear that there are a bunch of other kinds of > consciousness popping up in between moments of seeing, hearing, > thinking. It happens fast. Very fast. The suttas refer to it. The > Abhidhamma refers to it. The commentaries discuss it. That it happens > is clearly observable in practice. This there need be no doubt about. Dan, Nobody's doubting that consciousness arises and falls incredibly rapidly. I think your description above is enormously helpful in conceiving how this takes place. The only question is who is it so fast for? And I still think this is the most intriguing question, which so far, I don't believe anyone has answered -- except that Sarah has given an idea. I think it's fascinating that everything goes by so fast - but for who? Since we are working on the assumption that there is no ego that is observing these cittas jump around like mad, who or what is watching these cittas whiz by? If it's not an 'observer consciousness', which I know everyone will say it is not, then it is a 'slower citta' that can't keep up? Is it a sensory citta that can't keep up with a mental citta? Is it a cetisika watching several cittas whiz by or a citta being overrun by incredibly fast cetasikas? Or what? I would be very interested to know what you would think about this. I apologize for pressing the point, now for about the fourth time today, but I really think there's something valuable hidden in this. Such as how we have overriding, comparative or relative experiences without an ego to hold and compare it all. Regards, Robert Ep. 9547 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 6:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Speed of cittas [Ken] Okay, Howard. At this point it's starting to get kind of annoying to write something and then see in the next post that you have already written the exact same thing. As I have said in the past, if you are going to steal my material, you might have the courtesy of waiting until I have a chance to say it first. Thank you, Robert Ep. ====================== --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Dan - > > In a message dated 11/23/01 6:04:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, > dalthorp@o... writes: > > > > > > Hi Ken, > > > > Comments interspersed: > > > > > I was thinking of the speed of cittas. When I was locking up the > > door, I > > > realise that a few things "seem" to act simultaneously. > > > > This is really great, Ken. Look a bit more closely and you may > > discover that they are really not acting simultaneously. > > > > > I do not know how fast is citta speed, but I think it should be fast > > > enough for us to do all these things at the same time... > > > > They are happening so fast that when we don't pay close attention, we > > are deluded into thinking they act simulataneously. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > But who (or what) is this "we" who are so overwhelmed by the speed of > cittas to think they act simultaneously when it is only the cittas, > themselves, that are aware? You see, Dan, I don't really have any problem at > all with the Buddha saying that the mind moves very quickly. I see it as a > conventional observation that compared to the speed of change of > "things"observed in the world, such as mountains, trees, rivers etc, the mind > changes very quickly, from moment to moment. My problem is with the citta > theory and its ramifications. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Dan > > > ============================= > With metta, > Howard > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9548 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 6:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] absolute realities Nina I’m just coming out of a very busy week or two at work, and hoping to find some time to catch up on the list. Thanks for the very pertinent commentary passage below. --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon, I have here the Co in Pali to M.N.5, No Blemishes, about > paramatthadesana, I shall translate: > Buddhassa Bhagavato duvidhaa desanaa: sammuttidesanaa, paramatthadesanaa > caa ti. > There is a twofold teaching of the Buddha, the Blessed One: the teaching in > the conventional way and the teaching by way of ultimate realities. > Tattha puggalo, satto, itthii, puriso, khattiyo, braama.no, devo, Maaro ti > evaruupa sammutidesanaa. > There is a human, a being, a woman, a man, a man of the warrior caste, a > brahman, a god, and Mara. Such is the teaching in the conventional way. > Anicca.m, dukkha.m, anattaa, khandhaa, dhaatuu, aayatanaani, > satipa.t.thaanaa ti evaruupaa paramattha desanaa. > Impermanence, dukkha, anattaa, the aggregates, elements, sensefields, > satipa.t.thaana. Such is the teaching by way of ultimate realities. > Tattha Bhagavaa, ye sammutivasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m > pa.tivijjhitvaa > moha.m pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m sammuti desana.m > deseti. > Here the Blessed One taught to those in the conventional way who by > means of > it, after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and > abandoned > ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. > Ye pana paramatthavasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa moha.m > pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m paramatthadesana.m deseti. > But who by means of ultimate realities after having heard the teaching , > penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to > attain > distinction, to those he taught by way of ultimate realities. I do find it fascinating that there were so many in the Buddha’s time who could ‘get it’ simply by hearing the dhamma expressed in conventional terms (samutti desana). Presumably they could also have become enlightened on hearing the dhamma expressed in terms of ultimate realties (a paramattha desana), whereas the reverse would not necessarily apply. Or do you read the passage as suggesting otherwise? In either case, the underlying truths that had to be realised were of course the same, namely, the truths referred to in the teachings as ultimate truths (paramattha sacca). > You gave me some ideas for my India talks, very helpful. I shall write > about > nimitta. Ultimate realities: some people do not like this, but it is > difficult to find the perfect translation. A. Sujin stressed that words > are > not so important, they are just the means to explain realities so that > these > can be directly understood without needing words, without having to > think > about them in words. More about that later on, I like your tips as to > what > to write about, Nina. I was not aware that I was providing you with ideas for what to write about! However, since I have not got around to writing up my own notes for the list, let me give a brief and highly subjective summary of some highlights (I hope others will excuse my use of our customary ‘dhamma shorthand’ in what follows). From discussion with KS– The world as known is dhammas, and those dhammas are of 2 kinds only. (“All is dhamma (except concept), and all dhammas are either nama or rupa”). Knowing by direct experience the distinction between namas and rupas comes before any other knowledge by direct experience. Seeing and hearing, for example, are known initially by the characteristic that is unique to all namas. There are only 2 questions to be answered – is there a reality appearing now, and is there awareness of that reality? The frequent reference to the adze-handle simile, illustrating the merit of patience, confidence and continuous application. The danger of unrecognised wrong view, given that “there are only 2 kinds of view, right view and wrong view; there is no in between”. The significance of nimitta and anubyanjana. Points that came up in other discussions— The pervasive presence of conceit in our daily lives The explanation of the “tanha that is to be pursued” (tanha that is a ‘necessary’ part of our daily lives) There was much else, of course, but these were my personal highlights. Jon 9549 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 6:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cankamma Nina and Num --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Num, I am inclined not try to find too much behind the word > cankamma. > When sitting or lying down for a long time, one should change posture, > we > all do. The Buddha and the monks did some walking just to change > posture. > Nothing else, just walking naturally. Not walking slowly to induce sati, > that is lobha and it hinders the development. > Take care of yourself, do not play tennis, but maybe some cankamma > instead? > Best wishes for a speedy recovery, > Nina. I recall having seen a sutta that mentions the benefits of regular cankamma. These include benefits to bodily health as well as to general well-being and, if I recall correctly, the development of the path (to be understood in the sense of being a useful condition in the case of the monk who is living the holy life as it should be lived) Will provide a reference if I come across it again. Jon 9550 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 6:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "engaged" [Christine] Dan Very well said (your post to Christine below)! Delighted to have you posting at a time when I am also around (was beginning to think you were timing your come-backs to coincide with my absences...) Jon --- dalthorp@o... wrote: > Hi Christine, > I'm reading through some old posts, and I am enjoying your recent > comments and questions immensely. > > At one point, you write: > > > Is the Buddha's attitude to pursuing human rights (engaged > buddhism?) > > recorded? Or are the varied situations in life that people find > > themselves in secondary to learning the way out of Samsara? > > SN I, 3:10 (kosalasamyutta) addresses this question eloquently: > > "Now on that occasion a great mass of people had been put in bondage > by King Pasenadi of Kosala--some with ropes, some with clogs, some > with chains. Then, in the morning, a number of bhikkhus dressed...and > saind to the Blessed One: 'Here, venerable sir, a great mass of > people have been put in bondage by King Pasenadi of Kosala, some with > ropes, some with clogs, some with chains.' > > "Then the Blessed One, having understood the meaning of this, on that > occasion recited these verses: > 'That bond, the wise say, is not strong > Made of iron, wood, or rope; > But infatuation with jewellery and earrings, > Anxious concern for wives and children-- > This, the wise say, is the strong bond, > Degrading, supple, hard to escape. > But even this they cut and wander forth, > Unconcerned, having abandoned sensual pleasures.'" > > I read this in the context of the real root of suffering being > craving born of ignorance, and not the external conditions (e.g. > human rights) one may find oneself in. This is not to say that human > rights are not important in an external way, but ultimately, the > external conditions are superficial. One of my favorite passages > addressing this issue is in the Kakacupama sutta (MN 21): "Bhikkhus, > even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two- > handed saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards them would not > be carrying out my teaching." The relevance of the passage is that it > points out in stark terms that the real crux of the teaching is not > so much struggling to find ways to avoid the saw but instead to > develop wisdom and strength so that when the saw strikes, it does not > give rise to suffering. > > Pursuit of human rights begins with the recognition of an injustice, > then comes the pointing out of the injustice, the discussion of the > injustice, the plans to rectify the injustice, etc. It is eerily > similar to the words we read in Dhp. 3-4: "'He abused me, he struck > me, he overpowered me, he robbed me'..." Does Buddha then say, "Then, > I must fight against this injustice and pursue my rights by making > him behave better"? Not at all, he continues: "...those who harbor > such thoughts do not still their hatred", and in verse 4: "...those > who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred." Buddha did not > exhort us to battle against those awful other people who don't > respect human rights like us good Buddhists do. > > The real issue is the development of the mind: "Whatever harm an > enemy may do to an enemy, or a hater to a hater, an ill-directed mind > inflicts on oneself greater harm." (Dhp. 42). > > Dan 9551 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 1:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Speed of cittas [Ken] Geez - sorry, Rob! [ : > ( With metta Howard ;-)) In a message dated 11/23/01 9:19:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > Okay, Howard. > > At this point it's starting to get kind of annoying to write something and > then > see in the next post that you have already written the exact same thing. > As I > have said in the past, if you are going to steal my material, you might > have the > courtesy of waiting until I have a chance to say it first. > > Thank you, > Robert Ep. > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9552 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 6:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "engaged" [Jon] > Delighted to have you posting at a time when I am also around (was > beginning to think you were timing your come-backs to coincide with my > absences...) Well, there might just be something to that! But I am glad to hear from you now. Dan 9553 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 8:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Speed of cittas [Ken] --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Geez - sorry, Rob! [ : > ( > > With metta > Howard ;-)) That's okay Howard. I've decided to just 'let it go'. It's the 'enlightened' thing to do. With a vague smile of false humility, Robert Ep. =============== > In a message dated 11/23/01 9:19:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, > epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > > > Okay, Howard. > > > > At this point it's starting to get kind of annoying to write something and > > then > > see in the next post that you have already written the exact same thing. ... 9554 From: m. nease Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 8:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "engaged" [Christine] Dan and Robert, Just briefly, I think Dan's reading of this sutta is spot-on. Understanding will of course and always condition kind behavior to all beings to the extent that it has been cultivated. The forms this mental, verbal and physical action will take will of course depend on the 'accumulations' of the individual concerned. At any rate, the Buddha's approach to suffering on all levels was to attack the very source of all ill, individual and social--i.e. ignorance, aversion and desire. Political action only attacks the symptoms. This is not to say that kindly motivated politcal action can't be a good thing--just something else. Did I understand you correctly to say that you would 'have a problem' with the Buddha's failure to conform to your idea of correct action? Just curious... mike p.s. I see nothing in this sutta or in Dan's comments to suggest that 'we ignore the suffering of those for whom it appears as extremely real and torturesome'--or anything else for that matter. Ignorance is bad, no? --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dan, > I think the Buddha's radical message on suffering > here is meant for those who are > advanced enough to contemplate a real detachment > from personal suffering, the > ability to see it as unreal, to avoid reacting > negatively, etc. > > I don't believe that this should inform our view as > to how to deal with human > rights in the real world, not for ourselves, but for > others. If Buddha in fact > did not see the suffering of the enslaved masses of > the local King at that time, > I'm afraid I would have a serious problem with that. > I don't believe that is his > message. I believe that what he said was for the > instruction of monks and other > serious practitioners. At least I hope that is the > case. > > Should we ignore the suffering of those for whom it > appears as extremely real and > torturesome? I remember some here making the point > that we don't insist on > finding out who manufactured the arrow before we > allows the doctor to take it out. > In the same way, we should end the suffering that > presents itself to us first, > and then work on the deeper level when those in > bondage are free and able to sit > down and have a conversation. > > We can't say that our purpose in life is to end > suffering, and then ignore people > in pain, because their brand of suffering is 'not > the real kind'. If Buddhists > don't work to insure human rights and end the > *experience* of suffering in all its > forms, we will wind up going very far down a very > wrong path. This is the kind of > thing that gives spiritual people a very bad > reputation. > > Robert Ep. > > ================================= > > --- dalthorp@o... wrote: > > Hi Christine, > > I'm reading through some old posts, and I am > enjoying your recent > > comments and questions immensely. > > > > At one point, you write: > > > > > Is the Buddha's attitude to pursuing human > rights (engaged > > buddhism?) > > > recorded? Or are the varied situations in life > that people find > > > themselves in secondary to learning the way out > of Samsara? > > > > SN I, 3:10 (kosalasamyutta) addresses this > question eloquently: > > > > "Now on that occasion a great mass of people had > been put in bondage > > by King Pasenadi of Kosala--some with ropes, some > with clogs, some > > with chains. Then, in the morning, a number of > bhikkhus dressed...and > > saind to the Blessed One: 'Here, venerable sir, a > great mass of > > people have been put in bondage by King Pasenadi > of Kosala, some with > > ropes, some with clogs, some with chains.' > > > > "Then the Blessed One, having understood the > meaning of this, on that > > occasion recited these verses: > > 'That bond, the wise say, is not strong > > Made of iron, wood, or rope; > > But infatuation with jewellery and earrings, > > Anxious concern for wives and children-- > > This, the wise say, is the strong bond, > > Degrading, supple, hard to escape. > > But even this they cut and wander forth, > > Unconcerned, having abandoned sensual pleasures.'" > > > > I read this in the context of the real root of > suffering being > > craving born of ignorance, and not the external > conditions (e.g. > > human rights) one may find oneself in. This is not > to say that human > > rights are not important in an external way, but > ultimately, the > > external conditions are superficial. One of my > favorite passages > > addressing this issue is in the Kakacupama sutta > (MN 21): "Bhikkhus, > > even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by > limb with a two- > > handed saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate > towards them would not > > be carrying out my teaching." The relevance of the > passage is that it > > points out in stark terms that the real crux of > the teaching is not > > so much struggling to find ways to avoid the saw > but instead to > > develop wisdom and strength so that when the saw > strikes, it does not > > give rise to suffering. > > > > Pursuit of human rights begins with the > recognition of an injustice, > > then comes the pointing out of the injustice, the > discussion of the > > injustice, the plans to rectify the injustice, > etc. It is eerily > > similar to the words we read in Dhp. 3-4: "'He > abused me, he struck > > me, he overpowered me, he robbed me'..." Does > Buddha then say, "Then, > > I must fight against this injustice and pursue my > rights by making > > him behave better"? Not at all, he continues: > "...those who harbor > > such thoughts do not still their hatred", and in > verse 4: "...those > > who do not harbor such thoughts still their > hatred." Buddha did not > > exhort us to battle against those awful other > people who don't > > respect human rights like us good Buddhists do. > > > > The real issue is the development of the mind: > "Whatever harm an > > enemy may do to an enemy, or a hater to a hater, > an ill-directed mind > > inflicts on oneself greater harm." (Dhp. 42). > > > > Dan 9555 From: m. nease Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 9:04pm Subject: Bhikkhu Bodhi Interveiw Achaarn Kantasilo just sent me an interview he did with Bhikkhu Bodhi in June. Haven't had a chance to read it yet but would be glad to send it to any interested parties. It's a twelve-page MS Word document--let me know if you need me to convert it to text format before sending. Cheers, mike 9556 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 10:42pm Subject: Re: Bhikkhu Bodhi Interveiw --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "m. nease" wrote: > Achaarn Kantasilo just sent me an interview he did > with Bhikkhu Bodhi in June. Haven't had a chance to > read it yet but would be glad to send it to any > interested parties. It's a twelve-page MS Word > document--let me know if you need me to convert it to > text format before sending. Other than the fact it was fantastic to finally meet you in person yesterday in the presence of Ajahn Kantasilo, I'm curious to read the interview as well. I have to say I was quite impressed with Ajahn Kantasilo in general, and his Khmer is WAY better than mine! My wife Eath was so impressed by him that she formally requested teachings from him after you left, and spent most of last night crying tears of happiness at the wonderful good fortune of meeting someone like that. She says she feels as though she knows him from somewhere :). Funny how she mentioned how familiar you looked to her as well, Mike! ;) The Dhamma is a funny thing, innit? A "chance" meeting with you there rather than someplace else, that turned out to have huge repercussions for Eath--because she met a monk who can speak her language as well--because a big problem for Eath is that the state of Buddhism in Cambodia is miserable, and here's someone who can instruct the Dhamma in Thai, Khmer, AND English! Wow! 9557 From: Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 11:05pm Subject: Re: speed of cittas [Erik] --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., dalthorp@o... wrote: > > One way to understand the discourse AN. I, v (48) is to see that > this > > quickly changing mind as being fickle. > > Isn't it true? An fickle mind is undeveloped and uncultivated. > And > > undeveloped and uncultivated mind brings much stress and suffering. > > How true! > > But, AA defines it in the more Abhidhammic sense of cittas arising > and passing with great rapidity. This makes perfect sense to me. This > understanding of it just reeks with anatta and anicca; the "fickle > mind" interpretation makes sense too, but in a less penetrating way > that doesn't penetrate to the heart of the teaching as readily. Hi Dan, I would have to voice some reservations with this intepretation. Why? Because how relevant is the notion that millions of cittas arise and pass away at any given moment? What seems far more relevant to me--at least in terms of eradicating dukkha at the root-- is recognizing that thoughts are fleeting and impermanent; they arise and pass away quickly. How quickly? Quckly enough that we can discern their impermanence and insubstantiality with a bit of careful observation. To go much beyond this, to the point of entertaining the idea of millions of these flickering mind-moments to me, seems an entrance into a realm of theory having little to do with overcoming dukkha. It seems like gilding the lotus, as it were. What I have found helpful is when craving or aversion arise, to observe the mental sensations associated with them, and recognize that "this too shall pass." And pass a lot more quickly than the physical form of my body, for example, which is aging much too slowly to observe the way I can observe the speed at which my thoughts change. So I think the teaching "fickle mind" is MORE penetrating--at least in terms of relevance to terminating dukkha. Why do so many teachers (like Ajahn Chah) mention the "monkey mind", rather than a Saganesque "billions and billions" (you should appreciate that reference having spent time in Ithaca and all :) of cittas? Who but one with an omniscient mind can discern such things anyway? And if we can't discern these sorts of processes, it's a bit like talking about the impermanence of atomic particlesm which we can't even see, vs. the impermanence of the human body. At least as I see it. To summarize, then, what I have found helpful is in meditating on those things I CAN observe and understand and see directly, rather than engage in what appears to me akin to speculative theorizing. In other words, how am I feeling RIGHT NOW? Is there attachment arising NOW? Is there aversion arising NOW? These "cittas" arise and pass away fairly quickly, but not so quickly they can't be discerned by one who's been trained in what to look for, namely, what is craving, aversion, ignorance. In this way the Buddha's speaking about the speed at which cittas arise and pass away seems a more helpful interpertation, because it is something I can see how to apply here and now. 9558 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 11:34pm Subject: Is Suffering real? (was: Re: [dsg] "engaged" [Christine]) --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dan and Robert, > > Just briefly, I think Dan's reading of this sutta is > spot-on. Understanding will of course and always > condition kind behavior to all beings to the extent > that it has been cultivated. Yes, I would agree with that as a general principle. The forms this mental, > verbal and physical action will take will of course > depend on the 'accumulations' of the individual > concerned. I would agree with that too. At any rate, the Buddha's approach to > suffering on all levels was to attack the very source > of all ill, individual and social--i.e. ignorance, > aversion and desire. I agree with that as well. Political action only attacks > the symptoms. This is not to say that kindly > motivated politcal action can't be a good thing--just > something else. I agree with that, except that I would say that it is also very important to end suffering as a 'symptom' as well as at the source, and perhaps that's where there may be some room for controversy. It has always been an issue in spiritual life to what extent we try to end the absolutely overwhelming manifestations of suffering, as opposed to focussing our attention on the 'ultimate' solution: an end to the delusion of self that causes the sufferer in the first place. And I believe the answer is to strike a balance that is neither totally inclusive of manifest suffering, nor totally exclusive of manifest suffering. And you have said as much above, too. > Did I understand you correctly to say that you would > 'have a problem' with the Buddha's failure to conform > to your idea of correct action? Just curious... Well, as a matter of principle I reserve the right to form my own sense of what is right and wrong, on a provisional and worldly level, of course. As a citizen of the world, I feel some responsibility to be responsible for my involvement in the world or lack thereof. If I really found myself in opposition to something the Buddha said, that would be a source of a very long meditation...... But what I am saying at this point is that I don't believe that this is what the Buddha meant, but that he was telling his monks not to be distracted by the suffering in the world, because their job was to focus unremittingly on the matter of liberation, which will have a greater impact in the long run. Part of me, however, I will admit, is disappointed, that he doesn't feel inclined to free those imprisonned people. I have a real problem with the idea that all those people in physical chains, being made into slaves, is incidental to real suffering. I'm sure, from the Buddha's point of view, who has seen the suffering of immeasureable aeons, and knows the karmic causes of people's current situations, the focus on liberation would be the only thing that would ultimately make any difference. From my limited perspective, I still feel obliged to care about those enslaved people and try to get them free. Perhaps that is truly deluded, but I won't give up on them until I personally know better. Otherwise, I run the risk of becoming inhuman. When I no longer care about people's actual suffering in the world, I will know that I've gone down the wrong path. So it's not a matter of 'having a problem' with the Buddha's standpoint. I need to stay with what he says and absorb it. But it is a matter of understanding my obligation *now*, from all that seems right to me under current conditions, and I have to be true to that, not take an intellecual position towards other people's sufferings. Hope that makes my point of view clearer, if not more acceptable. > mike > > p.s. I see nothing in this sutta or in Dan's comments > to suggest that 'we ignore the suffering of those for > whom it > appears as extremely real and torturesome'--or > anything else for that matter. Well, nothing against Dan, whom I think knows a lot, and whose posts I enjoy reading, but I do see a view in Dan's comments that external suffering is unimportant compared to the real suffering. Here's a quote: =============== Dan: ..." Does > > Buddha then say, "Then, > > > I must fight against this injustice and pursue my > > rights by making > > > him behave better"? Not at all, he continues: > > "...those who harbor > > > such thoughts do not still their hatred", and in > > verse 4: "...those > > > who do not harbor such thoughts still their > > hatred." Buddha did not > > > exhort us to battle against those awful other > > people who don't > > > respect human rights like us good Buddhists do. > > > > > > The real issue is the development of the mind: > > "Whatever harm an > > > enemy may do to an enemy, or a hater to a hater, > > an ill-directed mind > > > inflicts on oneself greater harm." (Dhp. 42). ================== Ignorance is bad, no? Yes, ignorance is 'bad', and is the ultimate cause of suffering. I just feel obliged to add that the suffering, illusory or not, is bad too. And that's where I'll stand. Best, Robert Ep. ==================================== ==================================== > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dan, > > I think the Buddha's radical message on suffering > > here is meant for those who are > > advanced enough to contemplate a real detachment > > from personal suffering, the > > ability to see it as unreal, to avoid reacting > > negatively, etc. > > > > I don't believe that this should inform our view as > > to how to deal with human > > rights in the real world, not for ourselves, but for > > others. If Buddha in fact > > did not see the suffering of the enslaved masses of > > the local King at that time, > > I'm afraid I would have a serious problem with that. > > I don't believe that is his > > message. I believe that what he said was for the > > instruction of monks and other > > serious practitioners. At least I hope that is the > > case. > > > > Should we ignore the suffering of those for whom it > > appears as extremely real and > > torturesome? I remember some here making the point > > that we don't insist on > > finding out who manufactured the arrow before we > > allows the doctor to take it out. > > In the same way, we should end the suffering that > > presents itself to us first, > > and then work on the deeper level when those in > > bondage are free and able to sit > > down and have a conversation. > > > > We can't say that our purpose in life is to end > > suffering, and then ignore people > > in pain, because their brand of suffering is 'not > > the real kind'. If Buddhists > > don't work to insure human rights and end the > > *experience* of suffering in all its > > forms, we will wind up going very far down a very > > wrong path. This is the kind of > > thing that gives spiritual people a very bad > > reputation. > > > > Robert Ep. > > > > ================================= > > > > --- dalthorp@o... wrote: > > > Hi Christine, > > > I'm reading through some old posts, and I am > > enjoying your recent > > > comments and questions immensely. > > > > > > At one point, you write: > > > > > > > Is the Buddha's attitude to pursuing human > > rights (engaged > > > buddhism?) > > > > recorded? Or are the varied situations in life > > that people find > > > > themselves in secondary to learning the way out > > of Samsara? > > > > > > SN I, 3:10 (kosalasamyutta) addresses this > > question eloquently: > > > > > > "Now on that occasion a great mass of people had > > been put in bondage > > > by King Pasenadi of Kosala--some with ropes, some > > with clogs, some > > > with chains. Then, in the morning, a number of > > bhikkhus dressed...and > > > saind to the Blessed One: 'Here, venerable sir, a > > great mass of > > > people have been put in bondage by King Pasenadi > > of Kosala, some with > > > ropes, some with clogs, some with chains.' > > > > > > "Then the Blessed One, having understood the > > meaning of this, on that > > > occasion recited these verses: > > > 'That bond, the wise say, is not strong > > > Made of iron, wood, or rope; > > > But infatuation with jewellery and earrings, > > > Anxious concern for wives and children-- > > > This, the wise say, is the strong bond, > > > Degrading, supple, hard to escape. > > > But even this they cut and wander forth, > > > Unconcerned, having abandoned sensual pleasures.'" > > > > > > I read this in the context of the real root of > > suffering being > > > craving born of ignorance, and not the external > > conditions (e.g. > > > human rights) one may find oneself in. This is not > > to say that human > > > rights are not important in an external way, but > > ultimately, the > > > external conditions are superficial. One of my > > favorite passages > > > addressing this issue is in the Kakacupama sutta > > (MN 21): "Bhikkhus, > > > even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by > > limb with a two- > > > handed saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate > > towards them would not > > > be carrying out my teaching." The relevance of the > > passage is that it > > > points out in stark terms that the real crux of > > the teaching is not > > > so much struggling to find ways to avoid the saw > > but instead to > > > develop wisdom and strength so that when the saw > > strikes, it does not > > > give rise to suffering. > > > > > > Pursuit of human rights begins with the > > recognition of an injustice, > > > then comes the pointing out of the injustice, the > > discussion of the > > > injustice, the plans to rectify the injustice, > > etc. It is eerily > > > similar to the words we read in Dhp. 3-4: "'He > > abused me, he struck > > > me, he overpowered me, he robbed me'..." Does > > Buddha then say, "Then, > > > I must fight against this injustice and pursue my > > rights by making > > > him behave better"? Not at all, he continues: > > "...those who harbor > > > such thoughts do not still their hatred", and in > > verse 4: "...those > > > who do not harbor such thoughts still their > > hatred." Buddha did not > > > exhort us to battle against those awful other > > people who don't > > > respect human rights like us good Buddhists do. > > > > > > The real issue is the development of the mind: > > "Whatever harm an > > > enemy may do to an enemy, or a hater to a hater, > > an ill-directed mind > > > inflicts on oneself greater harm." (Dhp. 42). > > > > > > Dan 9559 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Nov 23, 2001 11:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhikkhu Bodhi Interveiw I'd love it, Mike, and Word would be fine for me. Robert --- "m. nease" wrote: > Achaarn Kantasilo just sent me an interview he did > with Bhikkhu Bodhi in June. Haven't had a chance to > read it yet but would be glad to send it to any > interested parties. It's a twelve-page MS Word > document--let me know if you need me to convert it to > text format before sending. > > Cheers, > > mike 9560 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Sat Nov 24, 2001 0:00am Subject: Re: Bhikkhu Bodhi Interveiw Dear Mike, I would be interested in receiving a copy of the interview also - could you convert it to text format please? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "m. nease" wrote: > Achaarn Kantasilo just sent me an interview he did > with Bhikkhu Bodhi in June. Haven't had a chance to > read it yet but would be glad to send it to any > interested parties. It's a twelve-page MS Word > document--let me know if you need me to convert it to > text format before sending. > > Cheers, > > mike 9561 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Sat Nov 24, 2001 0:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: meththa meditation Dear Sarah, Thanks for your patient explanations - I do not dispute anything you have said. I learn a great deal from all of your posts, if not from the words themselves - then from the thinking about the words later :-) But I am interested to notice my reactions and how this topic troubled me and came to assume such an importance to me. I think it grew out of need. At work, I feel constantly buffeted by waves of distressed feelings flooding off people in heartrending situations.........Theoretically, I could leave the job.......do I want to?.........maybe I'm addicted to pain, or have an 'If not I, then who...?' complex.........don't know...... I think I have been using Metta Meditation as a personal first-aid mechanism, and, at this point in time, I cannot see any alternative to continuing to act in this way. Some sort of psychic shield would be great. :-) Does Buddhism offer such a thing? I don't know of anything other than Metta Meditation (beginning with self as target) that revitalises, restores - puts money back in the emotional bank, when there has been a heavy pay-out. A friend sent me this from Bhikkhu Bodhi (who is always a favourite of mine) - and I am content to rest here unless/until internal or external circumstances change............ Bhikkhu Bodhi once wrote: "The method of development is //metta-bhavana//, the meditation on lovingkindness, one of the most important kinds of Buddhist meditation. The meditation begins with the development of lovingkindness towards oneself.[6] [6]. This might appear to contradict what we said earlier, that //metta// is free from self-reference. The contradiction is only apparent, however, for in developing //metta// towards oneself one regards oneself objectively, as a third person. Further, the kind of love developed is not self-cherishing but a detached altruistic wish for one's own well-being. It is suggested that one take oneself as the first object of //metta// because true lovingkindness for others only becomes possible when one is able to feel genuine lovingkindness for oneself. Probably most of the anger and hostility we direct to others springs from negative attitudes we hold towards ourselves. When //metta// is directed inwards towards oneself, it helps to melt down the hardened crust created by these negative attitudes, permitting a fluid diffusion of kindness and sympathy outwards." and also from Bhikku Bodhi - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/waytoend.html The Intention of Good Will The intention of good will opposes the intention of ill will, thoughts governed by anger and aversion. As in the case of desire, there are two ineffective ways of handling ill will. One is to yield to it, to express the aversion by bodily or verbal action. This approach releases the tension, helps drive the anger "out of one's system," but it also poses certain dangers. It breeds resentment, provokes retaliation, creates enemies, poisons relationships, and generates unwholesome kamma; in the end, the ill will does not leave the "system" after all, but instead is driven down to a deeper level where it continues to vitiate one's thoughts and conduct. The other approach, repression, also fails to dispel the destructive force of ill will. It merely turns that force around and pushes it inward, where it becomes transmogrified into self-contempt, chronic depression, or a tendency to irrational outbursts of violence. The remedy the Buddha recommends to counteract ill will, especially when the object is another person, is a quality called in Pali metta. This word derives from another word meaning "friend," but metta signifies much more than ordinary friendliness. I prefer to translate it by the compound "lovingkindness," which best captures the intended sense: an intense feeling of selfless love for other beings radiating outwards as a heartfelt concern for their well-being and happiness. Metta is not just sentimental good will, nor is it a conscientious response to a moral imperative or divine command. It must become a deep inner feeling, characterized by spontaneous warmth rather than by a sense of obligation. At its peak metta rises to the heights of a brahmavihara, a "divine dwelling," a total way of being centered on the radiant wish for the welfare of all living beings. The kind of love implied by metta should be distinguished from sensual love as well as from the love involved in personal affection. The first is a form of craving, necessarily self-directed, while the second still includes a degree of attachment: we love a person because that person gives us pleasure, belongs to our family or group, or reinforces our own self-image. Only rarely does the feeling of affection transcend all traces of ego-reference, and even then its scope is limited. It applies only to a certain person or group of people while excluding others. The love involved in metta, in contrast, does not hinge on particular relations to particular persons. Here the reference point of self is utterly omitted. We are concerned only with suffusing others with a mind of lovingkindness, which ideally is to be developed into a universal state, extended to all living beings without discriminations or reservations. The way to impart to metta this universal scope is to cultivate it as an exercise in meditation. Spontaneous feelings of good will occur too sporadically and are too limited in range to be relied on as the remedy for aversion. The idea of deliberately developing love has been criticized as contrived, mechanical, and calculated. Love, it is said, can only be genuine when it is spontaneous, arisen without inner prompting or effort. But it is a Buddhist thesis that the mind cannot be commanded to love spontaneously; it can only be shown the means to develop love and enjoined to practice accordingly. At first the means has to be employed with some deliberation, but through practice the feeling of love becomes ingrained, grafted onto the mind as a natural and spontaneous tendency. The method of development is metta-bhavana, the meditation on lovingkindness, one of the most important kinds of Buddhist meditation. The meditation begins with the development of lovingkindness towards oneself.[19] It is suggested that one take oneself as the first object of metta because true lovingkindness for others only becomes possible when one is able to feel genuine lovingkindness for oneself. Probably most of the anger and hostility we direct to others springs from negative attitudes we hold towards ourselves. When metta is directed inwards towards oneself, it helps to melt down the hardened crust created by these negative attitudes, permitting a fluid diffusion of kindness and sympathy outwards. Once one has learned to kindle the feeling of metta towards oneself, the next step is to extend it to others. The extension of metta hinges on a shift in the sense of identity, on expanding the sense of identity beyond its ordinary confines and learning to identify with others. The shift is purely psychological in method, entirely free from theological and metaphysical postulates, such as that of a universal self immanent in all beings. Instead, it proceeds from a simple, straightforward course of reflection which enables us to share the subjectivity of others and experience the world (at least imaginatively) from the standpoint of their own inwardness. The procedure starts with oneself. If we look into our own mind, we find that the basic urge of our being is the wish to be happy and free from suffering. Now, as soon as we see this in ourselves, we can immediately understand that all living beings share the same basic wish. All want to be well, happy, and secure. To develop metta towards others, what is to be done is to imaginatively share their own innate wish for happiness. We use our own desire for happiness as the key, experience this desire as the basic urge of others, then come back to our own position and extend to them the wish that they may achieve their ultimate objective, that they may be well and happy. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Christine, > > I just have a few minutes only left after my lengthy, verbose post to Rob Ep, > so i'll just make some brief comments here and hope others will do better. I'm > not an expert on metta;-) > > --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Dear All, > > > Sorry to be so slow, but may I refer back to a topic discussed a few > > days ago, where I still need a little clarification? During the > > discussion on Metta, the argument was put that Metta ought not be > > directed to 'oneself'; that Metta ought always to be 'other- directed'. > > I have been wondering if the scriptures quoted were directed at > > people living in a practising community where each individual would > > be 'caught in the crossfire' (so to speak) of everyone else's > > radiated metta......and that there was no conception of the isolation > > of many people practicing now in the West. > > I think the Teachings were for us all, regardless of our lifestyles. Even if we > live in relative isolation (a joke in Hong Kong..), aren't there still many > opportunities in a day for metta? What about when you talk to your dogs, milk > the cows;-), drive to work and encounter other polite and impolite drivers, or > on the bus, or at the hospital or speaking to the kids on the phone or here on > the list and so on and so on.... > > Aren't there so many missed opportunities for all kinds of kusala in a day? > There are for me, I know. Still, no use in clinging or wishing for more, > otherwise it's just more attachment to oneself;-) > > > Does Metta actually affect the target being/s, or does it only affect > > the person initiating metta? i.e. in the form of making them more > > sensitive, kindly and other-directed? > > Aren't we affected when others show us kindness and considertion? Of course > there are many different conditions at work, but most of us, most the time > respond to courtesy and kindness, I think. > > >Perhaps altering the dynamics > > of their relationships with the other being /s- or maybe just > > creating a satisfying self-view of themselves as a caring > > person........ > > sounds like the attachment to self again here... > . > > If 'self-directed metta' is an error, why do the majority of > > meditation courses/retreats teach both 'self directed' plus 'other > > directed metta, but suggest practicing 'self directed' first? > > pass... > > > If metta practice does actually affect the target being/s - wouldn't > > it be dependent on the strength and 'quality' of the feeling being > > radiated? > > Many, many conditions....time, place, person, recipient, accumulations and so > on. If we show kindness to the old woman on the bus, we don't have to think > about how she'll repond or how she has responded....ultimately we're not > responsible for the other's reaction and cannot control it...just do our best > with kusala cittas... > > >New practitioners are warned not to initially choose > > someone of the opposite gender as this could arouse emotions other > > than loving-kindness. (Presumably only in the meditator, otherwise > > the world would be a little more chaotic than it is.) > > Rather than setting too many rules, I'd rather just see the value of helping or > showing kindness to others when we have a chance..even if it's just the little > ant on our path;-) > > > If a practitioner has been psychologically damaged at a "critical > > period" for development of attachment, trust, autonomy, > > individuation, etc. as a very young child - by, say, physical, sexual > > or emotional abuse - how would the idea of "using oneself as an > > example" work? - if the feelings held for oneself are tinged with > > loathing or disgust? > > "Just as for myself...