15200 From: egberdina Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 0:59am Subject: What is Anatta? (was: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go) Hi guys and gals, As a reminder to myself (oh, that word again :-), I sometimes use the following phrase to discount the idea of self. I think this phrase is valid and can be verified as such at which ever level one is investigating. There is no thing which is it's own cause. All the best Herman BTW I am relishing the spirit in which the many discussions in this forum are taking place. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert > > k: It always nice to see u here :) > > > Anatta is pretty extreme too. It means 'not self'. > > Not = no. No self. Atta is > > self. An-atta is the negation of this entity. You > > can argue that anatta is > > applied only to objects of clinging and not to one's > > personal self, but if that is > > the case there is really no difference between > > Hinduism and Buddhism. > > k: If you argue in this way, there will be no end. > Just like impermenance is the opposite of permanent. > Anatta is applied to everything not just objects. By > the way when you mention about Hinduism, are these > Hinduism concepts exist before when Buddha is around > or evolve after Buddha enters Nibbana. I don't think > earlier Hindusim (Vedaism - hope I get the spelling > right) talks abt non-clinging. It is more likely, > these concepts abt non clinging are borrowed from > Buddhism (no offense please). > > > Hinduism > > also teaches total non-clinging and > > non-identification with external objects of > > desire. Hinduism also teaches that liberation of > > the mind leads to cessation of > > the continued round of birth and death. The > > non-existence of Atta or Atman [the > > inner spiritual self residing within the gross form] > > is the radical difference > > between most schools of Hinduism and all of > > Buddhism. > > > k: Why "non-clinging and non-identification with > external objects of desire", since everything is > inside. If Hinduism taught that by non clinging to > external objects is the way then they have a big > problem bc I dont believe in blaming external things > for my weaknesses. It is all inside :). But I dont > think I know Hinduisim concepts very well, even if it > is similar, we should not be worry :). But there is > one thing Hinduisim dont talk as much as Buddha, the > consistent method in the eradication of moha. > > > > Why must there be a choice. Can you choose a > > different moment right now? Or do > > you merely experience what arises as consciousness? > > Answer according to your > > actual experience, and you will have a hard time > > finding where you can choose. In > > the moment of choosing, do you choose to choose? > > When you make the final > > decision, is there some way in which you finally > > decide, or does it just happen > > when it does? Choice apart from what happens is > > actually an illogical conceptual > > construct. > > > > k: Good questions and difficult to answer :). As I > said before, if there is no choice why are you reading > DSG mails :). If you said you are conditioned by your > lobha or panna (to learn more), your actions are > conditined by other cetasikas - you are not wrong. > But if there is no power to choice then we might as > well dont learn Buddhism at all since there is nothing > we could choose to change our present and future state > > R: Do we choose to choose > > K: Definitely we choose to choose :) Is that a self > that choose, if we are conditioned by moha yes there > is a self, if we are conditoined by pana, there is no > self involved (just like Arahats) :) > > R: Who chooses freely? > > k: We cannot choose freely bc we are conditioned, > but remembers that does not imply we cannot choose to > choose :) Dont take cetana as a self, bc it takes > many more cetasikas before cetana could decide. Maybe > I should said there is no such thing as free will but > there is such a thing as the power of choice/volition. > As I said b4, it is a wonderful paradox :). > > > > > kind rgds > Ken O 15201 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 1:10am Subject: Re: Stream Entry (Sotapanna) Thanks Rob - The Bhumija Sutta is a great sutta. I can really relate to trying to get milk out of a newly calved cow the Wrong way :), and the churning of butter and the starting of a fire in both the Right and Wrong ways as well. I can see that the Buddha would have had an impact when he explained things to people using the everyday happenings in their lives. Everyone would know that you could try those things forever in the Wrong Way and they would never produce a good result. Whereas whether you wanted a result or not, if it was done in the Right Way, a good result would inevitably follow. metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear Group, > >Mostly, I don't aim at anything but eliminating my defilements - but > > maybe I should get more organised and have a Grand Plan with an > > Expected Date of Completion. > > Dear Chris, > This sort of thinking is very normal. It is what the mind does: > desire and plan and intend. If the thinking is underlaid with lobha > (looking fwd to being a sotapanna) then it will be associated with > pleasant or neutral feeling and if it is associated with dosa(fear of > rebirth or worry about how long it will take) then it will come with > unpleasant feeling. I think as far as the path is concerned whatever > type of thinking arises doesn't make that much difference; the crux > is whether it is seen as thinking. If it is not then the concepts > that are object of the thinking may be given more importance > and 'reality' than they deserve. While if they are seen as concept > then they may still occur but there will be less attachment to them. > ) > > "For any priests or contemplatives endowed with wrong view, wrong > resolve, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood, wrong effort, > wrong mindfulness, & wrong concentration: If they follow the holy > life even when having made a wish [for results], they are incapable > of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when having > made no wish, they are incapable of obtaining results. If they follow > the holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no > wish, they are incapable of obtaining results. If they follow the > holy life even when neither having made a wish nor having made no > wish, they are incapable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because > it is an inappropriate way of obtaining results... > > "But as for any priests or contemplatives endowed with right view, > right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right > effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration: If they follow the > holy life even when having made a wish, they are capable of obtaining > results. If they follow the holy life even when having made no wish, > they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life > even when both having made a wish and having made no wish, they are > capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when > neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they are capable > of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an appropriate way > of obtaining results." > Robert 15202 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? Stephen Thanks for sharing your views. Lots to talk about here. I am going to be selective, otherwise I'll never get a reply finished! << I don't find talk of 'reality' useful; in fact I find it goofy and mysterious. It's a confusing way of speaking.>> You are not alone in having difficulty with the terms 'reality' and 'paramattha dhamma'. However, we don't all have to use the same particular term. It is what is being referred to that is important. Here, the point being made is that, according to the teachings, what we perceive as being 'real' or 'the world' at the present moment is in fact not the way that the world is actually experienced, and that our misconception of the way things really are is attributable to our accumulated ignorance and wrong view. At any given moment, according to the teaching, the world as experienced is merely a moment of consciousness arising at one or other of the sense-doors or the mind door. The truth of this proposition can be tested by anyone over time. I'm sure there is nothing new to you so far. Now, the object experienced at any of the sense-doors is, as Herman pointed out in his recent post to you, irreducible in terms of that moment of experience (or any other moment of experience). This also is something that can be verified by each person for themselves in due course. The *apparent* reducibility in conventional terms of these sense-door objects is beside the point. Experientially, they are not capable of further reduction. As soon as you start to talk about the component parts of a sense-object it is no longer the sense-object as object of a moment of consciousness, but it is a concept/mental construct of the conventional idea of that sense-object. It is useful to have some generic term to refer to these 'things' that, in terms of moment-to-moment experience, are 'ultimates' or 'absolutes' or whatever you like to call them. We can use the more neutral term 'dhammas', which occurs frequently in the suttas, and which some find more acceptable than 'realities'. Do you have a preferred term? <> It's my understanding that in the suttas the terms khandhas, ayatanas and dhatus all refer to the same dhammas, and that these are the same dhammas that are referred to by the term 'paramattha dhamma'. << Paramattha dhammas are supposed to be elementary, "ultimate constituents of a whole"; but none of these are, each is further reducible. ... Consider vedana. It can be analyzed into endless types or classifications: 2 (bodily or mental), 3 (pleasant, painful, neutral), 5, 6, 18 in 3 subgroups, 36 in 6 subgroups, even 108! (Bahuvedaniya Sutta). Isn't it clear that the Buddha wasn't interested in ultimate categories or realties? That it was provisional, dependent on context? That it's a strategy to disengage from seeing things in personal ways by breaking them down into impersonal categories, not a search for ultimates?>> As far as the different enumerations of feeling are concerned, I think you'll find if you examine the texts carefully that this is simply different ways of classifying the same dhammas, for the benefit of listeners with different propensities for understanding. Stephen, the rest of your message deals with the Mulapariyaya and other suttas, so if you don't mind, I'll leave that for a later post, as I will need to do some reading before I can comment on your points. I hope you find something of interest in the discussion so far. Jon PS BTW, the question (also discussed in your post) of whether things exist or don't exist etc addresses a different point to the true nature of the present moment of experience, and is not directly relevant to the discussion on that topic. The nature of the present moment of experience is common to all, and can be discussed independently of any view of existence, being or the like. --- oreznoone@a... wrote: > Hello Christine, Jon > I don't find talk of 'reality' useful; in fact I find it goofy and > mysterious. It's a confusing way of speaking. For instance, the Buddha > rejected both being and non-being. ("...'everything exists' is one > extreme, > and 'nothing exists' is another extreme. The Tathagata expresses the > MIddle > Way that does not adhere to these two extremes..." S.III.134-35 [The > passage > then goes on to reference paticcasamuppada.]) > In itself, this is nonsense: something either exists or it does not > (there > are no shades or graduations of reality). What it means, in context, is > that > he saw that the world consists of becoming, or processes (things exist > in an > interrelated way, depend on conditions, are impermanent, don't exist as > independent substances or selves), not static/unchanging ('being' > rejected) > or somehow not real ('non-being' rejected). So it makes sense in the > context > of debate with contemporary opposing views of static realism or > eternalism > and nihilism; but 'being' is used here in a special sense. The processes > of > the world exist, are quite real, just not real in some odd, eternalist > sense. > (So the Buddha says: "When dukkha arises, it really arises; and when > dukkha > is extinguished, it is really extinguished." ibid.) The relevance of > this is > that perhaps we may agree, we're simply using "paramattha" and "reality" > and > such terms in different senses. > > I'll begin by noting that not one* of your many references refers to the > word > "paramattha." You do make many references to khandha, ayatana, the 18 > dhathus, the 4 elements and such. If this is what paramattha means we > agree, > and it's merely a peccadillo that I don't use the word. > >...the suttas nevertheless contain numerous references to the > importance of > >developing direct knowledge of paramattha dhammas as referred to by > other > names, >such as 'khandhas'. > (& a second quote from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary so using the > term.) > No problem for me here, but > > Paramattha dhammas are supposed to be elementary, "ultimate constituents > of a > whole"; but none of these are, each is further reducible. So I believe > he's > misusing the word, in order to find it in the suttas. In this sense we > don't > agree. > [This further potential for reduction may not be true of the 4 elements. > Here > I suggest that if the Buddha meant by element certain experiential > properties > —e.g., earth = hardness— then good; but if it was meant as a theory > of > matter it's wrong, as persons are made of carbon, nitrogen, and such. > This, > of course, would pose no problem; the Buddha's meaning is unchanged, > just > that the body breaks down into in fact different items, still > impersonal, > than he supposed. So Dhamma can't be entirely separated from physics.] > Consider vedana. It can be analyzed into endless types or > classifications: 2 > (bodily or mental), 3 (pleasant, painful, neutral), 5, 6, 18 in 3 > subgroups, > 36 in 6 subgroups, even 108! (Bahuvedaniya Sutta). Isn't it clear that > the > Buddha wasn't interested in ultimate categories or realties? That it was > > provisional, dependent on context? That it's a strategy to disengage > from > seeing things in personal ways by breaking them down into impersonal > categories, not a search for ultimates? 15203 From: Sarah Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:33am Subject: “People....People who need People.......” Dear All, In the Brahmajaala Sutta (and commentaries) we read in detail about all the possible wrong views. We read that the idea of an ‘existent being’ is the real crux of the various views. For example, this is the first of the annihilationist views (which I quoted in an earlier post): ..... (p.79 B.Bodhi trans.) “ ‘Herein, bhikkhus, some recluse or brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form; it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.’” ..... The other 6 kinds of annihilation view all end with the same last sentence about the belief in the ‘extermination of an existent being’. ..... In the sub-commentary notes (p.182), we read: “Since the destruction of the non-existent (asato) is impossible, the words ‘(annihilation) of an existent being’ are given signifying annihilation based on existence (atthibhaavanibandhano upacchedo). The word ‘being’ (sattassa) is used in order to show the following. The specific-natured dhammas occurring as causes and effects included in a single (multi-life) continuum exhibit a certain distinction as they may belong to different (individual life) continuities (within that single multi-life continuum). Misapplying the method of diversity (naanattanaya), these theorists misapprehend the real differentiatiation between the causes and the effects, and arrive at the conclusion that the differentiation is absolute, as though (the causal and resultant continuities) belonged to completely different continua (bhinnasantaana)...........” ..... A little later (p.183): “..For the assumption of a being arises when the compact of aggregates occurring in the form of a coninuum is not dissected (into its components). And since it is held that ‘the self exists so long as it is not annihilated,’ the assumption of annihilationism is based on the asumption of a being.’ “ (“Santaanavasena hi vattamaanesu khandhesu ghanavinibbhogaabhaavena sattagaaho, sattassa ca atthibhaavagaahanibandhano ucchedagaaho yaavaaya”m attaa na ucchijjati, taavaaya”m vijjati yevaa ti gaha.nto.”) ***** Victor quoted from the excellent Satta Sutta, SN,Khandhavagga, p985 (Bodhi transl) “One is stuck, Radha, tightly stuck, in desire, list, delight, and craving for form; therefore one is called a being.” In a footnote here, B,Bodhi explains this is a pun between satta, meaning ‘being’ and also ‘attached’ from ‘sajati’. . “One is stuck, tightly stuck, in desire, lust, delight, and craving for feeling...for perception...for volitional formations...for consciousness; therefore one is called a being....” ***** Back to the Brahmajala Sutta and the question of killing which has been discussed recently on DSG. We read in the sutta: “ “Having abandoned the destruction of life, the recluse gotama abstains from the destruction of life....” Commentary. The word ‘life’ (paa.na) signifies, in conventional discourse, a living being (satta); in the ultimate sense, it is the faculty of life (jivitindriya). the ‘destruction of life” (paa.naatipaata) is the volition of killing in one who perceives a living being as such, when this volition issues forth through the door of either body or speech and occasions an act cutting off the life-faculty of that living being...... “Sub.Cy. query: when formations are subject by nature to constant cessation from moment to moment, who kills and who is killed?..... ‘Reply: the ‘killer’ is the assemblage of formations (sankhaaraana”m pu~nja) conventionally called a ‘being’, containing the aforementioned volition of killing. That which ‘is killed’ by him is the aggregation of material and immaterial dhammas that would have been capable of arising (in continued succession) if the aforementioned means of killing had not been applied, but which now continues as a bare procession (of material dhammas) conventionally termed ‘dead’, deprived of vital warmth, consciousness, and the life-faculty due to the application of the means of killing by the killer...........................Though formations lack personal initiative, nevertheless the conventional designation of agency is applicable to causes which are effective through their contiguity, and are fixed in their capacity to give results adequate to themselves, just as in the statements ‘the lamp illuminates’ and ‘the moon brings in the night’ (agency is ascribed to the lamp and to the moon). “The act of destroying life must be recognized to pertain not only to the aggregation of consciousness and mental concomitants existing simultaneously with the intention of killing, but must also be admitted to apply to the (entire sequence of states) which endures by way of (the unity and the indiviuality of) the continuum. Just as the accomplishment of activity is senen in the case of lamps, etc, which likewise exist by way of continuity, so too there certainly does exist one who is bound by the kamma of destroying life.” ***** In the commentary and sub commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta, we read in detail about what is meant by conventional terms when it is said “in looking straight on” or “in wearing the shoulder-cloak” and so on. We can see from the following detail, how useful some understanding of abhidhamma is when we read the suttas and these conventional terms. Clear comprehension (sati and panna) should be developed at any time. The following is from Soma Thera’s translation: “Within, it is said, there certainly is no self or soul which looks straight on or looks away from the front. Still, at the arising of the thought "I shall look straight on," and with that thought the process of oscillation (vayo dhatu) originating from mind, [citta samutthana] bringing into being bodily expression [viññatti] arises. Thus owing to the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity [cittakiriyavayodhatu vipphara], the lower eyelid goes down and the upper eyelid goes up. Surely there is no one who opens with a contrivance. "Thereupon, eye-consciousness arises fulfilling the function of sight [tato cakkhu viññanam dassana kiccam sadhentam uppajjati], it is said. Clear comprehension of this kind here is indeed called the clear comprehension of non-delusion [evam sampajananam panettha asammoha sampajaññam nama]. Further, clear comprehension of non-delusion should be also understood, here, through accurate knowledge of the root (mula pariñña), through the casual state (agantuka bhava) and through the temporary state [tavakalika bhava]. First (is the consideration) by way of the accurate knowledge of the root: -- "There is (first) the mental state of the life-continum, And (then) there are adverting, seeing, receiving, Considering, determining, and impulsion Which is seventh (in cognition's course). [bhavangavajjanañceva dassanam sampaticchanam santiranam votthapanam javanam bhavati sattamam]. " ***** During our stay in Koh Samui, I was reading Nina’s “Conditions”, an introduction to the Patthana (the last book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka) more carefully and considering further the interplay of the various paccaya and paccayupana (conditioning and conditioned dhammas). Understanding more about conditions helps us to understand that what we take for people are a variety of conditioned namas and rupas. “Each reality which arises does so because of a concurrence of different conditions which operate in a very intricate way” For example, under jhana paccaya, we learn that the jhana factors may be wholesome or unwholesome: “When someone commits an unwholesome deed, such as killing, nåma and rúpa which arise because of conditions perform their functions. The dosa-múla-citta is accompanied by vitakka which is in this case thought of violence, by vicåra which is occupied with the object, by unpleasant feeling and by concentration which causes the citta to be firmly fixed on the object. The akusala citta and the accompanying cetasikas and also the mind-produced rúpa are conditioned by akusala jhåna-factors,“strength-givers” or intensifying factors, by way of jhåna-condition. When we perform a generous deed, the kusala citta and accompanying cetasikas and also the mind produced rúpa are conditioned by sobhana jhåna-factors by way of jhåna-condition. These dhammas are also conditioned by root-condition, by faculty-condition and by several other conditions. Thus, as we have seen, jhåna-factors are not only operating while one cultivates jhåna, they are conditions which function time and again in daily life, no matter whether we perform wholesome or unwholesome deeds.” We also learn how rupa -jivitindriya (physical life faculty) maintains rupas produced by kamma “as a wet-nure does a prince” (Vism X1V,59). As Nina writes: “Life faculty is a condition for distinguishing kamma-produced rupa from other kinds of rupa. We cling to the body which is alive, we cling to eyesense and earsense and take them for self. they are only elements maintained by life faculty, a kind of rupa which is not self.” Nama-jivitindriya is also life faculty, but in this case a cetasika (mental factor) arising with every citta, controlling and maintaining the life of the other namas and rupas. While there is life faculty, there will be feelings. In other words, by understanding more about the various dhammas we learn more about what ‘people’ really are. I find the following comments in the last chapter of Nina’s book very helpful and I apologise for making a long post longer (though I've just reduced it by half;-)): ..... “We are so used to the idea of seeing living beings, people and animals, and we do not realize that we are deluded about reality because of our accumulated ignorance and wrong view. When we watch T.V. and we see people moving, we know that there are no people there. There are rapidly changing projected images on a screen and this gives us the illusion that there are people who are acting. These images are merely different colours which appear through the eyesense and then we know the meaning of what we see, we think of concepts on account of what we see. The same happens in real life. There is seeing of visible object and then we take what we see for people or things which last. Persons are not real in the ultimate sense, no matter whether we see them on a screen or in the world around us............ “The Buddha and the arahats also thought of concepts but they were not deluded about them, they had no defilements on account of them. If we cling to concepts and take them for things which really exist, which are permanent or self, we are deluding ourselves. Clinging to concepts of person or self leads to many other kinds of defilements, it leads to a great deal of sorrow. When someone has lost a person who was dear to him he seems to live with his memories of the person he loved, he lives with his dreams, with an illusion. However, also when a beloved person is still alive we live with our dreams; we take the person we believe we see, hear or touch for reality. Someone who is in love with another person is actually in love with his own concept of that person, with an idealized image he has of that person. He does not have understanding of realities, of the different cittas which arise because of their approriate conditions. When he finds out that the image he has of another person is completely different from reality he may experience disillusion. We may have idealized images of other people and have expectations about them which cannot be realised. We have learnt about nåma and rúpa and about the conditions for their arising, but theoretical understanding is not enough. We should consider ultimate realities in daily life. We tend to forget that seeing is only a conditioned reality and that visible object is only a conditioned reality, and therefore we are easily carried away by sense impressions..... “ If there can be mindfulness of one reality as it appears through one of the six doors, we will know the difference between the moments of mindfulness of a reality and the moments there is thinking of an image of a “whole”, a person or a thing. By being mindful of just visible object or sound we learn to distinguish between the objects appearing through the five sense-doors and the mind-door. When there is right understanding of a reality as it appears one at a time, we do not expect other people to behave according to an idealized image. Someone may insult us, but if we can see that there is nobody who can hurt us we will be less inclined to take unjust treatment personally. When words of praise and blame are spoken to us, the hearing is result produced by kusala kamma or akusala kamma. When we think about the meaning of the words which were spoken to us defilements tend to arise. We take what we hear very seriously and we forget that what is experienced by hearing is only sound. Depending on our accumulations we may be afflicted on account of what is heard, we think about it for a long time. We are so affected by what others say or do to us because of clinging to ourselves. Life is short, a moment of experiencing an object is very short. If there were no citta which experiences an object the world and everything in it would not appear. The sotåpanna who has no more wrong view about person or self understands that there are only conditioned nåma and rúpa, no people.” ***** The song (from memory) says that “People who need people are the luckiest people alive”.....We can see that the study of paramatha dhammas goes against the conventional flow of ideas and this is why the Buddha reminded us that the truth is so very ‘hard to see’. Sarah ==== 15204 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 6:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Putting the Anapanasati Sutta into practice Hi Jon, I would be glad to discuss with you on any issue you have regarding anapanasati after you have started developing the mindfulness of in-&- out breathing. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > > Again, the Buddha pointed out the benefit of developing the > > mindfulness of in-&-out breathing and gave the instruction on it in > > Anapanasati Sutta. It is up to one to put the instruction into > > practice. > > > > If you don't see that you can put the instruction into practice, then > > perhaps you might want to find out what hinders you from developing > > the mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. > > > > I look forward to discussing with you on any issue you have regarding > > anapanasati after you start developing the mindfulness of in-&- out > > breathing. > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > Thanks for offering to discuss this sutta further, from the point of view > of 'putting the instruction into practice'. > > You will have seen the post I just sent to Howard, and you may have > already anticipated my question. It relates to the very beginning of the > 'instruction' on mindfulness of breathing: > "Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as to > bring the four frames of reference to their culmination? > "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the > shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs > crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. > Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. ..." > > My question is, how does a person get to be within the ambit of this > introductory passage, i.e. of being a person who -- > (a) having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty > building, has sat down folding his legs crosswise and holding his body > erect, > (b) has *set mindfulness to the fore*, and > (c) is *always mindful* as he breathes in…" > > I would be interested to hear your thoughts on each of these factors as > prerequisites to the actual 'practice' of mindfulness of breathing. > Thanks. > > Jon 15205 From: Sarah Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? Hi Stephen, I've really appreciated yours and all the other posts while we've been away. Like Herman, 'relishing the spirit...' (Ken O, good to see you around again....) --- oreznoone@a... wrote: > I don't find talk of 'reality' useful; in fact I find it goofy and > mysterious. It's a confusing way of speaking. ..... Reminds me of Alice turning up at the Mad Hatter's tea party;-) ..... >For instance, the Buddha > rejected both being and non-being. ("...'everything exists' is one > extreme, > and 'nothing exists' is another extreme. The Tathagata expresses the > MIddle > Way that does not adhere to these two extremes..." S.III.134-35 ..... SN 111 is Khandhavagga....What is the name of the sutta? I'm having trouble finding the reference. Thanks. Sarah ===== [The > passage > then goes on to reference paticcasamuppada.]) > In itself, this is nonsense: something either exists or it does not > (there > are no shades or graduations of reality). What it means, in context, is > that > he saw that the world consists of becoming, or processes (things exist > in an > interrelated way, depend on conditions, are impermanent, don't exist as > independent substances or selves), not static/unchanging ('being' > rejected) > or somehow not real ('non-being' rejected). So it makes sense in the > context > of debate with contemporary opposing views of static realism or > eternalism > and nihilism; but 'being' is used here in a special sense. The processes > of > the world exist, are quite real, just not real in some odd, eternalist > sense. > (So the Buddha says: "When dukkha arises, it really arises; and when > dukkha > is extinguished, it is really extinguished." ibid.) The relevance of > this is > that perhaps we may agree, we're simply using "paramattha" and "reality" > and > such terms in different senses. 15206 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:21am Subject: Re: Stream Entry (Sotapanna) Hi Christine, One becomes a stream enterer not by eliminating the first three fetter. The elimination of the first three fetter is a mark of stream entry. How is one a stream enterer? You might want to refer to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an05-179.html I hope it is helpful to your Grand Plan, and I hope that after checking for your self with the discourse, you will realize you are already a stream enterer, and if you are not one yet, you are not far from being one. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > As an ordinary person (puthujjana), still possessing all of the ten > fetters, and so bound to the round of rebirths, from time to time I > get a little concerned about the shortness and uncertainty of life, > particularly after the death of someone I know. Most people seem > totally unprepared for death, even those of great age, seem shocked > if they know about it in advance. Many people say that they are not > concerned with death, but with the dying - whether they will die in > unrelieved pain, or alone. My concern, when it arises, is with the > fact that those of us who are not Sotapannas (Stream Enter-ers) are > in grave danger when it comes - firstly to death at any time, and > secondly to where Rebirth will occur. It is only Stream Entry > that ensures that there is no more to rebirth in woeful states, and > human birth being so very rare. > > Entry into the Stream is marked by the elimination of three > fetters. 1. Sakkaya-ditthi (Personality Belief) 2. Vicikiccha > (Doubt) 3. Silabbata-paramasa.(Attachment to mere Rule and Ritual). > Stream Entry also ensures that there will be (a maximum of) seven > more cycles through the round of rebirths. Given that these laws > are relentless and inexorable, and are not nullified by lack of > believing in rebirth, it seems like a good thing to energetically > follow the Path to safety. > > To me, it seems the hardest fetters to eliminate are the first two - > understanding of Anatta, and the elimination of Doubt.... Could it be > that they are not as hard as portrayed? or could it be that I am > deceiving myself by thinking the other eight fetters are easier (at > least, seven of them)? It seems that the first two concern > understanding the Dhamma - realising about not-self, and developing > unquestioning confidence in the Word of the Buddha, while the next > seven involve working away at behavioural characteristics. And then > there is Avijja ..... > > The Ten Fetters that bind us to the wheel of becoming: > > Doubt (vicikiccha) > Attachment to mere Rule and Ritual (siilabbata-paraamasa) > Sensual Lust (kamaraga) > Ill-Will (vyapada) > Craving for Fine-Material Existence (rupa-raga) > Craving for Immaterial Existence (arupa-raga) > Conceit (mana) > Restlessness (uddhacca) > Ignorance (avijja). > > Mostly, I don't aim at anything but eliminating my defilements - but > maybe I should get more organised and have a Grand Plan with an > Expected Date of Completion. > > metta, > > Christine 15207 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:24am Subject: Perfections, Ch 4, Renunciation, no 7 Perfections, Ch 4, Renunciation, no. 7. We read in the Commentary to the ³Susíma Jåtaka²: This thought occurred to the Bodhisatta during a past life when King Brahmadatta was reigning in Vårånasí. The Bodhisatta was at that time the son of the King¹s priest and his name was young Susíma. The King¹s son was named young Brahmadatta. The two boys grew up together and learnt all sciences at Takkasíla, and when they had accomplished their studies they came home again. Young Brahamadatta became viceroy, and at his father¹s death he became King and made young Susíma his advisor and priest. One day the King went around the city in procession seated on the shoulder of an elephant while he made the priest sit on the back of the elephant. The queen- mother, when she stood and looked out from the royal window, saw the priest sitting behind the King. She fell in love with him and did not want to eat anymore. The King went to see her and asked what ailed her, but the queen- mother did not want to tell him because she was ashamed. Thereupon the King sent his chief queen, and the queen-mother spoke about what had happened. The King entreated the priest to become King and he made the queen-mother his chief queen while he himself became the viceroy. From then on the Bodhisatta was disenchanted with the household life. The queen spoke to him in many ways and used several tricks with him so that he would enjoy his reign, but the Bodhisatta taught Dhamma, he showed the delight and the misery of the sense pleasures, and he returned the kingdom to the viceroy. He became an ascetic sage and cultivated the attainments of jhåna and the supranatural powers, so that he became destined for the Brahma world. At the end of this Jåtaka the Buddha explained that the chief queen was Råhula¹s mother, the king was Ånanda and king Susíma was the Buddha himself. The Buddha explained by relating his past lives that nobody can know the force of lobha, nor in what way it will arise in each life. Renunciation from sense pleasures is most difficult, and going forth from the household life to become a monk is even more difficult, because the monk should take careful consideration of the rules of the Vinaya. But anyway, if one wishes to give up sense pleasures, clinging to the sense objects, it is necessary to renounce them by the development of pannå. One should know the characteristics of realities as not a being, not a person, not self. There may be attachment, aversion, seeing, hearing, jealousy, conceit or thinking of the importance of self, all these phenomena are realities that we refer to as different cittas and cetasikas, as different conditions, as realities that through their arising condition one another. All this is complex and deep in meaning. Pannå should be able to penetrate the true nature of dhammas at this very moment and realize them as not a being and not self. ***** 15208 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: miccha sati and Path of Discrimination. Dear Ken O, It is good to have you back. We all agree that sati can only be sobhana cetasika. But, when the Buddha taught what is the wrong Path he referred to each of the eight factors as miccha. We know that there is not a cetasika which is miccha sati, but, this term represents what people mistakenly take for sati. One can be deluded as to the right Path. Num, in his second report on the Path of Discrimination (you were not there, Ken) wrote: that right understanding according to the P. of D. knows each of the right factors as right (samma) and each of the wrong factors as wrong (miccha). That knowledge is sammaditthi, right understanding. Thus, it is most important to know when one is on the wrong Path, to know exactly when one is on the wrong Path and when on the right Path. Both may be possible within one minute, or less! Ken, I like what you wrote to Kom at the end: op 24-08-2002 17:38 schreef Kenneth Ong op ashkenn2k@y...: > > there is no such thing as wrong sati or wrong > compassion. If we start distinguishing kusala as > right or wrong, to me is not the correct notion and > could lead to confusion. Any kusala cetasika that > associated with lobha is moha bc sati and panna is not > at work to know it. We should be cautioned not to > associated sati or any kusala by an akusala and not > abt right or wrong. > Anyway, the quest for a shortcut is already has lobha > as paccaya. 15209 From: Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 3:49am Subject: Re: What is Anatta? (was: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go) Hi, Robert (and Kenneth) - In a message dated 8/25/02 2:01:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi Christine, > > > > To me anatta is the *most* difficult concept of > > Buddhism. It always leads to difficult questions, > > like "is there a free will and if there is no free > > will how do we practise in the first place." > > > > Pple who believe in no free will is I said b4 a few > > months ago is extremist. > > Anatta is pretty extreme too. It means 'not self'. Not = no. No self. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, there are differences of opinion among scholars and among real Buddhists (just kidding, any Buddhist scholars out there!) on that. Some say that 'anatta' is just an adjective meaning 'not self' in the sense of 'impersonal' and 'insubstantial' which gets applied to all dhammas and thus, to me, inasmuch as all dhammas are all there is, implies that there is *no* self - but, somehow, not everyone agrees with that last conclusion. -------------------------------------------------- Atta is > self. An-atta is the negation of this entity. You can argue that > anatta is > applied only to objects of clinging and not to one's personal self, but if > that is > the case there is really no difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. > Hinduism > also teaches total non-clinging and non-identification with external > objects of > desire. Hinduism also teaches that liberation of the mind leads to > cessation of > the continued round of birth and death. The non-existence of Atta or Atman > [the > inner spiritual self residing within the gross form] is the radical > difference > between most schools of Hinduism and all of Buddhism. > > Remember there is always a > > choice. > > Why must there be a choice. Can you choose a different moment right now? > Or do > you merely experience what arises as consciousness? Answer according to > your > actual experience, and you will have a hard time finding where you can > choose. In > the moment of choosing, do you choose to choose? When you make the final > decision, is there some way in which you finally decide, or does it just > happen > when it does? Choice apart from what happens is actually an illogical > conceptual > construct. > > If there is no choice, the power to choose > > then Budhha will be wasting his time teaching us. We > > might as well sit below the bodhi tree and do nothing > > :). > > who's to say that's not the right thing to do? > > > I don't understand why free will must be associated > > with a self. > > If there is no self, who needs the concept of free will? Who chooses > freely? > When consciousness arises and engages in an act it is spontaneous. Where's > the > will? It is unnecessary to postulate 'will' unless one wants to add a > separate > moment in which the self makes a separate decision about what to do. If > there is > only consciousness arising there is not only no free will, but will itself > is > redundant of the act of consciousness itself. If the will to do x or y > arises in > the moment as it is acted upon with no intervening self, it does not make > much > sense to talk about whether it is 'willed' or not, since there is nothing > else > that could possibly be taking place, and there is no decision of any kind. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't understand the notion of *free* will, but volition (cetana) is admitted by the Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka (it is the chief sankhara) and most certainly it is countenanced in the Abhidhamma. Evidently, cetana serves as kind of a needed motive force (but only in the sense of a necessary condition, not as a substantial "force"). It seems to be the vehicle by which craving and aversion, and, more generally express themselves as kamma. (In the case of an arahant, the cetana is replaced by a kind of neutral functional consciousness (kiriya citta) expressing neutral chanda and which is condition for an ensuing kammically neutral action.) In fact, cetana (and kiriya citta for an arahant) seems to be close to synonymous with 'chanda'. Nyanatiloka defines cetana as follows: > cetaná: 'volition', will, is one of the seven mental factors (cetasika, > q.v.) inseparably bound up with all consciousness, namely sensorial or > mental impression (phassa), feeling (vedaná), perception (saññá), volition > (cetaná), concentration (samádhi), vitality (jívita), advertence > (manasikára). Cf. Tab. II, III. Now, I myself have, from time to time, puzzled over the "need" for cetana, inasmuch it only arises when the conditions for its arising have all appeared. (Why not go directly from those conditions to the action, without the intervening cetana?) But this question could arise for *every* link in a "causal stream" - it seems that links cannot be skipped. It seems to me that conditionality is a far more complex matter than we think, a much deeper one. As a matter of fact, our notion of 'causal stream' as the direct source of causality is faulty. The reality is probably closer to a causal network which is a complex confluence of causal streams inasmuch as no dhamma arises with a single precondition. --------------------------------------------------------- > > I think this is a concept developed by > > the West (no offence please). We always forget that > > there is a cetana that acts who itself is anatta. > > Isn't this a wonderful paradox :). > > 'who itself is anatta' sounds like it is a kind of self-concept to me. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Sounds like a Freudian slip to me, Ken! ;-)) --------------------------------------------- > > Best, > Robert Ep. > ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15210 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 8:14am Subject: What is Anatta? (was: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go) Hi all, "Body is not self" means that "Body is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.'" "Feeling is not self" means that "Feeling is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.'" "Perception is not self" means "Perception is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.'" "Fabrications are not self" means "Fabrications are to be seen as they actually are with right discernment thus: 'These are not mine. These I am not. These are not my self.'" "Consciousness is not self" means "Consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.'" Seeing thus, one grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Be very careful about the specious reasoning that since every dhamma is not self, thus there is no self. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert (and Kenneth) - > > In a message dated 8/25/02 2:01:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > Hi Christine, > > > > > > To me anatta is the *most* difficult concept of > > > Buddhism. It always leads to difficult questions, > > > like "is there a free will and if there is no free > > > will how do we practise in the first place." > > > > > > Pple who believe in no free will is I said b4 a few > > > months ago is extremist. > > > > Anatta is pretty extreme too. It means 'not self'. Not = no. No self. > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, there are differences of opinion among scholars and among real > Buddhists (just kidding, any Buddhist scholars out there!) on that. Some say > that 'anatta' is just an adjective meaning 'not self' in the sense of > 'impersonal' and 'insubstantial' which gets applied to all dhammas and thus, > to me, inasmuch as all dhammas are all there is, implies that there is *no* > self - but, somehow, not everyone agrees with that last conclusion. > -------------------------------------------------- > Atta is > self. An-atta is the negation of this entity. You can argue that > > anatta is > > applied only to objects of clinging and not to one's personal self, but if > > that is > > the case there is really no difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. > > Hinduism > > also teaches total non-clinging and non-identification with external > > objects of > > desire. Hinduism also teaches that liberation of the mind leads to > > cessation of > > the continued round of birth and death. The non-existence of Atta or Atman > > [the > > inner spiritual self residing within the gross form] is the radical > > difference > > between most schools of Hinduism and all of Buddhism. > > > > Remember there is always a > > > choice. > > > > Why must there be a choice. Can you choose a different moment right now? > > Or do > > you merely experience what arises as consciousness? Answer according to > > your > > actual experience, and you will have a hard time finding where you can > > choose. In > > the moment of choosing, do you choose to choose? When you make the final > > decision, is there some way in which you finally decide, or does it just > > happen > > when it does? Choice apart from what happens is actually an illogical > > conceptual > > construct. > > > > If there is no choice, the power to choose > > > then Budhha will be wasting his time teaching us. We > > > might as well sit below the bodhi tree and do nothing > > > :). > > > > who's to say that's not the right thing to do? > > > > > I don't understand why free will must be associated > > > with a self. > > > > If there is no self, who needs the concept of free will? Who chooses > > freely? > > When consciousness arises and engages in an act it is spontaneous. Where's > > the > > will? It is unnecessary to postulate 'will' unless one wants to add a > > separate > > moment in which the self makes a separate decision about what to do. If > > there is > > only consciousness arising there is not only no free will, but will itself > > is > > redundant of the act of consciousness itself. If the will to do x or y > > arises in > > the moment as it is acted upon with no intervening self, it does not make > > much > > sense to talk about whether it is 'willed' or not, since there is nothing > > else > > that could possibly be taking place, and there is no decision of any kind. > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't understand the notion of *free* will, but volition (cetana) is > admitted by the Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka (it is the chief sankhara) and > most certainly it is countenanced in the Abhidhamma. Evidently, cetana serves > as kind of a needed motive force (but only in the sense of a necessary > condition, not as a substantial "force"). It seems to be the vehicle by which > craving and aversion, and, more generally express themselves as kamma. (In > the case of an arahant, the cetana is replaced by a kind of neutral > functional consciousness (kiriya citta) expressing neutral chanda and which > is condition for an ensuing kammically neutral action.) In fact, cetana (and > kiriya citta for an arahant) seems to be close to synonymous with 'chanda'. > Nyanatiloka defines cetana as follows: > > > cetaná: 'volition', will, is one of the seven mental factors (cetasika, > > q.v.) inseparably bound up with all consciousness, namely sensorial or > > mental impression (phassa), feeling (vedaná), perception (saññá), volition > > (cetaná), concentration (samádhi), vitality (jívita), advertence > > (manasikára). Cf. Tab. II, III. > > Now, I myself have, from time to time, puzzled over the "need" for > cetana, inasmuch it only arises when the conditions for its arising have all > appeared. (Why not go directly from those conditions to the action, without > the intervening cetana?) But this question could arise for *every* link in a > "causal stream" - it seems that links cannot be skipped. It seems to me that > conditionality is a far more complex matter than we think, a much deeper one. > As a matter of fact, our notion of 'causal stream' as the direct source of > causality is faulty. The reality is probably closer to a causal network which > is a complex confluence of causal streams inasmuch as no dhamma arises with a > single precondition. > --------------------------------------------------------- I'm a seeking a Enter city or ZIP Age: to Show only profiles with photos 15211 From: Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 4:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? Hi, Ken (and Stephen) - In a message dated 8/25/02 2:38:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Stephen, > > I asked: > >>Did the Buddha teach anything you don't already > know? > to which you replied: > ---------------- > > Three things that come immediately to mind are > anatta (and the fact that it's now widely accepted in > psychology and possibly quantum physics, as you note, > is a fairly recent confirmationâ€"a good thing, > wouldn't we agree?); > -------------------- > Well, I'm not sure we do agree. Anicca, dukkha and > anatta are characteristics of paramattha dhammas. > The objects known to science are concepts (pannatti), > not parramattha dhammas, they don't have > characteristics (sabhava) -- they aren't anicca, > dukkha, anatta. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: They do have characteristics in the same way that they exist - conventionally. Trees have bark, and roots, and leaves. They grow, old leaves drop off and new ones appear. Well, I could go on and on - these are characteristics of trees. (Of course, there is no static, unitary thing which is a tree - not really, but conventionally there is, and it is quite nice to sit in the shade of one of these conventioanl trees. There *are* different levels of discourse and of "reality".) ----------------------------------------------- (I must admit though, that even> > concepts are to be understood as anatta. This was > explained on dsg a few months ago, I forget the exact > reasoning.) So when scientists say that matter lasts> > only a trillionth of a second and is devoid of > substance, they are, `so close and yet so far.' > ---------------------- > > thinking in terms of a/kusala or un/skillful actions > instead of rights, duties, etc.; > ------------------------ > What's ground-breakingly different about thinking in > this way? Couldn't any philosopher come up with that? > (I'd suggest many have.) > ------------------------ > > and a method, or methods (meditation, guarding the > senses, etc.). > -------------------------- > A method that is practiced by paramattha dhammas (by, > e.g., samma-ditthi, samma-sati,), can be attributed to > the Buddha, all other methods were `old hat' even back > then. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: What do you mean by a "method that is practiced by paramattha dhammas"? The notion of practice is a conventional one. People practice. Moments of discernment, hardness, aversion, etc do not. --------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------- > > I could go on: Right Livelihood pushes forward, > --------------------- > You'd have to say more on that for me. > ------------------ > > paticcasamuppada... > --------------------- > Yes, perhaps,but I wonder -- without the understanding of how it > operates in absolute reality, how is it different from other, merely > clever, theories? > --------------------- > >(Of course there's knowing, then there's actual > insight.) > --------------------- > Insight can be explained as consciousness (citta), in > which certain rare, precious, mental factors > (cetasikas), arise, all of which cognise another nama > or rupa. How else can satiaptthana be seen as > fundamentally different from ordinary knowing? > > I'll steer clear of your bit on "paramattha dhamma" > being a commentorial innovation. I'm out of my depth > there, but I see Jon has answered it. > > And I'll snip my bit on anatta (re quantum science), > to which you replied: > ----------------------- > > This is the core, and possibly only, utterly new > idea, of Buddhadhamma. > ------------------ > Once we have begun to accept anatta -- that is, once > we can intellectually agree that reality is only the > present nama and rupa, then the whole Buddhadhamma is > brilliant and like nothing else we've ever heard. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Anatta is not (merely) the fact that there is only the present nama and rupa. Anatta is the emptiness of all dhammas, their impersonality and insubstantiality (their lack of core). All conditioned dhammas arise in dependence on other equally empty dhammas, making them thoroughly empty, and the one unconditioned dhamma, nibbana, is the ultimate emptiness, being empty of all conditions. -------------------------------------------------------- On> > the day when we directly know these Dhammas -- > i.e., when we have entered the Eightfold Path of the > Ariyans, then I think we really will feel the cosmos > shake. > > I asked my opening question again but in a different > way: >>Without the explanation of absolute reality, > what is there in the Buddha's teaching that is, even > remotely, ground-breaking? > to which you replied: > ------------------ > > How about: absolute reality is all around us but we > can't see it, can't see things as they are, because of > self-view and its entailed defilements of lobha/dosa? > > ------------------ > Exactly what I've been saying! Who's side are you > on? :-) > ----------------- > >Which has nothing to do with concepts, or not. > ------------------- > Oh, I see. Well, yes it has (according to the Pali > Canon), because miccha-ditthi, atta-sanna, lobha and > dosa are paramattha dhammas, they are not those things > we worldlings know as wrong view, perception of self, > greed and hate. These conventional counterparts are > just a lot of thinking(concepts, pannatti), they are > not real and they can't be objects of satipatthana > -- the Middle Way. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: One thing bothers me about this. How can there be *anything* that is unknowable by wisdom? How would a Buddha know the relative unreality of pa~n~natti without being able to examine pa~n~natti with insight? In fact, when we investigate the breath, for example, and our mindfulness and focus intensify, we can detect the elements that comprise the breath - the softness, the motion, the "texture" (relative roughness and smoothness), the warmth, the moisture. The breath is pa~n~natti. Insight into it amounts to directly seeing its components/aspects (and their having the tilakkhana). ----------------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards > Ken H > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15212 From: Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:26am Subject: Re: What is Anatta? (was: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go) Hi, all - In a message dated 8/25/02 10:50:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Howard: > I don't understand the notion of *free* will, but volition (cetana) > is > admitted by the Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka (it is the chief sankhara) and > most certainly it is countenanced in the Abhidhamma. Evidently, cetana > serves > as kind of a needed motive force (but only in the sense of a necessary > condition, not as a substantial "force"). It seems to be the vehicle by > which > craving and aversion, and, more generally express themselves as kamma. (In > the case of an arahant, the cetana is replaced by a kind of neutral > functional consciousness (kiriya citta) expressing neutral chanda and which > > is condition for an ensuing kammically neutral action.) In fact, cetana > (and > kiriya citta for an arahant) seems to be close to synonymous with 'chanda'. > > =============================== In the foregoing I wrote "It seems to be the vehicle by which craving and aversion, and, more generally express themselves as kamma." That unintelligible sentence was the result of changing horses in midstream. Please ignore the middle section of it, and take it to just read "It seems to be the vehicle by which craving and aversion express themselves as kamma." Sorry. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15213 From: Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:31am Subject: Re: What is Anatta? (was: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 8/25/02 11:15:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, victoryu@s... writes: > Be very careful about the specious reasoning that since every dhamma > is not self, thus there is no self. > > ========================= There is nothing specious in that reasoning if one also takes as a premiss "Everything is a dhamma." If there is nothing but dhammas and no dhammas are self, then nothing is self. (And "a self", by ordinary use of language, means something that is self. So, to say that nothing is self is the same as saying that there is no self.) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15214 From: Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:41am Subject: Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? (Sarah) Hello Sarah, >SN 111 is Khandhavagga....What is the name of the sutta? I'm having >trouble finding the reference. Thanks. Well, at least one question / response that I can actually answer! I took the reference from Payutto's "Buddhadhamma," so it was Grant Olsen's translation (p.137). Here are two web references: Neither Existence Nor Non-Existence and Project South Asia This is from Henry Clark Warren's "Buddhism in Translations" which I think has some problems. There are probably better sources but at least it's a clearer reference. metta, stephen 15215 From: Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? (Sarah) Hi, Stephen (and Sarah) - In a message dated 8/25/02 12:42:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, oreznoone@a... writes: > Hello Sarah, > >SN 111 is Khandhavagga....What is the name of the sutta? I'm having > >trouble finding the reference. Thanks. > Well, at least one question / response that I can actually answer! > I took the reference from Payutto's "Buddhadhamma," so it was Grant Olsen's > > translation (p.137). > Here are two web references: > Neither Existence > Nor Non-Existence > and > > > > HREF="http://www.mssc.edu/projectsouthasia/religions/primarydocs/Buddhism/Midd > > leDoctrine.htm">Project South Asia > This is from Henry Clark Warren's "Buddhism in Translations" which I think > has some problems. There are probably better sources but at least it's a > clearer reference. > metta, stephen > > ============================== Ahh, I recognize the sutta. It is the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, one of my very favorites, and a probable primary input to the work of Nagarjuna. The link to it on Access to Insight is http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-015.html With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15216 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 1:03pm Subject: Re: Stream Entry (Sotapanna) Hi Victor, and all, Thank you for this post and the reference. It is very comforting. I have read the Gihi Sutta, and will look at the suttas and Stream Entry Study Guide (I don't know why that makes me smile:)) listed at the foot of the page as soon as possible. I am surprised. Stream Entry always seemed such a significant step - like conquering Mt. Everest. Could it be this simple? Shouldn't one 'know' if one had entered the Stream - feel different in some way? .... you know, sort of ... enlightened? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > One becomes a stream enterer not by eliminating the first three > fetter. The elimination of the first three fetter is a mark of > stream entry. > > How is one a stream enterer? You might want to refer to > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an05-179.html > > I hope it is helpful to your Grand Plan, and I hope that after > checking for your self with the discourse, you will realize you are > already a stream enterer, and if you are not one yet, you are not far > from being one. > > Metta, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear Group, > > > > As an ordinary person (puthujjana), still possessing all of the ten > > fetters, and so bound to the round of rebirths, from time to time > I > > get a little concerned about the shortness and uncertainty of life, > > particularly after the death of someone I know. Most people seem > > totally unprepared for death, even those of great age, seem shocked > > if they know about it in advance. Many people say that they are > not > > concerned with death, but with the dying - whether they will die in > > unrelieved pain, or alone. My concern, when it arises, is with the > > fact that those of us who are not Sotapannas (Stream Enter-ers) are > > in grave danger when it comes - firstly to death at any time, and > > secondly to where Rebirth will occur. It is only Stream Entry > > that ensures that there is no more to rebirth in woeful states, > and > > human birth being so very rare. > > > > Entry into the Stream is marked by the elimination of three > > fetters. 1. Sakkaya-ditthi (Personality Belief) 2. Vicikiccha > > (Doubt) 3. Silabbata-paramasa.(Attachment to mere Rule and > Ritual). > > Stream Entry also ensures that there will be (a maximum of) seven > > more cycles through the round of rebirths. Given that these laws > > are relentless and inexorable, and are not nullified by lack of > > believing in rebirth, it seems like a good thing to energetically > > follow the Path to safety. > > > > To me, it seems the hardest fetters to eliminate are the first > two - > > understanding of Anatta, and the elimination of Doubt.... Could it > be > > that they are not as hard as portrayed? or could it be that I am > > deceiving myself by thinking the other eight fetters are easier (at > > least, seven of them)? It seems that the first two concern > > understanding the Dhamma - realising about not-self, and > developing > > unquestioning confidence in the Word of the Buddha, while the next > > seven involve working away at behavioural characteristics. And then > > there is Avijja ..... > > > > The Ten Fetters that bind us to the wheel of becoming: > > > > Doubt (vicikiccha) > > Attachment to mere Rule and Ritual (siilabbata-paraamasa) > > Sensual Lust (kamaraga) > > Ill-Will (vyapada) > > Craving for Fine-Material Existence (rupa-raga) > > Craving for Immaterial Existence (arupa-raga) > > Conceit (mana) > > Restlessness (uddhacca) > > Ignorance (avijja). > > > > Mostly, I don't aim at anything but eliminating my defilements - > but > > maybe I should get more organised and have a Grand Plan with an > > Expected Date of Completion. > > > > metta, > > > > Christine 15217 From: Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 9:49am Subject: Duration of Dhammas Hi, all - I have, possibly erroneously, gotten the impression that conditioned dhammas (cittas, cetasikas, and rupas) are supposed to have no duration, to be instantaneous point-events. But I question this: It seems to me that all experience (not counting the experience of the unconditioned) requires duration. For example, the air element is sometimes described as the principle of motion. But motion requires being in different positions or states at different times. Comments anyone? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15218 From: Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 10:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stream Entry (Sotapanna) Hi, Christine - In a message dated 8/25/02 4:07:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Hi Victor, and all, > > Thank you for this post and the reference. It is very comforting. I > have read the Gihi Sutta, and will look at the suttas and Stream > Entry Study Guide (I don't know why that makes me smile:)) listed at > the foot of the page as soon as possible. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Reminds you of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe? (Only in this case it is a guide to the end of the universe? ;-)) ------------------------------------------------------ > I am surprised. Stream Entry always seemed such a significant step - > like conquering Mt. Everest. Could it be this simple? Shouldn't > one 'know' if one had entered the Stream - feel different in some > way? .... you know, sort of ... enlightened? > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I suspect that stream entry is not as "hard" as is often thought, but is also not as easy as a cursory reading of this sutta might suggest. The " four pleasant mental abidings" mentioned are to be obtained "at will, without difficulty, without hardship". How does that come about? Moreover, the fourth of these is to be "endowed with virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration." Exactly what are these "virtues"? This is not stated. In other places in the Sutta Pitaka, there is mentioned the path and fruit of stream entry, but that is not discussed here. This sutta seems to make it appear that stream entry might be easier for a layperson than is usually indicated for a monk! Something strikes me as "fishy" here. > > metta, > Christine > > ================================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15219 From: Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 10:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Duration of Dhammas In a message dated 8/25/2002 1:50:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Hi, all - > > I have, possibly erroneously, gotten the impression that conditioned > dhammas (cittas, cetasikas, and rupas) are supposed to have no duration, to > be instantaneous point-events. But I question this: It seems to me that all > experience (not counting the experience of the unconditioned) requires > duration. For example, the air element is sometimes described as the > principle of motion. But motion requires being in different positions or > states at different times. > Comments anyone? > > With metta, > Howard > Hi Howard, The idea that things arise and immediately pass away (as if by some sort of independent nature) to me is a misunderstanding of impermanence and I see no support for that notion in the suttas. The Buddha said that things arise, persist while altering, then cease. This threefold description of the nature of change might apply to something for a fraction of a second or billions of years. A conscious moment might be something that occurs over a minute fraction of a second; while an asteroid floating in space may maintain a similar form for billions of years. Although things are changing moment by moment, at least in a positional sense, to say that they arise and immediately afterward cease seems over stated and phenomenologically useless. I think it is the relative interaction of the Four Great Elements that causes things to alter. In short, contacts between the forces and structures of nature (the Four Great Elements) alters form and wears things away. The speed by which things (objects or states) alter depends on the current dynamic interactions of the Four Great Elements affecting those things. TG 15220 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 3:08pm Subject: What is Anatta? (was: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go) Hi all, "Every dhamma is not self" means that "Every dhamma is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.'" Seeing thus, one grows disenchanted with every dhamma. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 8/25/02 11:15:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > victoryu@s... writes: > > > > Be very careful about the specious reasoning that since every dhamma > > is not self, thus there is no self. > > > > > ========================= > There is nothing specious in that reasoning if one also takes as a > premiss "Everything is a dhamma." If there is nothing but dhammas and no > dhammas are self, then nothing is self. (And "a self", by ordinary use of > language, means something that is self. So, to say that nothing is self is > the same as saying that there is no self.) > > With metta, > Howard 15221 From: Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 11:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Duration of Dhammas Hi, TG - In a message dated 8/25/02 5:32:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > > In a message dated 8/25/2002 1:50:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > upasaka@a... writes: > > > > Hi, all - > > > > I have, possibly erroneously, gotten the impression that > conditioned > > dhammas (cittas, cetasikas, and rupas) are supposed to have no duration, > to > > be instantaneous point-events. But I question this: It seems to me that > all > > experience (not counting the experience of the unconditioned) requires > > duration. For example, the air element is sometimes described as the > > principle of motion. But motion requires being in different positions or > > states at different times. > > Comments anyone? > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > > Hi Howard, > > The idea that things arise and immediately pass away (as if by some sort of > > independent nature) to me is a misunderstanding of impermanence and I see > no > support for that notion in the suttas. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Then, at least in this respect, you and I read the suttas in the same way. The suttas seem to suggest a continuity to experience, whereas (a certain reading of) the Abhidhamma seems to paint a pointillist picture. -------------------------------------------------- The Buddha said that things arise, > > persist while altering, then cease. This threefold description of the > nature > of change might apply to something for a fraction of a second or billions > of > years. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. It seems that Abhidhamma pays obeisance to this to some extent in its dividing a citta into three stages, arising, maintaining, and ceasing (if I have that right). ------------------------------------------------- A conscious moment might be something that occurs over a minute > > fraction of a second; while an asteroid floating in space may maintain a > similar form for billions of years. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. I agree. I mainly am directing my question toward the so-called paramattha dhammas instead of conventional objects, and my motivation is phenomenological. It seems to me that, as Kalupahana and William James (before him) suggest, our moments of consciousness are not truly moments, but more like "saddle points". So the so-called present, the empirical present, is not a single point, but is closer to being a fuzzy interval. -------------------------------------------------- Although things are changing moment by > > moment, at least in a positional sense, to say that they arise and > immediately afterward cease seems over stated and phenomenologically > useless. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I tend to agree. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > I think it is the relative interaction of the Four Great Elements that > causes > things to alter. In short, contacts between the forces and structures of > nature (the Four Great Elements) alters form and wears things away. The > speed by which things (objects or states) alter depends on the current > dynamic interactions of the Four Great Elements affecting those things. > > TG ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15222 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 3:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Duration of Dhammas Hi TG and all, The notion of arising and immediately passing away is not the characteristic of being impermanent is about. Eye is impermanent. Ear is impermanent. Nose is impermanent. Tongue is impermanent. Body is impermanent. Mind is impermanent. It is impermanent in the sense that it is decaying, disintegrating. So, yes, the idea that things arise and immediately pass away is a misunderstanding of impermanence. The idea of, say, citta arising and passing away millions (or billions) times in a second is meaningless. Metta, Victor > The idea that things arise and immediately pass away (as if by some sort of > independent nature) to me is a misunderstanding of impermanence and I see no > support for that notion in the suttas. The Buddha said that things arise, > persist while altering, then cease. This threefold description of the nature > of change might apply to something for a fraction of a second or billions of > years. A conscious moment might be something that occurs over a minute > fraction of a second; while an asteroid floating in space may maintain a > similar form for billions of years. Although things are changing moment by > moment, at least in a positional sense, to say that they arise and > immediately afterward cease seems over stated and phenomenologically useless. > > I think it is the relative interaction of the Four Great Elements that causes > things to alter. In short, contacts between the forces and structures of > nature (the Four Great Elements) alters form and wears things away. The > speed by which things (objects or states) alter depends on the current > dynamic interactions of the Four Great Elements affecting those things. > > TG 15223 From: Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 11:36am Subject: Re: What is Anatta? (was: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go) Hi, Victor - Please explain to me how the following constitutes a response to what I wrote, and also what it is about your reply that is not already well understood by most of us here. To me this post of yours appears cryptic and uninformative. Are you unwilling to say more? Won't you expound on this to the point that we actually get what you are driving at? Are you saying that there may really be an "I" or "self", but that nothing we can ever know *is* that thing? Are you saying that 'not self' is merely a "liberation strategy"? Or are you saying something totally different from each of these? I ask, because I truly do not know. With metta, Howard In a message dated 8/25/02 6:10:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, victoryu@s... writes: > > Hi all, > > "Every dhamma is not self" means that "Every dhamma is to be seen as > it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. This > I am not. This is not my self.'" > > Seeing thus, one grows disenchanted with every dhamma. > > Metta, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Victor - > > > > In a message dated 8/25/02 11:15:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > victoryu@s... writes: > > > > > > > Be very careful about the specious reasoning that since every > dhamma > > > is not self, thus there is no self. > > > > > > > > ========================= > > There is nothing specious in that reasoning if one also > takes as a > > premiss "Everything is a dhamma." If there is nothing but dhammas > and no > > dhammas are self, then nothing is self. (And "a self", by ordinary > use of > > language, means something that is self. So, to say that nothing is > self is > > the same as saying that there is no self.) > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15224 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 6:04pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States (long message) Dear Rob, First of all, my apology for having assumed that you authored most sections (pages 94-101) in your class note. I see that a lot of materials come from B. Buddharakkhita's translation of the pali, his telling of the details from the commentaries, and his analysis on the particular topic. I have studied the Karaniya Metta sutta from the note and from the Thai Tipitaka with the commentaries, with the questions that I asked you in mind, plus other questions including: 1) Is radiation of Metta real? What does the text mean when the word "radiation" is used? 2) I was told (not by you) that the radiation of metta is only possible in the Jhana absorption, so as long as one isn't there, then such radiation is impossible. I haven't studied the specific practices that B. Buddharakkhita listed, which I assumed he took from Vissuddhimagga (Chapter IX, on Metta meditation). Unfortunately, what I have studied so far don't conclusively answer the questions, but it was an interesting reading, so I would like to share some of it with you, and also to ask you some other clarifications. a) (paragraph 1, from note) "The mind becomes universal by identifying its own interest with the interest of all". I wondered what he meant by this. The mind can't be universal except in the Jhanic states. Even the Buddha's mind isn't universal in being constant in having metta toward others. He also had karuna, mudita, and upekkha, which are distinct states from Metta. I think if one doesn't read this statement carefully, it is easy to mistake that if one develops metta (meditation) alone, the mind can become liberated and "universal". b) (paragraph 2) "Today, metta is a pragmatic necessity". Necessity for whom? There are many who don't develop metta! c) I think it is important to keep in mind that the Buddha gave this teaching in the following contexts: i) For forrest-dwelling Bikkhus who are inclined towards tranquil meditation ii) Given the teachings for two purposes: for protection from the deva, and for being Kammathana for the bikkhus. d) (from the hym) Who seeks to promote his welfare. The Thai version and the commentaries explain this to be "for those kula-putta (generally means bikkhus and bikkhunis) who are skilled in what is beneficial/useful". One is skilled if one upholds the sila with abstention, upholds the patimokkha with saddha, guards the 5 senses with sati, develops metta via samadhi, and at *foremost* becomes liberated from knowing that the jhana states as what they are: as sankhara dhammas. e) "Having glimpsed" the state of "perfect peace". Having glimpsed is explained to be i) seeking nibbana ii) knowing nibbana with mundane wisdom and develop the different factors to reach it. Perfect peace is nibbana. f) "Should be able". The Thai version says one should develop the tri-sikkha (sila, samadhi, and panna. And besides being honest and upright, one should also be malleable (teachable, advisable...). g) "let him be prudent". The commentaries explained this to be wisdom in keeping sila, in using the daily pacaya, etc. h) "weak or strong". The comentaries explaine dthis to be the contrast between "those not well established, and those well established", those not having reached the arahatship and those having. i) The born and those seeking rebitrh. The born means the arahats since they were born but is not longer seeking rebirth. j) "Let all-embracing thoughts for all beings be yours". Yours here means those who is skilled in what is beneficial/useful. k) As you stand walk, sit, or lie. You here means those kula-putta (bikkhus) are are developing metta. l) It is deemed the Divine State here. Here means in the dhamma vinyya of the Ariyans. k) The last 4 stanzas here are the most intersting because B. Buddharakkhita doesn't stress it. It appears to me that that he implies that these are the benefits of developing metta. However, the commentaries clearly say that, because it is easy to have wrong views (sattata dithi --- the view of permanence) as a result of metta development, the Buddha added this to prevent such wrong views. This last part, I think, specifically means satipathana development which is in addition to metta development. The buddha gave the advice to the particular bikkhus to develop *both* samatha (metta meditation) and vipassana (to eliminate wrong views, to have vision for the ultimate, to overcome all sensual desire, and the never become born in a womb again) The tellings of the background of the metta more or less matches the commentaries. Comparing to that told in the Thai commentaries (which explained the Karaniya Metta Sutta, I didn't look elsewhere which may have more details), it is more embellished than the Thai versions. For example, the exact wordings such as "Each monk selected a tree to meditate" under is not ever mentioned in the Thai version, although it says that the monks sat under the trees putting forth the efforts, although it does not say specifically what the effort is. The second one is "As the monks neared their forest dwellings reciting the Metta Sutta". This also doesn't appear in the Thai version. The commentaries mentioned that the Buddha advised the monk to recite this sutta 8 times a month, and to keep in mind the development of metta always. There is no explicit implication that one should develop metta by *reciting* the sutta, as I have got the impression from B. Buddharakkhita's telling of the story. "They materialized themselves in human from": this also isn't in the Thai commentaries. "Made sure that they place was comletely free from any noise. Enjoying perfect silence". This is not in the commentaries either. B. Buddharakkhita's analysis brings up more questions for me. He mentioned lines 3 to 10 cover the aspects which require a thorough and systematic application of loving kindess. I somehow don't see that those particular aspects are completely in the realm of metta development. For example, one should be able, honest and upright. The thai translation puts "able" as "persevere". Honest and upgright means for both others and for oneselves. I think the meaning of being honest and upright are even more subtle than what the commentaries allude to. For me, it also means being honest with what appears, so that we don't take akusala as kusala, don't take anatta for atta. He said line 11-20 express loving-kindeness as distinct technique. I see them as enumerating the objects of the metta development. The commentaries mentioned 3 different sets of objects: some are limited, and some are unlimited. I don't think the specific "techniques" are explicitly mentioned until the texts from Vissudhimagga. He said line 20-40 underline a total commitment to the philosophy of universal love ... For me, it seems that the Buddha encouraged the monks in questions to develop both metta bhavana and vipassana as their way toward liberation, not just metta development. The last paragraph in the "Three Aspects of Metta" seems on the first glance as rather broadly sweeping to me. I would reather see more references that allow one to come to this conclusion rather than taking this conclusion at face values. I found the paragraph "Ability is not just mere efficiency or skil..." quite to my liking... This doesn't mean if it is any more right or wrong than the other paragraphs, of course. Living a simple life as an expression of metta. Again I found this lacking in specifics. I seems to me that one lives a simple life because one knows that attachments toward complicated living only brings more troubles. I don't see how he comes to this conclusion. "Mental cuture through meditation for such a person becomes natural and effortless: hence the attribute "tranquil in his senses." My thought in this area is how he comes to this relationship (between metta development) and tranquil in his senses. Tranquil in his senses, (Indariya samvara), appears to be a function of sati and panna. How is it related to metta? He interpreted "not brazen, nor fawning on families" as a warning against self-righteousness. The commentaries have very detailed explanation about this part, both on being blazen, and being involved/attached to a family, and it doesn't have anything to do with self-righteousness. "Transformed by metta, the mind is no longer haunted by greed, hatred, lust, jealousy...". Only lokuttara magga can do this function, and the leading factor to lokkuttara magga is wisdom, not metta. "Objectively, metta as a thought force...." is the first part ever that "radiation" is specifically discussed. In the sutta, all those different types of sattas are mentioned as objects of the meditations. There is no mention of somebody doing specific "radiation" for the benefits of others. He mentioned that the recitation of paritta can help one cure diseases and misfortunes. I found this to be quite troubling... What happened to the "one receives what one sowns", and the law of kamma? "Metta is a "solvent" that "melts" not only one's own psychic pollutants of angers..., but also those of others...". I found this to be quite dangerous to simply believe in . We can see the effects of metta in one's own mind, but how do we see it in others except through bodily/verbal expressions and inferences? Making a jump to this conclusion, and to develop metta so that it "melts" other people's resentment is a dangerous belief. I am not saying that this isn't true, but one should take this carefully... The ultimate purpose of metta is to attain transcental insight. I again am not sure how he comes to this conclusion. Metta development and samatha bhavana's ultimate goal is to reside in the devine abode. Only the path and satipatthana can brings one to the "transcental insight". His conclusion that metta development brings about "holding no more to wrong beliefs" are simply not supported in the commentaries, where it appears that the Buddha explicitly added the last 4 stanzas to correct the normal mich-dithi that can come with samatha bhavana: the wrong view of permanence. "The remote enemy can easily be distinguished so one need not be afraid of it, but one should overcome it by projecting a higher force, that of love." I think this statement understates the latency, the dangers, and the difficulities in getting rid of attachments and ignorance. The remote enemy is easier to spot in relatives to the near enemy, but for an ignorant fool, like some of us are, the remote enemy might as well be near enemies, because our ignorance are so thick that we sometimes take being "righteous", being "straight-forward", and being "truthful" as kusala while in fact they are anger and resentment. "The buddha taught that the entire mental world is developed...." I found this again to be broadly sweeping (or not having enough info/specifics). Would love to see a reference on this. "Made the foundation of one's life"....making one's refuge in the Dhamma reality. I personally think, truly, wisdom, kusala dhammas, and ultimately the 9 lokkutara dhammas can only be one's refuge. There is no "psychic lightning" that jumps from the meditating mind that impacts another person. After all these dicussions, I am actually not sure if there isn't some sort of psychic force! Seriously, thought, I think it would benefit one to develop metta, with limited and unlimited objects, but one shouldn't worry to much about "radiating" the metta to other beings and environments. Developing metta has clear benefits to oneself, trying to effect others and the surroundings via radiation can be just wishful thinkings and can lead to all sort of problems, such as believing in one's "supernormal" power even if there isnt' one. You know, some people thinks of some Thais as highly superstitious. There is the practice of asking the Emeral Buddha for things, and sometimes when their wishes come true, they offer eggs to the emerald Buddhas as a return. So if I radiate metta through this recitation, and it happens to work in that particular circumstance, is it because of the metta "radiation", or is it because of something else? The section on planning the response in Metta in daily life wouldn't work too well if one bakes the cookies with the thoughts that I am doing this out of my metta, or because I need to show the worlds that I am a person with metta. Unless one knows oneself (with sati and wisdom), then it is really hard to respond to situations with kusala intentions. To seriously develop kusala dhammas, panna must lead first. Otherwise, we may be just following rules and rituals that doesn't bring the results (gasp! more lobha!) that we would like... After the Reponse: remembering the pleasant feeling... Now, I remember plenty of pleasant feelings mostly akusala, and some kusala. I think it is best to remember the benefits of kusala and the disadvantages of akusala! I will work on the third reference you gave some more. As far as vissudhimagga and the specific practices, that seems a bit farther away at the moment. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 2:46 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States > > > Hi Kom, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Kom Tukovinit" > wrote: > > Dear Rob M, > > I would be interested in hearing more about the > practice of > radiating metta > > and karuna (etc) to other beings. What do you > think are relevant > > references? When can we do it? Why would we > want to do? How do > we do it? > > What are the causes and conditions for such events? > > > > kom > > I summarized the writings in a BPS Wheel > publication 365 on the > subject of Metta in my class notes (available in > the Files section) > pages 94-101 and added some of my own ideas on > page 102 of my class > notes. The full Wheel publication is at: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/whee l365.html 15225 From: dark knight Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 11:16pm Subject: Hi ! Hi, Iam a new member of this group. Iam from India. I was lucky to get an oppurtunity to read the Budda's words.I am interested in learing more and diving deep into His Wisdom. I look forward this an oppurtunity to do so. With Metta, Krishnan. 15226 From: Sarah Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 0:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hi ! Hi Krishnan, Welcome to DSG and like you, I think we're all very fortunate to have a chance to read and learn more here. We'll look forward to any of your comments or questions. I don't think there are any other active members from India and I'd be glad to hear whereabouts you're from sometime and anything else you care to share about how you became interested in Buddhism. Best wishes, Sarah ===== --- dark knight wrote: > Hi, > Iam a new member of this group. Iam from India. > I was lucky to get an oppurtunity to read the Budda's > words.I am interested in learing more and diving deep > into His Wisdom. I look forward this an oppurtunity to > do so. 15227 From: Sarah Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 0:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? (Sarah) Hi Stephen (& Howard), > Ahh, I recognize the sutta. It is the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, one > of my > very favorites, and a probable primary input to the work of Nagarjuna. > The > link to it on Access to Insight is > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-015.html Thanks, Howard. I was confused by the first reference and not sure if this sutta was intended. Stephen, as I mentioned in my marathon post, all the wrong views are included in the Brahmajala sutta, in the ‘net of views’, including those concerned with annhihilation and eternalism. Both views are inherently wrapped up in an idea of ‘self’ or identity in the ‘uninterrupted continuum’. In an earlier post I quoted some Sutta and commentary notes from B.Bodhi’s translation of the Kaccaanagotta Sutta (SN 11, Nidaanavagga, 15(5) . I’ll just repeat 2 paragraphs here which I think clearly clarify this point and put the more detailed notes at the end of the post as you may find them interesting and may not have read them before: ..... > Com notes (Spk-p.t): > “The annihilationist view might arise in regard to the world of formations > thus: ‘On account of the annihilation and perishing of beings right where > they are, there is no persisting being or phenomenon.’ It also includes > the wrong view, having these formations as its object, which holds: ‘There > are no beings who are reborn.’ That view does not occur in him; for one > seeing with right understanding the production and origination of the > world of formations in dependence on such diverse conditions as kamma, > ignorance, craving, etc, that annihilationist view does not occur, since > one sees the uninterrupted production of formations.” > Com notes (Spk-p.t): > “The eternalist view mght arise in regard to the world of formations, > taking it to exist at all times, owing to the apprehension of identity in > the uninterrupted coninuum occurring in a cause-effect relationship. But > that view ‘does not occur in him’; because he sees the cessation of the > successively arisen phenomena and the arising of succesively new > phenomena, the eternalist view does not occur.” ..... As you point out, the Kaccanagotta talks about the middle way, avoiding these wrong views with regard to ‘being’ or ‘identity’. You wrote: ..... >The > passage > then goes on to reference paticcasamuppada.]) > In itself, this is nonsense: something either exists or it does not > (there > are no shades or graduations of reality). What it means, in context, is > that > he saw that the world consists of becoming, or processes (things exist > in an > interrelated way, depend on conditions, are impermanent, don't exist as > independent substances or selves), not static/unchanging ('being' > rejected) > or somehow not real ('non-being' rejected) ..... I think we’re in agreement (hopefully not on the dark side;-)). We can talk about the momentary ‘existence’ of eye consciousness, visible ofject or other realities (without shades or graduations), but these ‘existing realities’ are dependent on conditions, interrelated and anatta as you say. Slowly, by understanding more about all the various namas and rupas (mental and physical phenomena) i.e paramattha dhammas, gradually ‘we’ can begin to understand a little more about paccaya (conditions) and paticca samuppada (dependent origination), even if it’s mostly intellectual understanding in the beginning. We read in the Visuddhimagga about the understanding of the conditioned nature of dhammas: ..... "After discerning the material body's conditions in this way, he again discerns the mental body in the way beginnng: 'due to eye and to visible object eye-consciousness arises' (Sii72, Mi,111). When he has thus seen that the occurrence of mentality-materiality is due to conditions, then he sees that, as now, so in the past too its occurrence was due to conditions, and in the future too its occurrence will be due to conditions. When he sees it in this way, all his uncertainty is abandoned, that is to say, the five kinds of uncertainty about the past stated thus: "Was I in the past.......... and also the five kinds of uncertainty about the future stated thus: "Shall I be in the future?...., and also the six kinds of uncertainty about the present stated thus: "Am I?..."(Mi,8) (end quote from Vism XIX,5) ***** Sarah ==== Notes from B.Bodhi’s translation of the Kaccaanagotta Sutta : ..... From the Sutta (SN 11, Nidaanavagga, 15(5) )we read: “This world, Kaccaana, for the most part depends upon a duality - upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence “ (Dvayanissito khvaaya.m Kaccaana loko yebhuyyena atthita~n c’eva natthita~n ca.) ..... Com notes (Spk): “ ‘For the most part’ (yebhuyyena) means for the great multitude, with the exception of the noble individuals (ariyapuggala). The notion of existence (atthitaa) is eternalism (sassata); the notion of nonexistence (natthitaa) is annihilationism (uccheda).” ..... Com notes (Spk-p.t): “The notion of existence is eternalism because it maintains that the entire world (of personal existence) exists forever. The notion of nonexistence is annihilationism because it maintains that the entire world does not exist (forever) but is cut off.” ..... Back to the Sutta: “ But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world.” .... Com notes (Spk): “ ‘The origin of the world’: the production of the world of formations. ‘There is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world’: there does not occur in him the annihilationist view that might arise in regard to phenomena produced and made manifest in the world of formations, holding ‘They do not exist.” ..... Com notes (Spk-p.t): “The annihilationist view might arise in regard to the world of formations thus: ‘On account of the annihilation and perishing of beings right where they are, there is no persisting being or phenomenon.’ It also includes the wrong view, having these formations as its object, which holds: ‘There are no beings who are reborn.’ That view does not occur in him; for one seeing with right understanding the production and origination of the world of formations in dependence on such diverse conditions as kamma, ignorance, craving, etc, that annihilationist view does not occur, since one sees the uninterrupted production of formations.” ..... Com notes (Spk): “ ‘The cessation of the world’: the dissolution (bhanga) of formations. ‘There is no notion of existence in regard to the world’; There does not occur in him the eternalist view which might arise in regard to phenomena produced and made manifest in the world of formations, holding ‘They exist’.” ..... Com notes (Spk-p.t): “The eternalist view mght arise in regard to the world of formations, taking it to exist at all times, owing to the apprehension of identity in the uninterrupted coninuum occurring in a cause-effect relationship. But that view ‘does not occur in him’; because he sees the cessation of the successively arisen phenomena and the arising of succesively new phenomena, the eternalist view does not occur.” ******* 15228 From: egberdina Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 0:52am Subject: Re: Duration of Dhammas Hi Howard and everybody, My two pennies worth :-) There are no absolute measurements. Measures of size, speed, duration etc require at least one other point of reference. So that would negate the possibility of any kind of measured state being a parramattha dhamma. The description of a single state cannot include it's arising, being and passing. Only the description of a state relative to another one can. Medieval theology had two notions of the present moment - nunc fluens and nunc stans. The flowing now and the static now. They are both valid, but from the nunc stans one cannot see the nunc fluens, and vice versa. As to motion, could I be Victoresque and ask: Would you ascribe motion to what is seen on a TV screen? I'll now revert to being Hermanesque and give you my take on this question. There is no motion, just the arising and passing of the pixels. Now see what happens when you just go willy-nilly asking for comments ? :-) All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > I have, possibly erroneously, gotten the impression that conditioned > dhammas (cittas, cetasikas, and rupas) are supposed to have no duration, to > be instantaneous point-events. But I question this: It seems to me that all > experience (not counting the experience of the unconditioned) requires > duration. For example, the air element is sometimes described as the > principle of motion. But motion requires being in different positions or > states at different times. > Comments anyone? > > With metta, > Howard 15229 From: egberdina Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 1:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] wrong view Hi Larry, Running throughout your post I read the following argument. "There has to be ethics, there just has to be ethics." Have I read this correctly, and if I have then I ask why do there have to be ethics? As an aside, I read all DSG posts on the web, not as email. For the last few weeks all the messages have been adorned with some advertising which includes an image of a very caucasian Jesus in a white robe. But today we have the following promise : Enlarge your penis in just three weeks. Doctor discovers pill to enlarge your penis. I think it is hilarious :-). All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > All, > > I'd like to point out that the passages that outline the Buddha's > position on nihilism (vibhava) are implicitly anti phenomenalism and pro > free will. There is no point in preserving the integrity of ethics if > there is no free will, and if we say because of impermanence there are > no khandhas, then there is nothing to be ethical with. Or if we say the > khandas exist relatively because of impermanence, then we have to say > the 'self' exists relatively because of impermanence. The consequence of > that is there is no end of suffering and we have again lost ethics. > > I fully agree there are other passages that support phenomenalism and no > free will. So how to resolve this dilemma? We could go down the road of > relative and absolute truth, but absolute truth is relativity. And > "relativity" sounds a lot like "relative truth". This brings us back to > phenomenalism and no ethics. > > So the question is, how to establish an ontological basis for ethics. > Any ideas? Did the Buddha offer a solution? > > Larry 15230 From: robmoult Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 2:19am Subject: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States (long message) Hi Kom, Wow!! What a message. :-) Just as it is important to place each of the Suttas in context (who the Buddha was speaking to, etc.), it is important to put my "Class Notes" into context as well. I am teaching a beginners' class of non- academics. Each week, I have to research and prepare a 75 minute lecture that will inspire and educate the class (in addition to my roles as employee, husband and father). I am now going through each of the kusala cetasikas. Each week, I locate an on-line publication (typically, though not always, from Bhikkhu Bodhi and BPS). I download the publication and edit it down to a size that my audience would be willing to read (they don't like to read). I typically delete non-familiar Pali words and Sutta references to make the material faster to read (I don't want to create an impression of academic rigour). It is extremely important to me that I do not mislead the class, but I do not consider strict scriptural adherence a must. You have obviously gone through this subject quite thoroughly. This is great! I welcome your advice on what should be changed in Bikkhu Buddharakkhita's text if you feel that it may mislead the class. I define "misleading the class" as meaning "leading to wrong view"; not merely a poor translation or inadequate commentary. At some point in the future, I hope to develop myself to the point that I can freely quote from the Suttas, Vissudhimagga, etc. (perhaps even in Pali!). For the moment, this is where I am - editing downloaded stuff from the Internet (though I try to be selective). It is my intention to update the "Class Notes" document each month as I add in new material and fix mistakes found in the exisiting material. In other words, my "Class Notes" is a living, evolving document. I welcome input from you (and all DSGrs) on any changes to the "Class Notes" that may be necessary to prevent wrong view. I am particularly interested in comments on stuff that I wrote myself (did not download). You asked a number of questions in your message. Here are my humble opinions (without references to the scriptures :-) ): 1) Is radiation of Metta real? What does the text mean when the word "radiation" is used? In daily life (kamavacara), I see "radiation" as a metaphor; I visualize sending metta to a person or group that I also visualize. 2) I was told (not by you) that the radiation of metta is only possible in the Jhana absorption, so as long as one isn't there, then such radiation is impossible. Actual "radiation" (i.e. psychic lightning) might be possible as a supramundane power in a jhanic state; I don't know and it is not of great concern to me at the moment because my focus is on daily life. 3) "The mind becomes universal by identifying its own interest with the interest of all". I wondered what he meant by this. At times, I visualize myself as a "black box". Bad stuff happens to me (vipaka) as an input. My reaction to what happens to me is the output. When I think in terms of "When bad happens to me and I react badly, I am perpetuating bad, both for my kammic stream and those whom I may influence. When bad happens to me and I do not react, I am stopping the progression of bad, not only for me, but also for those whom I may influence. When bad happens to me and I react with good, then I am changing a bad current into a good current, for me and for those whom I may influence. In other words, I make the WORLD a better place when I exercise wise attention. What I say/do has a direct influence on my kammic stream and an indirect influence on the rest of the world, starting with those closest to me and emanating outwards (like ripples when a stone is dropped in a pond) as those closest to me influence other people." When I think in this way (I don't always), my mind becomes universal by identifying its own interest with the interest of all. 4) "Today, metta is a pragmatic necessity". Necessity for whom? There are many who don't develop metta! I agree 100%. Normally, I try to edit out all social commentary from what I download. (Bhikkhu Bodhi isn't too bad on this, many others are terrible). This slipped by. Sorry about that. As it probably doesn't lead to "wrong view", I may leave it in. 5) The section on planning the response in Metta in daily life wouldn't work too well if one bakes the cookies with the thoughts that I am doing this out of my metta, or because I need to show the worlds that I am a person with metta. Why did I volunteer to teach the beginners' Abhidhamma class? There were two main factors: - I felt it would be a great way for me to learn the Dhamma (and Abhidhamma) much better (this is kusala) - I felt that I could do a better job of it than my classmates (conceit - definitely akusala) What motivates me each week to put in the hours of preparation required for the class? There are two main factors: - I am inspired by a genuine love of the Dhamma (this is kusala) - I am afraid of looking foolish in front of the class if I am not prepared (fear and conceit - definitely akusala) Akusala is so pervasive in our lives. If we use the energy from akusala to start us on a kusala path, then so much the better. I still have to pay for all that akusala, but at least I also have some kusala as well. At my stage of development, it is not practical to insist that my thoughts must be PURE kusala. I accept that there is some akusala as well. As one bakes the cookies, etc. it is unavoidable that akusala thoughts may arise. But the kusala thoughts "outweigh" them. Did you see the movie, "Monsters Inc."? At the end, the monsters discovered that laughter has ten times the energy of screams. I used that analogy in class and my kids (aged 10 and 12) loved it. 6) After the Response... I think it is best to remember the benefits of kusala and the disadvantages of akusala! Agreed. I will tweak the document to include remembering the disadvantages of akusala. Kom, my friend, I sincerely appreciate your input. I have not copied your entire message: your long message + my long reply = too much. Please let me know if I have inadvertently skipped one of your questions that you wanted me to reply to. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15231 From: Sarah Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 2:44am Subject: Anders, are you still there? Hi Anders, Sorry or the delay and hope you’re still around;-) Actually, I have a few posts in front of me and I’m going to try and just extract the main points where we have a different understanding, trying to spare everyone from another marathon..... 1.”..if we had never heard of the Buddhadhamma, our understanding would still be in accord with the Buddha’s Dhamma.” ..... As I mentioned before, all but the Buddhas need to hear the dhamma. In the case of a few particular disciples such as Sariputta or Bahiya, a few lines were sufficient. I don’t think there are many details about Bahiya, but in the case of Sariputta, his previous lives are written about extensively in the Jatakas and in them we read about the development of noble qualities and lives after lives spent with the Bodhisattva (I could give you a dozen references easily). In other words, there were special conditions to be born in the time and place of the Buddha and these disciples were ‘ripe’ for enlightenment. We read in the texts that now there are only be those types of individual who need to hear a lot of detail (neyya) to become enlightened or who cannot attain even with this detail (padaparama). Anders, this is my experience and observation, i.e. without hearing a lot of detail, there is no way anyone’s understanding will be “in accord with the Buddha’s Dhamma”. 2. “True understanding of the dhamma relies on neither , it is free of concepts and words.” While it is true that at a moment of panna at the level of satipatthana which directly knows reality, there are no concepts or words involved, there are many levels and degrees of panna. In the first place, there has to be clear intellectual right understanding and this certainly involves words. This is why we are encouraged to listen, hear and consider over and over again. Without pariyatti (intellectual right view) there won’t be any patipatti (direct rt understanding). You suggest that this is not my “direct experience” but rather my “faith” in what the Buddha said in this regard. I’d say it’s a combination of both. Saddha (confidence) in the Teachings grows along with the develpment of panna, even from the very beginning. 3. “Then what is your understanding.......It is just this understanding that needs to be examined, observed, released, and through that, comprehended, in order to move forward.” Any understanding now is not mine or yours. It’s anatta. It arises very briefly and knows a characteristic of reality and then it’s gone. It’s not anything lasting that can be released. If it’s merely at the intellectual level, the momentary thinking can also be known as a nama distinct from the concepts. You suggest that those who talk about anatta are “taking up the notion of not-self, adding another delusional layer”. On the contrary, I think that even when there is wise consideration of realities as anatta it is a beginning step to direct understanding of realities at this moment. 4. “You shouldn’t believe that you have no self......You make the effort to be mindful of notions of self associated with the khandhas, mindful of letting them go...” Anders, this sounds like more ‘self’ belief when you suggest doing X and not doing Y. Who is there to believe anything, to make an efoort or be mindful? I think that if we both have a different experience of the taste of an apple, we should look at what a detailed textbook (in our case the Tipitaka and commentaries) say about the taste. If you introduce any such texts in support of your comments, I’d be happy to discuss them. 5. Right view vs Wrong view. We’ve discussed many of the (wrong) views mentioned in Sutta Nipata and I’ve been writing about further wrong views in recent posts. Larry recently quoted from the Apannaka Sutta (MN 60) and Mahacattarisaka Sutta (MN117) about wrong views and right views and about mundane and supramundane right views. The Buddha only talks about wrong views with regard to danger and need for abandoning. As we know, wrong views arise with lobha and can be very enticing. Only panna can see them as wrong. I also agree that any clinging to the Teachings or any kind of views is unwholesome and to be seen for what it is. You suggest that we “have not seen the Dhamma directly for yourself, yet cling to the belief that your Dhamma is right, cling to it as your understanding and thus it becomes delusional”. In the end, Anders, only panna can know the reality at this moment and know whether it is lobha or ditthi or thinking that is arising. I agree that it’s important not to overestimate the level of understanding and to see the dangers of wrong view. I also think that by underestimating the value of the Teachings available to us and determining that all views are wrong views and to be discarded along with any Scriptures not directly understood, is a very unhelpful approach. 6. “Maintain a humble attitude towards your understanding, not clinging to your understanding as ‘right’, not craving for your understanding to be right......Better test it through practising the Dhamma.” Agreed as long as there isn’t any suggestion here of ‘own’ understanding. I still have very little idea of what you mean by ‘practising the Dhamma’. I certainly agree the Teachings are there to be tested and proved. You also ask how I know the ‘Buddha is enlightened’. All I can say is that the more testing and proving there is, the more confidence and the less doubt there is about the Teachings. Also, I’d say, the more testing and proving the less distinction I find in the suttanta, vinaya, abhidhamma or commentaries. Whatever I read reflects the Buddha’s Teaching on anatta and the development of satipatthana. This may seem to prove some delusional views or misguided blind faith, but I think in this case we’ll need to look at the references for the tastes of the ‘apples’ again. 7. “*I* do not distinguish an Absolute reality, because ignorance is still present.....I may infer an absolute reality based on my own experience, but this is not seeing actual absolute reality.” I’d really be glad to discuss more on absolute realities which can be known at this moment, which can be tested and proved at this moment. I think this is far more useful than trying to analyse others blind faith;-) Firstly, realities don’t last. Although there is the latent tendency of ignorance at each moment, when there is any level of understanding, there is no ignorance arising with the citta (consciousness). Inferring is thinking and as you say, not the same as directly understanding an absolute reality. So what are the absolute realities which can be known right now? No need to think of ‘own’ or ‘other’ experience. 8. You asked where the Buddha’s ‘realisation came from’. I understand that the answer is they have heard the Teachings from the previous Buddha and in countless lifetimes develop the parami (Perfections) before the life in which they become the Buddha. I don’t know these details very well at all, but in ‘The Birth Stories of the Ten Bodhisattas’ we read about the Elder Ajita and the Bodhisattas in the future. The Elder Ajita will be the next Buddha named Metteya. We also read about his previous lives, back to former Buddha eras, I believe. Someone else, like Rob K, would be able to give you more details or I could check later. 9. Finally, you always stress that you only ever ‘speak according to my (i.e. your) own understanding’ and that if one day I or we taste the apple (i.e Buddha’s Dhamma) and know the taste for myself or ourselves, we will know it is exactly as you described. With all due respect, Anders, when there is ignorance or a need to understand better, I prefer to look at how the Buddha describes the taste whilst appreciating any explanations from you or anyone else here. If I find your explanations different or unusual, then I like to consider the ancient commentaries. Having said that, I know you are very sincere in your concern and offers of assistance and the emphasis you put on really testing what is understood and what is just being repeated blindly. I also think you’d benefit tremendously by considering the texts and particularly the abhidhamma in more detail. Look forward to any further suttas or Pali Canon texts you wish to discuss or to hearing any further comments on these points. Sarah ===== 15232 From: Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 4:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Duration of Dhammas Hi, Herman - In a message dated 8/26/02 3:53:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > > Hi Howard and everybody, > > My two pennies worth :-) > > There are no absolute measurements. Measures of size, speed, duration > etc require at least one other point of reference. So that would > negate the possibility of any kind of measured state being a > parramattha dhamma. The description of a single state cannot include > it's arising, being and passing. Only the description of a state > relative to another one can. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm. I get your point. I agree that duration is only relative. I guess the point is more a question of discreteness vs continuity when I speak of points vs intervals. But this leads back to another problem - *where* is the observing done? For example, where is the counting of rupas done: Up to 17 cittas for a given object I believe the rule is; but there is nothing outside of or "standing behind" the cittas to count their passage! It is said that cittas pass quickly. The appropriate response seems to me to be "As compared to what, and as measured from where?" Perhaps a later single process of cittas, using memory, can review and analyze (and count!), but it cannot be done by "looking on" as one looks at a movie or television screen, because there is no onlooker or outside vantage point. Of course, perhaps the Abhidhammic analysis is of only limited correctness in that maybe more than one rupa (or one rupa-kalapa) can actually arise at a time and parallel processing of multiple dhammas is possible. But to presume that is to give up on the "Abhidhamma enterprise". I would sooner press on to see what defenses can be brought to the fore within the principles of Abhidhamma itself. Much of the *detail* of Abhidhamma raises many more questions for me than answers, and I have much doubt about that detail, but the general thrust of Abhidhamma holds great appeal for me and is of great value to me, and I am interested in seeing to what extent the further details can be made persuasive. --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Medieval theology had two notions of the present moment - nunc fluens > and nunc stans. The flowing now and the static now. They are both > valid, but from the nunc stans one cannot see the nunc fluens, and > vice versa. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm. The "flowing now" is what I have in mind when I speak of a fuzzy interval. I *suspect* that it is all that we actually experience, and that the "static now", the "point now", is mere concept albeit quite useful. -------------------------------------------------- > > As to motion, could I be Victoresque and ask: Would you ascribe > motion to what is seen on a TV screen? I'll now revert to being > Hermanesque and give you my take on this question. There is no > motion, just the arising and passing of the pixels. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: This is a good and valid point. Nothing moves. There is this now, and later there is that, which we interpret as "This has changed into that". Likewise, there is no rebirth! Nothing is reborn! Certain conditions hold now which result in later conditions arising. (But the matter of discreteness vs continuity still remains.) As far as your TV screen example is concerned, however, are the pixels single-point occurrences without duration and without any variation (say in brightness)? I suspect not. I suspect it only seems that way from a perspective of relatively gross analysis, and this seeming will be dispelled by finer analysis. I suspect that the point-occurrence view is concept-only and without empirical reality. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > Now see what happens when you just go willy-nilly asking for > comments ? :-) > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I'm very glad I did ask, because your reply added *much* and it also managed to elicit from me some larger "problems" I have. -------------------------------------------------------- > > All the best > > > Herman > > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15233 From: Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 6:00am Subject: In "Defense" of Abhidhamma (Re: [dsg] Re: Duration of Dhammas) Hi again, Herman (and all) - A couple more "random" thoughts on this matter in the direction of "defending" Abhidhamma - The idea that a citta is more of a fuzzy-interval event than a point event does not in any way destroy the notion of citta. In fact the Abhidhammic notion of the three stages of a citta [which I think we might picture as kind of a cosine wave, with intensity growing, peaking, and decreasing] already indicates that a citta is *not* a single-point phenomenon. Also, the fact that there are no gaps between cittas in Theravada Abhidhamma (as opposed to Sautrantika), also establishes a continuity to perception. Moreover, there *is* a kind of parallelism countenanced by the Abhidhamma. While a single mind-moment (citta) only involves a single arammana (be it rupa or a mental object), it also involves the function of discernment plus a good number of concomitant operations (cetasikas), all co-occurring. Moreover, one citta leads into the next without gap, with a citta boundary marked by the cessation of a one or more cetasikas, the addition of one or more cetasikas, and/or the replacement of one arammana by another, this last also marking a process boundary. This is, I must say, a very sophisticated "theory" which seems to admit elements of both continuity and discreteness. So, the bottom line, as I see it, is that while some elements of Abhidhamma appear less plausible than others, there is much of enormous value here which, perhaps, is fully realized only when one presses forward with doubts and questions looking for answers with an open 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) 15234 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Upekkha vs. Tatramajjhattata Dear Rob M, I shall paste from A. Sujin's Dhamma in Cambodia: The term upekkhå, equanimity, has several meanings . Upekkhå can refer to the feeling that is neither happy nor unhappy, to indifferent feeling; thus, it can be the cetasika that is feeling, vedanå. It can also refer to paññå cetasika in the development of vipassanå, paññå that is neutral towards the realities arising because of conditions. Therefore, when we have equanimity, this can be indifferent feeling or it can be tatramajjhattatå cetasika, or it can be paññå in the development of vipassanå. We should know that the dhammas that arise together have many different degrees and that they perform each their own function. See Acharn Sujin¹s ³Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, Appendix to Cetasika, where it has been explained that there are ten kinds of equanimity, upekkhå (Visuddhimagga IV, 156-1660). It can refer, for example, to tatramajjhattatå, to indifferent feeling, to equanimity of effort, viriya, that is neither overstrenuous nor lax in mental development. It can refer to paññå that is equanimity in vipassanå. Paññå is neutral as it investigates the object that arises because of the appropriate conditions. As to the Brahma Vihara of upekkha, this has, just as in the case of the other Brahma Viharas, living beings as object. It is Tatram, but it is called upekkha. Is this slow motion enough ? :-) Best regards from Nina. op 23-08-2002 21:51 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: >>> What is the difference difference between upekkha and >>> tatramajjhattata? > > Sorry, I am still confused. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: >> Dear Rob M >> Larry gave the definitions of tatramajjhattata, pointing out that >> indifferent feeling is not the same. As to the Brahma vihara of > upekkha, >> here the word upekkha is used for tatramajjhattata, and in this > case beings >> is the object 15235 From: Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 6:56am Subject: A Question on Visual Image Processing Hi, Abhidhamma experts - I have a question with regard to visual rupas. As I understand the Abhidhamma on this, what are actually and directly seen are colors and shades of varying brightness. My question is the following: It seems that we see, at one shot, a scene, an entire panorama which is composed of areas of varying colors and brightness. Do we actually see an entire scene, an undifferentiated color-image, which is then further processed, with sa~n~na carving out the various "colored areas", or do we, in fact, directly see individual colors, sequentially, which are subsequently combined into a "scene". What are the paramattha dhammas here? What elements are primary? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15236 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 11:54am Subject: Questioning Arahants and Abhidhamma Dear Group, From my limited understanding of studies on Abhidhamma, I believed it to be an analysis of the realm of consciousness, a systematisation of the whole of reality showing the way, from an ethical and psychological viewpoint, to the liberation from suffering. Sometimes I find posts on dsg very disturbing. Intellectually, I don't have the type of academic background to understand the terms and concepts discussed by other members in maths, physics, philosophy. I don't have the capacity to judge whether some are sceptical of the validity of the whole Tipitaka or Abhidhamma or just selected unpalatable bits here and there of both, and whether such scepticism is justified. Though I don't understand the Abhidhamma, I had been taking it on Trust because it was mentioned in Suttas by the Buddha and the expanded explanations were accepted by the Arahats in the Councils. But then, another question that arises is 'Who decides who is an arahat, and what is the extent of their knowledge on *all* subjects? And is their approval of a teaching to be the unquestioned Hallmark of truth?' And let's not go into which translations can be trusted, or what the True Dhamma *really* consists of, and what the Buddha *really* meant by certain terms and words ..... Is the Abhidhamma truth, and is it the explanation of reality? If not - what are all of us on dsg doing - Which of us has the precious time in this uncertain life to be living in a 'Let's Pretend' Land of imagination, delighting in intellectual games and duelling with abstractions? My apologies if this is offensive to anyone - it's very late here, or very early, and maybe I'm overtired ... metta, Christine 15237 From: Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 8:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Questioning Arahants and Abhidhamma Hi, Christine - In a message dated 8/26/02 2:55:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Dear Group, > > From my limited understanding of studies on Abhidhamma, I believed > it to be an analysis of the realm of consciousness, a systematisation > of the whole of reality showing the way, from an ethical and > psychological viewpoint, to the liberation from suffering. > > Sometimes I find posts on dsg very disturbing. Intellectually, I > don't have the type of academic background to understand the terms > and concepts discussed by other members in maths, physics, > philosophy. I don't have the capacity to judge whether some are > sceptical of the validity of the whole Tipitaka or Abhidhamma or just > selected unpalatable bits here and there of both, and whether such > scepticism is justified. Though I don't understand the Abhidhamma, I > had been taking it on Trust because it was mentioned in Suttas by > the Buddha and the expanded explanations were accepted by the Arahats > in the Councils. But then, another question that arises is 'Who > decides who is an arahat, and what is the extent of their knowledge > on *all* subjects? And is their approval of a teaching to be the > unquestioned Hallmark of truth?' And let's not go into which > translations can be trusted, or what the True Dhamma *really* > consists of, and what the Buddha *really* meant by certain terms and > words ..... > Is the Abhidhamma truth, and is it the explanation of reality? If > not - what are all of us on dsg doing - Which of us has the precious > time in this uncertain life to be living in a 'Let's Pretend' Land > of imagination, delighting in intellectual games and duelling with > abstractions? > My apologies if this is offensive to anyone - it's very late here, > or very early, and maybe I'm overtired ... > > metta, > Christine > > ============================ Why not keep the Kalama Sutta and other such writings in mind, accept those parts of the Tipitaka and the commentaries we can understand and seem "true" to us, investigate the rest as best we can, and, meanwhile accept that the central thrust of the Buddha's teaching is the truth of suffering, its cause, the fact of the possibility of its ending, and the noble eightfold path which is the means to that cessation? Above all, the Buddha certainly didn't want us to obsess about formulations, interpretratations, and details of theory - he wanted us to follow his lead in the development of sila, samadhi, and pa~n~na. If our "practice" leads to greater suffering, we are doing something wrong. We must not grasp onto theories, claims, views, and "understandings". Let us tread the path lightly, with joy in the Dhamma and the confidence that the Buddha achieved what it is said he achieved and that his path of practice can enable us to do the same. Sure, we can think about things - but if we tend to be compulsive in our thinking and in our search for "intellectual truth", then we should soft-peddle that, and spend more of our time on guarding the senses, ongoing mindfulness, and formal meditation, which, among other things, can provide the wonderful, magnificent gift of tranquillity. Recently I've been doing a better job in not slacking off on my formal meditation practice, taking two one-hour meditations each day. It is helpful to me. The meditations themselves are directly helpful in fostering calm and equanimity, but also, there is considerable pleasure in realizing that I am doing what needs to done (as I understand the teaching). I am not as fastidious in maintaining ongoing mindfulness and guarding the senses. I have a harder time with that, and I need to apply more effort there. I will. (But if I'm "less than perfect", well, so be it. "Nuthin' to get hung about! ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15238 From: frank kuan Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 0:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Questioning Arahants and Abhidhamma Hi Chris, I think the validity of Abidhamma is something you have to decide for yourself. Maybe not even validity, but just whether it helps you progress on your path. The only thing I know for sure about Buddhism is that it brings a radical reduction of suffering, commensurate with the level of your realization of impermanence, dukkha, and anatta. That's something everyone on the list has experienced and it's why we have confidence in the teachings. Whether a COMPLETE cessation of dukkha and end to the round of rebirths is possible, one can't be sure until it's personally experienced. There's a dukkha infested spiritual craving we all have of wanting to be sure that the path we're following is the right one, and leads to complete liberation. That craving should be recognized and abandoned. Even if the Buddhadhamma is incomplete and doesn't bring final deliverance, it's BY FAR the best religion out there and the best system to build on (if necessary). And if the Buddha turns out to be correct, BONUS! So far, I have no reason to doubt that buddhism leads to complete cessation of dukkha. I do have doubts about the validity of parts of the tipitaka, but it's a healthy doubt. I don't have any illusion that any doctrine, no matter how perfect, can remain pristine and avoid having superfluous or erroneous parts tacked on to it from later generations. -fk 15239 From: frank kuan Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 1:03pm Subject: practice makes perfect Re: [dsg] Questioning Arahants and Abhidhamma > Recently I've been doing a better job in not > slacking off on my formal > meditation practice, taking two one-hour meditations > each day. It is helpful > to me. Wow, that's great Howard! Especially since you have a full time job, wife and kids. I feel like a real slacker now :) I'll have to match your effort and raise it up a couple of notches :) The founder of Astanga Yoga likes to say, "Do your practice, and all is coming." When I do my one hour sittings, even when it's hard, I always find joy in knowing that consistent practice gives wisdom an opportunity to blossom. If I get sleepy in the evening sitting, I stand up for a while, and if that doesn't stop drowsiness and dull state of mind, then I switch to walking meditation. But I set that alarm and make sure that at least for one hour, there is a strong effort to cultivate wholesome qualities of the mind. -fk -fk 15240 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 3:13pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States (long message) Dear Rob M, Thanks for the response and the explanation of the circumstances. I wouldn't expect anybody to always check the scripture references before they speak or write down dhammas. Otherwise, we wouldn't hear anything from anybody! I think I was trying to illustrate why we may want to check if what the speakers say are in accordance with the dhamma, or in case we can't figure out what the dhamma is, the scripture references. Otherwise, there may be additional elements (great or small) introduced into the teachings, and when the additional elements are further spinned, may lead to wrong views. For example, if I don't read B. Buddharakkhita carefully, then I would end up thinking that metta development leads to final liberation... > -----Original Message----- > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > > Just as it is important to place each of the Suttas in context (who > the Buddha was speaking to, etc.), it is important to put my "Class > Notes" into context as well. I am teaching a beginners' class of non- > academics. Each week, I have to research and prepare a 75 minute > lecture that will inspire and educate the class (in addition to my > roles as employee, husband and father). I am now going through each > of the kusala cetasikas. Each week, I locate an on-line publication > (typically, though not always, from Bhikkhu Bodhi and BPS). I > download the publication and edit it down to a size that my audience > would be willing to read (they don't like to read). I typically > delete non-familiar Pali words and Sutta references to make the > material faster to read (I don't want to create an impression of > academic rigour). Yes, tough to get everything to be completely in line with the Buddha's teachings, given the time constraint and the ranges of materials (and their qualities) being available on the net. > > It is extremely important to me that I do not mislead the class, but > I do not consider strict scriptural adherence a must. You have > obviously gone through this subject quite thoroughly. This is great! I did go through the particular sutta multiple times. To thoroughly understand the subject, I think I am way off... > I welcome your advice on what should be changed in Bikkhu > Buddharakkhita's text if you feel that it may mislead the class. I > define "misleading the class" as meaning "leading to wrong view"; > not merely a poor translation or inadequate commentary. If I were to do the editing, I personally would at least more clearly differentiate the samatha (metta) development, and vipassana development which are both mentioned in the sutta: I think this is the most important point that didn't come across in the Bikkhu's analysis. Further than that, I might tune down the Bikkhu's analysis of metta, but this point is truly tough, is my wrong view (subtle or great) better than his wrong view? Neither are good. How do you know which one is wrong view? Dough! (as in Homer Simpson's...). I also would tone down his embellishment (I think) of the story (if you have the time to look at the commentaries yourself). > 1) Is radiation of Metta real? What does the text mean when the > word "radiation" is used? > > In daily life (kamavacara), I see "radiation" as a metaphor; I > visualize sending metta to a person or group that I also visualize. This is the part that I don't get. When one is kind toward another person, one has the person as the object. When we are kind to this person, we are not thinking about sending out kindness to the person: one is simply kind (thinking kindly, say kind things, do kind things) to the person. Without examining Vissudhimagga, it seems rather unusual to me that metta development involves sending out kindness to other beings. How about just thinking kindly about them without trying to send anything? I know this sounds hair-splitting, but "sending" kindness does strongly evoke the image of the the psychic force. BTW, another details from the commentaries I didn't mention in the last message. The commentaries mentioned that in case of having all beings as the objects (unlimited), if the meditator thinks of a specific being or a group of being (like to all the females in the universes), this is already limited. One doesn't develop unlimited metta by enumerating all the beings, but rather having all the beings as the consciousness' object. > > 3) "The mind becomes universal by identifying its own interest with > the interest of all". I wondered what he meant by this. > > At times, I visualize myself as a "black box". Bad stuff happens to > me (vipaka) as an input. My reaction to what happens to me is the > output. When I think in terms of "When bad happens to me and I react > badly, I am perpetuating bad, both for my kammic stream and those > whom I may influence. When bad happens to me and I do not react, I > am stopping the progression of bad, not only for me, but also for > those whom I may influence. When bad happens to me and I react with > good, then I am changing a bad current into a good current, for me > and for those whom I may influence. In other words, I make the WORLD > a better place when I exercise wise attention. What I say/do has a > direct influence on my kammic stream and an indirect influence on > the rest of the world, starting with those closest to me and > emanating outwards (like ripples when a stone is dropped in a pond) > as those closest to me influence other people." When I think in this > way (I don't always), my mind becomes universal by identifying its > own interest with the interest of all. What do you define as "universal?" A mind is universal when it treats all equally with kindness (metta?)? Other definition? > 4) "Today, metta is a pragmatic necessity". Necessity for whom? > There are many who don't develop metta! > > I agree 100%. Normally, I try to edit out all social commentary from > what I download. (Bhikkhu Bodhi isn't too bad on this, many others > are terrible). This slipped by. Sorry about that. As it probably > doesn't lead to "wrong view", I may leave it in. I agree. B. Bodhi do have his own comments, but he tends to differentiate them better than many (like, the commentaries say this, but I think the commentaries don't make sense on this point, etc..). > 5) The section on planning the response in Metta in daily life > wouldn't work too well if one bakes the cookies with the thoughts > that I am doing this out of my metta, or because I need to show the > worlds that I am a person with metta. > > Why did I volunteer to teach the beginners' Abhidhamma class? There > were two main factors: > - I felt it would be a great way for me to learn the Dhamma (and > Abhidhamma) much better (this is kusala) > - I felt that I could do a better job of it than my classmates > (conceit - definitely akusala) > > What motivates me each week to put in the hours of preparation > required for the class? There are two main factors: > - I am inspired by a genuine love of the Dhamma (this is kusala) > - I am afraid of looking foolish in front of the class if I am not > prepared (fear and conceit - definitely akusala) > > Akusala is so pervasive in our lives. If we use the energy from > akusala to start us on a kusala path, then so much the better. I > still have to pay for all that akusala, but at least I also have > some kusala as well. At my stage of development, it is not practical > to insist that my thoughts must be PURE kusala. I accept that there > is some akusala as well. > As one bakes the cookies, etc. it is unavoidable that akusala > thoughts may arise. But the kusala thoughts "outweigh" them. Did you > see the movie, "Monsters Inc."? At the end, the monsters discovered > that laughter has ten times the energy of screams. I used that > analogy in class and my kids (aged 10 and 12) loved it. I think this is great stuff, and if your students understand this point too, it would work really well. Otherwise, it would be easy to think "I am a good preson" because I do this and this. Are you teaching dhammas to 10-12 year-olds? Or do you mean your own kids like this analogy? kom 15241 From: egberdina Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 3:34pm Subject: In "Defense" of Abhidhamma (Re: [dsg] Re: Duration of Dhammas) Hi Howard, I agree strongly with your position, namely, those things in the Abhidhamma that make very incisive and revealing sense to me are enough reason for me to have a little faith that those things that I do not yet understand are also founded in wisdom. In times past I may have taken an opposite view, that if a thesis appeared flawed in some parts, I may have discarded the whole lot. Yes, I agree that questioning with an open mind is a very useful process. All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Herman (and all) - > > A couple more "random" thoughts on this matter in the direction of > "defending" Abhidhamma - > The idea that a citta is more of a fuzzy-interval event than a point > event does not in any way destroy the notion of citta. In fact the > Abhidhammic notion of the three stages of a citta [which I think we might > picture as kind of a cosine wave, with intensity growing, peaking, and > decreasing] already indicates that a citta is *not* a single-point > phenomenon. > Also, the fact that there are no gaps between cittas in Theravada > Abhidhamma (as opposed to Sautrantika), also establishes a continuity to > perception. Moreover, there *is* a kind of parallelism countenanced by the > Abhidhamma. While a single mind-moment (citta) only involves a single > arammana (be it rupa or a mental object), it also involves the function of > discernment plus a good number of concomitant operations (cetasikas), all > co-occurring. Moreover, one citta leads into the next without gap, with a > citta boundary marked by the cessation of a one or more cetasikas, the > addition of one or more cetasikas, and/or the replacement of one arammana by > another, this last also marking a process boundary. This is, I must say, a > very sophisticated "theory" which seems to admit elements of both continuity > and discreteness. So, the bottom line, as I see it, is that while some > elements of Abhidhamma appear less plausible than others, there is much of > enormous value here which, perhaps, is fully realized only when one presses > forward with doubts and questions looking for answers with an open mind. > > With metta, > Howard 15242 From: Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 4:04pm Subject: ADL ch. 22 (1) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 22 (1) JHANACITTAS The many different kinds of cittas arising in our daily life experience objects through the five sense-doors and through the mind-door. We see, hear, receive impressions through the other doors and think about these objects. Both in the sense-door process and in the mind-door process of cittas there are javana-cittas which are in the case of the non-arahat either kusala cittas or akusala cittas. The javana-cittas are most of the time akusala cittas because we cling to all the objects which are experienced through the sense-doors and through the mind-door. We cling to visible object and seeing, to sound and hearing, to all the objects we experience. We cling to life; we want to go on living and receiving sense-impressions. We may not notice when there is clinging after the seeing or hearing, especially when we do not feel particularly glad about what was seen or heard. But there may be lobha-mula-cittas with indifferent feeling. There are likely to be many moments of clinging which pass unnoticed, both in the sense-door processes and in the mind-door processes. Time and again an object is experienced through a sense-door and then through the mind-door and there are also mind-door processes of cittas which think of concepts such as people, animals or things. Clinging to concepts is likely to arise very often and thus we think most of the time with akusala citta. When we do not apply ourselves to dana, sila or bhavana, thinking is done with akusala citta. Even when we perform good deeds there are bound to be akusala cittas shortly after the kusala cittas since there is seeing and hearing time and again and after the seeing or hearing attachment or aversion on account of what we experience may arise. The kusala cittas and akusala cittas, all the cittas which arise in our daily life are of the 'sensuous plane of consciousness' or kamavacara cittas. Cittas which experience sense-impressions are bound up with defilements and therefore wise people, even those who lived before the Buddha's time, who saw the disadvantages of sense-impressions, developed jhana in order to be temporarily freed from sense-impressions. Jhanacittas are not kamavacara cittas, they are of another plane of consciousness; these cittas experience with absorption a meditation subject through the mind-door. At the moment of jhana one is freed from sense-impressions and from the defilements which are bound up with them. Jhanacittas comprise rupavacara cittas (rupa-jhanacittas) and arupavacara cittas (arupa-jhanacittas). Arupa-jhana is more refined than rupa-jhana, since the meditation subjects of arupa- jhana are no longer dependent on materiality. Later on I will deal with their differences. Apart from the planes of citta which are kamavacara cittas, rupavacara cittas and arupavacara cittas, there is still another plane of citta: the lokuttara cittas (translated as supramundane cittas) which have nibbana as their object. Those who attain enlightenment have lokuttara cittas, experiencing nibbana. As regards jhanacitta, jhanacittas do not have as their object, visible object, sound, or any other sense- impression. Jhanacittas arise in a process of cittas experiencing a meditation subject through the mind-door. In this process there are first kamavacara cittas which experience the meditation subject and then, in that same process, the jhanacitta arises. The process is as follows: kamavacara-cittas: mano-dvaravajjana-citta or mind-door-adverting-consciousness parikamma or preparatory consciousness upacara, which means: proximatory or access anuloma or adaptation gotrabhu, which means: that which overcomes the sense-sphere, or 'change of lineage' jhana-citta: appana or absorption (the moment of citta which attains jhana) For some, 'parikamma' (preparatory consciousness) is not necessary, and in this case there are, after the mind-door-adverting-consciousness, only three kamavacara cittas arising, instead of four, before the jhanacitta arises. Gotrabhu (which 'overcomes' the sense-sphere) is the last citta in that process which is kamavacara citta. In the 'Visuddhimagga' (IV, 74) we can read about the process of cittas in which jhana occurs for the first time. The 'Visuddhimagga' (IV, 78) states that only one single moment of jhanacitta arises, which is then succeeded by the bhavanga-citta (life-continuum). After that there is a process of kamavacara cittas, reviewing, through the mind-door, the jhana which has just occurred. Further on (IV, 123 ff. ) we read that absorption can 'last' only when it is absolutely purified of states which obstruct concentration. One must first completely suppress lust by reviewing the dangers of sense desires and also suppress the other 'hindrances'. Jhanacittas are kusala kamma of a high degree. When jhana has been attained the hindrances of sensuous desire, ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry, and doubt are temporarily eliminated. Thus one is truly calm, at least at that moment. As we have seen in the preceding chapter, the person who wants to cultivate samatha so as to be able to attain jhana, has to develop the five jhana-factors, which can inhibit the hindrances, namely: applied thinking (vitakka), sustained thinking (vicara), rapture (piti), happy feeling (sukha), concentration (samadhi). Jhana is developed in stages, with each succeeding stage being more refined than the preceding one. There are five stages of rupa-jhana in all. For the first stage of rupa-jhana it is still necessary that all five jhana- factors arise with the jhanacitta, but at each higher stage, when one has become more advanced, jhana- factors are successively abandoned. When one attains to the rupa-jhana of the second stage, one does not need the jhana-factor which is 'applied thinking' (vitakka). At this point the jhanacitta can experience the meditation subject without vitakka (which has the characteristic of directing the mind unto an object and the function of 'touching' the object). The other jhana-factors still arise with the jhanacitta of the second stage. 15243 From: egberdina Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 4:31pm Subject: Re: Questioning Arahants and Abhidhamma Dear Christine and everyone, This post is dripping with mirth. Please read it accordingly. Would you question an arahat if he spoke the following words to you as he handed you a bowl with a dark yellow fluid in it?. "A bhikkhu's life depends on fermented urine as medicine. So he should take fermented urine as medicine and make an effort to practise dhamma. But there are special allowances: they are ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey and molasses. Having formally accepted them, he is to take them as medicine within seven days at most. On the seventh day he shall give them away. However, he may use them externally after the seventh day." :-) :-) (Couldn't resist it. Sorry :-) Now for the serious section. The realities of the present moment are the only absolutes, and even they are transient. If there is happiness, this is what one can know. If there is sadness, fear or whatever, this is what one can know. If a book helps you to understand the present moment, good and well. If it doesn't, don't worry about it. Be well Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > From my limited understanding of studies on Abhidhamma, I believed > it to be an analysis of the realm of consciousness, a systematisation > of the whole of reality showing the way, from an ethical and > psychological viewpoint, to the liberation from suffering. > > Sometimes I find posts on dsg very disturbing. Intellectually, I > don't have the type of academic background to understand the terms > and concepts discussed by other members in maths, physics, > philosophy. I don't have the capacity to judge whether some are > sceptical of the validity of the whole Tipitaka or Abhidhamma or just > selected unpalatable bits here and there of both, and whether such > scepticism is justified. Though I don't understand the Abhidhamma, I > had been taking it on Trust because it was mentioned in Suttas by > the Buddha and the expanded explanations were accepted by the Arahats > in the Councils. But then, another question that arises is 'Who > decides who is an arahat, and what is the extent of their knowledge > on *all* subjects? And is their approval of a teaching to be the > unquestioned Hallmark of truth?' And let's not go into which > translations can be trusted, or what the True Dhamma *really* > consists of, and what the Buddha *really* meant by certain terms and > words ..... > Is the Abhidhamma truth, and is it the explanation of reality? If > not - what are all of us on dsg doing - Which of us has the precious > time in this uncertain life to be living in a 'Let's Pretend' Land > of imagination, delighting in intellectual games and duelling with > abstractions? > My apologies if this is offensive to anyone - it's very late here, > or very early, and maybe I'm overtired ... > > metta, > Christine 15244 From: Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 4:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] wrong view Hi Herman, You are correct. I am interpreting the Buddha as saying there are consequences to ones actions which extend into future lives. And I am calling this ethics; maybe that isn't the best word. To my understanding, Buddhist ethics is the arising of bad (painful) and good (non-painful) feelings (vedana) proceeding from volitional activity initiated by intention conditioned by accumulations according to a closed (uninterferable) mechanism of cause and effect. In other words, citta process or paticcasamupadda. There is no choice, but there are influences. So what you think and say makes a difference. I imagine there is room for considerable debate on what constitutes good and bad, kusala and akusala. What's your take on it? Larry _______________ Herman: "Hi Larry, Running throughout your post I read the following argument. "There has to be ethics, there just has to be ethics." Have I read this correctly, and if I have then I ask why do there have to be ethics?" 15245 From: Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 3:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Questioning Arahants and Abhidhamma Hi, Frank - Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu! (Or otherwise put - Here, here!! ;-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 8/26/02 3:58:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, fcckuan@y... writes: > > Hi Chris, > I think the validity of Abidhamma is something you > have to decide for yourself. Maybe not even validity, > but just whether it helps you progress on your path. > The only thing I know for sure about Buddhism is > that it brings a radical reduction of suffering, > commensurate with the level of your realization of > impermanence, dukkha, and anatta. That's something > everyone on the list has experienced and it's why we > have confidence in the teachings. Whether a COMPLETE > cessation of dukkha and end to the round of rebirths > is possible, one can't be sure until it's personally > experienced. > There's a dukkha infested spiritual craving we all > have of wanting to be sure that the path we're > following is the right one, and leads to complete > liberation. That craving should be recognized and > abandoned. Even if the Buddhadhamma is incomplete and > doesn't bring final deliverance, it's BY FAR the best > religion out there and the best system to build on > (if necessary). And if the Buddha turns out to be > correct, BONUS! So far, I have no reason to doubt that > buddhism leads to complete cessation of dukkha. I do > have doubts about the validity of parts of the > tipitaka, but it's a healthy doubt. I don't have any > illusion that any doctrine, no matter how perfect, can > remain pristine and avoid having superfluous or > erroneous parts tacked on to it from later > generations. > > -fk /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15246 From: robmoult Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 7:18pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States (long message) Hi Kom, I have inserted some brief comments. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > > In daily life (kamavacara), I see "radiation" as a metaphor; I > > visualize sending metta to a person or group that I also visualize. > > This is the part that I don't get. When one is kind toward another person, > one has the person as the object. When we are kind to this person, we are > not thinking about sending out kindness to the person: one is simply kind > (thinking kindly, say kind things, do kind things) to the person. Without > examining Vissudhimagga, it seems rather unusual to me that metta > development involves sending out kindness to other beings. How about just > thinking kindly about them without trying to send anything? I know this > sounds hair-splitting, but "sending" kindness does strongly evoke the image > of the the psychic force. I go back to the context of the Metta Sutta; there was definitely "sending kindness" there. If I understand correctly, Devas are able to sense our mental states, so "sending" to a Deva is redundant (sharing with a Deva might be more appropriate). Perhaps a "kind thought" is more the kusala cetasika adosa. > What do you define as "universal?" A mind is universal when it treats all > equally with kindness (metta?)? Other definition? I think of "universal" as a metaphor as meaning not just limited to my own stream of kamma, but impacting many other people's as well. The Suttas use the numbers 84,000 and 500 quite often. I don't takes these numbers literally but treat them as "figures of speech" to mean "a really, big number" and "a big number". > > I think this is great stuff, and if your students understand this point too, > it would work really well. Otherwise, it would be easy to think "I am a > good preson" because I do this and this. The topic has come up multiple times and I have repeatedly "confessed" to the class of the existence of kusala drivers (fear, conceit, etc.) behind my motivation to deliver a good talk. > > Are you teaching dhammas to 10-12 year-olds? Or do you mean your own kids > like this analogy? My kids do attend the class. There may be a couple of others in the 25 - 30 age range, the others are all older, some much older. It appears as though a taste for Abhidhamma doesn't develop until a bit later in life. There are probably not too many teenagers part of this Dhamma Study Group. The Christians say, "The family that prays together, stays together." In my case, "The family that studies Abhidhamma together... (can't think of a rhyme)" My wife really enjoys the Abhidhamma class and my kids tolerate it. Who knows how much sinks in? After each class, I ask them to remember and they are able to repeat a couple of points, so I think it is beneficial. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15247 From: robmoult Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 7:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Upekkha vs. Tatramajjhattata Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Is this slow motion enough ? :-) Y e s ! T h a n k y o u ! :-) I think that the "stupid pill" is wearing off. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15248 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 10:44pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States (long message) Dear Rob, > -----Original Message----- > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > > I go back to the context of the Metta Sutta; there was > definitely "sending kindness" there. If I Which part of the metta sutta do you think discusses sending out kindness to other beings? > understand correctly, > Devas are able to sense our mental states, so There are definitely many stories in the tipitakas to support this hypothesis, although I haven't seen the texts that say *all* devas can sense other people's thought.. > Perhaps a "kind thought" is more the kusala > cetasika adosa. Metta is said to be the same as adosa, with a being as its object (instead of other objects, like paramatha dhamma, which can be the object of metta). > I think of "universal" as a metaphor as meaning > not just limited to > my own stream of kamma, but impacting many other > people's as well. > The Suttas use the numbers 84,000 and 500 quite > often. I don't takes > these numbers literally but treat them as > "figures of speech" to > mean "a really, big number" and "a big number". So you mean, when metta is developed, the consciousness becomes "universal", i.e, merges with the stream of consciousness with other people? > > The Christians say, "The family that prays > together, stays > together." In my case, "The family that studies > Abhidhamma > together... (can't think of a rhyme)" My wife > really enjoys the > Abhidhamma class and my kids tolerate it. Who > knows how much sinks > in? After each class, I ask them to remember and > they are able to > repeat a couple of points, so I think it is beneficial. That's fantastic. Anumoddhana... kom 15249 From: robmoult Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 11:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States (long message) Hi Kom, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Which part of the metta sutta do you think discusses sending > out kindness to other beings? I meant the context of the Sutta; the Buddha sending the 500 monks back to meditate and recite the Metta Sutta to calm the Devas. > > There are definitely many stories in the tipitakas to > support this hypothesis, although I haven't seen the texts > that say *all* devas can sense other people's thought.. I have been told (please don't ask me to quote a reference) that only the two lowest Deva realms take any notice of humans (the earth- bound, Catummaharajika, and the sky-bound, Tavatimsa; the realm of 33 Gods where the Buddha preached the Abhidhamma for his mother). > > I think of "universal" as a metaphor as meaning > > not just limited to > > my own stream of kamma, but impacting many other > > people's as well. > > So you mean, when metta is developed, the consciousness > becomes "universal", i.e, merges with the stream of > consciousness with other people? > No, I mean that when I recognize that, as a worldling, dealing with worldlings, my actions have an indirect impact on other's kammic streams. If I walk around with a sour face all day long, then it is bound to impact those close to me. If, as a result of my sour face, they get into a bad mood, then I see myself as impacting their bad kamma / vipaka. We are responsible for our own kammic stream but can also have an indirect impact (no merging) on other's kammic stream. When I only think about my own kammic stream, then I am not being "universal". When I consider the kammic streams of others that I may impact (and the impact that they have on others by extention), then I am being "universal". This my own definition to suit the way that I think. Try saying this to your wife, "You are 100% responsible for your own hapiness. I have no role, no responsibility to make you happy. If my actions make you unhappy, that is your problem. It is your vipaka and your reaction to your vipaka that is making you unhappy." If you don't think "universally", then you might even make statements such as this (and your marriage won't last long). Thanks, Rob M :-) 15250 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 11:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Ken (and Stephen) - > > In a message dated 8/25/02 2:38:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@y... writes: > >Howard: They do have characteristics in the same way > that they exist - conventionally. Trees have bark, and > roots, There *are* different > levels of discourse and of "reality".) ----------------------------------------------- You were referring to my comment that concepts don't have characteristics (I incorrectly called them sabhava, by the way), but I wonder, what is the point in learning conventional characteristics? When you say,"There are different levels of discourse and of reality," are you of the opinion that the Buddha taught conventional truth to some people and absolute truth to others? (I have seen that asserted elsewhere.) Personally, I doubt it. In fact, to sit on a cushion, contemplating the breath (concept), and seeing it as impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self, strikes me as a denial of anicca, dukkha and anatta. The cushion, the person sitting on it, the breath etc., are all concepts, the products of thinking -- they don't exist and they never have -- how can they form part of the Buddhadhamma? ---------------------------------------------------- > What do you mean by a "method that is practised by paramattha dhammas"? The notion of practice is a conventional one. People practice. Moments of discernment, hardness, aversion, etc do not. > --------------------------------------------------- Remember, I was responding to Stephen's assertion that the Buddha taught methods. With my `fundamentalist' outlook, I could only concede `Buddhist methods' in so far as they referred to real (not illusory), activities. If panna conditions right effort and other right cetasikas to arise with it, then I suppose that's a method. If panna is accumulated in all subsequent cittas, to condition the recurrence of panna (the cetasika), when all the conditions allow, then that might be a method too. Sorry if I'm stretching things a bit far, there. :-) ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: Anatta is not (merely) the fact that there is only the present nama and rupa. > -------------------------------- No, I didn't say that, what I said was, "Once we have begun to accept anatta -- that is, once we can intellectually agree that reality is only the present nama and rupa, then . . . ." But anyway, your point was: --------------------------- > Anatta is the emptiness of all dhammas, their impersonality and insubstantiality (their lack of core). > --------------------------- Is it? I have trouble with the notion of emptiness. Perhaps I misunderstand, but isn't this what has made it so hard for you to accept paramattha dhammas over the last couple of years? I notice that, in a message following the one I am answering now, you are beginning to accept that dhammas have their own, separate existence. Have you finally softened your stance on `the continuous, seamless flow of experience?' Have you come to accept that dhammas are not empty of their own intrinsic nature (sabhava)? Reading on, I see that you are still keen on the notion of emptiness: ---------------------- > All conditioned dhammas arise in dependence on other equally empty dhammas, making them thoroughly empty, and the one unconditioned dhamma, nibbana, is the ultimate emptiness, being empty of all conditions. > ------------------------------------------------------ Again, seeing anatta as emptiness just doesn't do much for me; we won't know until we're enlightened but in the meantime, I like to understand anatta as the absence of `anything more.' So, e.g., a citta is merely a citta, it is not my citta or your citta. (That's probably not the accepted definition.) Returning to the present discussion: I was saying, "These conventional counterparts are just a lot of thinking(concepts, pannatti), they are not real and they can't be objects of satipatthana -- the Middle Way."; to which you replied: ---------------------------------------------------- > One thing bothers me about this. How can there be *anything* that is unknowable by wisdom? How would a Buddha know the relative unreality of pa~n~natti without being able to examine pa~n~natti with insight? > ---------------------------------- (He knew them as anatta; I don't know whether other ariyans do.(?)) Concepts can be cognized by nama but not directly known. They don't exist. We can conceptualise a flying pink elephant but needless to say, we can't directly know it. The same applies to all the other concepts. I think pannatti can be known by just about every cetasika apart from panna.(?) But when we are seeing a concept with intelligence, my guess is, we're just thinking about it. The thinking (vitakka and vicara), is conditioned in line with our accumulated tendencies and it may be kusala or akusala. You continued: --------------------------------- > In fact, when we investigate the breath, for example, and our mindfulness and focus intensify, we can detect the elements that comprise the breath - the softness, the motion, the "texture" (relative roughness and smoothness), the warmth, the moisture. The breath is pa~n~natti. Insight into it amounts to directly seeing its components/aspects (and their having the tilakkhana). > ---------------------- BUT, the softness, the motion, the texture, the moisture that we worldlings can detect, are no more paramattha dhammas than the breath is. Only ariyans know paramatta dhammas; we're stuck with concepts. Thanks for the conversation Howard; after minor surgery on Monday, my nose has swelled up to the size of a small, rugby football and it was comforting to see, through my watery, blackened eyes, that someone had addressed a message to me. :O) Kind regards Ken H 15251 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 11:58pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States (long message) Dear Rob M, > -----Original Message----- > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Kom Tukovinit" > wrote: > > Which part of the metta sutta do you think > discusses sending > > out kindness to other beings? > > I meant the context of the Sutta; the Buddha > sending the 500 monks > back to meditate and recite the Metta Sutta to > calm the Devas. Here again we are back to that hair-splitting point about "sending out" metta to beings or having the beings (or all beings) as the objects of metta. As far as I can tell from the sutta and the commentaries, it is the latter. Of course, there might be other suttas about truly radiating metta, but from this particular sutta, I still don't see the context where the monks *intended* to send metta to the deva, but they certainly had the devas included as the objects of metta meditation. Hmm... Maybe I leave this particular point for now. A. Sujin is coming here in a week, and I may have an opportunity to ask her this question. > I have been told (please don't ask me to quote a > reference) that > only the two lowest Deva realms take any notice > of humans (the earth- > bound, Catummaharajika, and the sky-bound, > Tavatimsa; the realm of > 33 Gods where the Buddha preached the Abhidhamma > for his mother). Do you know why? Proximity? Or the person doing the telling didn't mention? > No, I mean that when I recognize that, as a > worldling, dealing with > worldlings, my actions have an indirect impact on > other's kammic > streams. If I walk around with a sour face all > day long, then it is > bound to impact those close to me. If, as a > result of my sour face, > they get into a bad mood, then I see myself as > impacting their bad > kamma / vipaka. We are responsible for our own > kammic stream but can > also have an indirect impact (no merging) on > other's kammic stream. > When I only think about my own kammic stream, > then I am not > being "universal". When I consider the kammic > streams of others that > I may impact (and the impact that they have on > others by extention), > then I am being "universal". This my own > definition to suit the way > that I think. Ah, I see... Thanks for explaining. > > Try saying this to your wife, "You are 100% > responsible for your own > hapiness. I have no role, no responsibility to > make you happy. If my > actions make you unhappy, that is your problem. > It is your vipaka > and your reaction to your vipaka that is making > you unhappy." Although I am not married, I certainly don't think it is wise to try this approach. This is like throwing some oil in fire! > If you don't think "universally", then you might > even make > statements such as this (and your marriage won't > last long). > If you live, that is... ;-) kom 15252 From: egberdina Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 1:57am Subject: Re: wrong view Hi Larry, Thanks for your reply, and I have no prob with the way you use the word "ethics". My understanding of Buddhist ethics is pretty much in line with your description. But I think it goes a bit further. If I may expand on my take a little. The problem is not so much of "how to live", but "that one lives". Devas are in samsara, just the same as hungry ghosts. The ultimate problem is not the quality of the accomodation one has on this ride, but that one is on the ride. Given this, I appreciate very much the Buddha's statement that jhana is the highest kusala. In a manner of speaking, as one ascends the jhana staircase, less and less kamma is produced. Until the mind is virtually extinguished. I do not discount other possibilities. I know some people have jhana recipes, others have insight recipes, but if there is no baking of cakes then it is all academic. Thank you for all your posts All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Herman, > > You are correct. I am interpreting the Buddha as saying there are > consequences to ones actions which extend into future lives. And I am > calling this ethics; maybe that isn't the best word. > > To my understanding, Buddhist ethics is the arising of bad (painful) and > good (non-painful) feelings (vedana) proceeding from volitional activity > initiated by intention conditioned by accumulations according to a > closed (uninterferable) mechanism of cause and effect. In other words, > citta process or paticcasamupadda. There is no choice, but there are > influences. So what you think and say makes a difference. I imagine > there is room for considerable debate on what constitutes good and bad, > kusala and akusala. > > What's your take on it? > > Larry > _______________ > Herman: "Hi Larry, > Running throughout your post I read the following argument. "There has > to be ethics, there just has to be ethics." > Have I read this correctly, and if I have then I ask why do there have > to be ethics?" 15253 From: Sarah Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:20am Subject: Right and Wrong Path and Jhana Factors Dear All, There has been some discussion recently on right and wrong path factors and on samma and micha sati. I’d like to add a little more to the other helpful comments and also relate it to right and wrong jhana factors as I personally find it a very useful topic for consideration. Mostly I’m just quoting from Nina’s ‘Conditions’ which can be found at: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Amongst the 24 paccaya (conditions), there are magga paccaya (path condition) and jhana paccaya (jhana condition). I think it’s very helpful to consider the wrong factors as well as the right ones as wrong view will lead to the taking of the wrong ones for the right ones. Nina writes in the chapter on Path Condition: ..... “Path-factors can be akusala cetasikas which constitute the wrong path, or they can be sobhana cetasikas which constitute the right path. The path-factors of the wrong path lead downwards, to an unhappy rebirth, and the path-factors of the right path lead to a happy rebirth, or, when they are constituents of the noble eightfold Path, they lead to deliverance from the cycle of birth and death. In the “Dialologues of the Buddha” (III, no. 33, The Recital, VIII) the path-factors of the wrong path are summed up as follows: Eight wrong factors of character and conduct, to wit, wrong views, thinking, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, concentration. Wrong speech, wrong action and wrong livelihood are not cetasikas, but they are unwholesome actions motivated by akusala cetanå, unwholesome volition, which accompanies akusala citta. Neither is wrong mindfulness a cetasika, but it designates lack of attention to kusala, lack of mindfulness which is a property of akusala citta. The cetasika mindfulness, sati, can only accompany sobhana citta, it cannot be akusala. Since the four factors of wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood and wrong mindfulness are not cetasikas they are not conditioning factors of path-condition. The other four factors of the wrong path are akusala cetasikas, namely: wrong view, wrong thinking, wrong effort and wrong concentration. Thus, they are conditioning factors of path-condition. We read in the “Paììhåna” (Faultless Triplet, VII, Investigation Chapter, § 432, IV): Faulty state (akusala dhamma) is related to faulty state by path-condition. Faulty path-factors are related to their associated khandhas 1 by path-condition. Wrong view (micchå-diììhi) is an akusala cetasika arising with four types of lobha-múla-citta 2. There can be wrong view about kamma and vipåka, one may believe that good and bad deeds do not produce their appropriate results. It is wrong view to take realities for permanent or for “self”. Wrong view conditions wrong practice of the Dhamma, it conditions taking the wrong path for the right path....” ***** In a similar way, we read about right and wrong jhana factors and how the wrong factors can very easily be taken for right factors if there isn’t the development of understanding which clearly knows the difference between wholesome and unwholesome mental factors. We discussed this topic in Koh Samui with Erik with regard to anapanasati, but it is relevant for any development of samatha. Again I’m quoting from ‘Conditions’, this time from the chapter ‘Jhana condition’: ..... “The jhåna-factors which are developed in samatha are sobhana cetasikas, they have to be developed together with paññå which knows the way to develop calm, so that absorption can be attained. However, jhåna-factors can also be taken in a wider sense, they can even be akusala. That is why the “Dhammasangaùi” mentions in the “Summary” jhåna-factors arising not only with the mahå-kusala cittas which are accompanied by paññå, but also with those which are unaccompanied by paññå, ñåùa-vippayutta, as well as with each of the akusala cittas 3. Not only kusala citta but also akusala citta needs jhåna-factors which assist the citta to be firmly fixed on an object. Even when someone performs evil deeds he needs jhåna-factors which accompany the akusala citta, so that he is concentrated on the object of aksusala; these jhåna-factors condition the akusala citta by way of jhåna-condition. We read in the “Paììhåna” (Faultless Triplet, VII, Investigation Chapter, § 431) that akusala jhåna-factors are related to their associated aggregates ( the other nåma-kkhandhas 4) by jhåna-condition. Without the assistance of the jhåna-factors good or evil deeds cannot be performed.” ...... As Nina writes below, we read in the various texts about how the jhana factors operate with unwholesome cittas: ..... "Vitakka, applied thinking, “touches” the object which is experienced, it leads citta to the object (Vis. IV, 88). When vitakka is akusala it is wrong thinking. As to vicåra, sustained thinking, this has the characteristic of “continued pressure” on the object, it keeps citta “anchored” on it (Vis. IV, 88). Vitakka and vicåra accompany all cittas of the sense sphere, except the sense-cognitions (dvi-pañcaviññåùas, seeing, hearing, etc.) and they condition citta by way of jhåna-condition, so that it is firmly fixed on the object it experiences. Píti, rapture, interest or enthousiasm, takes an interest in the object, it “refreshes” citta and cetasikas (Vis. IV, 94). In the case of cittas of the sense sphere, kåmåvacara cittas, it arises with all cittas which are accompanied by pleasant feeling. When it is akusala it accompanies lobha-múla-citta. As to sukha, in this context it is the same as somanassa, pleasant feeling. Domanassa, unpleasant feeling, can only accompany dosa-múla-citta, citta rooted in aversion, thus, it is a jhåna-factor which is always akusala; it asists the akusala citta to be fixed on the object in an unwholesome way. Upekkhå, indifferent feeling, can be kusala, akusala, or indeterminate (avyåkata); when it is indeterminate it can be vipåka or kiriya 5. Samådhi, concentration, is the cetasika which is one-pointedness (ekaggatå). It has the function of focussing on one object and it accompanies every citta; it can be kusala, akusala, vipåka or kiriya. It causes the citta to be concentrated on the object it experiences....” ..... I quoted the example in my long post about the akusala jhana factors operating at the time of killing. They also operate at times of concentrating on meditation objects, such as breath, when there is no understanding of the distinction between kusala and akusala cittas with calm. It’s very easy to take the latter for the former and one cannot be guided by the pleasant or indifferent feelings. For example, as I know well, at the end of a yoga practice when one lies down or practices pranayama, it feels very calm and relaxing, but mostly this is lobha and concentration not connected with bhavana (i.e unwholesome concentration). Erik and I watched Eath intently picking up frangipanni flowers from the lawn to make a garland. I asked him whether it was kusala or akusala concentration. “It must be kusala because it’s so harmless” he replied. "Who knows?", I asked. If it’s not a moment of dana, sila or bhavana, it’s bound to be akusala. We begin to see there’s far more akusala than kusala in a day, whatever the activity, whether we’re making a garland, baking cookies or concentrating on a meditation object, I think. To quote a little more from ‘conditions’: ..... “Someone may mistakenly believe that there is calm when he just sits and for example looks for a long time at a kasina (disk) which is among the meditation subjects of samatha. Instead of true calm which is wholesome there is clinging to quietness. Not merely intellectual understanding of the jhåna-factors is needed for the development of calm but there must also be right understanding which discerns precisely their different characteristics. When one underestimates the difficulty of the development of jhåna there is bound to be wrong concentration. It is difficult to distinguish between different jhåna-factors such as vitakka and vicåra. While we are thinking, there are vitakka and vicåra performing their functions, they arise together; but do we discern their different characteristics? Do we know the characteristic of píti, rapture, and can we distinguish it from sukha, pleasant feeling? When we find out for ourselves how difficult it is to distinguish between these jhåna-factors, we will understand that a high degree of paññå is needed for the development of the jhåna-factors.” ***** I fully appreciate that what I’m writing and quoting will not appeal to many. We’d all like to think that there is a lot of kusala in a day and understanding more about the wrong factors and ‘cheating’ dhammas should apply to others and not to 'our' practice. Even as I type now, there are many path and jhana factors act as paccaya (condition),such as concentration, thinking, pleasant feeling and so on. Of course as I’m writing about dhamma, I’d like to think they are all wholesome. Truly, when there is a little understanding and I’m honest about it, I know that there are many, many moments of lobha, moha, unwholesome concentration and thinking, as well as the fewer more noble qualities. And in between all these are many moments of seeing, hearing, sensations through the body-sense and so on. The understanding always comes back to the present moment and the sincerity in 'our' practice. Sarah ==== 15254 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 3:10am Subject: Re: A Question on Visual Image Processing --- Dear Howard, Each moment of seeing is vipaka - the result of either kusala or akusala kamma from the past. Take the example of seeing a very beautiful diamond side by side with a piece of dung. In this case the kusala vipaka and akusala vipaka moments are alternating rapidly even though the seeing may seem to be taking in both at the same time. Robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Abhidhamma experts - > > I have a question with regard to visual rupas. As I understand the > Abhidhamma on this, what are actually and directly seen are colors and shades > of varying brightness. My question is the following: It seems that we see, at > one shot, a scene, an entire panorama which is composed of areas of varying > colors and brightness. Do we actually see an entire scene, an > undifferentiated color-image, which is then further processed, with sa~n~na > carving out the various "colored areas", or do we, in fact, directly see > individual colors, sequentially, which are subsequently combined into a > "scene". What are the paramattha dhammas here? What elements are primary? > > With metta, > Howard 15255 From: Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 1:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? Hi, Ken - In a message dated 8/27/02 2:55:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Ken (and Stephen) - > > > > In a message dated 8/25/02 2:38:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > kenhowardau@y... writes: > > > > > > > >Howard: They do have characteristics in the same way > > that they exist - conventionally. Trees have bark, and > > roots, > > There *are* different > > levels of discourse and of "reality".) > ----------------------------------------------- > > You were referring to my comment that concepts don't > have characteristics (I incorrectly called them > sabhava, by the way), but I wonder, what is the point > in learning conventional characteristics? > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: As worldlings, conventional objects and their characteristics are where we start - they are overwhelmingly what we deal with. -------------------------------------------------- > > When you say,"There are different levels of discourse > and of reality," are you of the opinion that the > Buddha taught conventional truth to some people and > absolute truth to others? (I have seen that asserted > elsewhere.) Personally, I doubt it. In fact, to sit > on a cushion, contemplating the breath (concept), and > seeing it as impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self, > strikes me as a denial of anicca, dukkha and anatta. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Then the Buddha of the Sutta Pitaka denied anicca, dukkha, and anatta. Certainly 95% of what the Buddha talked about there was conventional truth. And all language is conventional language - though it can be used to point beyond the conventional. -------------------------------------------------- > > The cushion, the person sitting on it, the breath > etc., are all concepts, the products of thinking -- > they don't exist and they never have -- how can they > form part of the Buddhadhamma? > ---------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Riiight! Scratch the Anapanasat Sutta. In fact, scratch the Sutta Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka entirely, keeping only the Abhidhamma Pitaka (except the part dealing with hungry ghosts and the Kathavatthu - scratch them too). -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > What do you mean by a "method that is practised by > paramattha dhammas"? The notion of practice is a > conventional one. People practice. Moments of > discernment, hardness, aversion, etc do not. > > --------------------------------------------------- > > Remember, I was responding to Stephen's assertion that > the Buddha taught methods. With my `fundamentalist' > outlook, I could only concede `Buddhist methods' in so > far as they referred to real (not illusory), > activities. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Then the Buddha never taught anyone anything at all unless they were already ariyans, although how they became ariyans is a mystery - good luck, I guess. ------------------------------------------------------- If panna conditions right effort and> > other right cetasikas to arise with it, then I suppose > that's a method. If panna is accumulated in all > subsequent cittas, to condition the recurrence of > panna (the cetasika), when all the conditions allow, > then that might be a method too. Sorry if I'm > stretching things a bit far, there. :-) > ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What you seem to be saying is that ariyans appear randomly, and that there is no "need" for Buddhas, because there is no practice. What will happen, will happen - somehow. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: Anatta is not (merely) the fact that there > is only the present nama and rupa. > > -------------------------------- > > No, I didn't say that, what I said was, "Once we have > begun to accept anatta -- that is, once we can > intellectually agree that reality is only the present > nama and rupa, then . . . ." --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, you said "Once we have begun to accept anatta -- that is, once we can intellectually agree that reality is only the present nama and rupa, then . . . ." The words "that is" tell me that you are defining "accepting anatta" to mean "intellectually agreeing that reality is only the present nama and rupa." ----------------------------------------------------------- > > But anyway, your point was: > --------------------------- > > > Anatta is the emptiness of all dhammas, their > impersonality and insubstantiality (their lack of > core). > > --------------------------- > > Is it? I have trouble with the notion of emptiness. > Perhaps I misunderstand, but isn't this what has made > it so hard for you to accept paramattha dhammas over > the last couple of years? ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I still do not accept paramattha dhammas if they are to be self-existing things with their *own* being. That is the notion I objected to, and I still do. I however have no problem in distinguishing paramattha dhammas as directly experienced conditions/events (still dependently arisen, and thus not self-existent) from mind-constructed dhammas which we mistakenly think are directly experienced. ------------------------------------------------------------ > > I notice that, in a message following the one I am > answering now, you are beginning to accept that > dhammas have their own, separate existence. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Dhammas such as hardness and visual images appear and can be distinguished from other dhammas, but they are not separate and independent. They are conditions which arise dependently, and are not self-existent. ----------------------------------------------------------- Have you> > finally softened your stance on `the continuous, > seamless flow of experience?' Have you come to accept > that dhammas are not empty of their own intrinsic > nature (sabhava)? -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Reading on, I see that you are still keen on the > notion of emptiness: > ---------------------- > > All conditioned dhammas arise in dependence on other > equally empty dhammas, making them thoroughly empty, > and the one unconditioned dhamma, nibbana, is the > ultimate emptiness, being empty of all conditions. > > ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You bet! ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Again, seeing anatta as emptiness just doesn't do much > for me; we won't know until we're enlightened but in > the meantime, I like to understand anatta as the > absence of `anything more.' > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: But even without being enlightened, you know all about paramattha dhammas? You somehow directly see things as they are, as they have come to be? I don't think so. For a worldling, *this* is all mere concept, because it is unexperienced! It seems that you accept the entire presentation of the Abhidhamma, and all its details, without ever experiencing any of it. Don't you think that a full-blown theory of "ultimate reality" that has to be accepted on faith alone is surely not the centerpiece of the Buddha's teaching? We can attend only to what we can observe. No worlding apprehends individual cittas. And taking them on faith is not liberative. To be aware of directly observable, non-mind-constructed elements of experience, we need to attend to what we can initially observe, and those things *are* mind-constructed. If a physicist told you to "look at the quarks over there", pointing to a table, wouldn't you think he was certifiable? And, BTW, in the suttas, did the Buddha tell his followers that they should see fundamental self-existing realities, or did he tell them to see all dhammas as impermanent, unsatisfactory, impersonal and insubstantial, dependently arisen, and (thank you, Victor) as not me and not mine? --------------------------------------------------------- So, e.g., a citta is> > merely a citta, it is not my citta or your citta. > (That's probably not the accepted definition.) > > Returning to the present discussion: I was saying, > "These conventional counterparts are just a lot of > thinking(concepts, pannatti), they are not real and > they can't be objects of satipatthana -- the Middle > Way."; to which you replied: > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > One thing bothers me about this. How can there be > *anything* that is unknowable by wisdom? How would a > Buddha know the relative unreality of pa~n~natti > without being able to examine pa~n~natti with insight? > > > ---------------------------------- > > (He knew them as anatta; I don't know whether other > ariyans do.(?)) > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Arahants (perhaps even lesser ariyans) know all dhammas as anatta, or so I am led to believe. ----------------------------------------- > > Concepts can be cognized by nama but not directly > known. They don't exist. We can conceptualise a > flying pink elephant but needless to say, we can't > directly know it. The same applies to all the other > concepts. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: The concept of "flying pink elephant", AS A THOUGHT, is directly experienceable, but that thought is a groundless concept, having no observable referent. Being a groundless concept makes it a poor example. The concept of ' the keyboard on which I'm typing' is a better example. It is a well grounded concept, which has a referent. But the referent is not observable without involvement of mental-construction. The referent is an excellent example of a "real" pa~n~natti! (This sounds contradictory, but is not. The point is that I can deal with that "keyboard" in multiple ways, but there is no flying pink elephant to deal with in any way.) If we look *very carefully*, we can, to some extent, get to directly apprehend (to separate out) the sights, sounds, touchings, etc that the mind combines to form that keyboard. But this combining is not an arbitrary matter, because those components are truly interrelated. ------------------------------------------------------------ > > I think pannatti can be known by just about every > cetasika apart from panna.(?) But when we are seeing > a concept with intelligence, my guess is, we're just > thinking about it. The thinking (vitakka and vicara), > is conditioned in line with our accumulated tendencies > and it may be kusala or akusala. > > You continued: > --------------------------------- > > > In fact, when we investigate the breath, for > example, and our mindfulness and focus intensify, we > can detect the elements that comprise the breath - the > softness, the motion, the "texture" (relative > roughness and smoothness), the warmth, the moisture. > The breath is pa~n~natti. Insight into it amounts to > directly seeing its components/aspects (and their > having the tilakkhana). > > ---------------------- > > BUT, the softness, the motion, the texture, the > moisture that we worldlings can detect, are no more > paramattha dhammas than the breath is. Only ariyans > know paramatta dhammas; we're stuck with concepts. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: We start where we are, Ken, else we start nowhere and at no time, and the Dhamma is useless. Also, I believe you overstate here. Certainly we can and do detect softness, motion, warmth, coolness, and moisture "in" the breath. I know that I can, and I have no doubt that you can as well. This may not be at the finest, "microscopic" level of discernment, but it does occur. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for the conversation Howard; after minor > surgery on Monday, my nose has swelled up to the size > of a small, rugby football > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm very sorry to hear that, Ken. I hope it improves quickly. ---------------------------------------------------------- and it was comforting to> > see, through my watery, blackened eyes, that someone > had addressed a message to me. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I'm truly pleased that you found this to be something pleasant. (You may also take comfort in knowing that your nose and the swelling of it are just pa~n~natti! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------ > :O) > > Kind regards > Ken H > > ============================= Feel better soon, Ken. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15256 From: Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Question on Visual Image Processing Hi, Robert - In a message dated 8/27/02 6:11:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Dear Howard, > Each moment of seeing is vipaka - the result of either > kusala or akusala kamma from the past. > Take the example of seeing a very beautiful diamond side by > side with a piece of dung. In this case the kusala vipaka > and akusala vipaka moments are alternating rapidly even > though the seeing may seem to be taking in both at the same > time. > Robert > ============================== Thank you for the reply. With regard to my question: << Do we actually see an entire scene, an undifferentiated color-image, which is then further processed, with sa~n~na carving out the various "colored areas", or do we, in fact, directly see individual colors, sequentially, which are subsequently combined into a "scene" >>, your answer seems to suggest that my second scenario (of seeing individual "parts" sequentially which are then mentally combined) is closer to the Abhidhammic understanding. Interestingly (to me ;-), my *first* scenario seems more intuitive, but, then, all our errors seem quite intuitive! ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15257 From: frank kuan Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:40am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States (long message) In my case, "The family that studies > > Abhidhamma > > together... (can't think of a rhyme)" Cures insomnia together? :) -fk 15258 From: robmoult Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 8:58am Subject: Was Sariputta capable of lying? Hi All, I am preparing for this week's class, which will be a summary of "Dying to Live - The Role of Kamma in Dying and Rebirth". Here is the link: http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/dying2live.htm The following story is told in this text which states that Sariputta decided to decieve a person. I thought that as an Arahant, Sariputta was incapable of lying. Please help me out. Does anybody know the story? Any explanation on Sariputta's lying? Here is the context: --------------------------------- Another example is the story of the public executioner. He had been a robber and murderer before he was appointed by the king to be a public executioner. After 55 years of service, on the day of his retirement, he was dressed in his best, had prepared his favourite food, and was about to eat it when Venerable Sariputta, who had just emerged from his absorption, stood at his door, begging for alms. He thought it was very befitting that the Venerable Sariputta should come on such an auspicious occasion. So he invited the Venerable Sariputta in, offered him his favourite food and stood by his seat fanning the Thera while he was eating. At the end of the meal, the Venerable Sariputta gave him a Dhamma talk. But he was unable to pay attention because he kept remembering all those people whom he had executed. The Venerable Sariputta noticed that and asked, "why are you not paying attention?" He told him the reason. The Venerable Sariputta thought, "I shall deceive him." Then he asked, "Did you do it out of your own choice or did someone order you to do it?" "The king ordered me to do it, Bhante," he replied. "Now, upasaka [Buddhist layman], if that is the case, was it unwholesome?" The former executioner was a slow-witted fellow. When he heard the Thera's question, he felt relieved and said, "No, it wasn't unwholesome. Then carry on with your Dhamma talk, Bhante." Now that his conscience had been appeased, he could concentrate on the Dhamma talk. In fact, as he listened to the talk, he developed insight knowledge until sankharupekkhanana, just short of the first stage of enlightenment. After the Dhamma talk, he accompanied Venerable Sariputta outside along the street but on his way back was gored by a cow. When the monks heard about his death, they asked the Buddha where he was reborn. The Buddha replied that because of the insight knowledge he had attained while listening to Venerable Sariputta's talk, he had been reborn in Tusita Heaven. --------------------------------- Thanks, Rob M :-) 15259 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 10:00am Subject: the Perfections by A. Sujin, Ch 5, Wisdom, no. 1 Perfections, Ch 5, Wisdom, no. 1 The Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct² defines the perfection of wisdom as follows: Wisdom (pannå) has the characteristic of penetrating the real specific nature (of dhammas), or the characteristic of sure penetration, like the penetration of an arrow shot by a skilful archer; its function is to illuminate the objective field, like a lamp; its manifestation is non-confusion, like a guide in a forest; concentration or the four (noble) truths, is its proximate cause. Through the study of the Dhamma we gradually come to have more understanding of the vicissitudes of the world, of gain and loss, honour and dishonour, praise and blame, wellbeing and pain. We shall understand that the pleasant ³worldly conditions² of gain, honour, praise and wellbeing only lead to dukkha, suffering, if there is no pannå that knows the causes and their appropriate results in life. If someone truly sees the value of paññå and intends to develop kusala, he will not wish for pleasant sense objects as result, but he will aim for the growth of pannå until it has become keen and accomplished to the degree that it can completely eradicate defilements. Satipatthåna, right understanding of the mental phenomena and physical phenomena of our life, cannot be developed without pannå. No matter how many other excellent qualities someone may have, his defilements cannot be eradicated if pannå does not develop and becomes keener, if pannå does not clearly see the true nature of the realities that are naturally appearing. Thus, we should see the incomparable value of pannå and we should apply ourselves to its development so that it can become fully accomplished. If we develop satipaììhåna time and again paññå will be gradually accumulated so that it becomes keener, and reaches the degree of a perfection which realizes the four noble Truths. We read in the ³Khuddhaka Nikåya² in the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct², the ³Conduct of Yudañjaya², about the beginning of the development of paññå during the life the Bodhisatta was young Yudañjaya 1) : In the life when the Bodhisatta was Yudañjaya, he was the eldest son of the King and had the rank of the viceroy. He fulfilled every day mahå-dåna 2), the giving of an abundance of gifts. One day when he visited the royal park he saw the dewdrops hanging like a string of pearls on the tree-tops, the grass-tips, the end of the branches and on the spiders¹ webs. The prince enjoyed himself in the royal park and when the sun rose higher all the dewdrops that were hanging there disintegrated and disappeared. He reflected thus: ³These dewdrops came into being and then disappeared. Evenso are conditioned realities, the lives of all beings; they are like the dewdrops hanging on the grass-tips.² He felt a sense of urgency and became disenchanted with worldly life, so that he took leave of his parents and became a recluse. From this story we can learn that people have different degrees of understanding. We may see dew drops hanging on grass-tips, but who has paññå to the degree of causing a sense of urgency and disenchantment when he compares his own life with the evanescent dew? We read: The Bodhisatta realized the impermanence of the dewdrops and made this predominant in accumulating a sense of urgency and disenchantment; it arose once and then became a condition leading to its arising very often. When right understanding with a sense of urgency arises we should not let it pass by without paying attention to it. We should reflect on the conditions for this sense of urgency so that it can arise more often. The thought of death or impermanence can be a condition for further developing the perfections. Footnotes 1. See Jåtaka no. 460. 2. The word mahå-dåna is mostly used for the great offering of gifts to the Sangha. 15260 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 10:00am Subject: Karaniya Metta Sutta Dear Kom, I read your post on metta with great interest, it did not even seem a long post. I liked your personal remarks, especially on satipatthana. I found the English text of the Co in PTS: Minor Readings and Illustrator, Ch 9. With appreciation, Nina. 15261 From: The Last Bard Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 10:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Was Sariputta capable of lying? The Venerable Sariputta noticed that and asked, "why are you not paying attention?" He told him the reason. The Venerable Sariputta thought, "I shall deceive him." Then he asked, "Did you do it out of your own choice or did someone order you to do it?" "The king ordered me to do it, Bhante," he replied. "Now, upasaka [Buddhist layman], if that is the case, was it unwholesome?" >> Well, truthfully Sariputta never decieved him since each line was a question. He was wanting the man to come to his own conclusions to allow him to hear the teachings, because after hearing the teachings it doesn't matter what had happened; he was on the steps to enlightenment. ===== The Phoenix is the only thing that rises and does not descend, and while everything changes. Nothing is truly lost. 15262 From: robmoult Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 3:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Was Sariputta capable of lying? Hi Bard, I considered that option, but rejected it on two counts: - It puts Sariputta in the category of lawyers and an ex-President - The conditions for "false speech" are as follows: 1. An untrue thing 2. Intention to deceive 3. Corresponding effort 4. Other person believes untruth In this story, all of these conditions are met, so Sariputta technically told a lie. As an Arahant, Sariputta would have eliminated conditions for any of the akusala cetasikas to arise. Is it possible to lie without any akusala cetasika arising? As I examine the situation, I can't see any obvious akusala cetasikas, but it doesn't seem right that Sariputta could be capable of lying. Does anybody know of any other cases of Arahants lying? Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., The Last Bard wrote: > The Venerable Sariputta noticed that and asked, "why > are you not > paying attention?" > > He told him the reason. The Venerable Sariputta > thought, "I shall > deceive him." Then he asked, "Did you do it out of > your own choice > or did someone order you to do it?" > > "The king ordered me to do it, Bhante," he replied. > > "Now, upasaka [Buddhist layman], if that is the case, > was it > unwholesome?" > >> > > Well, truthfully Sariputta never decieved him since > each line was a question. He was wanting the man to > come to his own conclusions to allow him to hear the > teachings, because after hearing the teachings it > doesn't matter what had happened; he was on the steps > to enlightenment. > > ===== > > The Phoenix is the only thing that rises and does not descend, and while everything changes. > > Nothing is truly lost. 15263 From: Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 3:29pm Subject: ADL ch. 22 (2) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 22 (2) At the third stage of jhana 'sustained thinking' (vicara) is abandoned. At this stage one does not need vitakka or vicara any longer in order to become absorbed in the meditation subject. Now there are three factors remaining: rapture (piti), happy feeling (sukha) and concentration (samadhi). At the fourth stage rapture (piti) is abandoned. There is still happy feeling accompanying the jhana-citta, but piti does not arise. Without piti, the jhanacitta is more quiet, more refined. At the fifth stage happy feeling (sukha) too is abandoned and there is neutral feeling (upekkha vedana) accompanying the jhanacitta instead of happy feeling. At this stage one is no longer attached to happy feeling. The jhana-factor which is concentration (samadhi) remains. Some people can, at the second stage of jhana, abandon both 'applied thinking' and 'sustained thinking' (vitakka and vicara). Consequently, they can, in the third stage, abandon rapture (piti) and in the fourth stage happy feeling (sukha). Thus for them there are only four stages of jhana instead of five. That is the reason why rupa-jhanas can be counted as four stages or as five stages (the fourfold system or the fivefold system). When we read in the suttas about four stages of jhana, the fourfold system is referred to. There can be up to five stages of rupa-jhana in all and thus there are five types of rupavacara kusala cittas (rupa-jhana kusala cittas). Jhanacitta is kusala kamma of a high degree and thus its result is kusala vipaka of a high degree. Jhanacittas do not produce vipaka in the same lifespan: their result is rebirth in higher planes of existence: rebirth in rupa-brahma planes. If rupavacara kusala citta is to produce the next rebirth, there are rupavacara kusala cittas arising shortly before the dying-consciousness. The patisandhi-citta of the next life is rupavacara vipakacitta which arises in the appropriate rupa-brahma plane. It experiences the same meditation subject as the rupavacara kusala cittas arising shortly before the dying-consciousness of the preceding life. The five types of rupavacara kusala cittas produce five types of rupavacara vipakacittas. Rupavacara vipakacitta can only perform the function of patisandhi, bhavanga and cuti. There are five types of rupavacara kiriyacittas which are the cittas of the arahats who attain rupa-jhana. They do not have kusala cittas but kiriyacittas instead. Thus there are fifteen rupavacara cittas in all. Summarizing them, they are: 5 rupavacara kusala cittas 5 rupavacara vipakacittas 5 rupavacara kiriyacittas Those who have attained to the highest stage of rupa-jhana and see the disadvantages of rupa-jhana which is still dependent on materiality, might want to cultivate arupa-jhana or 'immaterial jhana'. There are four stages of arupa-jhana. The first stage of arupa-jhana is the 'Sphere of Boundless Space' (akasanancayatana). In order to attain this stage of arupa-jhana one has to attain first the highest stage of rupa-jhana in any one of the kasina meditations (The kasina meditations are among the meditation subjects of rupa-jhana. They are, for example, coloured disks or a piece of earth.) excepting the 'kasina of limited space' and achieve mastery in it. We read in the 'Visuddhimagga' (X, 6): When he has seen the danger in that [fine-material fourth jhana (The fourth rupa-jhana. Here the counting is according to the 'fourfold system.')] in this way and has ended his attachment to it, he gives attention to the 'Base consisting of Boundless Space' as peaceful. Then, when he has spread out the kasina to the limit of the world-sphere, or as far as he likes, he removes the kasina (materiality) by giving his attention to the space touched by it, (regarding that) as 'space' or 'boundless space'. As regards the 'Sphere of Boundless Space', the 'Visuddhimagga' (X, 6) explains the 'removing' of the kasina: And when the kasina is being removed, it does not roll up or roll away. It is simply that it is called 'removed' on account of his non-attention to it, his attention being given to 'space, space'. This is conceptualized as the mere space left by the removal of the kasina (materiality) ... In this way he can surmount the materiality of the kasina and attain the first arupa-jhana, the Sphere of Boundless Space'. The second stage of arupa-jhana is: the 'Sphere of Boundless Consciousness' (vinnanancayatana). The meditation subject of this stage of arupa-jhana is the consciousness which is the first arupa-jhana. The person who wants to attain this stage of arupa-jhana should first achieve 'mastery' in the 'Sphere of Boundless Space'; he should see the disadvantages of this stage and end his attachment to it. We read in the 'Visuddhimagga' (X, 25): ...So having ended his attachment to that, he should give his attention to the base consisting of boundless consciousness as peaceful, adverting again and again as 'Consciousness, consciousness', to the consciousness that occurred pervading that space (as its object)... The third stage of arupa-jhana is the 'Sphere of Nothingness' (akincannayatana). We read in the 'Visuddhimagga' (X, 32) that the person who wants to attain this stage should give his attention to the present non-existence of the past consciousness which pervaded the 'boundless space' and which was the object of the second stage of arupa-jhana, the 'Sphere of Boundless Consciousness'. We read (X, 33): Without giving further attention to that consciousness, he should (now) advert again and again in this way 'There is not, there is not', or 'Void, void', or 'Secluded, secluded', and give his attention to it, review it, and strike at it with thought and applied thought. Further on (X, 35) we read: ...he dwells seeing only its non-existence, in other words its departedness when this consciousness has arisen in absorption. The fourth arupa-jhana is the 'Sphere of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception' (n'eva-sanna-n'asannayatana). The object of this jhana is the third stage of arupa-jhana. We read in the 'Visuddhimagga' (X, 49): The word meaning here is this: that jhana with its associated states neither has perception nor has no perception because of the absence of gross perception and presence of subtle perception, thus it is 'neither perception nor non-perception' (n'eva-sanna-n'asannam). Further on (X, 50) we read: ...Or alternatively: the perception here is neither perception, since it is incapable of performing the decisive function of perception, nor yet non-perception, since it is present in a subtle state as a residual formation, thus it is 'neither-perception-nor-non-perception'... It is also explained that the feeling arising with this jhana-citta is 'neither-feeling-nor-non-feeling' (since it is present in a subtle state as a residual formation); the same applies to consciousness, contact (phassa) and the other cetasikas arising with the jhanacitta. 15264 From: robmoult Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 9:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process Hi All, It looks as though this is a tough subject to research. I really need your help on this one! This week, I will go over "Kamma in Dying and Rebirth". Next week, I will do a review of the past few weeks (all the kusala cetasikas). On September 15th, I want to review the functions of the universal cetasikas and I would like to do this by doing a detailed analysis of the thought process, showing when each of the universal cetasikas become prominent, when they play a supporting role and when they are present but dormant. When a universal cetasika is prominent or supporting, I will use that as an opportunity to describe the nature of the cetasika and, by extension, the functioning of the thought process. My first pass guess is as follows (I know that there are many mistakes and I am hoping that somebody can help me): Bhavanga - Prominent: Life Faculty - Supporting: Energy ??? Adverting - Prominent: Attention - Supporting: One-Pointedness ??? Eye Consciousness - Prominent: Contact - Supporting: Initial Application ??? Receiving - Prominent: Feeling - Supporting: Desire ??? Investigating - Prominent: Perception - Supporting: Initial Application ??? Determining - Prominent: Attention - Supporting: Decision ??? Javana - Prominent: Volition - Supporting: Zest ??? Registration - Prominent: Perception - Supporting: Sustained Application ??? Larry, in response to your message below, I found the following site which gives a biography and bibliography of Ledi Sayadaw. http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/biograph.htm I downloaded the ten english language publications available from this site but, after a very, very quick scan, did not find a detailed analysis of the thought process as I had hoped. I will review the materials more carefully. Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Rob, here's a thought. You might poke around in Ledi Sayadaw's writings. > If you do, please pass along anything you find in the way of a > bibliography for him. There are several brief comments by him in "A > Comprehensive Manual..." which go into unusual depth of the citta > process. > > Larry 15265 From: egberdina Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 9:15pm Subject: Re: A Question on Visual Image Processing Hi Howard, Gestalt psychology also maintains that perceptions are in chunks (gestalts). I do not think gestalt theory goes down to an elemental seeing that is somehow prior to perception. Kind Regards Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 8/27/02 6:11:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > Dear Howard, > > Each moment of seeing is vipaka - the result of either > > kusala or akusala kamma from the past. > > Take the example of seeing a very beautiful diamond side by > > side with a piece of dung. In this case the kusala vipaka > > and akusala vipaka moments are alternating rapidly even > > though the seeing may seem to be taking in both at the same > > time. > > Robert > > > ============================== > Thank you for the reply. With regard to my question: << Do we actually > see an entire scene, an undifferentiated color-image, which is then further > processed, with sa~n~na carving out the various "colored areas", or do we, > in fact, directly see individual colors, sequentially, which are subsequently > combined into a "scene" >>, your answer seems to suggest that my second > scenario (of seeing individual "parts" sequentially which are then mentally > combined) is closer to the Abhidhammic understanding. Interestingly (to me > ;-), my *first* scenario seems more intuitive, but, then, all our errors seem > quite intuitive! ;-)) > > With metta, > Howard 15266 From: ashkenn2k Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 9:39pm Subject: Re: Four Sublime States (long message) Hi Kom and Rob M After revisiting this topic, I would to say to Kom that this is a wonderful piece of article. Rob M - I think we should stick to the ancient commentaries. If everyone start their own opinions into the sutta, the meaning of it will not be authentic and worse may affect the original meaning of the sutta. And imagine what will happen in another ten generations. Everyone could opinion on the Buddhist sutta but it is dangerous. I feel unless one is an Arahat, we should refrain from opinioning on a sutta less aside citing facts from ancient commentaries. I think Kom has put a very good point > "Metta is a "solvent" that "melts" not only one's own > psychic pollutants of angers..., but also those of > others...". I found this to be quite dangerous to simply > believe in . We can see the effects of metta in one's own > mind, but how do we see it in others except through > bodily/verbal expressions and inferences? Making a jump to > this conclusion, and to develop metta so that it "melts" > other people's resentment is a dangerous belief. I am not > saying that this isn't true, but one should take this > carefully... > > The ultimate purpose of metta is to attain transcental > insight. I again am not sure how he comes to this > conclusion. Metta development and samatha bhavana's > ultimate goal is to reside in the devine abode. Only the > path and satipatthana can brings one to the "transcental > insight". His conclusion that metta development brings > about "holding no more to wrong beliefs" are simply not > supported in the commentaries, where it appears that the > Buddha explicitly added the last 4 stanzas to correct the > normal mich-dithi that can come with samatha bhavana: the > wrong view of permanence. kind regards Ken O 15267 From: Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 9:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process Thanks Rob, Larry ----------------------- Rob: "Larry, in response to your message below, I found the following site which gives a biography and bibliography of Ledi Sayadaw. http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/biograph.htm I downloaded the ten english language publications available from this site but, after a very, very quick scan, did not find a detailed analysis of the thought process as I had hoped. I will review the materials more carefully. Thanks, Rob M :-)" 15268 From: robmoult Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 10:49pm Subject: Re: Four Sublime States (long message) Hi Kom (and others); I would like to reiterate my appreciation and admiration on your research. I agree that we should, as much as possible, limit ourselves to the Suttas and ancient commentaries. On the other hand, I am sure that five years after the Vissudhimagga was written, some contemporaries dismissed it as "revolutionary, not fully supported by the Suttas". It is amazing how much authority a few centuries can give :-) I think that I have a way of addressing this problem with my class notes. I will add an extended footnote at the beginning of this section warning the reader that not all of the author's positions can be supported by the Suttas or ancient commentaries. Please let me know if there are any other "offending sections" in my Class Notes. Again, I ask anybody to propose changes the Class Notes to ensure that they do not lead to "wrong views". Thanks, Rob M :-) PS: To answer your question on why only the lowest two Deva realms interact with humans, it was due to proximity (both physical and mental). Again, no supporting references to Suttas or commentaries provided. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ashkenn2k" wrote: > Hi Kom and Rob M > > After revisiting this topic, I would to say to Kom that this is a > wonderful piece of article. > > Rob M - I think we should stick to the ancient commentaries. If > everyone start their own opinions into the sutta, the meaning of it > will not be authentic and worse may affect the original meaning of > the sutta. And imagine what will happen in another ten generations. > Everyone could opinion on the Buddhist sutta but it is dangerous. I > feel unless one is an Arahat, we should refrain from opinioning on a > sutta less aside citing facts from ancient commentaries. > > I think Kom has put a very good point > > > "Metta is a "solvent" that "melts" not only one's own > > psychic pollutants of angers..., but also those of > > others...". I found this to be quite dangerous to simply > > believe in . We can see the effects of metta in one's own > > mind, but how do we see it in others except through > > bodily/verbal expressions and inferences? Making a jump to > > this conclusion, and to develop metta so that it "melts" > > other people's resentment is a dangerous belief. I am not > > saying that this isn't true, but one should take this > > carefully... > > > > The ultimate purpose of metta is to attain transcental > > insight. I again am not sure how he comes to this > > conclusion. Metta development and samatha bhavana's > > ultimate goal is to reside in the devine abode. Only the > > path and satipatthana can brings one to the "transcental > > insight". His conclusion that metta development brings > > about "holding no more to wrong beliefs" are simply not > > supported in the commentaries, where it appears that the > > Buddha explicitly added the last 4 stanzas to correct the > > normal mich-dithi that can come with samatha bhavana: the > > wrong view of permanence. > > > kind regards > Ken O 15269 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 11:10pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A Question on Visual Image Processing --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 8/27/02 6:11:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > Dear Howard, > > Each moment of seeing is vipaka - the result of either > > kusala or akusala kamma from the past. > > Take the example of seeing a very beautiful diamond side by > > side with a piece of dung. In this case the kusala vipaka > > and akusala vipaka moments are alternating rapidly even > > though the seeing may seem to be taking in both at the same > > time. > > Robert > > > ============================== > Thank you for the reply. With regard to my question: << Do we actually > see an entire scene, an undifferentiated color-image, which is then further > processed, with sa~n~na carving out the various "colored areas", or do we, > in fact, directly see individual colors, sequentially, which are subsequently > combined into a "scene" >>, your answer seems to suggest that my second > scenario (of seeing individual "parts" sequentially which are then mentally > combined) is closer to the Abhidhammic understanding. Interestingly (to me > ;-), my *first* scenario seems more intuitive, but, then, all our errors seem > quite intuitive! ;-)) > > With metta, > Howard > ======== Dear Howard, Perhaps you can think of it as a middle path between your original statement in that many colours or shades of colours may comprise one visible object (e.g. the diamond). Sometimes seeing may take a complete face as visible object, at other moments a tiny feature of the face- depending different conditions. Robert 15270 From: The Last Bard Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 11:20pm Subject: Re : Was sariputta capable of lying? dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: "robmoult" | This is Spam | Add to Address Book Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:24:52 -0000 Subject: Re: [dsg] Was Sariputta capable of lying? Hi Bard, I considered that option, but rejected it on two counts: - It puts Sariputta in the category of lawyers and an ex-President - The conditions for "false speech" are as follows: 1. An untrue thing 2. Intention to deceive 3. Corresponding effort 4. Other person believes untruth In this story, all of these conditions are met, so Sariputta technically told a lie.// Hmm, interesting, but this puts to question. A) Was it an untrue thing? Since the Sariputta Never actually told him anything. (Lie or other-wise) but had the man come to his own conclusion, how could one lie? B) The intention was there, oddly enough. C) Effort, he really never pointed him in any direction, instead he just gave him foundation questions... D) Again, is this un-true? Each person comes to their own conclusions. There was never a solid statement in the tale that the Sariputta said, it was all the Executioner. ===== The Phoenix is the only thing that rises and does not descend, and while everything changes. Nothing is truly lost. 15271 From: dark knight Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 11:33pm Subject: Re:Re: Hi Hi Sarah, Thanks for giving me a warm welcome to this group. The topics discussed in this forum are very interesting. I am sure to benefit from these discussions. Regarding myself, I hail from a state at the southern most tip of India, called Kerala, famous for it's landscapes and greenery. I am doing a PhD in Chemical Engineering. I was exposed to many spiritual/religious schools early in my life. But only when I heard the Buddhas words, I got a glimpse of what all others were trying to say, and which Buddha clearly said. It is sad that it is difficult to come across His original words in India now.I was first introduced to His words through the book "Old Paths White Clouds" by Ven. Thich Nat Hanh. Luckily me and a friend of mine found a Theravada monastry in my city (which is a rarity in India now) , the Maha Bodhi Soceity founded by Ven. Acharya Buddharakkhita. There I found many books of many great seers of this path. I can only claim that I have had just an introduction to the great message of the Buddha. I intend to practice sincerily and understand the Dhamma as much as I can in this life. Thanks once again for welcoming me into this group were I can find like-minded people. With Metta , Krishnan. From: Sarah Subject: Re: Hi ! Hi Krishnan, Welcome to DSG and like you, I think we're all very fortunate to have a chance to read and learn more here. We'll look forward to any of your comments or questions. I don't think there are any other active members from India and I'd be glad to hear whereabouts you're from sometime and anything else you care to share about how you became interested in Buddhism. Best wishes, Sarah 15272 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 0:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Perversions, to Rob and Ken Dear Nina, Instead of posting a simple `thank you,' I decided to take the time to come up with some intelligent questions. But the more I think about what you have told me, the happier I am with it - thank you. Kind regards Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Robert K and Ken H, > Ken: When you say it doesn't arise often, do you mean only > >> once or twice per day or do you mean only once or > >> twice per milli-second? > >> > >> Millions of paramattha dhammas come and go in the > >> blink of an eye; I had assumed that there would be > >> conditions for just about all of them to appear in > >> that time, some in more significant proportions than > >> others, of course. Have I picked up a wrong > >> impression there? > Nina: So long as we are not sotapannas, we still have the latent tendency of > wrong view. It can condition its arising together with lobha-mula- citta at > any time. Panna has to be keen to discern it, and also, we have to be very > sincere, we need the perfection of truthfulness. There can easily be the > form of ditthi which is wrong practice. For example, when we take thinking > of nama and rupa for right mindfulness. Are we trying to have mindfulness, > just a little trying, or do we imagine that when in a Dhamma situation with > Dhamma discussions, there is more mindfulness? Do we want more? Do we want > to promote sati? We cannot catch the moments of ditthi, nor could we ever > count them. We know ditthi is bound to arise, but it depends on panna > whether such moments are known as only nama. Otherwise we get stuck. > Best wishes from Nina. 15273 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 0:09am Subject: Robert Ep's threads... Dear Friends: I am having trouble reading through all the posts, and want to keep up with the threads I'm involved in. If you would be kind enough to put my name in the header when a post is directed to me, I would be grateful. I am going to have to focus on a few threads at a time at this point. I really enjoy the high-quality discussions here, and the seriousness [and humor] of everyone here. I'll try to keep up as best I can. Thanks, Robert Ep. 15274 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 0:10am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? Howard, Just as Shakespeare's Hamlet knew that something was `rotten in the state of Denmark,' so too, you and I are aware of our own ignorance. Hamlet's reaction was: "Oh curs'ed spite, That ever I was born to set it right." That's the way you we would all feel if the Buddha hadn't taught that the `setting right' was done by paramattha dhammas, realities that are devoid of self. Unfortunately, there is an adulterated form of the Dhamma, a Dhamma without Abhidhamma, that propounds a [temporary] self who can, and should, set things right. On other lists, more so than on dsg, we see opinions on how `we temporary beings' should be doing the hard yards; we should be sitting for hours painfully cross-legged, we should be renouncing our favourite pastimes, we should be ever vigilant, etc., etc.; in short, we have an obligation to `go out there and get enlightened!' (Considering the magnitude of that obligation, Hamlet had it easy.) If we feel obligated by the Buddha's teaching, then we are doing him a disservice. He offered the Middle Way as a perfect gift, "lovely at the beginning, lovely in the middle and lovely at the end;"* let's accept it. :-) Kind regards Ken H *Chachakka-sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Ken - > > > Remember, I was responding to Stephen's assertion that > > the Buddha taught methods. With my `fundamentalist' > > outlook, I could only concede `Buddhist methods' in so > > far as they referred to real (not illusory), > > activities. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Then the Buddha never taught anyone anything at all unless they were > already ariyans, although how they became ariyans is a mystery - good luck, I > guess. > ------------------------------------------------------- > If panna conditions right effort and> > > other right cetasikas to arise with it, then I suppose > > that's a method. If panna is accumulated in all > > subsequent cittas, to condition the recurrence of > > panna (the cetasika), when all the conditions allow, > > then that might be a method too. Sorry if I'm > > stretching things a bit far, there. :-) > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > What you seem to be saying is that ariyans appear randomly, and that > there is no "need" for Buddhas, because there is no practice. What will > happen, will happen - somehow. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- snip 15275 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 0:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Questioning Arahants and Abhidhamma --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Is the Abhidhamma truth, and is it the explanation of reality? If > not - what are all of us on dsg doing - Which of us has the precious > time in this uncertain life to be living in a 'Let's Pretend' Land > of imagination, delighting in intellectual games and duelling with > abstractions? Dear Christine, Thanks for your honest questions. If we can't express our doubts and uncertainties as well as understandings, we can't get very far or really clear up those doubts. I hope we aren't going to go around feeling that where we really are on the path is somehow unacceptable to others, this subject is too important, so I'm glad you brought it out in this group. I do not consider myself an Abhidhammist, and I'm sure you can tell from my posts that I have doubts about some of the formulations of Abhidhamma. But I also have great respect for the analysis of reality that Abhidhamma puts forward, and to the seriousness of its practitioners. I have learned a lot about Theravada in general by being in this group, and I feel the support and friendship of its members. That's a lot. Remember, the name of this group is 'dhamma' study group. It is for anyone who has a sincere dedication to understanding and applying the Buddha's teaching, as expressed in the Pali Canon. Though the group is heavily focussed on issues of Abhidhamma, I have been assured on repeated occasions that there is no requirement to accept or believe any particular doctrine in order to participate. I hope that through being challenged by the knowledge and understanding of others here, and by challenging what doesn't make sense to me, that I am involved in a dialogue that helps clarify the teachings for all of us. It's a long process. And I have found that the good people here, at least 25% of which seem to be strong dissenters from Abhidhamma, make a very strong community in which to consider the dhamma. Don't worry about your own beliefs and whether they match those of others. Keep investigating for yourself, and I would say, enjoy the company of your spiritual friends here, whether you always agree with them or not. It's a long path and we have to do a lot of it alone, but I for one appreciate the company. Best, Robert Ep. 15276 From: Sarah Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 0:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Robert Ep's threads... Hi Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Friends: > I am having trouble reading through all the posts, and want to keep up > with the > threads I'm involved in. If you would be kind enough to put my name in > the header > when a post is directed to me, I would be grateful. ..... Just take it for granted that every post I write is for you;-)) so if you see my name as the sender, regardless of the subject matter, it means it's to be read;-)) I realize everyone else may jump on the bandwaggon and say the same..... Seriously, I appreciated a couple of posts you wrote on anatta while we were away and I hope you read the post I wrote yesterday on right and wrong jhana factors....... Even more seriously, why not find something else in your life that can be given up relatively easily (eg other lists, TV, sleep-ins, a meal or two) to give ALL the posts the attention they deserve??? I might also remind you that Christine has relieved you of your duties as Keeper of the Photo Album, so that clears a bit more time too;-) Always good to see you around, Rob, and we all understand, even if we forget to obey;-) Sarah ===== 15277 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 0:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Duration of Dhammas --- egberdina wrote: > Hi Howard and everybody, > > My two pennies worth :-) > > There are no absolute measurements. Measures of size...require at least one other > point of reference. So that would > negate the possibility of any kind of measured state being a > paramattha dhamma. Herman, Are you talking about enlarging the penis again? You've got to let that ad go! Robert Ep. P.S. It really does work! : ) 15278 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 0:54am Subject: Re: What is Anatta? (was: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go) --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert (and Kenneth) - > > In a message dated 8/25/02 2:01:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > Hi Christine, > > > > > > To me anatta is the *most* difficult concept of > > > Buddhism. It always leads to difficult questions, > > > like "is there a free will and if there is no free > > > will how do we practise in the first place." > > > > > > Pple who believe in no free will is I said b4 a few > > > months ago is extremist. > > > > Anatta is pretty extreme too. It means 'not self'. Not = no. No self. > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, there are differences of opinion among scholars and among real > Buddhists (just kidding, any Buddhist scholars out there!) on that. Some say > that 'anatta' is just an adjective meaning 'not self' in the sense of > 'impersonal' and 'insubstantial' which gets applied to all dhammas and thus, > to me, inasmuch as all dhammas are all there is, implies that there is *no* > self - but, somehow, not everyone agrees with that last conclusion. Hi Howard. Yeah, I'm not absolutely sure about how anatta applies to the personal self. I think your logic is good if you go the 'dhamma = anatta' route, and when you come around to the human object, it can't have a self either. I believe that consciousness, like all the kandhas, also has anatta applied to it, although I vaguely recall some of the higher factors such as panna not having anatta apply to it? Can't remember how that works. I wish my mind were more highly functional! The way I tend to apply anatta to the 'self' is to see that 'self' is only a concept, rather than a reality. This is I guess a product of consciousness and is different than looking at the objects of clinging and seeing that they are unsatisfactory, impermanent and not really connected to one. This idea that objects are 'not self' in the sense of these three characteristics is arcane in a way, as though the Buddha were really saying to detach from objects of clinging, rather than really defining them as 'not having a self' in their own right. It makes me think that the idea of something being 'not of the self' had a different sense to it at the time of the Buddha's preaching than it does for us now. > -------------------------------------------------- > Atta is > self. An-atta is the negation of this entity. You can argue that > > anatta is > > applied only to objects of clinging and not to one's personal self, but if > > that is > > the case there is really no difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. > > Hinduism > > also teaches total non-clinging and non-identification with external > > objects of > > desire. Hinduism also teaches that liberation of the mind leads to > > cessation of > > the continued round of birth and death. The non-existence of Atta or Atman > > [the > > inner spiritual self residing within the gross form] is the radical > > difference > > between most schools of Hinduism and all of Buddhism. > > > > Remember there is always a > > > choice. > > > > Why must there be a choice. Can you choose a different moment right now? > > Or do > > you merely experience what arises as consciousness? Answer according to > > your > > actual experience, and you will have a hard time finding where you can > > choose. In > > the moment of choosing, do you choose to choose? When you make the final > > decision, is there some way in which you finally decide, or does it just > > happen > > when it does? Choice apart from what happens is actually an illogical > > conceptual > > construct. > > > > If there is no choice, the power to choose > > > then Budhha will be wasting his time teaching us. We > > > might as well sit below the bodhi tree and do nothing > > > :). > > > > who's to say that's not the right thing to do? > > > > > I don't understand why free will must be associated > > > with a self. > > > > If there is no self, who needs the concept of free will? Who chooses > > freely? > > When consciousness arises and engages in an act it is spontaneous. Where's > > the > > will? It is unnecessary to postulate 'will' unless one wants to add a > > separate > > moment in which the self makes a separate decision about what to do. If > > there is > > only consciousness arising there is not only no free will, but will itself > > is > > redundant of the act of consciousness itself. If the will to do x or y > > arises in > > the moment as it is acted upon with no intervening self, it does not make > > much > > sense to talk about whether it is 'willed' or not, since there is nothing > > else > > that could possibly be taking place, and there is no decision of any kind. > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't understand the notion of *free* will, but volition (cetana) is > admitted by the Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka (it is the chief sankhara) and > most certainly it is countenanced in the Abhidhamma. Evidently, cetana serves > as kind of a needed motive force (but only in the sense of a necessary > condition, not as a substantial "force"). Well, I may be splitting hairs but I am more comfortable with 'volition' than 'will' or especially 'free will'. Free will especially seems to me to be a conceptual construct, since free and conditional are extremes to each other. What would a choice have to be to be truly 'free'? When you start talking about free will in that way you really are neck deep into concepts. If you talk about volition, that means to me that there is a desire to do something. That to me is much less implicative of a 'self' that is making a decision. Volition, the desire to do something or the intent to do something can arise as a product of consciousness and not necessarily imply the existence of a separate self-entity who is working it all out. Whereas 'free will' definitely implies that there is 'someone' who is free from conditions. So that would be my main distinction. It seems to be the vehicle by which > craving and aversion, and, more generally express themselves as kamma. (In > the case of an arahant, the cetana is replaced by a kind of neutral > functional consciousness (kiriya citta) expressing neutral chanda and which > is condition for an ensuing kammically neutral action.) In fact, cetana (and > kiriya citta for an arahant) seems to be close to synonymous with 'chanda'. > Nyanatiloka defines cetana as follows: > > > cetaná: 'volition', will, is one of the seven mental factors (cetasika, > > q.v.) inseparably bound up with all consciousness, namely sensorial or > > mental impression (phassa), feeling (vedaná), perception (saññá), volition > > (cetaná), concentration (samádhi), vitality (jívita), advertence > > (manasikára). Cf. Tab. II, III. > > Now, I myself have, from time to time, puzzled over the "need" for > cetana, inasmuch it only arises when the conditions for its arising have all > appeared. (Why not go directly from those conditions to the action, without > the intervening cetana?) But this question could arise for *every* link in a > "causal stream" - it seems that links cannot be skipped. It seems to me that > conditionality is a far more complex matter than we think, a much deeper one. > As a matter of fact, our notion of 'causal stream' as the direct source of > causality is faulty. The reality is probably closer to a causal network which > is a complex confluence of causal streams inasmuch as no dhamma arises with a > single precondition. I think this makes sense, and a moment of volition that arises from a confluence of other conditions does not imply a self or actor; it is part of the analysis of what arises in consiousness; cittas and cetasikas, and therefore is much more embedded in the whole analysis of co-dependent origination. You would have to say that if you tried to install 'free will' in the middle of a causal chain, it would break the chain. Because there is no possibility of 'free' will being codependently arisen with anything. To be free, it has to be self-initiating, and that is why I find it particularly pernicious in terms of Buddhist analysis, a mental construct that obstructs understanding of the nature of cause and effect. Best, Robert Ep. 15279 From: Sarah Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 1:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Inside the Thought Process Hi Rob M, Always great to see your questions, enthusiasm for dhamma and comments from your classes. The following are just a few personal comments on a subject I know very little about;-) --- robmoult wrote: > Hi All, > > Does anybody know where I can find out more about the operation of > the various cittas in the thought process? ..... I think most the texts like Abhid.Sangaha and books like ADL have been mentioned. It’s a bit like a jigsaw puzzle and as Chris said, often a matter of considering bits from here and there, I find. I never try to remember the details, but with a little reflection and logic, some pieces become a little clearer. ..... > Let me take the "Determining" citta as an example. As I look through > Bhikkhu Bodhi's "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma", there are ten > entries in the index where this citta is referenced. I have looked > at them all, but at the end almost nothing is said about the > operation of this citta. It says in the text that this > citta, "determines / defines / discriminates". What does this really > mean? What influences the function? What cetasikas are prominent > during this stage? How to describe the state of mind before and > after this citta? Does this citta behave differently in the thought > process of an arahant? How about in jhanic states? I have similar > questions about each of the cittas in the thought process. ..... These are not easy questions.Let me tell you what I consider when I read these kinds of questions: Firstly, for others who don’t know what we’re talking about, in a sense door process, after the bhavanga cittas (life continuum consciousness), there is the sense door consciousness such as seeing or hearing, followed by the receiving consciousnes, the investigating consciousnes and then the determining consciousness you refer to (votthapanna citta) before the javana cittas which are wholesome or unwholesome. Finally there are the registering consciousness. All these cittas have the same object such as a visible object or sound. Back to the “Determining” citta and your qus: -The votthapana (determining) citta arises in the sense door process before the javana cittas as indicated -It is actually the mind-door adverting citta which performs this function of ‘determining’ in the sense door. -It’s a kiriya citta. This means it’s not a ‘result’ citta like seeing or hearing and it’s not a ‘cause’ citta like the kusala and akusala cittas in the javana process.It is ‘inoperative’. -It determines the object after it’s seen or heard and it will then depend on our accumulations as to whether kusala or akusala cittas follow. Without this ‘determining’ the others couldn’t perform their tasks. -It is ahetuka, without roots and this means that it is not accompanied by any of the akusala or sobhana cetasikas. So there’s no liking or disliking at this stage.There cannot be panna, even for an arahat and so on. - All cittas are accompanied by the ‘universal cetasikas’, so it has to be accompanied by phassa (contact), vedana (feeling). sanna (perception), cetana (intention), ekaggata (concentration), jivitindriya (vitality) and manasikara (attention). It will also be accompanied by some of the ‘particulars’ such as vitakka (applied thinking) and vicara (sustained thinking), which accompany all but the dvi-panca vinnanas (seeing, hearing etc) in the sense realms. It will also, I think, be accompanied by viriya (energy) and adhimokkha (determination), but not by piti(entusiasm) or chanda (zeal) I believe.I don’t think we could say any cetasikas are predominant as they are in a javana process. They are ‘inoperative’like the citta.I assume the feeling must be neutral, - with regard to what influences the function, the answer would have to be the interplay of various paccaya (conditions). If there were not the sense consciousness and other cittas in the process, ther would not be the determining consciousness. If there were not the eye base and visible object and contact, there would not be the adverting consciousness and seeing consciousness at the beginning of the process. -This is a ‘rootless’ citta and so I don’t understand that there could be any difference in its nature or function in the arahat. -As for the state of mind before and after...before are the preceding sense door consciousness cittas and after are the javana cittas. -In jhana states there is no sense door experience and so I don’t see that there would be these cittas. -I don’t expect this citta to ever be known directly, but by understanding these details, as Num replied to another question, it helps to understand more about the complexity of citta, of conditions and to eliminate wrong views. For example, we learn how short are the moments of seeing and hearing and how happiness or anger on accouny of what is seen or heard also only last for a few moments. In between are other cittas such as these and in between the processes are bhavanga cittas. The details helps us to understand realities as elements and not self. We can also see how even for an arahat, there can be panna arising at each moment and so on. ..... > I think of each of the cittas in the thought process as a "black > box", each with an incoming "state of mind", various influencing > parameters, modes of operation, a transformation process, and an > outgoing "state of mind". I am looking for a resource that provides > details on each citta in the thought process. Does such a resource > exist? > > Or am I asking one of those questions that should not be asked? ..... I’d be interested to know why this particular citta is of special interest or whether it’s just an example. Any questions are valid. Perhaps ‘determining’ is confusing, because in a sense, the real determining is done by the kusala and akusala cittas which ‘determine’ any kamma patha and accumulations for the future, but it’s a little beyond me;-) It certainly can be helpful to know the jati (nature), the function and so on. Each citta and accompanying cetasikas are conditioned by so many factors to be just the way they are and in turn, condition other states. We can just glimpse a little but only a Buddha will really understand all the intricacies of conditions. Just a few ideas......I’ll rely on others to let me know if there are any errors here. I apologise for usually running late on your threads. Sarah ===== 15280 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Inside the Thought Process Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > I'd be interested to know why this particular citta is of special interest > or whether it's just an example. I am interested in all cittas in the thought process (in preparation for my upcoming class on September 15), but this particular citta is of special interest to me because, according to Narada's "Manual of Abhidhamma", this is where free will is exercised. This is the one citta between the vipaka and the kamma parts of the thought process. I believe that this is where "wise attention" (Yoniso Manasikara) is applied. I therefore suspect that attention (Manasikara) might be the predominant cetasika. I am particularly keen to understand how past accumulations arise and impact the "decision making process" at this point. I liked your summary of points on this citta and would like to add one: - The thought process for a "slight object" can terminate with either two or three determining cittas (no javana cittas). This process does not create kamma. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15281 From: Sarah Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 3:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Inside the Thought Process Hi Rob M, --- robmoult wrote: > I am interested in all cittas in the thought process (in preparation > for my upcoming class on September 15), but this particular citta is > of special interest to me because, according to Narada's "Manual of > Abhidhamma", this is where free will is exercised. This is the one > citta between the vipaka and the kamma parts of the thought process. > I believe that this is where "wise attention" (Yoniso Manasikara) is > applied. .... Now I get your interest and seem to remember you mentioning this point which I’d forgotten. O.K., let me add a little more about manasikara (attention). As we know, this is a universal cetasika arising with every citta -kusala, akusala, vipaka and kiriya. It ‘turns’ or ‘controls’ the citta to the object. It has it’s own function which joins seeing to visible object or thinking to concept or determining consciousness to whatever object is being experienced in the sense door process. “It has the characteristic of driving associated states towards the object, the function of joining (yoking) associated states to the object...”Vism. It cannot be ‘wise attention’ however, unless it accompanies a sobhana citta in the javana series. Likewise, it cannot be ‘unwise attention’ (ayoniso manasikara) unless it accompanies an akusala citta. With regard to ‘free will’, this has been discussed quite a lot in our absence;-))). I’ve just fished out a quote I liked that Andrew gave from an article by B.Dhammapala: “......Just as there is no entity like the world to be either eternal or not, for the world is only a passing process of unsubstantial phenomena to which such attributes are not applicable - so there is no entity like a will to be either determined or free, for the will is only a process of willing which arises and passes away in dependence on arising and passing conditions and which, therefore, can be neither determined nor free.” ..... Cetana cetasika(intention) also arises with each citta, but again it is only in the javana series that it can perform the function of kamma: “The function of ‘willing’ is only in moral (kusala) and immoral (akusala) states.....It has directing as manifestation, like the chief disciple, the chief carpenter, etc who fulfil their own and others’ duties.” Atthasalini. In conclusion, I think ‘free-will’ is misleading in any context and as a translation of vottapana citta is unhelpful. I’m thinking of the question you were asked in the Chinese restaurant about the core ‘belief’. I don’t think any ‘belief’ is necessary, but would suggest the understanding of anatta is the core essential teaching. With a little understanding of anatta, there is no question of freewill arising at any point in the process as B.Dhammapala points out. ..... >I therefore suspect that attention (Manasikara) might be > the predominant cetasika. I am particularly keen to understand how > past accumulations arise and impact the "decision making process" at > this point. ..... These would be more apparent during the javana process and in particular with moments of thinking in the mind-door process. That’s another thread. ..... > I liked your summary of points on this citta and would like to add > one: > - The thought process for a "slight object" can terminate with > either two or three determining cittas (no javana cittas). This > process does not create kamma. .... Thank you.....I didn’t know this. I think we should call it the sense-door process (rather than thought process) so as not to confuse it with the mind-door process. I admire your interest and willingness to explore this difficult areas and I know you are encouraging us all with your Abhidhamma studies. Time to rush and join Jon for an evening walk;-) Sarah ===== 15282 From: egberdina Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 4:20am Subject: Re: Duration of Dhammas (directed at Robert Epstein) Dear Robert Epstein, I always enjoy your posts, but this one has been extremely valuable indeed. It turns out I'm not an arahant, because after reading your post, there was more than just the slightly upturned corner of the lip. And some gutteral sounds emanated from my belly region. Looks like I've got a way to go. Good one :-) :-) Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- egberdina wrote: > > Hi Howard and everybody, > > > > My two pennies worth :-) > > > > There are no absolute measurements. Measures of size...require at least one > other > > point of reference. So that would > > negate the possibility of any kind of measured state being a > > paramattha dhamma. > > Herman, > Are you talking about enlarging the penis again? You've got to let that ad go! > > Robert Ep. > > P.S. It really does work! : ) 15283 From: Sarah Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 5:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Inside the Thought Process Rob M, A typo I wish to correct in my first post to you in case of any confusion: >....... We can also see how > even for an arahat, there can be panna arising at each moment and so on. should read: CANNOT be panna..........etc (The ahetuka (rootless) vipaka cittas (result) and ahetuka kiriya cittas (inoperative), such as the determining consciousness being discussed, cannot be accompanied by the sobhana (beautiful) mental factors.) S. p.s.Your questions and some of your comments about why you have an interest in this area have really helped me to understand why it's important to know some of these details as otherwise it's easy to follow a wrong track. 15284 From: frank kuan Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:58am Subject: Re: What is Anatta? (was: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go) Not sure who was saying this, so in addition to rudely butting in, I'll rudely address the anonymous speaker without referencing a proper name. Speaker won't mind probably because of anatta, and because of anatta, I'm not actually that rude. Yeah, that's the ticket. Rationalize the rudeness. > since free [will] and conditional [will] are > extremes to each other. What > would a choice have to be to be truly 'free'? When > you start talking about free > will in that way you really are neck deep into > concepts. Absolute free will and completely deterministic fate are more like extremes of each other. Conditional will (or volition if that word suits you better) simply says to me that there is a relative degree of free will dependent on conditions that allows options. Without this relative free will, how would escape from samsara be possible? -fk p.s. "Free will" is nothing compared to my favorite pet peeve, the bogus expression "unconditional love". Especially romantic lovers who use it to describe their exclusive, defiled, "romantic" love which is just dripping with stipulations, conditions, delusion. Even Mother Theresa's love (while admirable in many ways) is not unconditional love. Even a master of jhana radiating metta and suffusing the whole world in loving kindness is not generating unconditional love, but at least it's close, or as close as anyone can get. Whenever someone says "unconditional love", a "specific aversion" arises in my mind. Why not "noble love", or "higher love"? The inability for humans to use language in a realistic way just shows how deep the grip of delusion binds. "unconditional love"... To me, that phrase is much more offensive than the crudest slang. You could walk up to me right now and say, "Shut up shithead", and I'll look back at you with an equanimous expression. But speak of "unconditional love", and I'm going to show you some "unconditional" slapping upside the head. 15285 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 7:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Inside the Thought Process Hi Sarah, Please don't be so hard on "Free Will". It was "Free Will" that brought us together !! :-) When we met in HK, you asked how I discovered the DSG. I told you that it was as a result of a web search. I had typed Abhidhamma "Free Will" into Google search engine and the first entry was a DSG discussion from early December 2001. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15286 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 7:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? Stephen Let me try and respond on the rest of your post to Christine and me. --- oreznoone@a... wrote: ... <> I kind of see what you are saying, but I wonder if it would help to discuss separately vohara sacca and paramattha sacca as one topic, and paramattha dhamma and samutti dhamma as another. To my understanding, vohara sacca refers to truths expressed in conventional terms, that is, what is said is in accordance with dhamma and carries no *necessary* implication of, for example, permanence or self. Conventional speech is appropriate for referring to the world in conceptual terms. No-one here is saying that conventional speech is wrong, or is to be avoided (unless of course it's wrong speech) or is to be abandoned/overcome (enlightened beings still converse in conventional terms). However, the teachings are continually pointing us to the understanding that the world is other than the way we perceive it, that what we take for the world is in reality (a limited number of) dhammas none of which were apparent to us until pointed out through the teachings. These dhammas are the 'paramattha dhammas', and they are to be distinguished from the samutti dhammas (concepts) that otherwise occupy us. You say that paramattha dhammas involve a 'denial of conception'. I don' think this is so, at least to my understanding. The distinction between paramattha dhammas and samutti dhammas is made for the purpose of explaining that it is the understanding of the true nature of paramattha dhammas (not of samutti dhammas) that constitutes the insight that leads to enlightenment. But this in no way involves a denial of conception as such. <<>...whenever the suttas speak of man, woman, or person...this must not be taken as >being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech. [Nyanatiloka] This is wrong, as noted above, and contradicts MN sutta 58. "Not valid" can only mean incorrect, untrue. In the sutta the Buddha discusses un/true or in/correct (T of F), un/benefical (B or U), and un/welcome or dis/agreeable statements(A or D). This gives 8 permutations: 1. T B D 2. T B A 3. T U D 4. T U A 5. F B D 6. F B A 7. F U D 8. F U A He then sequentially eliminates 7, then 3, accepts 1 at it's proper time, eliminates 8, then 4, concluding 'yes' on 2. 5 and 6, statements false and beneficial, aren't even considered; I take this to mean that there are none such. Sammuti would fall into one of these types (in fact, a species of upaya, in the Mahayana sense of skillful use of falsehood). The Buddha rejected the entire notion.>> I think that what Ven. Nyanatiloka is talking about in the passage quoted above and the sutta at MN58 are about two different things. I believe it is quite correct to say that the Buddha in referring to man, person, etc was using conventional terms, not ultimate terms, i.e., that what he says is 'valid' even though in ultimate terms there is no man, person etc. This, however, does not imply any untruth or inaccuracy on his part. The truth or accuracy of a statement is independent of whether the speaker is talking in conventional or ultimate/absolute terms. So I would not equate the statement 'not ... valid in the ultimate sense' (in the quote from Nyanatiloka) with 'untrue'. MN58 on the other hand deals with the nature or a Buddha's speech. A Buddha will speak only that which is both true and beneficial (he will not speak anything that is true but not beneficial). The sutta further explains that a Buddha may at appropriate times speak what is true and beneficial even though the message is disagreeable to the listener, and gives a simile to explain this. A Buddha's speech could be given in terms of vohara sacca or paramattha sacca, depending on the occasion, but it will always be true and beneficial. <> I couldn't agree more with your last sentiment. Writing it down is a real learning process, I find (much of what I type never makes it to the list!). Looking forward to more discussion. Jon 15287 From: Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 3:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process Hi, Rob (and Nina, Robert, Sarah & Jon, and all others "in the know") - Of the citta types listed below, the last four are: Investigating - Prominent: Perception - Supporting: Initial Application ??? Determining - Prominent: Attention - Supporting: Decision ??? Javana - Prominent: Volition - Supporting: Zest ??? Registration - Prominent: Perception - Supporting: Sustained Application ??? In thinking about our experiencing, most particularly "my own" experiencing (which is all I directly know), it occurs to me that most of it is subliminal. It occurs to me that most of it is below a threshhold at which there is what we normally think of as conscious awareness. In looking at the types of citta you so kindly listed, Rob, the question now occurs to me of whether or to what extent these last four citta types play a role in experience rising to the "level of awareness", to the level of consciousness in the usual, informal sense. Am I onto something here, or way off base? With metta, Howard In a message dated 8/28/02 12:04:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi All, > > It looks as though this is a tough subject to research. I really > need your help on this one! > > This week, I will go over "Kamma in Dying and Rebirth". Next week, I > will do a review of the past few weeks (all the kusala cetasikas). > On September 15th, I want to review the functions of the universal > cetasikas and I would like to do this by doing a detailed analysis > of the thought process, showing when each of the universal cetasikas > become prominent, when they play a supporting role and when they are > present but dormant. When a universal cetasika is prominent or > supporting, I will use that as an opportunity to describe the nature > of the cetasika and, by extension, the functioning of the thought > process. > > My first pass guess is as follows (I know that there are many > mistakes and I am hoping that somebody can help me): > > Bhavanga > - Prominent: Life Faculty > - Supporting: Energy ??? > > Adverting > - Prominent: Attention > - Supporting: One-Pointedness ??? > > Eye Consciousness > - Prominent: Contact > - Supporting: Initial Application ??? > > Receiving > - Prominent: Feeling > - Supporting: Desire ??? > > Investigating > - Prominent: Perception > - Supporting: Initial Application ??? > > Determining > - Prominent: Attention > - Supporting: Decision ??? > > Javana > - Prominent: Volition > - Supporting: Zest ??? > > Registration > - Prominent: Perception > - Supporting: Sustained Application ??? > > > Larry, in response to your message below, I found the following site > which gives a biography and bibliography of Ledi Sayadaw. > > http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/biograph.htm > > I downloaded the ten english language publications available from > this site but, after a very, very quick scan, did not find a > detailed analysis of the thought process as I had hoped. I will > review the materials more carefully. > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Rob, here's a thought. You might poke around in Ledi Sayadaw's > writings. > > If you do, please pass along anything you find in the way of a > > bibliography for him. There are several brief comments by him in "A > > Comprehensive Manual..." which go into unusual depth of the citta > > process. > > > > Larry /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15288 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 7:26am Subject: Inside the Thought Process - Answers? Hi All, I sent the same message as was posted to the DSG to Bro. Teo to ask him which were the primary and secondary cetasiksas in each citta of the thought process. He just came back to me as follows: ========================================= Bhavanga Prominent: life faculty (Jivitindriya) Supporting: kammic energy (sankhara) Adverting Prominent: Attention (manasikara) Support: one pointedness (ekkaggata) Eye consciousness Prominent: contact (phassa) Supporting: attention (manasikara) Receiving Prominent: feeling (vedana) Supporting: Initial application (vitakka) Investigating Prominent: perception (sanna-recall) Supporting: sustained application (vicara) Determining Prominent: attention (yoniso/ayoniso manasikara) Supporting: decision (adhimokkha) Javana Prominent:volition (cetana) Supporting: desire (chanda) and zest (piti) if any Registration Prominent: perception (sanna-marking) Supporting: energy (viriya) This is only a possible answer. It changes according to the object and the actual situation. ========================================= Unless anybody has any major objections, I will work from this list. I gotta find out what book he dug this out of! Whichever one it is, it is not available to be downloaded. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15289 From: Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 3:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Question on Visual Image Processing Thanks, Herman. With metta, Howard In a message dated 8/28/02 12:16:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Gestalt psychology also maintains that perceptions are in chunks > (gestalts). I do not think gestalt theory goes down to an elemental > seeing that is somehow prior to perception. > > Kind Regards > > > Herman /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15290 From: Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 3:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States (long message) Hi, Ken - In a message dated 8/28/02 12:40:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Kom and Rob M > > After revisiting this topic, I would to say to Kom that this is a > wonderful piece of article. > > Rob M - I think we should stick to the ancient commentaries. If > everyone start their own opinions into the sutta, the meaning of it > will not be authentic and worse may affect the original meaning of > the sutta. And imagine what will happen in another ten generations. > Everyone could opinion on the Buddhist sutta but it is dangerous. I > feel unless one is an Arahat, we should refrain from opinioning on a > sutta less aside citing facts from ancient commentaries. > > I think Kom has put a very good point > > > "Metta is a "solvent" that "melts" not only one's own > > psychic pollutants of angers..., but also those of > > others...". I found this to be quite dangerous to simply > > believe in . We can see the effects of metta in one's own > > mind, but how do we see it in others except through > > bodily/verbal expressions and inferences? Making a jump to > > this conclusion, and to develop metta so that it "melts" > > other people's resentment is a dangerous belief. I am not > > saying that this isn't true, but one should take this > > carefully... > > > > The ultimate purpose of metta is to attain transcental > > insight. I again am not sure how he comes to this > > conclusion. Metta development and samatha bhavana's > > ultimate goal is to reside in the devine abode. Only the > > path and satipatthana can brings one to the "transcental > > insight". His conclusion that metta development brings > > about "holding no more to wrong beliefs" are simply not > > supported in the commentaries, where it appears that the > > Buddha explicitly added the last 4 stanzas to correct the > > normal mich-dithi that can come with samatha bhavana: the > > wrong view of permanence. > > > kind regards > Ken O > > ============================== I disagree. (Why should I break my stride? ;-)) While I think we would be foolish not to study, mull over, and learn from the commentaries, if we have access to them, I also think that we would be foolish to only consume predigested material. The Kalama Sutta - sorry, there is is again! - warns us not to accept on the basis of authority alone. The key word to me is 'alone'. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15291 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 7:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process Hi Howard, Before attempting an answer, I want to be sure that I understand the question. Let me try to rephrase what you are asking: With millions of cittas arising and falling each microsecond, how can we be "consciously aware" of any of them? Surely, all that we could be "consciously aware" of is an aggregation or a memory of a concept formed by the millions of thought processes. So you are asking what role the investigating / determining / javana / registration cittas play in creating that aggregation or memory. Howard, is this the question that you are asking? Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Rob (and Nina, Robert, Sarah & Jon, and all others "in the know") - > > Of the citta types listed below, the last four are: > > Investigating > - Prominent: Perception > - Supporting: Initial Application ??? > > Determining > - Prominent: Attention > - Supporting: Decision ??? > > Javana > - Prominent: Volition > - Supporting: Zest ??? > > Registration > - Prominent: Perception > - Supporting: Sustained Application ??? > > In thinking about our experiencing, most particularly "my own" > experiencing (which is all I directly know), it occurs to me that most of it > is subliminal. It occurs to me that most of it is below a threshhold at which > there is what we normally think of as conscious awareness. In looking at the > types of citta you so kindly listed, Rob, the question now occurs to me of > whether or to what extent these last four citta types play a role in > experience rising to the "level of awareness", to the level of consciousness > in the usual, informal sense. Am I onto something here, or way off base? > > With metta, > Howard 15292 From: Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 3:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Question on Visual Image Processing Hi, Robert - In a message dated 8/28/02 2:11:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Dear Howard, > Perhaps you can think of it as a middle path between your original > statement in that many colours or shades of colours may comprise one > visible object (e.g. the diamond). Sometimes seeing may take a > complete face as visible object, at other moments a tiny feature of > the face- depending different conditions. > Robert > =========================== Okay, thanks. I understand. Actually, what I was thinking of was the following: When we open our eyes, the intitial image that appears, prior to any further processing, appears, in retrospect, to be a single, panoramic image (oval shaped, with indiscernable perimeter) within which no aspects have been identified or even separated out, and this is then quickly worked upon by further functions. Now, that may not, in fact, really be the way matters are at all. Perhaps this panorama is *already* constructed as the result of subliminal processing of thousands of visual scans. I have no clue as to the way the matter really is, and I was curious as to what Abhidhamma says is the reality. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15293 From: Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 4:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Duration of Dhammas Hi, Rob - After years of practice with the consistent application of right effort, the goal has been reached! Done is what needed to be done: I have reached the stage at which I come to see such a post on DSG! ;-))) With metta, Howard In a message dated 8/28/02 3:37:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > --- egberdina wrote: > > Hi Howard and everybody, > > > > My two pennies worth :-) > > > > There are no absolute measurements. Measures of size...require at least > one > other > > point of reference. So that would > > negate the possibility of any kind of measured state being a > > paramattha dhamma. > > Herman, > Are you talking about enlarging the penis again? You've got to let that ad > go! > > Robert Ep. > > P.S. It really does work! : ) /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15294 From: Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 4:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Inside the Thought Process Hi, Rob - In a message dated 8/28/02 10:15:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Sarah, > > Please don't be so hard on "Free Will". It was "Free Will" that > brought us together !! :-) > > When we met in HK, you asked how I discovered the DSG. I told you > that it was as a result of a web search. > > I had typed > > Abhidhamma "Free Will" > > into Google search engine and the first entry was a DSG discussion > from early December 2001. > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) > ============================= And why did you type that, Rob? ;-)) For no reason at all? A truly random action? Naaah! ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15295 From: Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 4:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process Hi, Rob - In a message dated 8/28/02 10:38:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Before attempting an answer, I want to be sure that I understand the > question. Let me try to rephrase what you are asking: > > With millions of cittas arising and falling each microsecond, how > can we be "consciously aware" of any of them? Surely, all that we > could be "consciously aware" of is an aggregation or a memory of a > concept formed by the millions of thought processes. So you are > asking what role the investigating / determining / javana / > registration cittas play in creating that aggregation or memory. > > Howard, is this the question that you are asking? > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) > ========================== No, not quite. I didn't make myself clear. It is not being *aware of* cittas that I'm asking about, but rather the matter of levels of "consciousness" (subliminal, fully conscious, and all degrees in between) of the cittas themselves. It seems to me that the great majority of cittas, of mind-moments, operate at subliminal levels, and that the level of conscious experience is maintained by a tiny fraction of our mind-moments - the "tip of the iceberg," if you will. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15296 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 8:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > No, not quite. I didn't make myself clear. It is not being *aware of* > cittas that I'm asking about, but rather the matter of levels of > "consciousness" (subliminal, fully conscious, and all degrees in between) of > the cittas themselves. It seems to me that the great majority of cittas, of > mind-moments, operate at subliminal levels, and that the level of conscious > experience is maintained by a tiny fraction of our mind-moments - the "tip of > the iceberg," if you will. I'm not comfortable with the term "levels of consciousness". There is citta, a paramattha, and everything else is papanca (conceptual proliferation). Do you see it differently? Thanks, Rob M :-) PS: Going to bed now. 15297 From: Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 5:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process Hi, Rob - In a message dated 8/28/02 11:59:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > No, not quite. I didn't make myself clear. It is not being > *aware of* > > cittas that I'm asking about, but rather the matter of levels of > > "consciousness" (subliminal, fully conscious, and all degrees in > between) of > > the cittas themselves. It seems to me that the great majority of > cittas, of > > mind-moments, operate at subliminal levels, and that the level of > conscious > > experience is maintained by a tiny fraction of our mind-moments - > the "tip of > > the iceberg," if you will. > > I'm not comfortable with the term "levels of consciousness". There > is citta, a paramattha, and everything else is papanca (conceptual > proliferation). > > Do you see it differently? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I do. It seems to me that cetasikas occur with varying degrees of intensity or prominence, and that some of these cetasikas, viriya or maniskara for example, may influence what I am probably badly calling the "level of consciousness". ----------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) > > PS: Going to bed now. > ======================== Sleep well! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15298 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 10:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question on Visual Image Processing op 26-08-2002 19:56 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: Hi Howard, Ken H and all, See below: > Howard: I have a question with regard to visual rupas. As I understand the > Abhidhamma on this, what are actually and directly seen are colors and shades > of varying brightness. My question is the following: It seems that we see, at > one shot, a scene, an entire panorama which is composed of areas of varying > colors and brightness. Do we actually see an entire scene, an > undifferentiated color-image, which is then further processed, with sa~n~na > carving out the various "colored areas", or do we, in fact, directly see > individual colors, sequentially, which are subsequently combined into a > "scene". What are the paramattha dhammas here? What elements are primary? Nina:We see neither. I recognize myself in your question, it is what I used to ask A. Sujin: how far does visible object extend? Her only answer: visible object is just what appears through the eyes, that is all. At that time I was not satisfied, and I guess neither will you now. I had to consider more. What is the citta like, when we ask such questions? Thinking, and thinking and thinking. Since one citta only experiences one object, there cannot be seeing while there is thinking, and then we shall never, never know what visible object is. I saw that thinking in that way does not help and I stopped asking such questions. When we see individual colours, there is defining, not seeing. You wrote about impermanence, it seemed that you thought that the Buddha taught change, decay, but not momentary impermanence. However, you mentioned the three sub moments of citta. (Sorry if I misrepresent you, I cannot keep all mails, my computer does not like that.) Only when insight has been developed to higher stages, can we really prove that each dhamma, nama or rupa falls away immediately. And as you know, rupa lasts a little longer (seventeen times longer, but that is by comparison, it is still extremely fast), thus, we can say that rupa falls away immediately. As for now, we can understand intellectually that dhammas fall away extremely fast. It seems at this moment that you see and read at the same time, that you hear sound and know meanings at the same time, that you see and hear at the same time. In fact, they are all different moments. How could two cittas with different objects occur at the same time? But that it appears in that way shows us how fast cittas fall away. You notice decay of the body, but how could there be a change if there is not a change each split second? You had a discussion with Ken H about paramattha dhammas. You seemd to emphasize (sorry if I am mistaken) that the Buddha mostly spoke by way of conventional terms in the Suttas. Do you remember Suan's Post addressed to Joyce and Upasaka Howard? All the Buddha taught was Abhidhamma. I paste part of it: Recently Christine gave us an impressive list of links to many suttas dealing with paramattha dhammas. This confirms what Suan said. In your dialogue with Ken H also came up the question who experiences paramattha dhammas. We experience paramattha dhammas such as visible object or sound all the time, but we do not know them as paramattha dhammas, as realities that have no owner, that are devoid of self. This brings me to another point: you use the word empty, and Ken H had doubts about this. The word is the translation of su~n~natta, and this means empty or void of the self. It is a correct word. See also Middle Length Sayings, III, Division on emptiness, and the suttas of that vagga. Finally, you said that breath is a concept, but see my series on anapana sati, the Co explains that it is rupa. It is rupa conditioned by citta, and as you rightly say, it can be experienced as heat, cold, motion or pressure, hardness or softness. It is tangible object as the Co states. It is known by touch. It is a paramattha dhamma which can be realized as it is by insight: impermanent, dukkha and non-self. Best regards, Nina. 15299 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 10:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Questioning Arahants and Abhidhamma Dear Christine, If someone has doubts about the truth of the Abhidhamma, this doubt will not be solved by historical arguments. See what is in it, verify what you can. See what the Buddha taught about kusala and akusala. Is this not relevant to your daily life? I do appreciate Herman's post to you: And then Herman's post to Howard: We cannot verify all details and if we try too hard it will be counter productive. Best regards Nina. op 26-08-2002 20:54 schreef christine_forsyth op cforsyth@v...: > >> From my limited understanding of studies on Abhidhamma, I believed > it to be an analysis of the realm of consciousness, a systematisation > of the whole of reality showing the way, from an ethical and > psychological viewpoint, to the liberation from suffering. > > Though I don't understand the Abhidhamma, I > had been taking it on Trust because it was mentioned in Suttas by > the Buddha and the expanded explanations were accepted by the Arahats > in the Councils. But then, another question that arises is 'Who > decides who is an arahat, and what is the extent of their knowledge > on *all* subjects? > Is the Abhidhamma truth, and is it the explanation of reality? If > not - what are all of us on dsg doing 15300 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 10:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cow's urine Dear Herman, Just now I am reading the Co to the Discourse on the Fruits of Recluseship, about the Bhikkhu's contentedness and I was so impressed: Cow's urine was a classic in India. Another passage about dwelling: Now I understand why the Buddha spoke so often about the roots of a tree. Laypeople can also consider fewness of wishes in their own situation. I never considered that a confortable place to live can give rise to heedlessness. It is good to know. Best wishes, Nina. op 27-08-2002 01:31 schreef egberdina op hhofman@t...: > > "A bhikkhu's life depends on fermented urine as medicine. So he > should take fermented urine as medicine and make an effort to > practise dhamma. But there are special allowances: they are ghee, > fresh butter, oil, honey and molasses. Having formally accepted them, > he is to take them as medicine within seven days at most. On the > seventh day he shall give them away. However, he may use them > externally after the seventh day." 15301 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 10:04am Subject: subtle point, to Kom Dear Kom, I have a question for A. Sujin, but only when there is time. The Foundation has made studies of subtle points, and these are in a report. One of these is bodily intimation, kaya vi~n~natti rupa, which is the rupa conditioning the conveying of a meaning through the bodysense, for example through gestures. It is also the body-door of kamma. I read in many passages about the monk who is walking, such as in the Fruits of Recluseship, He does not convey a meaning here, but can we say it is the bodydoor of his kusala kamma since he develops samatha and vipassana while walking? For a long time I have been wondering about this. Do you have the report? If not you could ask Kh Anop. It has many interesting items. Have a very good and fruitful trip with A. Sujin, take good care, Nina. 15302 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 4:04pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Yes, I do. It seems to me that cetasikas occur with varying degrees of > intensity or prominence, and that some of these cetasikas, viriya or > maniskara for example, may influence what I am probably badly calling the > "level of consciousness". Let us assume that the list of prominent/supporting neutral cetasikas provided by Bro. Teo is correct: Bhavanga Prominent: life faculty (Jivitindriya) Supporting: kammic energy (sankhara) Adverting Prominent: Attention (manasikara) Support: one pointedness (ekkaggata) Eye consciousness Prominent: contact (phassa) Supporting: attention (manasikara) Receiving Prominent: feeling (vedana) Supporting: Initial application (vitakka) Investigating Prominent: perception (sanna-recall) Supporting: sustained application (vicara) Determining Prominent: attention (yoniso/ayoniso manasikara) Supporting: decision (adhimokkha) Javana Prominent:volition (cetana) Supporting: desire (chanda) and zest (piti) if any Registration Prominent: perception (sanna-marking) Supporting: energy (viriya) I think that you are commenting that the cetasikas associated with the last four types of cittas are more "active" than the cetasikas associated with the first four types of cittas. Let's list them out: First Four (Bhavanga / Adverting / Eye Consciousness / Receiving) ================================================================= - life faculty (Jivitindriya) - attention (manasikara) - one pointedness (ekkaggata) - contact (phassa) - feeling (vedana) - initial application (vitakka) Last Four (Investigating / Determining / Javana / Registration) =============================================================== - perception (sanna-recall and sanna-marking) - sustained application (vicara) - attention (yoniso/ayoniso manasikara) - decision (adhimokkha) - volition (cetana) - desire (chanda) - zest (piti) - energy (viriya) - Plus all of the kusala / akusala cetasiskas arising with javana Howard, I think that you are absolutely correct with your observation. If I were to dump all the cetasikas into one of two buckets (active / non-active), it would match the listing above. I intend to point this out during my class! Your intuitive grasp of this topic suggests to me that you were an Abhidhamma scholar in a previous life and therefore you were predestined (no free will) to become part of the DSG! :-) Thanks, Rob M :-) 15303 From: Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 4:07pm Subject: ADL ch. 22 (3) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 22 (3) Since there are four stages of arupa-jhana, there are four types of arupavacara kusala cittas. They produce vipaka in the form of rebirth in the happy planes of existence which are the arupa-brahma planes. The four types of arupavacara kusala cittas produce four types of arupavacara vipakacittas. Arupavacara vipakacitta can only perform the functions of patisandhi, bhavanga and cuti. There are four types of arupavacara kiriyacittas which are the cittas of the arahats who attain arupa-jhana. Thus, there are twelve arupavacara cittas in all. Summarizing them, they are: 4 arupavacara kusalacittas 4 arupavacara vipakacittas 4 arupavacara kiriyacittas Those who have cultivated jhana can develop the various types of 'direct knowledge' (abhinna; Also translated as 'supernormal powers' or 'higher intellectual powers'.). They should attain the highest stage of rupa-jhana (the fourth or the fifth, according as to whether they follow the fourfold system or the fivefold system) in the kasina meditations, and they should exercise 'complete mind-control in fourteen ways'; for example, the attainment of the jhana stages in the different kasina meditations in order and in reverse order. In developing the 'kinds of direct knowledge' or 'supernormal powers', one's concentration will become more advanced. The 'supernormal powers' (abhinna) are the following: 1. Magical powers such as passing through walls, walking on water, travelling through the air. 2. Divine Ear, by which one hears sounds both heavenly and human, far and near. 3. Knowledge of the minds of other people. 4. Divine Eye, by which one sees the deceasing and rebirth of beings. 5. Remembrance of one's former lives. These are the five 'mundane supernormal powers'. However, there is a sixth power, which is a Iokuttara citta, namely, the eradication of all defilements, when arahatship is attained. The sixth power is the greatest and in order to attain it insight has to be fully developed. Sometimes three kinds of knowledge are mentioned, namely: 1. Remembrance of former lives. 2. Heavenly Eye. 3. Destruction of the the Asavas. Those who have cultivated the right conditions, can achieve 'marvels'. In the 'Gradual Sayings' (Book of the Threes, Ch. VI, par. 60, III, Sangarava) we read about the greatest 'marvel'. The Budda asked the brahmin Sangarava about the topic of conversation of the royal party, when they were together in the palace. The brahmin Sangarava answered that they were talking about the fact that in former times the monks were fewer in number, but those possessed of supernormal powers were more numerous, and that now it was just the opposite. The Buddha said to him: 'Now as to that, brahmin, there are these three marvels. What three? The marvel of more-power, the marvel of thought- reading, the marvel of teaching. And what, brahmin, is the marvel of more-power? In this case a certain one enjoys sorts of more-power in divers ways. From being one he becomes many, from being many he becomes one; manifest or invisible he goes unhindered through a wall, through a rampart, through a mountain, as if through the air; he plunges into the earth and shoots up again as if in water; he walks upon the water without parting it as if on solid ground; he travels through the air sitting cross-legged, like a bird upon the wing; even this moon and sun, though of such mighty power and majesty,-- he handles them and strokes them with his hand; even as far as the Brahma world he has power with his body. This, brahmin, is called 'the marvel of more-power.' And what, brahmin, is the marvel of thought-reading? In this case a certain one can declare by means of a sign 'Thus is your mind. Such and such is your mind. Thus is your consciousness...' And what, brahmin, is the marvel of teaching? In this case a certain one teaches thus: 'Reason thus, not thus. Apply your mind thus, not thus. Abandon this state, acquire that state and abide therein.' This, brahmin, is called 'the marvel of teaching'. So these are the three marvels. Now of these three marvels, which appeals to you as the more wonderful and excellent?' 'Of these marvels, master Gotama, the marvel of more-power...seems to me to be of the nature of an illusion. Then again as to the marvel of thought- reading... this also, master Gotama, seems to me of the nature of an illusion. But as to the marvel of teaching... of these three marvels this one appeals to me as the more wonderful and excellent.' Sangarava then asked the Buddha whether he possessed all three marvels and the Buddha told him that he did. Sangarava also asked whether any other monk possessed them and the Buddha answered: 'Yes, indeed, brahmin. The monks possessed of these three marvellous powers are not just one or two or three, four, or five hundred, but much more than that in number.' Sangarava then expressed his confidence in taking refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, and he asked to be accepted as a lay-follower. In the Buddha's time many monks had cultivated conditions for 'marvellous powers'. The greatest 'marvel' of these, however, is the 'marvel of teaching' since it can lead to the eradication of all defilements, to the end of all sorrows. For those who have accumulations for jhana there are many benefits since jhana is kusala kamma of a high degree. One of the benefits is a happy rebirth, even for those who can attain only "access-concentration' or upacara samadhi. However, even rebirth in a happy plane of existence is dukkha, since life in a happy plane may be followed by rebirth in an unhappy plane. Therefore, no birth at all is to be preferred to any kind of rebirth. This can be realized only by developing the wisdom which eradicates defilements. 15304 From: Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 0:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process Hi, Rob - Thanks for this reply of yours and the compliment included. I insert one brief comment near the end of your post. In a message dated 8/28/02 7:05:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > Yes, I do. It seems to me that cetasikas occur with varying > degrees of > > intensity or prominence, and that some of these cetasikas, viriya > or > > maniskara for example, may influence what I am probably badly > calling the > > "level of consciousness". > > Let us assume that the list of prominent/supporting neutral > cetasikas provided by Bro. Teo is correct: > > Bhavanga > Prominent: life faculty (Jivitindriya) > Supporting: kammic energy (sankhara) > > Adverting > Prominent: Attention (manasikara) > Support: one pointedness (ekkaggata) > > Eye consciousness > Prominent: contact (phassa) > Supporting: attention (manasikara) > > Receiving > Prominent: feeling (vedana) > Supporting: Initial application (vitakka) > > Investigating > Prominent: perception (sanna-recall) > Supporting: sustained application (vicara) > > Determining > Prominent: attention (yoniso/ayoniso manasikara) > Supporting: decision (adhimokkha) > > Javana > Prominent:volition (cetana) > Supporting: desire (chanda) and zest (piti) if any > > Registration > Prominent: perception (sanna-marking) > Supporting: energy (viriya) > > > I think that you are commenting that the cetasikas associated with > the last four types of cittas are more "active" than the cetasikas > associated with the first four types of cittas. Let's list them out: > > First Four (Bhavanga / Adverting / Eye Consciousness / Receiving) > ================================================================= > - life faculty (Jivitindriya) > - attention (manasikara) > - one pointedness (ekkaggata) > - contact (phassa) > - feeling (vedana) > - initial application (vitakka) > > Last Four (Investigating / Determining / Javana / Registration) > =============================================================== > - perception (sanna-recall and sanna-marking) > - sustained application (vicara) > - attention (yoniso/ayoniso manasikara) > - decision (adhimokkha) > - volition (cetana) > - desire (chanda) > - zest (piti) > - energy (viriya) > - Plus all of the kusala / akusala cetasiskas arising with javana > > Howard, I think that you are absolutely correct with your > observation. If I were to dump all the cetasikas into one of two > buckets (active / non-active), it would match the listing above. I > intend to point this out during my class! > > Your intuitive grasp of this topic suggests to me that you were an > Abhidhamma scholar in a previous life and therefore you were > predestined (no free will) to become part of the DSG! :-) > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm. But I must have had some *good* kamma back then as well! ;-))) --------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) > > =========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15305 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 7:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States (long message) Hi Howard, k: Its nice to know that pple disagree :). You are right to warn us not to accept on the basis of authority alone. Definitely a lot of investigation and reflection are needed before we heed the words of the commentaries. Just like Abhidhamma, at times I also disagree :). But I like to point out the danger of putting our two cents of worth which is could be seen by millions of pple. Since the commentaries are already there, why reinvent the wheel. Isn't it better to use the commentaries to explain the metta sutta rather than on our own. kind regards kc (= Ken O) P.S. Use KC is better as it reduce confusion with Ken H :) 15306 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 10:57pm Subject: RE: [dsg] subtle point, to Kom Dear Nina, > -----Original Message----- > From: Nina van Gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > > Dear Kom, I have a question for A. Sujin, but > only when there is time. The > Foundation has made studies of subtle points, and > these are in a report. One > of these is bodily intimation, kaya vi~n~natti > rupa, which is the rupa > conditioning the conveying of a meaning through > the bodysense, for example > through gestures. It is also the body-door of > kamma. I read in many passages > about the monk who is walking, such as in the > Fruits of Recluseship, the thought "Let me go forward" arises, the > mind-originated air element > arises together with that thought, producing > bodily intimation.> > He does not convey a meaning here, but can we say > it is the bodydoor of his > kusala kamma since he develops samatha and > vipassana while walking? > For a long time I have been wondering about this. > Do you have the report? If > not you could ask Kh Anop. It has many interesting items. > Have a very good and fruitful trip with A. Sujin, > take good care, I will print your questions and ask her. kom 15307 From: forsyth_1981 Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 11:15pm Subject: Hello from a New Member Sarah A. asked me to write an intro as I have recently joined DSG. I am 21 years of age and I'm studying Information Technology at University. I share an apartment in Brisbane with a girlfriend. I work part-time for my Dad's Australian office as well. Some of you have already met me on the Noosa weekend. For those I haven't met yet, I am Christine's daughter. I am not a Buddhist; I was brought up as a Christian, went to Religious schools and through all the usual rituals. (Mum was shocked when I told her recently that by the time I was thirteen years of age, I had decided 'I can't believe most of this'.) Not sure what I do believe yet. At Noosa, I had the pleasure of meeting 'KenH', Azita, Andrew, Sundara and some others (from Maleny) plus the Dutch/Austrian backpackers Sundara found somewhere. I had already met Jon and Sarah A. in Hong Kong. Hello again everyone. Although I was a bit nervous meeting a bunch of buddhists :), there was nothing to worry about. Everyone was very friendly. I had fun and learned a little over breakfast each day and when walking through the national park - mainly about what Buddhism is not. I won't promise to contribute much, but I'll read the letters when I can. Bye for now, Sarah F. 15308 From: Sarah Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 0:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Re: Hi Hi Krishnan, --- dark knight wrote: > Hi Sarah, > Thanks for giving me a warm welcome to this group. > The topics discussed in this forum are very > interesting. I am sure to benefit from these > discussions. ..... It’s good to hear this. I don’t know if you are familiar with the Pali terms, but if not, you may find the simple Pali glossary in the Files section useful. Also, if you look under ‘Pali’ in Useful Posts there, there are one or two posts giving further assistance. Also, under ‘New to the List...’ (also in U.P.), there are more posts with advice to anyone just arriving: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ Sometimes the easiest way to start is to just start a new thread with your own questions or comments. ..... > Regarding myself, I hail from a state at the southern > most tip of India, called Kerala, famous for it's > landscapes and greenery. ..... Hmm, Kerala.....probably my favourite state in India....I think of Cochin and its spice trade history, the waterways trip from Quillon to Allepey, the beaches at Kovalam, trying not to get attacked by the crocodile at a yoga ashram whilst bathing, very intelligent and politically conscious people, stone-cutters by the side of the road breaking up boulders with chisels....... ..... >I am doing a PhD in Chemical > Engineering. > I was exposed to many spiritual/religious schools > early in my life. But only when I heard the Buddhas > words, I got a glimpse of what all others were trying > to say, and which Buddha clearly said. > It is sad that it is difficult to come across His > original words in India now.I was first introduced to > His words through the book "Old Paths White Clouds" by > Ven. Thich Nat Hanh. Luckily me and a friend of mine > found a Theravada monastry in my city (which is a > rarity in India now) , the Maha Bodhi Soceity founded > by Ven. Acharya Buddharakkhita. There I found many > books of many great seers of this path. .... Are you in Trivandrum or where? I was also very grateful for the Maha Bodhi Society in several places in India for books and basic accommodation too.. ..... > I can only claim that I have had just an introduction > to the great message of the Buddha. I intend to > practice sincerily and understand the Dhamma as much > as I can in this life. > Thanks once again for welcoming me into this group > were I can find like-minded people. .... Very glad to have you here, Krishnan....Rob M is also an engineer (but not chemical). As you say, your interest in dhamma is very unusual, especially in Kerala I’d think. Please shout if you’d like anything clarified. I’m also just thinking that you’re only a short hop from Colombo where we hope to visit with Khun Sujin* again for further discussions with our friends from DSG who live there. Sarah ===== * Ranil, Sumane, Gayan - K.Sujin was chatting to us about arranging a return visit just for dhamma discussions in Colombo sometime. Maybe we can coordinate off-list. 15309 From: egberdina Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 0:52am Subject: Re: Inside the Thought Process Hi Rob, Howard et al, > > I'm not comfortable with the term "levels of consciousness". There > is citta, a paramattha, and everything else is papanca (conceptual > proliferation). > > Do you see it differently? > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) > > PS: Going to bed now. Do you think that all phenomena (noumena) can be explained in terms of the concepts you mention? How would you describe in these terms a reflex action, say, the blinking of an eye as an insect flies into it? Do you allow for reactivity without any awareness whatsoever? All the best Herman 15310 From: Sarah Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 0:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello from a New Member Hi Sarah F, Thanks for the prompted intro...everyone will be glad to see more of the family joining in. One of our regular wits just wrote that families that study abhidhamma together don’t suffer from insomnia....you can tell us if this is correct. Anyway, we can see you share your mum’s good humour in your writing and look forward to more when you have time or inclination. Those breakfasts and walks with informal discussions were very special to me and I’m glad we have a little of your photographic work to remind us of them in the album. I think it was you that took the sunset one too?? No need to be an “anything-ist” or take anything on blind faith because anyone here or elsewhere says it....just check out, explore, enquire, consider for yourself as Howard often reminds us... As I just said to Krishnan, another new member, just start a new thread by making questions or comments anytime there’s something you’re considering. I’m also sorry to hear about your grandmother’s recent death. You’ve certainly had a lot of personal experience with “gain and loss” this year. Thanks again for being a good sport and I’m relieved to hear we didn’t completely put you off Buddhism in Noosa;-) Sarah A. ====== --- forsyth_1981 wrote: > Sarah A. asked me to write an intro as I have recently joined DSG. > I am 21 years of age and I'm studying Information Technology at > University. I share an apartment in Brisbane with a girlfriend. I > work part-time for my Dad's Australian office as well. Some of you > have already met me on the Noosa weekend. For those I haven't met > yet, I am Christine's daughter. > I am not a Buddhist;........ ................................. 15311 From: Sarah Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 1:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Inside the Thought Process Hi Rob M, --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Please don't be so hard on "Free Will". It was "Free Will" that > brought us together !! :-) > > When we met in HK, you asked how I discovered the DSG. I told you > that it was as a result of a web search. > > I had typed > > Abhidhamma "Free Will" > > into Google search engine and the first entry was a DSG discussion > from early December 2001. .... This is really funny;-)) I had meant to ask you what you were searching for. I should be thanking whoever it was in Dec 01 for introducing Abhidhamma ‘Free Will’. I had no idea that Google knew we existed, but it seems to know a lot from what Christine tells us. Wow, after the recent discussions, another newbie would have dozens of references for the same search;-) Free Will Reigns.... I won’t say another rude word about it. Sarah p.s. I find the list of Brother Teo’s quite unusual and I admit I have reservations as I indicated with just one citta. Perhaps you can show my posts to him on that for comments, though I understand he’s very busy. Best of all would be if he could join us here when he has time;-) ============================== 15312 From: egberdina Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 1:25am Subject: Re: Hello from a New Member Hi Sarah F, Welcome aboard, and thank you for your very informative introduction. You'll find a few I.T. bods here, many ex-denominational Christians of all varieties, and I am sure there's more than just one who doesn't call themself Buddhist. May your stay here be fruitful and wishing you well, Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "forsyth_1981" wrote: > Sarah A. asked me to write an intro as I have recently joined DSG. > I am 21 years of age and I'm studying Information Technology at > University. I share an apartment in Brisbane with a girlfriend. I > work part-time for my Dad's Australian office as well. Some of you > have already met me on the Noosa weekend. For those I haven't met > yet, I am Christine's daughter. > I am not a Buddhist; I was brought up as a Christian, went to > Religious schools and through all the usual rituals. (Mum was > shocked when I told her recently that by the time I was thirteen > years of age, I had decided 'I can't believe most of this'.) Not > sure what I do believe yet. > At Noosa, I had the pleasure of meeting 'KenH', Azita, Andrew, > Sundara and some others (from Maleny) plus the Dutch/Austrian > backpackers Sundara found somewhere. I had already met Jon and > Sarah A. in Hong Kong. Hello again everyone. > Although I was a bit nervous meeting a bunch of buddhists :), there > was nothing to worry about. Everyone was very friendly. I had fun and > learned a little over breakfast each day and when walking through the > national park - mainly about what Buddhism is not. > I won't promise to contribute much, but I'll read the letters when I > can. > Bye for now, > Sarah F. 15313 From: Sarah Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 2:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re : Was sariputta capable of lying? Hi Rob M, Here I am to be a spanner in the works again;-) --- robmoult wrote: > Hi All, > > I am preparing for this week's class, which will be a summary > of "Dying to Live - The Role of Kamma in Dying and Rebirth". Here is > the link: > > http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/dying2live.htm > > The following story is told in this text which states that Sariputta > decided to decieve a person. I thought that as an Arahant, Sariputta > was incapable of lying. Please help me out. Does anybody know the > story? Any explanation on Sariputta's lying? ....... > He told him the reason. The Venerable Sariputta thought, "I shall > deceive him." Then he asked, "Did you do it out of your own choice > or did someone order you to do it?" ..... I agree with Bard’s helpful comments here (Btw, Bard: Are you KT who returns to the shadows and has the same signature lines? A consistent and preferably ‘real’ name would be helpful if so;-)): > “Well, truthfully Sariputta never decieved him since > each line was a question. He was wanting the man to > come to his own conclusions to allow him to hear the > teachings, because after hearing the teachings it > doesn't matter what had happened; he was on the steps > to enlightenment.” ..... As an arahant, there was no chance of Sariputta intending to deceive or in uttering any falsehood. I checked a couple of other translations of this Dhp story. Neither mentioned anything suggesting deception, but someone may help look at the Pali. This is one which says ‘decided to ask tactfully’ instead of ‘I shall deceive him’ (I think): http://www.vipassana.info/f.htm vipassana.info Khuddaka Nikaya The Dhammapada Stories Translated by Daw Mya Tin, M.A., Burma Pitaka Association (1986) Source: http://www.nibbana.com Chapter VIII: The Thousand (Sahassavagga) -ooOoo- Verse 100 VIII (1) The Story of Tambadathika While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (100) of this book, with reference to Tambadathika, the executioner of thieves. Tambadathika served the king as an executioner of thieves for fifty-five years; he had just retired from that post. One day, after preparing rice gruel at his house, he went to the river for a bath; he had intended to take the speciallyprepared rice gruel on his return. As he was about to take the rice gruel, Thera Sariputta, who had just arisen from sustained absorption in Concentration (jhana samapatti), stood at his door for alms-food. Seeing the thera, Tambadathika thought to himself, "Throughout my life, I have been executing thieves; now I should offer this food to the thera." So, he invited Thera Sariputta to come in and respectfully offered the rice gruel. After the meal, the thera taught him the Dhamma, but Tambadathika could not pay attention, because he was so agitated as he recollected his past life as an executioner. When the thera knew this, he decided to ask Tambadathika tactfully whether he killed the thieves because he wished to kill them or because he was ordered to do so. Tambadathika answered that he was ordered to kill them by the king and that he had no wish to kill. Then the thera asked, "If that is so, would you be guilty or not ?" Tambadathika then concluded that, as he was not responsible for the evil deeds, he was not guilty. He, therefore, calmed down, and requested the thera to continue his exposition. As he listened to the Dhamma with proper attention, he came very close to attaining Sotapatti Magga, and reached as far as anuloma nana.[*] After the discourse, Tambadathika accompanied Thera Sariputta for some distance and then returned home. On his way home a cow (actually a demon in the guise of a cow) gored him to death. When the Buddha came to the congregation of the bhikkhus in the evening, they informed him about the death of Tambadathika. When asked where Tambadathika was reborn, the Buddha told them that although Tambadathika had committed evil deeds throughout his life, because he comprehended the Dhamma after hearing it from Thera Sariputta and had already attained anuloma nana before he died, he was reborn in the Tusita deva world. The bhikkhus wondered how such an evil-doer could have such great benefit after listening to the Dhamma just once. To them the Buddha said that the length of a discourse is of no consequence, for one single word of sense can produce much benefit. Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: Verse 100. Better than a thousand words that are senseless and unconnected with the realization of Nibbana, is a single word of sense, if on hearing it one is calmed. [*] anuloma nana: Vipassana Insight which causes the namarupa process of the yogi to become fully adapted for Magga Insight. ***** Sarah p.s Rob K.....I’ve just remembered, I meant to tell you that I still couldn’t get that other link for the breakdown of Pali for dhp to work, but really appreciated the Pali lines you found for the Kesamuttisutta (Kalama sutta) which I know will be useful again;-) ======================= 15314 From: dark knight Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 4:00am Subject: Re: About Kerala and MahaBodhiSoceity > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:35:24 +0800 (CST) > From: Sarah > Subject: Re: Re:Re: Hi Hi Sarah, It's a real surprise to hear that you are very familiar with Kerala ! Actually I am from Palakkad (don't tell me you know abt palakkad !!), a district in central kerala. But at present, I am doing my PhD in Bangalore. Kerala though blessed by nature,educational institutions are very few. So I was forced to leave first for Madras and then for Bangalore for my advanced studies. My contact with books on Buddhism was thus because of MahaBodhi Society(MBS) Bangalore. I will surely air my doubts as & when they arise. Thank you for the info regarding pali sites. Actually I had had an introduction to Pali through some classes which were conducted in MBS. Thanks and Best Regards, Krishnan. 15315 From: Sarah Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 5:51am Subject: Rob M in the album at last;-) Hi Chris & All, Rob M's pic had to wait patiently all this time in my camera, but has finally made it to the album. Along with him are Rob K w/two of his kids who really impress me with their patience in Bkk, while Dad has yet another long discussion. Also, Erik & Eath on the balcony of their house in Koh Samui on the mountain side, the mods at breakfast in Koh Samui to replace the one in 'rare party mood', now banished by Jon (he never liked it). Also, shot on return to finish the film and for temporary viewing - myself working on a DSG post in our wee dhamma room which was designed as a store room (about 3 foot by 3 foot) and now my favourite spot in the flat. Sarah A ======== 15316 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:04am Subject: The Problem Of The Greater Mind Dear Dhamma friends The following conversation took place between Suan Lu Zaw and James Mitchell in the form of questions and answers. Suan Lu Zaw asked the following. "I would appreciate if you can find time (?) to elaborate on your expression "the greater mind". Do we need to resort to such expressions? I haven't come across such an expression in Pali texts yet. Is it the expresson you made up or a translation of a Pali term or a Sanskrit term? If the latter, I would like to see it." The answer given by James Mitchell contained the following as his main position. "Nibbana is not a place or a thing, it is a state-of-mind (while living) and it is pure mind (when dead). It is the greater mind of which our minds are only a shadow of." Therefore, Suan Lu Zaw responded to James Mitchell's position as follows where the pronoun "you" refers to James Mitchell. So you equated Nibbana with "the greater mind". I do not blame you as you are not alone in equating Nibbana with mind or consciousness. Nor do I intend to argue with you. I am a scientist who specializes in psychological aspects of Pali Tipitaka directly relevant to solutions to and cures for human miseries. So, if you feel good by equating nibbana with the greater mind, well, keep doing it by all means. The reason I asked you to elaborate on your use of the expression "the greater mind" is that I simply wanted to know just what it is. Now that you explained what you meant by "the greater mind", my suspicions have been confirmed. But, as you also insisted that you needed to use that expression "the greater mind" for Nibbana, you have spared me the chore of telling you what Nibbana is not, as far as Pali Tipitaka is concerned. Thank you for saving me time (?) in not having to tell you that Nibbana is one separate ultimate reality and that mind or consciousness is another separate ultimate reality. I do thank you for not having to tell you that there are exactly FOUR ULTIMATE REALITIES as far as Pali Tipitaka is concerned, and that the equating of Nibbana with mind or consciousness would leave us with only THREE ULTIMATE REALITIES. By the way, your statement "It is the greater mind of which our minds are only a shadow of" is reminiscent of the Veda or Brahminism which asserts that individual selves or small selves evolve from Absolute Consciousness or Great Self (Mahaatman). When you have time (?), why not check out the Veda or Brahminism. If you liked what they have to teach such as "our selves are only a shadow or a creation of the great self", then you could call yourself "Brahmintrue" instead of buddatrue. To learn more about "Mahaatman" for great mind or great self, please see page 796 (column 1, somewhere down the page) in Sir Monier Monier- Williams' Sanskrit-English Dictionary. By the way, the concept of "Mahaatman" or Great Mind is outside the teachings of the Buddha who did teach Nibbana. Therefore, Nibbana is not mind, let alone greater mnd. With kind regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org 15317 From: Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 2:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello from a New Member Hi, Sarah F - In a message dated 8/29/02 2:16:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sr_forsyth@h... writes: > > Sarah A. asked me to write an intro as I have recently joined DSG. > I am 21 years of age and I'm studying Information Technology at > University. I share an apartment in Brisbane with a girlfriend. I > work part-time for my Dad's Australian office as well. Some of you > have already met me on the Noosa weekend. For those I haven't met > yet, I am Christine's daughter. > I am not a Buddhist; I was brought up as a Christian, went to > Religious schools and through all the usual rituals. (Mum was > shocked when I told her recently that by the time I was thirteen > years of age, I had decided 'I can't believe most of this'.) Not > sure what I do believe yet. > At Noosa, I had the pleasure of meeting 'KenH', Azita, Andrew, > Sundara and some others (from Maleny) plus the Dutch/Austrian > backpackers Sundara found somewhere. I had already met Jon and > Sarah A. in Hong Kong. Hello again everyone. > Although I was a bit nervous meeting a bunch of buddhists :), there > was nothing to worry about. Everyone was very friendly. I had fun and > learned a little over breakfast each day and when walking through the > national park - mainly about what Buddhism is not. > I won't promise to contribute much, but I'll read the letters when I > can. > Bye for now, > Sarah F. > ================================ Welcome to the list from another member. It's a pleasure to have you here. Your mom is a delight to have around (she's really nice and really smart - of course, kids always have a slightly different perspective on their parents than the parents' friends do! ;-)). In any case, it will be a delight to have you here. Among other things it will be great to have a non-Buddhist here to keep the rest of us on our toes and avoiding in-bred dogmatism! ;-) [ Yep, there are dogmatic Buddhists too! ] I hope you enjoy being on the list. With metta (friendship), Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15318 From: Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 3:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process Hi, Herman (and Rob) - In a message dated 8/29/02 3:53:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > > > > > I'm not comfortable with the term "levels of consciousness". There > > is citta, a paramattha, and everything else is papanca (conceptual > > proliferation). > > > > Do you see it differently? > > > > Thanks, > > Rob M :-) > > > > PS: Going to bed now. > > Do you think that all phenomena (noumena) can be explained in terms > of the concepts you mention? > > How would you describe in these terms a reflex action, say, the > blinking of an eye as an insect flies into it? > > Do you allow for reactivity without any awareness whatsoever? > > > All the best > > > Herman > ============================== Actually, I would see a reflex action such as you suggest as being a pa~n~natti based on both nama and rupa. It is pa~n~natti in that it's experience as a separate thing involves the grasping of a complex of phenomena as a unity. The phenomena involved include many rupas, including motion, numerous occurrences of vi~n~nana at subliminal and surface levels, and sankhara (reactive elements). What is involved here seems to me to be *extraordinarily* complex, whether from the modern biochemistry-physiology-physics perspective or from the Abhidhammic perspective. BTW, when Rob mentions citta, I presume he is including cetasikas which include all of the elements of the khandhas other than tose of rupakhandha, and, in particular, include the reactive elements of sankhara. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15319 From: frank kuan Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello from a New Member --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Sarah F, > > Thanks for the prompted intro...everyone will be > glad to see more of the > family joining in. One of our regular wits just > wrote that families that > study abhidhamma together don’t suffer from > insomnia....you can tell us if > this is correct. Hello New Sarah. Welcome to the list. I always enjoy your mum's thought provoking questions and earnest attitude while investigating the dhamma. Um, I'm kind of curious about that insomnia question as well. I'm not exactly a Buddhist either (the way most people would understand the label), but after trying out alternative labels like "truth seeker", "spiritual", I discovered that every label has some serious baggage, and you can't win. Maybe I'll just get rid of my name altogether so people won't associate it with a label, and change it to an unpronouncable symbol like the artist currently known as the artist formerly known as Prince. M.C. Sarah, (aka moderator Sarah) I noticed you didn't qualify what type of "regular wit." Did you mean half wit, nit wit, or dim wit? -fk 15320 From: frank kuan Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 8:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Duration of Dhammas --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Rob - > > After years of practice with the consistent > application of right > effort, the goal has been reached! Done is what > needed to be done: I have > reached the stage at which I come to see such a post > on DSG! ;-))) > [rest of post snipped to gain brownie points with Sarah and make my comment even more obscure] Given the nature of Rob's post, I think "arrived" would be a better choice of words Howard. -fk 15321 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 10:10am Subject: Anapanasati, Rob Ep, Rob Ep, Rob Ep. Anapana Sati. Part 3: We should go back to the second tetrad, group of four, of the sutta on Mindfulness of Breathing: V) He trains thus ; he trains thus . (VI) He trains thus ; he trains thus . (VII) He trains thus ; he trains thus . (VIII) He trains thus ; he trains thus , that is, making happiness (píti, also translated as rapture) known, making it plain. Herein, the happiness is experienced in two ways: (a) with the object, and (b) with non-confusion. As regards , the Visuddhimagga (VIII, 227) explains: How is happiness experienced with the object? He attains the two jhånas in which happiness (píti) is present. At the time when he has actually entered upon them the happiness is experienced with the object owing to the obtaining of the jhåna, because of the experiencing of the object. After the jhånacitta has fallen away paññå realizes the characteristic of píti as it is: only a kind of nåma, which is impermanent and not self. We read: ŠHow with non-confusion? When, after entering upon and emerging from one of the two jhånas accompanied by píti, he comprehends with insight that happiness associated with the jhåna as liable to destruction and fall, then at the actual time of insight the happiness is experienced with non-confusion owing to the penetration of its characteristics (of impermanence, and so on). The Vis. quotes from the Path of Discrimination with regard to the experience of happiness with non-confusion: In a similar way the words of the second tetrad are explained by the Visuddhimagga: (VI) I shall breathe inŠbreathe out experiencing bliss (sukha, pleasant feeling)Š Sukha occurs in three stages of jhåna (of the fourfold system); it does not arise in the highest stage of jhåna where there is equanimity instead of sukha. Sukha accompanies the jhånacitta of the three stages of jhåna and is, after the jhånacitta has fallen away, realized by paññå as impermanent. The realization of the characteristic of impermanence can only occur when the stages of insight knowledge have been developed, beginning with tender insight, as I said before. Thus both jhana and insight have been developed here. As to VI amd VII, experiencing mental formation, citta sankhara, and tranquillizing mental formation: the Vis. VIII, 229, explains that mental formation pertains here to feeling and perception, sanna. The feeling is associated with perception (Vis. VIII, 230). The Vis. quotes here from the Path of Discrimination: The Vis. adds that this tetrad deals with the contemplation of feeling. The Co, the Papa~casuudanii, speaks about a , vedanaa~n~nantara.m. As to the words of the sutta, ³The giving attention completely², the Co explains that although attention is not pleasant feeling it comes under the heading of feeling. The Co repeats what has been stated in the Vis. about experiencing rapture and pleasant feeling with the object and with non-delusion. The Co then states: The Commnetary explains that in the same way bliss and citta sankhara, the mental formation, are experienced and that it is thus rightly stated that the monk contemplates feelings in the feelings. The Commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta states that contemplating feelings in the feelings should be seen in the same way as contemplating the body in the body: thus, in order to limit the object and ³sifting it out². We read: ****** Nina. 15322 From: Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Duration of Dhammas Hi, Frank - In a message dated 8/29/02 11:53:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, fcckuan@y... writes: > Given the nature of Rob's post, I think "arrived" > would be a better choice of words Howard. > ======================= Oh, oh! (Here's to being obscure! ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15323 From: robmoult Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 4:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Inside the Thought Process Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > I should be thanking whoever it was in Dec 01 for introducing > Abhidhamma `Free Will'. Perhaps you remember a long exchange titled "Beyond the Self Position" involving Amara, Victor, Kenneth Ong and Howard. The term "Free Will" was added to the title at one point. > Free Will Reigns.... I won't say another rude word about it. FYI - I have gone through my Class Notes and put quote marks around every instance of "Free Will". I also added a footnote explaining that "Free Will" is placed in quotation marks because the concept must be understood as not having an "I" making the decision (anatta). I'm hoping that nobody asks me how to understand "Free Will" without an "I" making the decision. If this happens, I will have to make some obscure remark about seeds and mango fruits; when the questioner looks confused, I will put on my "inscrutable expression", nod my head and say, "Ah, yes... the Dhamma is very deep." Thanks, Rob M :-) 15324 From: Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 5:00pm Subject: ADL ch. 22 (4) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 22 Jhana is called in the teachings an 'abiding in ease, here, now' (for example, 'Discourse on Expunging', Middle Length Sayings I, No. 8). Those who are advanced in the development of calm can have many jhanacittas in succession, since they have cultivated conditions for this. They truly are 'abiding in ease, here, now'. However, the Buddha would point out that 'abiding in ease' is not the same as 'expunging' (eradication). We read in the 'Discourse on Expunging' that the Buddha said to Cunda in regard to the monk who could attain rupa-jhana: ...It may occur to him: 'I fare along by expunging'. But these, Cunda, are not called expungings in the discipline for an ariyan. These are called 'abidings in ease, here, now' in the discipline for an ariyan. With regard to the monk who could attain arupa-jhuna, the Buddha said: ...It may occur to him: 'I fare along by expunging'. But these, Cunda, are not called 'expungings' in the discipline for an ariyan; these are called 'abidings that are peaceful' in the discipline for an ariyan... Those who have accumulated skill for jhana and have developed vipassana can attain enlightenment with absorption. Instead of a meditation subject of samatha, nibbana is the object which is experienced with absorption. Lokuttara cittas can be accompanied by jhana-factors of different stages of jhana according to one's accumulations. In the process during which enlightenment is attained the magga-citta is immediately followed by the phala-citta (result of magga-citta). When the phalacittas have fallen away the process of cittas is over. The magga-citta of that stage of enlightenment cannot arise again, but the phala-citta can arise again, even many times in life, and it experiences nibbana with absorption. Those who have attained the fourth stage of arupa-jhana, the 'Sphere of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception' and have also realized the stage of enlightenment of the anagami or of the arahat, can attain 'cessation' (nirodha-samapatti) which is the temporary ceasing of bodily and mental activities. The person who has attained 'cessation' ('the stopping of perception and feeling') is different from a corpse. We read in the 'Greater Discourse of the Miscellany' (Middle Length Sayings I, No. 43) that Maha-kotthita asked Sariputta a number of questions. He also asked questions about the difference between the dead body and the monk who has attained cessation. We read that Maha-kotthita asked: 'In regard to this body, Your reverence, when how many things are got rid of, does this body lie cast away, flung aside like unto a senseless log of wood?' 'In regard to this body, Your reverence, when three things are got rid of: vitality, heat and consciousness, then does this body lie cast away, flung aside like unto a senseless log of wood.' 'What is the difference, your reverence, between that dead thing, passed away, and that monk who has attained to the stopping of perception and feeling?' 'Your reverence, the bodily activities of that dead thing, passed away, have been stopped, have subsided, the mental activities have been stopped, have subsided, the vitality is entirely destroyed, the heat allayed, the sense-organs are entirely broken asunder. But that monk who has attained to the stopping of perception and feeling, although his bodily activities have been stopped, have subsided, although his vocal activities have been stopped, have subsided, although his mental activities have been stopped, have subsided, his vitality is not entirely destroyed, his heat is not allayed, his sense- organs are purified. This, your reverence, is the difference between a dead thing, passed away, and that monk who has attained to the stopping of perception and feeling.' For those who emerge from cessation, the first citta which arises is a phala-citta (lokuttara vipakacitta), having nibbana as its object. In the case of the anagami it is the phala-citta of the anagami and in the case of the arahat it is the phala-citta of the arahat. The 'Visuddhimagga' (XXIII, 50) states that their minds tend towards nibbana. We read: Towards what does the mind of one who has emerged tend? It tends towards nibbana. For this is said: 'When a bhikkhu has emerged from the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling, friend Visakha, his consciousness inclines to seclusion, leans to seclusion, tends to seclusion.' (Middle Length Sayings 1,302). In the 'Lesser Discourse in Gosiriga' (Middle Length Sayings I, No. 31) we read that the Buddha came to see Anuruddha, Nandiya and Kimbila when they were staying in the Gosinga sal-wood. The Buddha asked them about their life in the forest. They could attain all stages of rupa-jhana and arupa-jhana and they could 'abide' in them for as long as they liked. The Buddha said: 'It is good, Anuruddha , it is good. But did you, Anuruddha , by passing quite beyond this abiding, by allaying this abiding, reach another state of further-men, an excellent knowledge and vision befitting the ariyans, an abiding in comfort?' 'How could this not be, Lord? Here we, Lord, for as long as we like, by passing quite beyond the plane of neither perception-nor-non-perception, entering on the stopping of perception and feeling, abide in it, and having seen through intuitive wisdom, our cankers come to be utterly destroyed. By passing quite beyond that abiding, Lord, by allaying that abiding, another state of further-men, an excellent knowledge and vision befitting the ariyans, an abiding in comfort is reached. But we, Lord, do not behold another abiding in comfort that is higher or more excellent than this abiding in comfort,' 'It is good, Anuruddha, it is good. There is no other abiding in comfort that is higher or more excellent than this abiding in comfort.' Questions 1. What is the advantage of arupa-jhana, compared to rupa-jhana? 2. What is the difference between the fourth stage of arupa-ihana, the 'Sphere of neither perception-nor-non perception', and cessation'? 3. Can anybody who has developed the fourth stage of arupa-jhana attain cessation? 4. What is the purpose of the 'supernormal powers (abhinnas)? 5. When six abhinnas are mentioned, which of those is the greatest? Why? 6. What benefit is there for those who develop both jhana and vipassana and attain enlightenment? 7. What is the object of citta at the moment of jhana? 8. Through which door can the jhanacitta experience an object? 9. What is the object of the lokuttara citta? 10. What is the object of the lokuttara citta which is accompanied by jhana-factors? 15325 From: forsyth_1981 Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:30pm Subject: Thankyou for the Welcome Hello Sarah A, Herman, Howard, and Frank, I hope it is list etiquette to reply all in the one post. Sarah, I'm really glad Luke and I met you and Jon in Hong Kong, and because of that I came to Noosa. And far from putting me off Buddhism, it has helped me understand a little more. I'm also encouraging Mum to bring me to Thailand one day. :) Herman, thank you for your welcome and good wishes - IT bods and ex-christians must equal logical, rational thinkers. (By the way, I have these assignments that need to be done while I'm away in London and New York, any chance - - ??) (only joking :) Frank, thank you for your welcome. Your comments are a little like what I learned at Noosa - that labels and ideas describing people, things or -isms, are only 'part' of what they are, and are usually incomplete or inaccurate. Thanks Howard for welcoming me and for saying nice things about Mum. She and I have a different relationship to most mothers/daughters. All through my high school years, she had to invest a lot of time taking me to basketball training, clinics, matches, and interstate to play games. As the training was often six times a week, and the stadium was 45 minutes drive away, we spent up to two hours a day in the car. We shared the wins, losses, bruises, sprained ankles and twisted knees. A lot of talking, learning, laughter and tears took place in that car. :) Mainly about courage, about playing by the rules or suffering the consequences, that how well I played depended on how well I practiced, that pain and disappointment doesn't last - but neither does elation, that today is all I can work with - yesterdays' match is gone, and next weeks hasn't come yet, and I learned about always doing my best, never giving up and always trying again. I learned that winning and losing mattered, but not too much, as nothing lasts. And it is only how you 'think' about things that turns a lost tournament from being a temporary setback into a major disaster. I try to play life the same way I used to play basketball, although in life sometimes its seems a little harder to do. Mum has two personas - The Friend (99% of the time) and THE MOTHER. How I tell which is which is usually if I get an email or telephone call that begins with 'Sarah, this is Your Mother speaking.....' and I know ... uh-oh,here comes trouble ... :) Though I haven't lived at home for a few years now, I think you will understand why I gave Mum a plaque that reads 'My Mum is My Best Friend' .... Bye for now, Sarah F 15326 From: sukinderpal Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:36pm Subject: New members, welcome! Hi, Sarah F. and Krishnan, Welcome from an unusual member of the list. Being Christian is not unusual, being Indian is not unexpected, but being a Sikh?! It's almost like seeing a fundamental Moslem taking an interest in another religion. Just kiddding. Actually *nothing* is unusual, and being Christian or Indian has very little to do with one's accumulations and the fact that one is lead to the study of the Buddha's teachings. It is more a matter of wisdom being attracted to 'WISDOM'.;-) However, there is still the problem of being 'conditioned' as Christian, Indian, Scientific, Rational etc. etc. and there is also the habitual tendency to judge things according to our present level of understanding. Here I would like to give you a bit of advice (don't like this word but can't think of any other!). What you read here may at some instance go against your normal way of looking at things, even to the way most other buddhists do. Patience and some degree of trust is required here. The end result is *very* rewarding, as, Sarah F., your GREAT mom can give evidence to. Here on this list you will both find what we call *Good friends*, and will understand what this phrase really mean. 'Dear' friends often turn out to be worse than one's enemies, because they tend to indulge us. But friends here on DSG, will give you what is 'really' good. And they are very nice when doing it too!!;-). I take this opportunity to express my appreciation for every input on this list and particularly to Sarah A. and Jon A. for setting this list up in the first place. Lastly, I hope you both gain much from here, which should be both, 'understanding', and a more easy, happy, and comfortable life. Best wishes, Sukin 15327 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 11:48pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States (long message) Dear Ken O, Howard, and all, > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > I disagree. (Why should I break my stride? ;-)) > While I think we would be foolish not to > study, mull over, and learn > from the commentaries, if we have access to them, > I also think that we would > be foolish to only consume predigested material. > The Kalama Sutta - sorry, > there is is again! - warns us not to accept on > the basis of authority alone. > The key word to me is 'alone'. > I think we generally agree that we should take the teachings (from anybody) carefully indeed. Ultimately, the teachings must be in accordance with the truths, and must be useful toward accumulating knowledge and detachment, and contributes toward reaching nibbana. Here's a passage I wrote to a friend recently, when we were discussing an (obvious) wrong view: ... Yes, these are evidently gross misinterpretations of the Buddha's teachings, but it is a good reminder why we need to be careful when we hear "dhamma" from other people, to beware of gross and subtle wrong views. In the maha-paranibbana sutta, the Buddha mentioned about the 4 references: 1) A bhikkhu who said to learn a teaching from the Buddha himself 2) A bhikkhu who said to learn a teaching from the sangha and theras 3) A bhikkhu who said to learn a teaching from multiple theras 4) A bhikkhu who said to learn a teaching from a single thera The Buddha said not to agree or disagree, but to learn the teachings from the Bikhhu well, and then to compare the teaching to the sutta, to the vinaya. If the teaching doesn't match, then one should conclude that the Bikkhu remembered the teaching incorrectly, and then discard the teaching. If it does match, then one should conclude that the Bikkhu remembered it correctly. kom 15328 From: bodhi2500 Date: Fri Aug 30, 2002 0:51am Subject: Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "abhidhammika" wrote: >Therefore, Nibbana is not mind. > Hi Could someone please explain why Nibbana is called a Nama. Seems confusing to say Nibbana is not mind ,but it is a Nama. Thank-you Steve 15329 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Fri Aug 30, 2002 3:10am Subject: Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "bodhi2500" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "abhidhammika" wrote: > >Therefore, Nibbana is not mind. > > > > Hi > Could someone please explain why Nibbana is called a Nama. > Seems confusing to say Nibbana is not mind ,but it is a Nama. > > Thank-you > Steve ___________________ Dear Steve, Suan gave this translation a while >>>>Section 499, Kevatta Suttam, Silakkhandhavagga, Dighanikayo Kevatta Sutta tika "Ettha nama?a rupa?a, asesam uparujjhati Viññanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti". "Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases without remainder. By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here.">>>> But it is experienced by nama (not rupa). Robert 15330 From: Seylan Bank - DBD (Sumane Rathnasuriya) Date: Fri Aug 30, 2002 4:43am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re:Re: Hi Dear Sarah & Jon, What pleasant reminiscence I experience when you mention your next visit to Colombo! My heartiest appreciation of you all and of course for Khun Sujin for deciding to return to my blessed country. Why I am so emotional is that at least a few like Ranil, Gayan, self etc. who are in the list & the ones who join for discussions as Nihal, Suren & his wife will benefit once more with clarifications they have been piling up for the discussion. As for me it was a “Course Correction”! You all know that. Further, any land will be blessed with so much reality seekers stepping in there. MY LAND needs it most! Thanks again Sumane PS: Dear Jon, Nihal’s sister in law’s son (s-i-l works with you, we learnt) is keen on Dhamma study. Though a Buddhist, he has had little exposure in HK, Nihal says. Just some info to extend the light of Dhamma to someone who could benefit therefrom. Sumane Rathnasuriya 15331 From: Date: Fri Aug 30, 2002 5:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States (long message) Hi, Kom - In a message dated 8/30/02 2:51:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kom@a... writes: > > Dear Ken O, Howard, and all, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > > I disagree. (Why should I break my stride? ;-)) > > While I think we would be foolish not to > > study, mull over, and learn > > from the commentaries, if we have access to them, > > I also think that we would > > be foolish to only consume predigested material. > > The Kalama Sutta - sorry, > > there is is again! - warns us not to accept on > > the basis of authority alone. > > The key word to me is 'alone'. > > > > I think we generally agree that we should take the teachings > (from anybody) carefully indeed. Ultimately, the teachings > must be in accordance with the truths, and must be useful > toward accumulating knowledge and detachment, and > contributes toward reaching nibbana. > > Here's a passage I wrote to a friend recently, when we were > discussing an (obvious) wrong view: > > ... > > Yes, these are evidently gross misinterpretations of the > Buddha's teachings, but it is a good reminder why we need to > be careful when we hear "dhamma" from other people, to > beware of gross and subtle wrong views. In the > maha-paranibbana sutta, the Buddha mentioned about the 4 > references: > 1) A bhikkhu who said to learn a teaching from the Buddha > himself > 2) A bhikkhu who said to learn a teaching from the sangha > and theras > 3) A bhikkhu who said to learn a teaching from multiple > theras > 4) A bhikkhu who said to learn a teaching from a single > thera > > The Buddha said not to agree or disagree, but to learn the > teachings from the Bikhhu well, and then to compare the > teaching to the sutta, to the vinaya. If the teaching > doesn't match, then one should conclude that the Bikkhu > remembered the teaching incorrectly, and then discard the > teaching. If it does match, then one should conclude that > the Bikkhu remembered it correctly. > > kom > ========================== This, of course, makes great sense. However, we should also realize that comparing the teaching to the directly taught Dhamma is still subjective. How one understands/interprets the original teachings is not entirely objective, but is a function of one's background knowledge, one's meditative experience, one's thinking, and, most perilously, one's predispositions. So, all that one can do is "take your best shot". As far as the correctness of one's views, one's interpretations, and even one's practice are concerned, the old pragmatic adage, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", probably applies. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15332 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 30, 2002 10:07am Subject: Perfections, Ch 5, Wisdom, no. 2 Perfections, ch 5, Wisdom, no 2: The Commentary to the ³Conduct of Yudañjaya² explains about the beginning of paññå in that life of the Bodhisatta. We read: By offering mahå-dåna before he retired from the world and by his giving up of the kingdom he fulfilled the perfection of giving. By his restraint in action and speech he fulfilled the perfection of síla. By his going forth from worldly life and by his attainment of jhåna he fulfilled the perfection of renunciation. In that life paññå began to develop by wise consideration of impermanence and in that way he finally attained the higher powers (abhiññås), and the paññå which could distinguish the dhammas that were beneficial from those that were not beneficial for the development of generosity and other ways of kusala, and this was the perfection of paññå. By energy for the accomplishment of what was beneficial in all his undertakings he fulfilled the perfection of energy. By patience with regard to paññå (ñåùa khanti) and by endurance (adhivasana khanti) he fulfilled the perfection of patience. By not speaking wrongly, deviating from what he had promised, he fulfilled the perfection of truthfulness. By his unshakable determination in all that he undertook and observed, he fulfilled the perfection of determination. By the power of the divine abiding of loving kindness, thinking only of the benefit of all beings, he fulfilled the perfection of loving kindness. By his evenmindedness towards beings¹ contrary behaviour, and by the divine abiding of equanimity, he fulfilled the perfection of equanimity. These are the ways by which he fulfilled the ten perfections. The perfection of paññå is essential for the development of the other perfections in the right way. We should remember that the goal of the development of the perfections is paññå which penetrates the four noble Truths. Since its development to that degree takes an endlessly long time, paññå, in its turn, is also dependent on the other perfections. We can notice in this life that someone who has developed the perfections will be inclined to listen to the Dhamma, whereas someone who has not developed the perfections does not see the benefit of the development of paññå and does not want to listen to the Dhamma. Even though there is still opportunity to listen to the true Dhamma he is not interested in listening. A person who has already developed the perfection of paññå to a certain extent, wishes to understand and to know the true nature of realities, no matter where he is born, or even if he is born into a family where there is wrong view. We read in the ³The Questions of Pingiya² (Cúlaniddesa of the ³Khuddhaka Nikåya²) that the Brahmin Pingiya who was hundred and twenty years old asked the Buddha: I am old and weak, I have lost my beauty, and moreover, my eyesight and my hearing are not clear. Meanwhile, Lord Buddha, may I not go astray, may the Lord explain the Dhamma that he penetrated, the Dhamma that makes an end to birth and old age. A person with paññå would not ask for anything else but hearing the true Dhamma which makes an end to birth and old age. Although Pingiya was hundred and twenty years old, he wanted to listen to the true Dhamma. He had accumulated paññå to such degree that he saw the benefit of listening to the Dhamma. We read further on: The Buddha said to the Brahmin Pingiya: ²People are intoxicated, they are oppressed by physical phenomena, rúpas. It can be seen that people are disturbed because of rúpas. Therefore, Pingiya, you should not be neglectful, you should give up clinging to rúpas so that you will not be reborn.² 15333 From: Date: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind Hi, Robert (and Steve) - In a message dated 8/30/02 6:38:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "bodhi2500" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "abhidhammika" wrote: > > >Therefore, Nibbana is not mind. > > > > > > > Hi > > Could someone please explain why Nibbana is called a Nama. > > Seems confusing to say Nibbana is not mind ,but it is a Nama. > > > > Thank-you > > Steve > ___________________ > Dear Steve, > Suan gave this translation a while > >>>>Section 499, Kevatta Suttam, > Silakkhandhavagga, Dighanikayo > Kevatta Sutta tika > > "Ettha nama?a rupa?a, asesam uparujjhati > Viññanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti". > > "Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases without remainder. > By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here.">>>> > > But it is experienced by nama (not rupa). > Robert > ============================= Well, there is also the following by Nina van Gorkom, in her Abhidhamma in Daily Life: ************************ The fourth paramattha dhamma is nibbana. Nibbana is the end of defilements. Nibbana can be experienced through the mind-door if one follows the right Path leading towards it: the development of the wisdom which sees things as they are. Nibbana is nama. However, it is not citta or cetasika. Nibbana is the nama which does not arise and fall away; it is the nama which is an unconditioned reality (in Pali:visankhara dhamma). It does not arise, because it is unconditioned and therefore it does not fall away. Citta and cetasika are namas which experience an object; nibbana is the nama which does not experience an object, but nibbana itself can be the object of citta and cetasika which experience it, Nibbana is not a person, it is not-self; it is anatta. ************************ The foregoing includes describing nibbana as "the nama which does not experience an object". So, it is called a nama. Moreover, this reminds me of the "unmanifestive consciousness" referred to in certain suttas. It would seem *possible* that the nibbana paramattha dhamma is the discernment of absolute absence, the complete absence of all conditions. (And I would think that the total cessation of all conditions would be a perfection beyond imagination - something aptly describable as a refuge, a cool cave, and the ultimate 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 pha ntom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15334 From: robmoult Date: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:06pm Subject: Updated Class Notes Now On-Line Hi All, I have uploaded the September 2002 updated version of Class Notes in the files section. Changes to existing material: - Cleaned up and corrected "Abhidhamma Papers" - Put quote marks around "free will" (for Sarah :-) ) - Added caution footnote to "Philosophy and Practice of Metta" - Miscellaneous minor corrections New material: - Three Abstinences - Role of Kamma in Dying and Rebirth (10 pages) - Noble Eightfold Path (19 pages) - Four Sublime States (8 pages) - Mudita - Near and Far Enemies of Sublime States I welcome any feedback and suggestions for improvement. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15335 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: The foregoing includes describing nibbana as "the nama which does > not experience an object". So, it is called a nama. Moreover, this reminds > me of the "unmanifestive consciousness" referred to in certain suttas. It > would seem *possible* that the nibbana paramattha dhamma is the discernment > of absolute absence, the complete absence of all conditions. (And I would > think that the total cessation of all conditions would be a perfection beyond > imagination - something aptly describable as a refuge, a cool cave, and the > ultimate emptiness.) > ++++++++++++++++++++++===== Dear Howard, I think this has been discussed before. If you could supply a reference for nibbana as unmanisfestive consciousness we can look at again. It might be a misunderstanding of this phrase:"Vinnanam anidassanam anantam sabbato pabbam" (D.i. 223)." Suan looked at this in detail: Kevatta Sutta Atthakatha defines "Viññanam" as follows. "Tattha viññatabbanti "Viññanam" nibbanassetam namam,.." "There, to be known specially, so (it is) "Viññanam". This is the name of nibbana." And Kevatta Sutta Tika further explains the phrase "viññatabbanti" as follows. "Viññatabbanti visitthena ñatabbam, ñanuttamena ariyamaggañanena paccakkhato janitabbanti attho, tenaha "nibbanassetam namam"ti." "(To be known specially) means to be extraordinarily known. The meaning is 'to be known in the sense of realization by ultimate wisdom, by noble path wisdom'". Therefore, (the commentator) stated that 'This is the name of nibbana'" Therefore, the term 'Viññanam' in the line of the original Pali verse "Viññanam anidassanam, anantam sabbatopabham .." does not refer to consciousness, the usual meaning of viññanam. In fact, the same verse includes the following two lines "Ettha namañca rupañca, asesam uparujjhati Viññanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti". "Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases without remainder. By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here." Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness just because one of its Pali names happens to be Viññanam. In English language, the term 'object' can have different meanings. For example, the term 'object' in visual object has no relation to the term 'object' in my object of studting Pali. Hope this message helps clarification.>>End of Suan's message. Nibbana does not arise, it cannot cease, there are no conditions for it. But it can be experienced by magga citta and phala citta (so the texts say). Robert Ps. Nina may have something to add about it. 15336 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Aug 30, 2002 11:02pm Subject: Speech and Intentions was (Re: Updated Class Notes Now On-Line) Hi Rob M and All, I've started reading the additions to the class notes, so far mainly The Noble Eightfold Path. Interesting to note in the ten courses of unwholesome kamma that Speech is given such a predominant role. Four out of the ten points relate to speech. Only one to killing another being. I think speech is a much underrated cause of misery and harm to others - particularly in its written form, whether performed in concert with others, or alone. Most people would easily see the harm in false speech and there seems to be a tendency to see Slander also as false speech - but Bhikkhu Bodhi says Slanderous Speech can be factually true. One form of Slanderous Speech is 'speech intended ...... to alienate one person or group from another'. Whereas those abstaining from Slanderous Speech "unite those that are divided; .... and it is concord that he spreads by his words." Slanderous speech creates weighty kamma because it is rooted in hate and usually occurs after deliberation. Many people do not realise that in producing Slanderous speech (or writing) - which may or may not be 'true' - the ramifications and hurt to others is serious. One can often hear people say in justification of the pain they have caused "Well, it's the truth and it needed to be said/done for the good of everyone" .... Does the Law that all will receive their vipaka according to their cetana cetasika, mean that those with little insight or compassion can go through life causing pain by their speech and writing, yet claim truthfully that it was not their intention and so receive no vipaka? Or does the magnitude of the consequences to others of someone's actions affect the magnitude of their vipaka? Say signing a letter (true or not) that has the consequence of excluding someone from many of the meaningful activities, which gave them fulfullment and happiness in life? A little further along in the class notes, it says 'When the intentions are right, the action will be right' - not sure I agree with this. Apart from the example above to do with speech, most intentions can be carried out in multiple ways, don't you think? Take my Occasional Kitchen Rat (Rachel) [please do!] My intention is to have a rat-free kitchen - there are a number of actions that could spring from this intention - most not acceptable to Rachel the Rat Being.... either depriving her (and her dependants) of food, accommodation or life. (Sadly, she hasn't fallen for the non-harming rat trap and 'a nice drive in the country' gambit) Are one class of beings more valuable, of higher status, than another - in the sense that if any of the ten courses of unwholesome kamma are performed regarding one "continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena" (say a human) - is the vipaka different than if they are performed for any other (say Rachel the Rat) process? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi All, > > I have uploaded the September 2002 updated version of Class Notes in > the files section. > > Changes to existing material: > - Cleaned up and corrected "Abhidhamma Papers" > - Put quote marks around "free will" (for Sarah :-) ) > - Added caution footnote to "Philosophy and Practice of Metta" > - Miscellaneous minor corrections > > New material: > - Three Abstinences > - Role of Kamma in Dying and Rebirth (10 pages) > - Noble Eightfold Path (19 pages) > - Four Sublime States (8 pages) > - Mudita > - Near and Far Enemies of Sublime States > > I welcome any feedback and suggestions for improvement. > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) 15337 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 1:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] “People....People who need People.......” Dear Sarah, This is extremely valuable! This Sutta and commentary have a lot to offer in specifying anatta in a comprehensible way, and is a good basis for further discussion about what constitutes a 'self', and other related points. I have a few questions about some points, such as the occurrence of jhana-factors in the examples given here, and if I am able, I will come back to them in a day or two. Best, Robert Ep. ====================== --- Sarah wrote: > Dear All, > > In the Brahmajaala Sutta (and commentaries) we read in detail about all > the possible wrong views. We read that the idea of an ‘existent being’ is > the real crux of the various views. For example, this is the first of the > annihilationist views (which I quoted in an earlier post): > ..... > (p.79 B.Bodhi trans.) > “ ‘Herein, bhikkhus, some recluse or brahmin asserts the following > doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form; it is composed > of the four primary elements and originates from father and mother. Since > this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the > body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely > annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, > and extermination of an existent being.’” > ..... > The other 6 kinds of annihilation view all end with the same last sentence > about the belief in the ‘extermination of an existent being’. > ..... > In the sub-commentary notes (p.182), we read: > “Since the destruction of the non-existent (asato) is impossible, the > words ‘(annihilation) of an existent being’ are given signifying > annihilation based on existence (atthibhaavanibandhano upacchedo). The > word ‘being’ (sattassa) is used in order to show the following. > > The specific-natured dhammas occurring as causes and effects included in a > single (multi-life) continuum exhibit a certain distinction as they may > belong to different (individual life) continuities (within that single > multi-life continuum). Misapplying the method of diversity > (naanattanaya), these theorists misapprehend the real differentiatiation > between the causes and the effects, and arrive at the conclusion that the > differentiation is absolute, as though (the causal and resultant > continuities) belonged to completely different continua > (bhinnasantaana)...........” > ..... > A little later (p.183): > > “..For the assumption of a being arises when the compact of aggregates > occurring in the form of a coninuum is not dissected (into its > components). And since it is held that ‘the self exists so long as it is > not annihilated,’ the assumption of annihilationism is based on the > asumption of a being.’ “ > > (“Santaanavasena hi vattamaanesu khandhesu ghanavinibbhogaabhaavena > sattagaaho, sattassa ca atthibhaavagaahanibandhano ucchedagaaho yaavaaya”m > attaa na ucchijjati, taavaaya”m vijjati yevaa ti gaha.nto.”) > > ***** > Victor quoted from the excellent Satta Sutta, SN,Khandhavagga, p985 (Bodhi > transl) > > “One is stuck, Radha, tightly stuck, in desire, list, delight, and craving > for form; therefore one is called a being.” > > In a footnote here, B,Bodhi explains this is a pun between satta, meaning > ‘being’ and also ‘attached’ from ‘sajati’. . > > “One is stuck, tightly stuck, in desire, lust, delight, and craving for > feeling...for perception...for volitional formations...for consciousness; > therefore one is called a being....” > ***** > Back to the Brahmajala Sutta and the question of killing which has been > discussed recently on DSG. We read in the sutta: > > “ “Having abandoned the destruction of life, the recluse gotama abstains > from the destruction of life....” > Commentary. The word ‘life’ (paa.na) signifies, in conventional > discourse, a living being (satta); in the ultimate sense, it is the > faculty of life (jivitindriya). the ‘destruction of life” > (paa.naatipaata) is the volition of killing in one who perceives a living > being as such, when this volition issues forth through the door of either > body or speech and occasions an act cutting off the life-faculty of that > living being...... > > “Sub.Cy. query: when formations are subject by nature to constant > cessation from moment to moment, who kills and who is killed?..... > > ‘Reply: the ‘killer’ is the assemblage of formations (sankhaaraana”m > pu~nja) conventionally called a ‘being’, containing the aforementioned > volition of killing. That which ‘is killed’ by him is the aggregation of > material and immaterial dhammas that would have been capable of arising > (in continued succession) if the aforementioned means of killing had not > been applied, but which now continues as a bare procession (of material > dhammas) conventionally termed ‘dead’, deprived of vital warmth, > consciousness, and the life-faculty due to the application of the means of > killing by the killer...........................Though formations lack > personal initiative, nevertheless the conventional designation of agency > is applicable to causes which are effective through their contiguity, and > are fixed in their capacity to give results adequate to themselves, just > as in the statements ‘the lamp illuminates’ and ‘the moon brings in the > night’ (agency is ascribed to the lamp and to the moon). > > “The act of destroying life must be recognized to pertain not only to the > aggregation of consciousness and mental concomitants existing > simultaneously with the intention of killing, but must also be admitted to > apply to the (entire sequence of states) which endures by way of (the > unity and the indiviuality of) the continuum. Just as the accomplishment > of activity is senen in the case of lamps, etc, which likewise exist by > way of continuity, so too there certainly does exist one who is bound by > the kamma of destroying life.” > ***** > In the commentary and sub commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta, we read > in detail about what is meant by conventional terms when it is said “in > looking straight on” or “in wearing the shoulder-cloak” and so on. We can > see from the following detail, how useful some understanding of abhidhamma > is when we read the suttas and these conventional terms. Clear > comprehension (sati and panna) should be developed at any time. The > following is from Soma Thera’s translation: > > “Within, it is said, there certainly is no self or soul which looks > straight on or looks away from the front. Still, at the arising of the > thought "I shall look straight on," and with that thought the process of > oscillation (vayo dhatu) originating from mind, [citta samutthana] > bringing into being bodily expression [viññatti] arises. Thus owing to the > diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity > [cittakiriyavayodhatu vipphara], the lower eyelid goes down and the upper > eyelid goes up. Surely there is no one who opens with a contrivance. > > "Thereupon, eye-consciousness arises fulfilling the function of sight > [tato cakkhu viññanam dassana kiccam sadhentam uppajjati], it is said. > Clear comprehension of this kind here is indeed called the clear > comprehension of non-delusion [evam sampajananam panettha asammoha > sampajaññam nama]. Further, clear comprehension of non-delusion should be > also understood, here, through accurate knowledge of the root (mula > pariñña), through the casual state (agantuka bhava) and through the > temporary state [tavakalika bhava]. First (is the consideration) by way of > the accurate knowledge of the root: -- > > "There is (first) the mental state of the life-continum, > And (then) there are adverting, seeing, receiving, > Considering, determining, and impulsion > Which is seventh (in cognition's course). > > [bhavangavajjanañceva dassanam sampaticchanam > santiranam votthapanam javanam bhavati sattamam]. " > ***** > During our stay in Koh Samui, I was reading Nina’s “Conditions”, an > introduction to the Patthana (the last book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka) more > carefully and considering further the interplay of the various paccaya and > paccayupana (conditioning and conditioned dhammas). Understanding more > about conditions helps us to understand that what we take for people are a > variety of conditioned namas and rupas. “Each reality which arises does so > because of a concurrence of different conditions which operate in a very > intricate way” > > For example, under jhana paccaya, we learn that the jhana factors may be > wholesome or unwholesome: > > “When someone commits an unwholesome deed, such as killing, nåma and rúpa > which arise because of conditions perform their functions. The > dosa-múla-citta is accompanied by vitakka which is in this case thought of > violence, by vicåra which is occupied with the object, by unpleasant > feeling and by concentration which causes the citta to be firmly fixed on > the object. The akusala citta and the accompanying cetasikas and also the > mind-produced rúpa are conditioned by akusala > jhåna-factors,“strength-givers” or intensifying factors, by way of > jhåna-condition. When we perform a generous deed, the kusala citta and > accompanying cetasikas and also the mind produced rúpa are conditioned by > sobhana jhåna-factors by way of jhåna-condition. These dhammas are also > conditioned by root-condition, by faculty-condition and by several other > conditions. Thus, as we have seen, jhåna-factors are not only operating > while one cultivates jhåna, they are conditions which function time and > again in daily life, no matter whether we perform wholesome or unwholesome > deeds.” > > We also learn how rupa -jivitindriya (physical life faculty) maintains > rupas produced by kamma “as a wet-nure does a prince” (Vism X1V,59). > > As Nina writes: > “Life faculty is a condition for distinguishing kamma-produced rupa from > other kinds of rupa. We cling to the body which is alive, we cling to > eyesense and earsense and take them for self. they are only elements > maintained by life faculty, a kind of rupa which is not self.” > > Nama-jivitindriya is also life faculty, but in this case a cetasika > (mental factor) arising with every citta, controlling and maintaining the > life of the other namas and rupas. While there is life faculty, there will > be feelings. > > In other words, by understanding more about the various dhammas we learn > more about what ‘people’ really are. I find the following comments in the > last chapter of Nina’s book very helpful and I apologise for making a long > post longer (though I've just reduced it by half;-)): > ..... > “We are so used to the idea of seeing living beings, people and animals, > and we do not realize that we are deluded about reality because of our > accumulated ignorance and wrong view. When we watch T.V. and we see people > moving, we know that there are no people there. There are rapidly changing > projected images on a screen and this gives us the illusion that there are > people who are acting. These images are merely different colours which > appear through the eyesense and then we know the meaning of what we see, > we think of concepts on account of what we see. The same happens in real > life. There is seeing of visible object and then we take what we see for > people or things which last. Persons are not real in the ultimate sense, > no matter whether we see them on a screen or in the world around > us............ > > “The Buddha and the arahats also thought of concepts but they were not > deluded about them, they had no defilements on account of them. If we > cling to concepts and take them for things which really exist, which are > permanent or self, we are deluding ourselves. Clinging to concepts of > person or self leads to many other kinds of defilements, it leads to a > great deal of sorrow. > > When someone has lost a person who was dear to him he seems to live with > his memories of the person he loved, he lives with his dreams, with an > illusion. However, also when a beloved person is still alive we live with > our dreams; we take the person we believe we see, hear or touch for > reality. Someone who is in love with another person is actually in love > with his own concept of that person, with an idealized image he has of > that person. He does not have understanding of realities, of the different > cittas which arise because of their approriate conditions. When he finds > out that the image he has of another person is completely different from > reality he may experience disillusion. We may have idealized images of > other people and have expectations about them which cannot be realised. We > have learnt about nåma and rúpa and about the conditions for their > arising, but theoretical understanding is not enough. We should consider > ultimate realities in daily life. We tend to forget that seeing is only a > conditioned reality and that visible object is only a conditioned reality, > and therefore we are easily carried away by sense impressions..... > > “ If there can be mindfulness of one reality as it appears through one of > the six doors, we will know the difference between the moments of > mindfulness of a reality and the moments there is thinking of an image of > a “whole”, a person or a thing. By being mindful of just visible object or > sound we learn to distinguish between the objects appearing through the > five sense-doors and the mind-door. > When there is right understanding of a reality as it appears one at a > time, we do not expect other people to behave according to an idealized > image. Someone may insult us, but if we can see that there is nobody who > can hurt us we will be less inclined to take unjust treatment personally. > When words of praise and blame are spoken to us, the hearing is result > produced by kusala kamma or akusala kamma. When we think about the meaning > of the words which were spoken to us defilements tend to arise. We take > what we hear very seriously and we forget that what is experienced by > hearing is only sound. Depending on our accumulations we may be afflicted > on account of what is heard, we think about it for a long time. We are so > affected by what others say or do to us because of clinging to ourselves. > Life is short, a moment of experiencing an object is very short. If there > were no citta which experiences an object the world and everything in it > would not appear. The sotåpanna who has no more wrong view about person or > self understands that there are only conditioned nåma and rúpa, no > people.” > ***** > > The song (from memory) says that “People who need people are the luckiest > people alive”.....We can see that the study of paramatha dhammas goes > against the conventional flow of ideas and this is why the Buddha reminded > us that the truth is so very ‘hard to see’. > > Sarah > ==== 15338 From: bodhi2500 Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 5:29am Subject: Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind Hi I understand that Nibbana is not mind, but the mind can take Nibbana (the absence of conditions)as a object, and that Khandhaparinibbana is the cessation of nama/rupa. But why is Nibbana sometimes refered to as a Nama,ie in Nina's ADL as Howard pointed out, and I think I remember a com. stating that Nibbana is called Nama because it bends the mind towards it(something like that). In this case in Nama being used in a namati sense of "bending towards" rather than anything to do with mind? This question has come up after going through Nina's Abhidhamma in daily life with someone, who sees "Nibbana is nama. However it is not citta or cetasika. Nibbana is the Nama that does not arise or fall away" ,then the convo goes> but I thought you said Nibbana was not mind, but it says here Nibbana is Nama, etc.. Thank-you Steve --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "bodhi2500" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "abhidhammika" wrote: > > >Therefore, Nibbana is not mind. > > > > > > > Hi > > Could someone please explain why Nibbana is called a Nama. > > Seems confusing to say Nibbana is not mind ,but it is a Nama. > > > > Thank-you > > Steve > ___________________ > Dear Steve, > Suan gave this translation a while > >>>>Section 499, Kevatta Suttam, > Silakkhandhavagga, Dighanikayo > Kevatta Sutta tika > > "Ettha nama?a rupa?a, asesam uparujjhati > Viññanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti". > > "Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases without remainder. > By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here.">>>> > > But it is experienced by nama (not rupa). > Robert 15339 From: Sarah Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 5:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind Hi Steve, (Rob K and all), Good to see you around;-) --- bodhi2500 wrote: > Hi > I understand that Nibbana is not mind, but the mind can take Nibbana > (the absence of conditions)as a object, and that Khandhaparinibbana > is the cessation of nama/rupa. But why is Nibbana sometimes refered > to as a Nama,ie in Nina's ADL as Howard pointed out, and I think I > remember a com. stating that Nibbana is called Nama because it bends > the mind towards it(something like that). > In this case in Nama being used in a namati sense of "bending > towards" rather than anything to do with mind? > ...... I've just fished out the following post of Nina's in full. I'm not sure how far it goes in answering the question, but it gives more info to work on. Sarah ================================== http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/6342 Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: . Nibbbana op 13-07-2001 15:12 schreef Derek Cameron op derekacameron@y...: I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the lines: "There > is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not- > conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to- > being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from > what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is > a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, > therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, > made, conditioned" (Udaana VIII.3, repeated at Itivuttaka 43). Dear Derek and all, I am glad you brought up this important text. I have noticed that people might think that nibbana is citta, or even right view which is panna cetasika. In that case nibbana would be conditioned, and there would not be the third noble Truth, no cessation of dukkha. Dukkha is the arising and falling away of conditioned dhammas. Citta experiences an object, it is conditioned by object-condition and several other conditions. Cetasika is conditioned by citta and several other conditions. When the Buddha was the Bodhisatta Sumedha he made the quest for the unconditioned, that which is not dukkha. See the Chronicle of the Buddhas (Buddhava'msa), Sumedha: < Sitting in seclusion I thought thus then:" Again-becoming is dukkha, also the breaking up of the physical frame. Liable to birth, liable to ageing, liable to disease am I then; I will seek the peace that is unageing, undying, secure." In the first book of the Abhidhamma, the Dhammasangani (Buddhist Psychological Ethics) Nibbana is referred to as the unconditioned element, asankhata dhatu (See Appendix II) and it is nama or arupa( non rupa), but it is different from conditioned nama, it does not experience an object. Realities are either nama or rupa, and since nibbana is not rupa it is classified as nama. Kom has explained very clearly about the classification of the four paramattha dhammas. We read in the Atthasalini, Expositor (II, Book II, Part II, Suttanta Couplets, 392) an explanation of nama. Nama is derived from namati, bending towards an object, and it can also be a name. Citta and cetasika bend towards an object, experience an object. And also: they cause one another to bend on to the object: "The four khandhas are name (nama) in the sense of bending, for they bend towards the object. In the sense of causing to bend all (of the foregoing, namely nibbana and the four nama khandhas) are "name" (nama). For the four khandhas cause one another to bend on to the object; and nibbana bends faultless dhammas on to itself by means of the causal relation of the dominant influence of the object." Thus, nibbana does not bend towards an object, it does not experience an object, but, it is predominant object condition for the lokuttara cittas that experience it, it bends them towards itself in that way. Buddhists take their refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the ariyan Sangha. At this moment we do not know what nibbana is like, and it makes no sense to speculate about it. We have confidence that there is a Path leading to the end of dukkha, and that there are people who have realised the third noble Truth by following this Path. We have to learn what dukkha is, the impermanence of nama and rupa. This can only be realized if we study now what nama is and what rupa is, so that their characteristics can be clearly distinguished, there is no other way. I liked what Robert said about awareness, even of attachment to right view, being aware again and again and again of the object at the very moment it appears, so that we come to know its true nature. Nina. 15340 From: Sarah Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:14am Subject: Buddhaghosa (was: Four Sublime States (long message)) Hi Rob M, --- robmoult wrote: > I agree that we should, as much as possible, limit ourselves to the > Suttas and ancient commentaries. On the other hand, I am sure that > five years after the Vissudhimagga was written, some contemporaries > dismissed it as "revolutionary, not fully supported by the Suttas". > It is amazing how much authority a few centuries can give :-) ..... I’m sure this is probably true. However, for your interest let me quote the following from “The Pali Literature of Ceylon” by G.P. Malalasekera: “Buddhaghosa’s fame spread far and wide, quite soon after the compilation of his monumental visuddhimagga; in his own lifetime his works were being assiduously studied in more than one country - in mid-India, in Ceylon, in unlettered Thaton, and lastly in Burma, where, as some believe, he spent the latter part of his life. He established the preeminence of Ceylon over all other countries in the genuineness of its traditional heritage of the Buddha’s religion, and justified her claim to be the home of the orthodox Thera-vaada of his days. Scholars were thus attracted to the island for purposes of study in even larger numbers than heretofore, and their visits, as we shall see later, resulted in the production of works of much value.” In an earlier quote, it says: “Perhaps Buddhaghosa’s greatest value to the modern historian lies in the very limitations of his mental powers*, such as originality and independence of thought, which were imposed upon him by his extreme reverence for all that was traditional. For him there was no development in the doctrine and all the texts were the words of the Master himself. for the correct understanding of that doctrine, however, Buddhaghosa’s work is indispensable.”** ..... * This may be misleading. I believe references suggest he was an arahat. ** Of course many debate this. Sarah ===== 15341 From: Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind Hi, Sarah (and Steve, Rob, and, especially, Nina) - In a message dated 8/31/02 8:52:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Hi Steve, (Rob K and all), > > Good to see you around;-) > > --- bodhi2500 wrote: > Hi > > I understand that Nibbana is not mind, but the mind can take Nibbana > > (the absence of conditions)as a object, and that Khandhaparinibbana > > is the cessation of nama/rupa. But why is Nibbana sometimes refered > > to as a Nama,ie in Nina's ADL as Howard pointed out, and I think I > > remember a com. stating that Nibbana is called Nama because it bends > > the mind towards it(something like that). > > In this case in Nama being used in a namati sense of "bending > > towards" rather than anything to do with mind? > > > ...... > I've just fished out the following post of Nina's in full. I'm not sure > how far it goes in answering the question, but it gives more info to work > on. > Sarah > ================================== > > ttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/6342 > > Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: . Nibbbana > > op 13-07-2001 15:12 schreef Derek Cameron op derekacameron@y...: > I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the lines: "There > > is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not- > > conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to- > > being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from > > what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is > > a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, > > therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, > > made, conditioned" (Udaana VIII.3, repeated at Itivuttaka 43). > > Dear Derek and all, I am glad you brought up this important text. I have > noticed that people might think that nibbana is citta, or even right view > which is panna cetasika. In that case nibbana would be conditioned, and > there would not be the third noble Truth, no cessation of dukkha. Dukkha > is > the arising and falling away of conditioned dhammas. Citta experiences an > object, it is conditioned by object-condition and several other > conditions. > Cetasika is conditioned by citta and several other conditions. > When the Buddha was the Bodhisatta Sumedha he made the quest for the > unconditioned, that which is not dukkha. See the Chronicle of the Buddhas > (Buddhava'msa), Sumedha: < Sitting in seclusion I thought thus then:" > Again-becoming is dukkha, also the breaking up of the physical frame. > Liable to birth, liable to ageing, liable to disease am I then; I will > seek > the peace that is unageing, undying, secure." > In the first book of the Abhidhamma, the Dhammasangani (Buddhist > Psychological Ethics) Nibbana is referred to as the unconditioned element, > asankhata dhatu (See Appendix II) and it is nama or arupa( non rupa), but > it > is different from conditioned nama, it does not experience an object. > Realities are either nama or rupa, and since nibbana is not rupa it is > classified as nama. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: So, by fiat, all dhammas are namas or rupas. But if nibbana is not cognitive in any sense whatsoever, why is it not, then, a rupa? ----------------------------------------------------------- Kom has explained very clearly about the> > classification > of the four paramattha dhammas. > We read in the Atthasalini, Expositor (II, Book II, Part II, Suttanta > Couplets, 392) an explanation of nama. Nama is derived from namati, > bending > towards an object, and it can also be a name. Citta and cetasika bend > towards an object, experience an object. And also: they cause one another > to > bend on to the object: "The four khandhas are name (nama) in the sense of > bending, for they bend towards the object. In the sense of causing to bend > all (of the foregoing, namely nibbana and the four nama khandhas) are > "name" > (nama). > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: But nama pertains to bending *towards*, not *causing* something else to bend towards it. -------------------------------------------------- For the four khandhas cause one another to bend on to the object;> > and nibbana bends faultless dhammas on to itself by means of the causal > relation of the dominant influence of the object." -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Talking about "bending", I find this not just a stretch, but a *contortion*! ------------------------------------------------ > Thus, nibbana does not bend towards an object, it does not experience an > object, but, it is predominant object condition for the lokuttara cittas > that experience it, it bends them towards itself in that way. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: That makes it closer to being a rupa (towards which the mind bends) than a nama (which does the bending). ------------------------------------------------ > Buddhists take their refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the ariyan > Sangha. > At this moment we do not know what nibbana is like, and it makes no sense > to > speculate about it. We have confidence that there is a Path leading to the > end of dukkha, and that there are people who have realised the third noble > Truth by following this Path. We have to learn what dukkha is, the > impermanence of nama and rupa. This can only be realized if we study now > what nama is and what rupa is, so that their characteristics can be > clearly > distinguished, there is no other way. I liked what Robert said about > awareness, even of attachment to right view, being aware again and again > and again of the object at the very moment it appears, so that we come to > know its true nature. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: If one were to take the position that nibbana, being the absence of all conditions, is sui generis, neither nama nor rupa, but, like all the conditioned dhammas, takable as an object, I would find that a bit more reasonable. But even that would be troublesome to me. The notion of the unconditioned dhamma serving as object for a conditioned dhamma, namely citta, is at best odd. It seems to me plausible that there could be the awareness of the *imminence* of cessation (or even of the cessation, itself, i.e., the *entry* to nibbana), a kind of an experiencing of nibbana at a distance like the feeling when one is *about* to pass out (or is passing out), or *about* to drop off to sleep (or is dropping off to sleep). If that is what it means for lokutara cittas to experience nibbana, that would make sense to me. It would amount to the awareness by conditioned dhammas of their imminent demise, which might correspond to what the Zen Buddhists sometimes describe as water breaking through the bottom of the bucket. But nibbana, itself, the utter absence of all conditions, does not strike me as something which is cognizable by conditioned cittas, nor could it be something which could serve as object, in the usual sense of 'object', even for itself. If nibbana is nama, that nama would have to be a nondual awareness radically different from all conditioned nama, close, perhaps, to what the Zen people mean by 'no-mind'. It would have to be an awareness without an object, and, in that case, even using the word 'awareness' is misleading, because nibbana is totally "other" from anything we have known. That, and only that, would satisfactorily account for nibbana being nama, from my perspective. It seems to me that nibbana, the summum bonum, is not a darkness, but a light, not dead, but alive, not avijja, but vijja. That would make sense to me. --------------------------------------------- > Nina. > ====================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15342 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 11:27am Subject: Re: What is Anatta? --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert > > k: It always nice to see u here :) Same here, Kenneth. I was happy to see you posting too! > > Anatta is pretty extreme too. It means 'not self'. > > Not = no. No self. Atta is > > self. An-atta is the negation of this entity. You > > can argue that anatta is > > applied only to objects of clinging and not to one's > > personal self, but if that is > > the case there is really no difference between > > Hinduism and Buddhism. > > k: If you argue in this way, there will be no end. > Just like impermenance is the opposite of permanent. > Anatta is applied to everything not just objects. Oh I agree. The question is, can you perceive the anatta-nature of oneself? I think some on dsg have argued that you can't see the anatta-ness of oneself, because one cannot look at something that doesn't exist [oneself] as an object and perceive its nature; at least that's the way I understand it. They would therefore say, again as I understand it [and ready to be corrected] that one can only gain panna towards the anatta of a dhamma - an object - and by doing so, one gets rid of attachement to the things of this world and this life as 'oneself'. I think that one would see the 'anatta' or 'non-self' of oneself as being a concept, perhaps a wise concept, but a concept none-the-less. Now I have had the experience which for me at least seemed like a strong insight experience, of looking back at my own thoughts, feelings, etc. and realizing that there was no 'self' to be found in any of that, that the awareness by which I was 'looking within' was impersonal and there was no 'Robert' present in any of that. To me that experience was one of seeing that the presumption of self was a concept; and to me, that seems like a realization of 'anatta' on the personal level. In other words, by directly seeing that there is not 'self' within, one realizes the anatta-nature of the presumed self. But what does one actually perceive in such a moment? Is it a direct perception of something, or is it a concept? I am not sure how to evaluate that, but in the moment that it happened it was a very liberating shock to the system. Then one can witness the arising of various things in the moment without overlaying it all the time with a sense of 'someone perceiving it'. But I am not sure how to define that experience in terms of namas and rupas, in terms of which we could discuss it here on dsg, because it is the perception of something that one thought was there NOT being there; it is the removal of a concept; but how is that perceived without another concept that notices and compares the absence? Or are there mental factors that can account for this kind of change within a particular citta? > By the way when you mention about Hinduism, are these > Hinduism concepts exist before when Buddha is around > or evolve after Buddha enters Nibbana. I don't think > earlier Hindusim (Vedaism - hope I get the spelling > right) talks abt non-clinging. It is more likely, > these concepts abt non clinging are borrowed from > Buddhism (no offense please). I think the Vedas are pretty good in most departments and I don't think they borrowed from Buddhism. I'm pretty sure they pre-date the teachings of the Buddha. The point is that they do deal with non-clinging to objects and self; and they do deal with the impermanence of the body and self-concept. The primary difference between most Hindu teachings and Buddhism is that Hinduism still postulates a soul or Atman which is an inner self or higher self; a spiritual self that replaces the lower psychophysical self; while Buddhism says that the structures of the psychophysical self do not constitute a true self or entity; but there is no 'higher' or 'inner' self to replace it; instead there is just the arising of consciousness within the structures of living and the relinquishment of that in the realization of Nibbana. Then within Buddhism you have the arguments about what the Enlightened experience is like WITHOUT a higher or inner self, and what the implications are of dis-identifying with the khandas and storehouse consciousness when there is no self left over of any kind. Some schools of Buddhism will argue that there is a primal nature that takes the place of the self-concept and is discovered; or which can be called Buddha-nature as one's true self. Or that there is a primal awareness which is shown to be impersonal and not contained by the khandas, which tends to be my point of view. But in Theravada most schools I think tend towards the self being a false construct and there really being nothing to take its place except the experience of living itself which arises impersonally without a self and is fully realized as such in Enlightenment. > Hinduism > > also teaches total non-clinging and > > non-identification with external objects of > > desire. Hinduism also teaches that liberation of > > the mind leads to cessation of > > the continued round of birth and death. The > > non-existence of Atta or Atman [the > > inner spiritual self residing within the gross form] > > is the radical difference > > between most schools of Hinduism and all of > > Buddhism. > > > k: Why "non-clinging and non-identification with > external objects of desire", since everything is > inside. Inside what? : ) You are still affirming an inside. If you affirm an inside you affirm an outside. Are you saying 'inside the body'? Inside the mind? What is there to be inside or outside of? When I say external objects of desire, I should say 'seeming external objects of desire, and mean that they are outside the body. One grasps at food, sex, people and relationships, precious things, memories, a favorite song, whatever one treasures. These objects of clinging are temporary and dissatisfying in the long run and have no real nature to hold onto, so they cause suffering. If one clings to self-concept or clings to the young body and doesn't want it to grow old or die, these are then seemingly external objects of desire as well, since they become the separate objects that the self tries to hold onto. When clinging is let go of because we see the nature of these objects and realize they are causes of suffering rather than satisfaction, then we get rid of the suffering that is consequent on our dependence on these things. That's my understanding of that aspect of the relationship of the Buddhist to the world, simplistic though it may be. If Hinduism taught that by non clinging to > external objects is the way then they have a big > problem bc I dont believe in blaming external things > for my weaknesses. It is all inside :). It's not a matter of blaming external things, but seeing that one is attached to them. One has to, as you say, acknowledge that the attachment is one's own, not the objects, but what is it that we attach this clinging to? Whatever it is, we have to let go of it, don't we? When we let go, it is 'our' clinging that we let go of, but it is always attached to an object of some kind, whether a 'big important' object like our own body, or the presence of a loved one, or just to food and sex, or a favorite habit. Can you think of a clinging that doesn't have an object? We can even be attached to enlightenment, and I bet everyone here has that problem! : 0 But I dont > think I know Hinduisim concepts very well, even if it > is similar, we should not be worry :). But there is > one thing Hinduisim dont talk as much as Buddha, the > consistent method in the eradication of moha. Well, Hinduism is quite concerned with elminating ignorance through systematic means, such as meditation, karma yoga, which is going through life not seeing oneself as the 'doer', but merely as the witness that experiences, and a lot of othe sophisticated methods. It is not really necessary to compare them against each other, because Buddhism is chosen for its very specific path and teachings. My point was just that if one does not include anatta in their understanding, that the unique essence of Buddhism is lost. Anatta is a very tough thing to swallow, it is much colder than the Hindu Atman or Brahman. To me, Buddhism in that sense is only for those who can handle anatta. It is really not pleasant to the 'ego' to contemplate no-self and the emptiness of all things. Hinduism gives one a slightly more pleasant carpet to sit on while eradicating self-concept. Buddhism is much more direct in that sense. And not for the weak of heart or stomach. But that is not to say that Hinduism is more primitive than Buddhism. It is extremely sophisticated in its analysis of life, and has a lot of comparable features to Buddhism. I have always had an interest in both, so I naturally include them in my understanding, but I understand perfectly that a lot of Buddhists aren't interested in the Hindu teachings at all, and that is just fine. I just think at times we can learn something from a specific comparision, since they are two of the main religions of the East. Taoism also has some interesting things in it which have Buddhist parallels, but I won't go into that since it's not really appropriate for people's interests here. > > Why must there be a choice. Can you choose a > > different moment right now? Or do > > you merely experience what arises as consciousness? > > Answer according to your > > actual experience, and you will have a hard time > > finding where you can choose. In > > the moment of choosing, do you choose to choose? > > When you make the final > > decision, is there some way in which you finally > > decide, or does it just happen > > when it does? Choice apart from what happens is > > actually an illogical conceptual > > construct. > > > > k: Good questions and difficult to answer :). As I > said before, if there is no choice why are you reading > DSG mails :). Because I am? Why have a choice? I AM reading the dsg mails when I read them, and at that time, I can't really choose not to. It seems that I read when I read and I stop when I stop. Sometimes I want to stop and can't!!! : / If you said you are conditioned by your > lobha or panna (to learn more), your actions are > conditined by other cetasikas - you are not wrong. > But if there is no power to choice then we might as > well dont learn Buddhism at all since there is nothing > we could choose to change our present and future state No, I think that's a point of confusion. Of course it makes a difference to learn Buddhism. I'm just arguing that you did not necessarily choose to do so. The fact that you are doing it makes the same enormous difference whether you chose it or not. But I think there is some value to seeing that you are just drawn into what you wind up doing by circumstances and the responses of your consciousness, and that it just happens the way it does. You don't stop and go: wait a minute, do I want to do this? Life happens instantaneously, and you find yourself doing it, 'choosing' it if you like, but without a choice. : - / I think if you look at it this way it is good, because it just cuts out the self concept very neatly. If you are not making choices isn't that disappointing in a way? Like there's no one there? Well, that's the point. The conciousness which is disappointed by that is that consciousness that clings to the concept of self. When you let it go, there's nothing there but what's there at the moment. This is what there is to deal with. > R: Do we choose to choose > > K: Definitely we choose to choose :) Really? Or is that just another thought that arises? Is that a self > that choose, if we are conditioned by moha yes there > is a self, Really? What does it look like? We use self as if we know what it is, but it is hard to describe it, because it really is a concept, or a conglomeration of impressions in the mind. if we are conditoined by pana, there is no > self involved (just like Arahats) :) > > R: Who chooses freely? > > k: We cannot choose freely bc we are conditioned, > but remembers that does not imply we cannot choose to > choose :) Why would that be unconditioned? Dont take cetana as a self, bc it takes > many more cetasikas before cetana could decide. Well, it sounds like it's all process to me. I still don't see where the choice comes in. Maybe > I should said there is no such thing as free will but > there is such a thing as the power of choice/volition. I like volition better than choice, because volition has the sense of being something that arises in conciousness and has energy. I can imagine volition just coming up out of causal factors, whereas choice to me definitely implies that there is a self, a someone, making that choice. And that is the opposite of anatta, as far as I can tell. > As I said b4, it is a wonderful paradox :). Well, the paradox to me is that we can *think* there is a self and be so convinced of it, while there really isn't a being or entity. There is a living physical organism, there is a brain which generates thoughts. There are desires and perceptions which go back to the body and are processed by the brain. But there really isn't a 'self' in the middle of all that taking it all in. There is only consciousness taking it all in, and that consciousness is just a function, it isn't a 'you' or an 'I'. 'Self' seems to be a concept, a myth, an imposition of the mind on reality. It really is like a unicorn, it's attractive but isn't really there. Best, Robert 15343 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 1:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Formal meditation practice (was, Anapanasati and Mindfulness Practice) Dear Jon, Thank you for jumping in to clarify your view, and please consider it a standing invitation. : ) I take it, based on what you say here, that you would consider it more efficacious to discern naturally arising dhammas than to engage in formal mediatation practice? This has been my impression, but I just want to make sure I'm hearing you correctly. I have interspersed a few more comments below towards this subject. And thank you for engaging with me in this area. --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > ...Just a slight clarification here, Rob. I think what I probably said was > that the teachings do not talk about formal meditation practice, in the > sense of making a distinction between that and daily life/daily life > practice, nor in my view do they prescribe sitting, slow walking/moving, > or selecting a particular object or range of objects as being practices > conducive to the development of insight. > > I would not ascribe this view to the Abhidhamma in particular, but rather > to an understanding of the suttas read together with the commentaries and > the Abhidhamma (it is after all a subject spoken of at length in the sutta > texts). When you say this subject is spoken of at length in the sutta texts, as well as the Abhidhamma commentaries, are there places in the suttas where it is actually said that one would progress more naturally in the development of panna and sati by discerning naturally arising objects, and that one should not engage in formal meditation practice? Or do you think it's a case of both being described and it being left up to the individual to exercise his own discrimination? Do you think it is implied that the purposeful taking of an object of meditation creates an obstacle to the development of sati and panna? If so, are there suttas that describe this, or would it be in the commentaries? I am not quite sure what you are saying is discussed at length in the suttas. If there is any caution expressed towards formal meditation, I would be very interested to see that. > The comment about formal practice taking one away form the present moment > is not something I have seen stated as such in the texts, but is an > attempt at an explanation of the difference between awareness naturally > arising on the one hand and directed attention on the other. I just wonder if that difference is actually described in the suttas or the commentaries. Or on what basis this explanation is based. I keep contending that it seems to be more like a feeling amongst abhidhammists that formal meditation is not the way to go, but I am still not sure what teachings this is really based on, or whether it is a kind of traditional understanding that has grown up over the centuries because of abhidhamma's emphasis on seeing rupas and namas as they occur in life. Best, Robert Ep. 15344 From: robmoult Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 1:40pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa (was: Four Sublime States (long message)) Hi Sarah, The Visuddhimagga is an amazing piece of literature and I have incredible respect for Buddhaghosa. Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Hi Rob M, > > --- robmoult wrote: > > > I agree that we should, as much as possible, limit ourselves to the > > Suttas and ancient commentaries. On the other hand, I am sure that > > five years after the Vissudhimagga was written, some contemporaries > > dismissed it as "revolutionary, not fully supported by the Suttas". > > It is amazing how much authority a few centuries can give :-) > ..... > I'm sure this is probably true. However, for your interest let me quote > the following from "The Pali Literature of Ceylon" by G.P. Malalasekera: > > "Buddhaghosa's fame spread far and wide, quite soon after the compilation > of his monumental visuddhimagga; in his own lifetime his works were being > assiduously studied in more than one country - in mid-India, in Ceylon, in > unlettered Thaton, and lastly in Burma, where, as some believe, he spent > the latter part of his life. He established the preeminence of Ceylon > over all other countries in the genuineness of its traditional heritage of > the Buddha's religion, and justified her claim to be the home of the > orthodox Thera-vaada of his days. Scholars were thus attracted to the > island for purposes of study in even larger numbers than heretofore, and > their visits, as we shall see later, resulted in the production of works > of much value." > > In an earlier quote, it says: > > "Perhaps Buddhaghosa's greatest value to the modern historian lies in the > very limitations of his mental powers*, such as originality and > independence of thought, which were imposed upon him by his extreme > reverence for all that was traditional. For him there was no development > in the doctrine and all the texts were the words of the Master himself. > for the correct understanding of that doctrine, however, Buddhaghosa's > work is indispensable."** > ..... > > * This may be misleading. I believe references suggest he was an arahat. > ** Of course many debate this. > > Sarah > ===== 15345 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 1:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation and Satipatthana --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > < must be sitting to attain enlightenment, or that enlightenment only comes > through meditation. I am looking to have meditation included as an > expedient means in your purview, not to exclude other practices.>> > > [Jon:] > The purpose of meditation, generally speaking, is to focus on particular > (chosen) things by excluding others. This is done, as I understand it, so > as to perceive the chosen things more clearly, or perhaps to perceive the > qualities of impermanence or not-self. > > Satipatthana is the direct experience at some level of a > presently-appearing dhamma, as it truly is. > > The difference between the two may not be readily apparent, but it has to > do with perceiving whatever is as it actually is rather than perceiving > what is really our preconceived idea of how things are. This as I see it > is the danger in focussing on what we believe to be dhammas, or in trying > to see by directed attention what we believe to be the characteristics of > anicca, dukkha and anatta as we understand them to be. Thanks, Jon, for your comments. I understand what you are saying better than I sometimes have in the past. As usual, the post I wrote just before this crosses partially with this one, so please forgive any redudancy. It seems to me that the problem of looking for what one thinks are 'the real dhamma's through formal focus on an object is a real one, and I think this is at least taken into account, if not totally resolved, in meditation instruction. There is no doubt that many meditators will focus on what they think is the correct object of discernment, and that many of these practices may be misdirected. There are forms of meditation that do not have this trap, I think, but many forms do. It is easy to conceptualize the practice as it is easy to conceptualize the goals of Buddhism in general. One of the ways in which I think serious meditators work with this problem is to gradually notice when concepts are occurring, and place attention on the real object. If breath is the object, the goal is to follow the breath closely enough that one begins to discern the actual sensations, feelings, perceptions, thoughts, etc., that arise with the breath. The breath is a focal point for focussing on the experience of dhammas as they arise. So to some extent the intention is to let go of concepts and go to the experiences themselves. There is also a form of zen meditation that seems to have a kinship with adhidhamma in this way. It is called shikantaza, and it is an attempt to practice complete awareness of whatever arises in the moment. It does entail the formal act of sitting, but then one focusses upon whatever arises and attempts to discern it just as it is, without concept. The practice of 'choiceless awareness', taking in exactly what is as it arises, seems similar to what you talk about in discerning everyday objects as they arise. The only difference is there is a formal sitting practice in which this is done. I just mention this to point out that not all forms of meditation take a formal object. Some are devoted, as is abhidhamma, to taking in realities just as they are, just as they arise, just as adhidhamma does. I will also mention in passing, that some of the criticisms or warnings that you have regarding formal meditation that insists on its specific object of discernment, is shared by some of the meditation teachers who are also interested in the 'highest' practice, which is understanding reality as it truly is. One Mahayana teacher that I have exchanged correspondence with says that the ultimate meditation practice is to practice free and open awareness towards whatever arises in life, having mindfulness towards whatever arises, without particularly clinging to either the awareness or the discernment of the object. In this practice of 'meditation', there is really no formal meditation left. So there are practitioners in various fields of Buddhist practice that share some of your concerns and interests. I still feel, however, that to get to this point, it may not be enough to start and end with naturally occurring dhammas in the midst of the distractions of life. It seems to me that some development of concentration and awareness is necessary to focus consciousness on its own object with mindfulness. After all, everyone is practicing the discernment of everyday objects. They just discern them through ignorance and habit instead of discernment. So there is still a question as to what prepares or focusses the attention on the correct discernment of realities. To me, practicing this focus and experiencing discernment of a 'special object' such as the breath, has limitations, but also has great benefits. Then it is a question of going beyond one's concept of practice and ultimately applying it to all of living experience. But there is an equal danger of thinking one is progressing by having the 'concept' of discerning everyday objects arising when one may just be going the normal course conceptualizing objects as they arise, and thinking that the concept of discernment is actually the discernment. With or without mediation, I don't think anyone functioning through consciousness can avoid the challenge of recognizing concepts and preconceptions and going beyond them. I truly wonder whether the decision to discern everyday objects rather than engage in formal practice causes one to progress past concepts more or less effectively, and I wonder whether there's any way to say that one is a more certain path than the other. I do think that the admonitions of some on this list should be taken: Before we criticize the practice of everyday discernment we should try it ourselves; and before we decide that meditation is either harmful or superfluous we should attempt to practice it and see what the actual experience yields. Since Buddha mentioned both of these practices prominently in his descriptions, it would be a mistake in my view to dismiss either one of them without engaging with them, perhaps a really dangerous mistake, since the Buddha clearly had a lot to say, and therefore may well have supported the practice, of both. For all we know, both formal and everyday practice may be necessary in order to reach enlightenment. Best, Robert Ep. 15346 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 2:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati and Mindfulness Practice Hi Jon. Interesting points. You point out that Buddha does not ever refer to 'mindfulness of breathing' practice as 'breathing meditation'. I assume that by this you mean that he has not referred to one sitting and engaging in mindfulness of breathing as a sitting meditation practice. Do you think that he was advocating following the specific breathings, long, short, etc., with mindfulness of the body and the four foundations, while going through the ordinary activities of daily living? I will admit that this possibility had never even occurred to me. I would personally think that to discern the specifics of the breathing while washing dishes, attending a meeting at the office, or driving one's car would be an exceedingly advanced practice, and that the sutta is directed towards the development of full awareness of the breathing while sitting in meditation in a quiet place by oneself or with other monks. If you are envisioning the discernment of the breath during everyday activities, please let me know. It is sitting and focussing on the breathing that I am considering to be 'meditation', nothing more complicated than that. And then, following the Buddha's instructions for discerning the various aspects of the breath and body and mind that he describes. I think I am correct in saying that this is the way that a vast majority of Buddhists interpret the Sutta and how it is to be practiced. How ever, you may be correct that sitting and focussing on the breathing in a formal session may not be explicitly mentioned in the sutta. So I will ask you, what is your impression of the conditions under which the sutta is meant to be practiced, and if you feel it is meant to be applied as the discernment of other everyday objects would be practiced? More comments below. I have snipped most or all of my own remarks, which you quoted and arranged very expeditiously. I thank you for taking my words seriously enough to do that work. I appreciate it quite a lot. --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > [Jon:] > You seem to be suggesting that unless it can be shown that 'meditation' > (whatever that may mean if this context) has been specifically excluded by > the Buddha *in a particular sutta* that it should be taken as an > acceptable means of practice for the purposes of that sutta. I was thinking more of the 'practice of mindfulness of the breathing' itself, which I was calling 'meditation'. Honestly, it never occurred to me that Buddha could be advocating the mindfulness of breathing practice outside of the setting of sitting meditation in this sutta. I do not deny the great efficacy of practicing mindfulness of the breathing in everyday life, something which I have tried to do as much as possible myself, not necessarily with great success. : ) But as I said above, I would consider that an extremely difficult exercise, especially with all the specifics of the Four Foundations that Buddha describes. It just sounds like a very concentrated formal practice to me. But with your comments on this I realize that there is at least a possibility that I am wrong about that. I am anxious to hear how you think the Buddha meant for this practice to be carried out. > That would mean ignoring other suttas (like the Satipatthana Sutta, which > has been the subject of this thread up to now -- not trying to change the > subject, I hope ;-) ) which might suggest that the Buddha's actual views > were to the contrary (particularly in the passage I quoted in my earlier > post). > > Would you agree that the Anapanasati Sutta is an elaboration of a > particular passage within the Satipatthana Sutta and, as such, should be > read in the overall context of the Satipatthana Sutta? I'm afraid that's a little beyond me to say. I certainly think they cross-reference each other, but I would have to look more closely to see one as the elaboration of the other. The anapanasati sutta is certainly aimed towards satipatthana, so in that way they are deeply related. But the way in which mindfulness of breathing is described in the anapanasati sutta also seems very complete and independent in the way it is composed. I think I would probably say, 'both are true'. [Jon:] > The sutta talks about *mindfulness of breathing* and its development, so I > wonder what specifically you mean by *breathing meditation* and why you > prefer this way of referring to the sutta. Just my own presumption that meditation would be the setting for this practice, and of course, I am used to Theravada traditions which have interpreted it that way for centuries. Where exactly is the reference > to 'meditation' in the sutta? Do the 2 terms mean the same to you or > something different? Well, they don't mean the exact same thing to me. Certainly, all Theravada traditions allow for the possibility and importance of practicing satipatthana in everyday life. This cannot be overly stressed. On the other hand, every single Theravada tradition I have run across -- and have not been a deep practitioner of most of them -- has also stressed the absolute necessity of meditation to achieve this potentiality, and have moreover stressed that meditation practicing mindfulness of the breathing is the core practice by which this capacity is developed. Honestly, Abhidhamma is the only tradition I have personally ever come across that casts any doubt on this. I think the long-standing tradition of almost all Theravadan practices are to stress Sutta reading, sitting and walking meditation, and application of mindfulness to the objects and situations of everyday life, probably in that order. > [Rob:] > < recently, but is worthy of repetition in this discussion: > > << = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > <<"Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of > great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when > developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their > culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring > the seven factors for Awakening to their culmination. The seven factors > for Awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to > their culmination. > (Mindfulness of In-&-Out Breathing) > > <<"Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as > to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination? ... > > << = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > < meditation. ... > [Jon:] > I have no argument whatsoever about the significance or importance of > mindfulness of breathing (anapanasati), either as an aspect of samatha > (and in that regard as a means of attaining jhana), or as part of the > first of the 4 foundations of mindfulness. I believe however that each of > these 2 meanings of mindfulness of breathing/anapanasati needs to be > understood quite separately. (Neither, by the way, is referred to in the > texts as breathing meditation.) Either the meditative component is taken for granted as being so, or, as you say, it is omitted because it is not being promoted as the practice medium for mindfulness. I would look to the Theravadan commentaries and traditions as a whole to make a judgment on this. I don't personally know the answer. But there must be ancient commentaries apart from the Abhidhamma that scholars would know of -- perhaps some here?? That would either affirm or contradict the notion that meditation was or was not assumed by the ancients for the practice of mindfulness. I wonder if there are living traditions of Theravada that can still trace the verbal teachings of the early Arahants back to their roots? I have no idea if this is the case. > You ask why, out of all the 'practices', mindfulness of breathing has been > singled out for its own sutta. If we had access to the commentary we > would probably have an authoratitive anser to that question. My own > thoughts on this (for what they are worth) are that mindfulness of > breathing *as an aspect of samatha* was a fairly widespread practice > amongst ascetics at the time of the Buddha, with many attaining to the > level of jhana, and it was for the benefit of monks with this level of > attainment and others like them or potentially so, i.e., skilled in > samatha but not yet attained to enlightenment, that the Anapanasati Sutta > was taught. Well, I certainly think this is a possibility, but it neither affirms nor denies the possibility of the Buddha promoting mindfulness of the breathing as a most efficacious practice, worthy of his detailed commentary in any case. It is hard to know. What is without doubt then, is that either the Buddha granted special attention to this subject because of his knowledge that it was especially efficacious for the practice of mindfulness, and/or because the highly developed practitioners of his day had used discernment of the breathing as a vehicle to reach a very high state of readiness for his teaching on mindfulness. In either case, it seems apparent that the practice of discerning the breathing as an object of mindfulness was a most efficacious practice, and that the breathing must therefore be a most efficacious object for discernment. So the only question remaining is really whether the Buddha approved or promoted of sitting formally while doing this, or whether he was equally happy to have it practiced in everyday life without any formal meditation. We have covered a lot, but still cannot settle the main object of our discussion! Best, Robert Ep. 15347 From: robmoult Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 2:19pm Subject: Speech and Intentions was (Re: Updated Class Notes Now On-Line) Hi Christine, A couple of comments inserted below... --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote > Most people would easily see the harm in false speech and there > seems to be a tendency to see Slander also as false speech - but > Bhikkhu Bodhi says Slanderous Speech can be factually true. One > form of Slanderous Speech is 'speech intended ...... to alienate one > person or group from another'. > Whereas those abstaining from Slanderous Speech "unite those that are > divided; .... and it is concord that he spreads by his words." > Slanderous speech creates weighty kamma because it is rooted in hate > and usually occurs after deliberation. Many people do not realise > that in producing Slanderous speech (or writing) - which may or may > not be 'true' - the ramifications and hurt to others is serious. ========= In a recent talk, Bro. Teo commented that we have to be careful of the term slanderous speech. In Pali, I believe that the term is "pisunaya vacaya". Bro Teo mentioned that in Bhikkhu Bodhi's more recent writings, "pisunaya vacaya" has been translated as "divisive speech" - speech intended to divide. Certainly "divisive speech" has slightly different baggage associated with it when compared to "slanderous speech". In the next edition of Class Notes, I will add a (divisive) after every instance of "slanderous". There is always a problem trying to capture the complete meaning when translating (even for modern languages). This is why I typically put multiple English words for each Cetasiaka in the Class Notes; one should understand the Pali term as a combination of all of the English words. ========= One > can often hear people say in justification of the pain they have > caused "Well, it's the truth and it needed to be said/done for the > good of everyone" .... Does the Law that all will receive their > vipaka according to their cetana cetasika, mean that those with > little insight or compassion can go through life causing pain by > their speech and writing, yet claim truthfully that it was not their > intention and so receive no vipaka? Or does the magnitude of the > consequences to others of someone's actions affect the magnitude of > their vipaka? Say signing a letter (true or not) that has the > consequence of excluding someone from many of the meaningful > activities, which gave them fulfullment and happiness in life? ========= The ethical quality of an action depends largely on the volition. When it comes to harsh speech, divisive speech or idle chatter, the "truthfulness" of the subject matter is not relevant. Take a look at the table on P. 13 of Class Notes; it is the damage caused or the virtue of the other party or the frequency that impact the kammic weight of the action. ========= > > A little further along in the class notes, it says 'When the > intentions are right, the action will be right' - not sure I agree > with this. Apart from the example above to do with speech, most > intentions can be carried out in multiple ways, don't you think? > Take my Occasional Kitchen Rat (Rachel) [please do!] My intention > is to have a rat-free kitchen - there are a number of actions that ===== And what is the motivation behind this intention? Is it kusala or aksuala? (Rachel paid me to ask this question :-) ) ===== > could spring from this intention - most not acceptable to Rachel the > Rat Being.... either depriving her (and her dependants) of food, > accommodation or life. (Sadly, she hasn't fallen for the non- harming > rat trap and 'a nice drive in the country' gambit) Are one class of > beings more valuable, of higher status, than another - in the sense > that if any of the ten courses of unwholesome kamma are performed > regarding one "continually self-consuming process of arising and > passing bodily and mental phenomena" (say a human) - is the vipaka > different than if they are performed for any other (say Rachel the > Rat) process? ========= Again, P.13 of Class Notes indicates the "class" of beings (see remarks under "killing"). "Large animals more serious than small animals, humans more serious than animals. Virtuous being more serious than non-virtuous being." Christine, I am glad that you find the Class Notes useful. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15348 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 2:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Walking meditation (was, A Minor Point ...etc) --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Anyway, what do you mean by 'walking meditation'? Is it something that > complements 'sitting meditation', or is it a different practice in itself? Dear Jon, In my limited experience with formal Theravadan meditation practice, sitting and walking meditation were interspersed as two ways of practicing mindfulness. In sitting meditation with breathing as the object [there were sometimes other objects, such as sound, and there is also a meditation on eating in which one eats slowly and silently and pays close attention to each of the individual experiences of the eating process, usually glossed over by inattention and concept] one would practice mindfulness of the breathing, and in the Theravadan tradition I happened to be involved with at the time, would use the device of 'noting' the breath to involve the mind in the attention to breathing. One would 'note' gently with the mind 'rising' and 'falling' with the in and out breath, if the place of following the breath were the 'belly'. It was also possible to note breathing out and breathing in at the nostrils or with other locations of the breath. One would follow the attention and see where it went, if it departed from the breath and note what it did, such as 'thinking', 'imagining', 'feeling discomfort'; whatever the object of attention was. The noting was a gross method for sort of marking one's place and one would hopefully go beyond this to discern the exact sensation or thought or movement of the breath to the extent possible. To break up the sitting sessions, one would have a silent meal at one point, walking meditations at certain points, and in one retreat I attended, some time just walking around silently being aware of whatever was around one in the area and how it was experienced. In the walking meditations, the mindfulness was turned towards the walking itself. One would either just walk, noticing the sensation of the feet moving into the ground, down and up, etc., or one could silently note the walking. I don't remember the actual word used, whether it was something like 'stepping', 'stepping', or something to that effect, but in any case it was again just a reminder towards the act of stepping down and the associated sensations, to practice mindfulness of the action as it took place. The accumulation of these different meditations did lead to a sense of mindfulness being more available and the specific noticing of whatever was arising at other times was intensified. Best, Robert Ep. 15349 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 2:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Supportive spiritual practices --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Among other psychophysical disciplines that come out of spiritual > tradition, there are some things in common with yoga and some that > diverge. For instance, t'ai chi and yoga both have techniques that > increase circulation of prana/ch'i; but they do it in different ways. > They both have the overall goal to spiritualize both the body and mind; > they both have a set of postures through which the spiritual energy and > awareness is brought into the body. Yoga has stretch which not only makes > the body more flexible and open, but opens up of the nadis [psychic nerve > passageways] as well; T'ai Chi opens the psychic nerve passageways without > a lot of stretching. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > [Jon:] > But pointing out aspects in common doesn't really prove anything, in fact > only confuses the issue. There can be any number of similarities between > 2 teachings, but it is the differences that one needs to appreciate. > Trying to be ecumenical about it is to miss the point entirely, in my view > ;-)) why? I would think one would need evidence for the similarities being totally arbitrary, just as one might ask proof that they are associated. One point, from my perspective, is that there are certain structures in spiritual practice that are 'natural' to be included in one way or another, and different traditions tackle them in different ways. I do tend to be ecumenical, because I believe that all human beings, for the most part, have two arms, two legs, and a similar mind, likewise a similar spiritual component that we are born with, and it only remains as to how one is going to deal with it. But all beings learn to walk without consulting with each other, and likewise, every single human culture has a spiritual tradition because of our spiritual nature. No, it's not a coincidence. The Buddha may be spot-on where others are vague, but everyone is up to the same endeavor at root. Samsara is not a construction of Buddhism, it is the condition we are all in, and we all have to struggle with it with our minds. When spiritual interest dawns in a being, he or she begins to search for a means of getting out of the present mess, and out of this we seek a spiritual tradition. I think that they all try to deal with this same condition, only in different ways. > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > [Rob:] > Buddha may well have taken the benefits of seclusion and simple living > from the ascetics; sitting posture and perhaps breathing meditation from > the yogis; he may have mirrored the eightfold ashtanga yoga path in his > eightfold path, while covering a much different series of elements. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > [Jon:] > Interesting, Rob, but purely speculative, I think :-)) In any event, I am > not sure how useful such a line of inquiry would be. To regard the Buddha > and his teachings as an outgrowth of the time and place in which the > Buddha was born is of course the conventional (non-dhamma) perspective. But there is also no doubt that in terms of the Buddha's skillful means, that he made use of the time and place in which he was born, didn't ignore it, didn't tell people they were silly for having their customs, or reference some other different time and place, but explained to them in every possible way how they could take their present understanding and go beyond it through skillful means that they, as cultural beings, could try to understand. If the Buddha made use of the technology that surrounded him at that time, and then stretched it way beyond its original capacity, he was only showing his mastery of both the time and place and that which was beyond that time and place. His making use of the materials at hand should not somehow be seen as an aspersion upon him. On the other hand, Buddha was also a human being, with a mind and body. He transcended these in his enlightenment, but still had a cultural knowledge and personal history to make use of and fall back upon. It's not as though we have to presume that every vestige of personality was stricken from him upon his enlightenment. We certainly don't know that this was so. When you see a spiritual teacher today whom you respect and who may be quite advanced, perhaps to you as Buddha would be to them, you do not see someone who has less cultural resonance than you do, only somehow who is perhaps clearer and wiser in their understanding and response to life. I am sure that as a human being with superhuman understanding, the Buddha made full use of all the materials around him. Every artist does. > According to the Dhamma, however, we are a product of our own kamma and > accumulated knowledge and tendencies, rather than of our forebears and the > society into which we are born, so to view the teachings in the light you > suggest would run counter to the teachings themselves. Well, there is no doubt that our tendencies and accumulated knowledge find their form of expression in any given lifetime amidst the cultural terms of the mileau into which we were born, and that where and when we are born is also partially an expression, a result of our kamma and tendencies. So I think they do have a relationship to each other. I also don't think this principle at all contradicts the common-sense understanding that a master born in brooklyn will have a brooklyn accent, and a master born in ancient India will speak Pali. Just to be facetious for a moment, if the Buddha's tendencies and kamma were totally independent of the time and place in which he was born, why didn't he speak French? : ) > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > [Rob:] > I think that like the genius he was, Buddha both took and transcended > elements of the spiritual culture of his time, and in an evolved form > brought them to the level of supreme wisdom and supreme vehicle. To see > the evolutionary connections between systems is not to undermine Buddha's > teaching; it is to see the way in which world, spiritual culture, and > Buddha may interact, and perhaps give a context for understanding, which, > living at a much later time, we may not easily have. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > [Jon:] > This reminds me of a previous comment of yours to the effect that the > teachings are not complete in themselves (in doctrinal terms) and need to > be supplemented, and perhaps this view goes hand in hand with what you are > saying here. Further discussion along these lines would indeed require > investigation outside the teachings themselves. Would this be an approach > you see as having value? I think that every historical teaching has two components: there are the teachings in their own right, which are complete in themselves, as they are a 'closed book'; and there is the historical context and content of which it is composed within human history. There are many reasons why we can suppose that the teachings as we have them do not represent the total sum of everything the Buddha had to teach us. To believe that is to believe that the supernatural necessity of the Buddha's teaching was so complete that there was no historical influence of any kind on the form in which it was written or the form in which it was handed down to us. I believe in a 'middle view' of this. I think there were supernatural forces and necessities that caused the Buddha to come when he did and created the fortuituous circumstances in which he delivered his teachings to different groups. I also believe that circumstances arose in 'life' which led the Buddha to give a particular teaching to a particular group, and for them to then be lost, found, remembered, disremembered, handed down, edited, translated, the way they were. There are versions of the suttas in Chinese that are not in Pali. There may be times when the Chinese version survived more accurately than the Pali. I do not make absolutel presumptions that everything handed down in the Pali canon is complete or is handed down as Buddha intended. There are historical circumstances as well as the original teachings, and the historical circumstances are part of OUR kamma and conditions, not just the Buddha's own in his own time. So I don't have an absolute view of the perfection of the written teachings as they are, although i think they are probably very complete in their own right. Where there are gaps in subject matter or gaps in our understanding, it may be that there are pieces missing that can be filled in by understanding the conditions and terms under which the Buddha spoke and his teachings were written down. It also can't hurt to understand historical traditions that might shape the way in which he would choose to communicate to a particular audience. If the Buddha refers to samadhi, a term which his Indian audience would understand from Yoga, then looking to the use of the term in yoga is of course elucidating. Buddha presumed a certain understanding on the part of his audience which we don't have. If we do the research to understand what 'Yogic' audience might understanding by his terminology, then we are putting ourselves in the place his audience was in, and through which they understood his teachings. Best, Robert Ep. 15350 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 2:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha, samadhi & jhanas --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > I have heard samatha and samadhi used somewhat interchangeably. I think > that you would obviously disagree, and say that samadhi can be abused, but > not samatha. There are others of course who use samadhi in the same > positive sense; they would not define it as samadhi if it is an unskillful > form of concentration, since samadhi is the height of skillful > concentration. It is possible they can be used interchangeably in the > kusala sense, and that some other terms should be used for > concentration-lobotomy and bliss addiction. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > [Jon:] > No doubt samadhi can be found used in any number of ways, but I think we > are concerned here with its meaning in the texts. As I said in an earlier > post to Howard, samadhi is sometimes used as a synonym for samatha, but at > other times it has its own meaning (concentration) and in that context can > be either kusala or akusala. > > In my view, the commentaries are the only reliable guide to the correct > interpretation of the individual suttas. > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > [Rob:] > So you feel that Buddha was not prescribing the jhanas, but simply > acknowledging them as one possible positive support for development of the > path? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > [Jon:] > Yes, that's more or less it. I do not read the Buddha as prescribing the > jhanas for everyone as a necessary precondition for the development of > satipatthana and the insight that leads to enlightenment. But samatha is > indeed a high level of (non-path) kusala and as such is to be developed at > every opportunity. And for the benefit of those who had already developed > samatha to the level of jhana, or who had the potential to do so, the > Buddha gave a number of instructions on the development of insight based > on the jhana experience (including, for example, the Anapanasati Sutta and > the 'mindfulness of breathing' section in the Satipatthana Sutta). > > Jon Dear Jon, Thanks for this clarification. Best, Robert Ep. 15351 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 2:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism study (rumoured) --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Hi Jon. Ramble alert. > > Noted ;-) > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > [Rob:] > ha ha. well I finally got this post, just in time for a good chuckle. > yup, what's fun is to know you're on one extreme or the other and to just > see it as 'conditions'. It's like the 'path' itself. I stopped being so > impatient when I suddenly got a view of how gigantic it was, way beyond > what I could even imagine seeing, like the universe itself. Or when I saw > the Himalayas for the first time [1 out of 2]. You think: 'Well that's > impossible; they're not there.' Then you have to give up, and realize > there are some things so much bigger than you, that it's ridiculous. How > small we are. One's own nature is like that too. The years that I spent > trying to change myself by main force. At some point you give up and > contribute 'what you are' to the situation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > [Jon:] > This is very true, Rob, and well put (I had a similar awesome first view > of the Himalayas). In my own case however, I have found that such > reluctant submission to the reality of the situation is more likely to be > just another ploy by wrong view and other kilesas, than a clear > appreciation of the true nature of the situation. But thanks for the > reminder about acceptance of the 'what is' rather than trying to see the > 'what I think should be'. > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > [Rob:] > So here we are, covering both ends of intention without having the > capacity to intend anything in the first place. None of this has anything > to do with the jhanas, but that's okay. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > [Jon:] > And if it's nothing more than the blind leading the blind, well, at least > we are accepting the 'what we are' :-)) When we get around to it, that > is ... > > Jon > > PS There are quite a number of posts from you in my 'reply to' folder > that I have been working on this weekend. I was tempted to try and > consolidate some of them, to save others being swamped by our multiple > (and marathon) exchanges, but will probably take the easy way out and send > them out one-by-one (in order received, as usual). Dear Jon, I am somewhat chagrined that I have responded to these posts two weeks late, and also in reverse order. Hope that's not too confusing. I was happy to find and finally get to these very considered responses on your part, and thank you much for taking the time to take up these matters. Answering these posts has been very pleasureable, as the subjects are close to my heart and mind. I hope that's not an expression of moha on my part, I mean, enjoying the dialogue 'too much'. : ) Best, Robert Ep. 15352 From: frank kuan Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 3:30pm Subject: ack! It's the attack of the Robs! 10 posts in a row from Robs. I mercifully interrupt the streak before it gets any longer. -fk 15353 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 4:59pm Subject: Re: ack! Hey Frank! I love RobEp 'n Ms posts. The quantity and quality is like baby bears' porridge - not too much, not too little, just right. Mind you, I'm only up to the 'What is Anatta?' one from RobEp to KenO. I enjoy your posts too Frank, but as I see it, the problem really is *you* don't post enough. :)) How about telling us your thoughts on Practice, Progress and Theravada Buddhism in Hawaii. Is it so wonderful living there that you forget what suffering is all about, and don't feel the urgency to escape samsara? Isn't that said to be one of the drawbacks of rebirth as a god or deva? ... Frank - a thought has just struck me - Could it be? ... Dare I ask? ... (oh, no just forget it - Impossible! as Hawaii isn't one of 'The Six Heavenly Realms') :-)) metta, Chris A bit of Trivia: If RobEp or Rob M (or anyone) had been inspired to write yesterday and had a few replies, dsg would have broken an eight month record on the number of posts. We must have all had more energy in March. And what were you lot all doing in February and June, might I ask - I see a need to lift your game? :)) 2002 Jan 601 Feb 471 Mar 752 Apr 716 May 574 Jun 478 Jul 543 Aug 723 ----------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > It's the attack of the Robs! 10 posts in a row from > Robs. I mercifully interrupt the streak before it gets > any longer. > > -fk 15354 From: Antony Woods Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:38pm Subject: Re: Speech and Intentions Dear Christine, Rob M and All, Here are some relevant extracts from "Right Speech" by Ven U Dhamminda (Greg Kleiman): "The second one I translate as tale-bearing and in this translation it's translated as slander. The reason I don't translate it as slander is that slander is usually a lie about somebody that isn't true but in the definition here the person he doesn't slander somebody - he hears something that is true about somebody else or said about somebody else and then he goes and tells somebody else to go and create division amongst them. So it says here "having abandoned slander, he abstains from slander; he does not repeat elsewhere what he has heard here in order to divide others from the people here; nor does he repeat here what he has heard elsewhere in order to divide these from the people there; thus he is a reconciler of those who are divided and a promoter of friendships, rejoicing, delighting and exalting in concord. He speaks only words that are conducive to concord. This too pertains to his moral discipline." So this practice the Buddha is referring to is not telling lies about somebody and constructing lies and fabrications and taking them to other people but you actually hear somebody say bad things about one person and then you go to that person and say "this person said this about you" in order to make them dislike one person and also make them like yourself more - they think you're their friend then. So if it was an outright lie as in slander then that would also come under false speech in the first place - so usually I translate the second one as tale-bearing - taking a story from one person to another, carrying it from one place to another in order to create dissension. So that's the second type of speech that we should abstain from." ........... ........... "For tale-bearing, the commentary says "the act is less blameworthy when the persons one divides are of inferior moral qualities; more blameworthy when they are of superior moral qualities." So this means that when you do an action, the person that you harm, depending upon their virtue, their standing in virtue, the harm that you do to a virtuous person actually gives a worse kammic consequence in the future. If the people are immoral and you engage in tale-bearing and split them up then that one is less reprehensible, it brings less result than if you divide people of virtuous conduct." ........... ........... "It's always best to be honest but sometimes people are honest but it's abusive speech. Sometimes you call someone an idiot when they are, but really you've done it with anger, so not all honest things are actually kusala (wholesome), not all honest speech. Sometimes it's also idle chatter even though it's true. So a lot of people when they say things and you get into a fight with them they tell you that they're just telling you the truth to justify themselves but it doesn't necessarily work that way that that's also wholesome action. The truth can also be unwholesome - even though it's truthful it could be abusive towards somebody and done out of anger." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eightfold-l/message/2203 or for Microsoft Word format: ftp://ftp.buddhanet.net/genbud/rspeech.zip with metta / Antony. 15355 From: frank kuan Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ack! Hi Chris, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hey Frank! I love RobEp 'n Ms posts. The quantity > and quality is > like baby bears' porridge - not too much, not too > little, just > right. :-) > Mind you, I'm only up to the 'What is Anatta?' one > from RobEp to KenO. > I enjoy your posts too Frank, but as I see it, the > problem really is > *you* don't post enough. :)) The world can't handle too many of my posts. Put it this way. I'm in the camp of telling the truth even if it hurts and begins to resemble wrong speech type of person you were talking about :) > How about telling us your thoughts on Practice, > Progress and > Theravada Buddhism in Hawaii. Is it so wonderful > living there that > you forget what suffering is all about, and don't > feel the urgency to > escape samsara? yes. > Isn't that said to be one of the drawbacks of > rebirth as a god or > deva? ... Frank - a thought has just struck me - > Could it be? ... > Dare I ask? ... (oh, no just forget it - Impossible! > as Hawaii isn't > one of 'The Six Heavenly Realms') :-)) > Kauai is pretty close. All I need is a retinue of celestial maidens and a longer life span. Who knows, maybe the tai qi, qi gong, and astanga yoga I'm practicing will take care of the latter. I really haven't checked out the dhamma scene in Kauai. There's a tibetan group that has weekly gatherings, practicing visualization and mantras which I'm totally not interested in doing. A few pure land buddhist groups which I might drop in once just to check it out because Hisayo recommended it. There was a zen sitting group for a few weeks that I was somewhat interested in, but they're not there anymore. Fare lonely as the rhinoceros. Living in a paradise presents challenges in more subtle forms of suffering. For example, I know I don't have enough cash reserves to do this TOO long, so there is an ever present awareness of how transient these pleasures are. Sooner or later, I would either have to leave paradise or trade the subtle dukkha of enjoying bliss for the grosser dukkha of part time employment to pay the bills. Well, back to paradise. :) -fk 15356 From: epsteinrob Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 9:55pm Subject: [dsg] Re: ack! --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > Living in a paradise presents challenges in more > subtle forms of suffering. For example, I know I don't > have enough cash reserves to do this TOO long, so > there is an ever present awareness of how transient > these pleasures are. Sooner or later, I would either > have to leave paradise or trade the subtle dukkha of > enjoying bliss for the grosser dukkha of part time > employment to pay the bills. > > Well, back to paradise. :) Hi Frank! Always enjoy your posts. Feel free to post more, we can take it! : ) Um...Frank, on a more important subject.....uh, how do you feel about having guests? : ) Best, Robert Ep. 15357 From: epsteinrob Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 9:59pm Subject: Re: ack! Don't worry. We Robs are hard at work, producing more posts. And hopefully in the near future....more Robs to come? Rob.....Ep. ================= --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hey Frank! I love RobEp 'n Ms posts. The quantity and quality is > like baby bears' porridge - not too much, not too little, just > right. ... > metta, > Chris > > A bit of Trivia: If RobEp or Rob M (or anyone) had been inspired to > write > yesterday and had a few replies, dsg would have broken an eight month > record on the number of posts. ... > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > > It's the attack of the Robs! 10 posts in a row from > > Robs. I mercifully interrupt the streak before it gets > > any longer. > > > > -fk 15358 From: epsteinrob Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 10:03pm Subject: Re: ack! --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > It's the attack of the Robs! 10 posts in a row from > Robs. I mercifully interrupt the streak before it gets > any longer. > > -fk Thank you Frank! Stop us before we post again!!! Rob, Rob and Rob. 15359 From: epsteinrob Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 10:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > If one were to take the position that nibbana, being the absence of > all conditions, is sui generis, neither nama nor rupa, but, like all the > conditioned dhammas, takable as an object, I would find that a bit more > reasonable. But even that would be troublesome to me. The notion of the > unconditioned dhamma serving as object for a conditioned dhamma, namely > citta, is at best odd. It seems to me plausible that there could be the > awareness of the *imminence* of cessation (or even of the cessation, itself, > i.e., the *entry* to nibbana), a kind of an experiencing of nibbana at a > distance like the feeling when one is *about* to pass out (or is passing > out), or *about* to drop off to sleep (or is dropping off to sleep). If that > is what it means for lokutara cittas to experience nibbana, that would make > sense to me. It would amount to the awareness by conditioned dhammas of their > imminent demise, which might correspond to what the Zen Buddhists sometimes > describe as water breaking through the bottom of the bucket. But nibbana, > itself, the utter absence of all conditions, does not strike me as something > which is cognizable by conditioned cittas, nor could it be something which > could serve as object, in the usual sense of 'object', even for itself. If > nibbana is nama, that nama would have to be a nondual awareness radically > different from all conditioned nama, close, perhaps, to what the Zen people > mean by 'no-mind'. It would have to be an awareness without an object, and, > in that case, even using the word 'awareness' is misleading, because nibbana > is totally "other" from anything we have known. That, and only that, would > satisfactorily account for nibbana being nama, from my perspective. It seems > to me that nibbana, the summum bonum, is not a darkness, but a light, not > dead, but alive, not avijja, but vijja. That would make sense to me. Dear Howard, Glad to see you getting back to one of my favorite topics, and asking such interesting questions regarding nibbana. Thanks, Robert Ep. 15360 From: epsteinrob Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 10:31pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" < > "Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases without remainder. > By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here." Dear Robert, If there is no nama, no rupa, no consciousness in nibbana, why is nibbana known as a nama? > Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness just because one of > its Pali names happens to be Viññanam. What does Vinnanam mean in this case, if not consciousness? > In English language, the term 'object' can have different meanings. > For example, the term 'object' in visual object has no relation to > the term 'object' in my object of studying Pali. In what sense is the word 'object' used in relation to Nibbana? What sort of object is it? In what sense is it an object? As Howard has pointed out, an object should rather be a rupa than a nama. if Nibbana is an 'object' that is at the same time a 'nama', can this not be explained more specifically so that these terms can be understood in this case? Thanks, Robert Ep. 15361 From: epsteinrob Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 10:34pm Subject: Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "bodhi2500" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "abhidhammika" wrote: > >Therefore, Nibbana is not mind. > > > > Hi > Could someone please explain why Nibbana is called a Nama. > Seems confusing to say Nibbana is not mind ,but it is a Nama. > > Thank-you > Steve Yes, it is also confusing that it is said of Nibbana that 'all namas and rupas cease here' and yet Nibbana itself is a nama. How can the 'object' that is the cesssation of both nama and rupa itself be a nama at the same time that all namas have ceased? Robert Ep. 15362 From: epsteinrob Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 10:46pm Subject: Re: ADL ch. 22 (4) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Those who have attained the fourth stage of arupa-jhana, the 'Sphere of > Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception' and have also realized the stage > of enlightenment of the anagami or of the arahat, can attain 'cessation' > (nirodha-samapatti) which is the temporary ceasing of bodily and mental > activities. The person who has attained 'cessation' ('the stopping of > perception and feeling') is different from a corpse. ... But that monk who > has attained to the stopping of perception and feeling, although his > bodily activities have been stopped, have subsided, although his vocal > activities have been stopped, have subsided, although his mental > activities have been stopped, have subsided, his vitality is not > entirely destroyed, his heat is not allayed, his sense- organs are > purified. This, your reverence, is the difference between a dead thing, > passed away, and that monk who has attained to the stopping of > perception and feeling.' ... The Buddha said: > > 'It is good, Anuruddha , it is good. But did you, Anuruddha , by passing > quite beyond this abiding, by allaying this abiding, reach another state > of further-men, an excellent knowledge and vision befitting the ariyans, > an abiding in comfort?' > > 'How could this not be, Lord? Here we, Lord, for as long as we like, by > passing quite beyond the plane of neither perception-nor-non-perception, > entering on the stopping of perception and feeling, abide in it, and > having seen through intuitive wisdom, our cankers come to be utterly > destroyed. By passing quite beyond that abiding, Lord, by allaying that > abiding, another state of further-men, an excellent knowledge and vision > befitting the ariyans, an abiding in comfort is reached. But we, Lord, > do not behold another abiding in comfort that is higher or more > excellent than this abiding in comfort,' > > 'It is good, Anuruddha, it is good. There is no other abiding in comfort > that is higher or more excellent than this abiding in comfort.' This material is quite wonderful, a good view of the properties of the enlightened and the near enlightened. It provides strong suggestions as to the ultimate difference between enlightenment and complete cessation. Best, Robert Ep. 15363 From: epsteinrob Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 10:49pm Subject: Re: Anapanasati, Rob Ep, Rob Ep, Rob Ep. ha ha, thanks for the nice header!!! I am really looking forward to reading this, probably tomorrow, since I seem to be falling asleep...... : ) Best, Robert Ep. ========== --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Anapana Sati. Part 3: > We should go back to the second tetrad, group of four, of the sutta on > Mindfulness of Breathing: > V) He trains thus ; he trains > thus . (VI) He trains thus shall breathe in experiencing bliss>; he trains thus experiencing bliss>. (VII) He trains thus the mental formation>; he trains thus mental formation>. (VIII) He trains thus the mental formation>; he trains thus the mental formation. > On that occasion, monks, a monk abides contemplating the feelings in the > feelings, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having put away > covetousness and grief regarding the world. > I say that this, monks, is a certain feeling among the feelings, namely, = the > giving attention completely to in-breathing and out-breathing. That is wh= y > on that occasion, monks, a monk abides contemplating the feelings in the > feelings, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having put away > covetousness and grief regarding the world. > > As regards the second tetrad (marked V-VIII), the Visuddhimagga (VIII, 22= 6) > comments: > > (V) He trains thus happiness>, that is, making happiness (píti, also translated as rapture) > known, making it plain. Herein, the happiness is experienced in two ways:= > (a) with the object, and (b) with non-confusion. > > As regards , the Visuddhimagga (VI= II, > 227) explains: > > How is happiness experienced with the object? He attains the two jhånas i= n > which happiness (píti) is present. At the time when he has actually ente= red > upon them the happiness is experienced with the object owing to the > obtaining of the jhåna, because of the experiencing of the object. > > After the jhånacitta has fallen away paññå realizes the characteristic of= > píti as it is: only a kind of nåma, which is impermanent and not self. We= > read: > > SHow with non-confusion? When, after entering upon and emerging from one = of > the two jhånas accompanied by píti, he comprehends with insight that > happiness associated with the jhåna as liable to destruction and fall, th= en > at the actual time of insight the happiness is experienced with > non-confusion owing to the penetration of its characteristics (of > impermanence, and so on). > The Vis. quotes from the Path of Discrimination with regard to the > experience of happiness with non-confusion: > steadies his mind, resolves with faith, exerts energy, establishes > mindfulness, concentrates his mind, understands with understanding, direc= tly > knows what is to be directly-known, fully understands what is to be fully= > understood, abandons what is to be abandoned, realizes what is to be > realized. it is in this way that that happiness is experienced (Ps. I, 18= 7)> > In a similar way the words of the second tetrad are explained by the > Visuddhimagga: (VI) I shall breathe inSbreathe out experiencing bliss > (sukha, pleasant feeling)S > Sukha occurs in three stages of jhåna (of the fourfold system); it does n= ot > arise in the highest stage of jhåna where there is equanimity instead of > sukha. Sukha accompanies the jhånacitta of the three stages of jhåna and = is, > after the jhånacitta has fallen away, realized by paññå as impermanent. > > The realization of the characteristic of impermanence can only occur when= > the stages of insight knowledge have been developed, beginning with tende= r > insight, as I said before. Thus both jhana and insight have been develope= d > here. As to VI amd VII, experiencing mental formation, citta sankhara, an= d > tranquillizing mental formation: the Vis. VIII, 229, explains that mental= > formation pertains here to feeling and perception, sanna. The feeling is > associated with perception (Vis. VIII, 230). The Vis. quotes here from th= e > Path of Discrimination: things are bound up with citta and are mind functions.> > > The Vis. adds that this tetrad deals with the contemplation of feeling. > > The Co, the Papa~casuudanii, speaks about a , > vedanaa~n~nantara.m. certain one among the three feelings.> > As to the words of the sutta, 3The giving attention completely2, the Co > explains that although attention is not pleasant feeling it comes under t= he > heading of feeling. The Co repeats what has been stated in the Vis. about= > experiencing rapture and pleasant feeling with the object and with > non-delusion. The Co then states: > is present, and emerged therefrom, he masters rapture associated with jha= na > (by contemplating it) as destructable and perishable. By his penetration = of > its characteristics at the moment of insight, rapture is experienced by h= im > with non-delusion. For this is said in the Path of Discrimination:2 For o= ne > who knows one-pointedness and non-distraction of mind through breathing i= n > long, mindfulness is established. By means of that mindfulness and that > insight that rapture is experienced with non-delusion, because the three > characteristics are realized.> > The Commnetary explains that in the same way bliss and citta sankhara, th= e > mental formation, are experienced and that it is thus rightly stated that= > the monk contemplates feelings in the feelings. > The Commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta states that contemplating feelin= gs > in the feelings should be seen in the same way as contemplating the body = in > the body: thus, in order to limit the object and 3sifting it out2. We rea= d: > feeling because it is the stuff of suffering, as suffering. Painful feeli= ng > because it is the condition of bringing out trouble, etc. , as a thorn. A= nd > the neither pleasurable nor painful feeling, because of non-mastery or > dependence and so forth, as transiency.> > ****** > Nina. 15364 From: Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 10:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation and Satipatthana Hi Rob Ep (&Jon), I very much appreciate your comments but I think I want to take exception to characterizing satipatthana as a discrimination between concept and paramattha dhammas. In doing a quick review of Ven Nyanaponika's "The Heart of Buddhist Meditation" it occurs to me that the practice as it is outlined in the sutta makes extensive use of concepts. The contemplation of mind objects seems to be overtly contemplative and therefore necessarily conceptual. The other categories of mindfulness seem to have a mix of contemplation and identifying present experience. This identification is tantamount to naming and is therefore pannatti. Admittedly concept is not recognized as an object. It seems that there is some variation among the various meditation traditions as to what to emphasize. Apparently nothing is set in stone. Many traditions focus on the breath in a one pointed manner but I think this may be an attempt to mix satipatthana and jhana. There is no mention of 'one pointed focus' in the satipatthana. (Don't know about Anapanasati Sutta) What I see in the Satipatthana Sutta is an emphasis on identifying experience in a simple straight forward objective way and understanding certain processes. Not an attempt to get to a really real experience. Contemplation definitely stands out. So, I may have erred in scolding Nina for not meditating. The study and contemplation of abhidhamma could encompass samma sati. Although it is extremely unconventional for a Buddhist to have never meditated. I think this is unique to Acharn Sujin and her school. Many, if not most, meditation traditions are wary of jhana. This makes me a little uneasy. Not sure what to make of it. There *are* dangers. The Tibetans are very heavy duty meditators but there is lots of supervision and many levels of training. Sorry for the ramble. I expect Kom would object to what I said about concept and paramattha dhammas, but he is probably too busy to respond. Larry 15365 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 11:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation and Satipatthana Hi Jon and RobEp, Larry, Howard, and All, First of all, Happy Fathers Day to all Aussie and Kiwi Dads - plus 'Honorary Aussie Dad for the Day' Howard, who didn't have such a happy time on the US Fathers Day.(though I know your family will have made it up to you in the meantime.:) I was reading RobEp's reply to Jon, and, to refresh my memory (as you two take so long to reply to each other :)) I went to the archive at escribe to use the excellent 'view all messages in this thread' facility. http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ This subject obviously is part of a longer thread, but only shows on escribe as having two messages in the thread. This happens with other threads on occasion also. As some of us don't read all messages or all threads until a later date, changing the subject title will be detrimental to us unless the 'reply' is attached to the original thread somehow. Does anyone know what interferes with compiling threads at escribe and what a solution could be? I am intensely interested in your discussions about practice. What is bhavana and does it mean meditation in the formal sense? If not, why does Thanissaro Bhikkhu always translate it that way? I am sincerely grateful to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and have no criticism about his intentions or scholarship. It is just that I recall the frustration I felt when looking on Access to Insight for Suttas regarding Abhidhamma, only to find those suttas mentioned in articles, books or journals were ones he had not translated into English. So, English speakers seem only to have been offered a rather 'selective' view of the suttas. His translations of suttas have been the main nourishment of a whole generation of computer literate Western Buddhists who don't question the absolute accuracy of the translations and thus the meanings that he determines. Could there be an unrecognised bias? A conductor, following his own interests and thereby unconsciously orchestrating the practices of a whole Tradition? What do you reckon? I never seem to settle on a conclusion about whether formal sitting meditation is essential, or just a nice way to fill in a bit of time and feel good. Is it the product of lobha, the craving for calm, peace and the feeling of a 'self' doing' something, having control? and, hence, not likely to lead to insight? I waver back and forth. I know this has been discussed before, but (IMHO) the discussion has never been as thorough, engaged in with such goodwill and as constructive as I see this one progressing between the two of you, spread over a number of threads.. I was very interested to read a remark you made Jon (not sure where) that your understanding was that formal meditation was a fairly modern phenomena .... metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Rob Ep (&Jon), > > I very much appreciate your comments but I think I want to take > exception to characterizing satipatthana as a discrimination between > concept and paramattha dhammas. In doing a quick review of Ven > Nyanaponika's "The Heart of Buddhist Meditation" it occurs to me that > the practice as it is outlined in the sutta makes extensive use of > concepts. The contemplation of mind objects seems to be overtly > contemplative and therefore necessarily conceptual. The other categories > of mindfulness seem to have a mix of contemplation and identifying > present experience. This identification is tantamount to naming and is > therefore pannatti. Admittedly concept is not recognized as an object. > > It seems that there is some variation among the various meditation > traditions as to what to emphasize. Apparently nothing is set in stone. > Many traditions focus on the breath in a one pointed manner but I think > this may be an attempt to mix satipatthana and jhana. There is no > mention of 'one pointed focus' in the satipatthana. (Don't know about > Anapanasati Sutta) > > What I see in the Satipatthana Sutta is an emphasis on identifying > experience in a simple straight forward objective way and understanding > certain processes. Not an attempt to get to a really real experience. > Contemplation definitely stands out. So, I may have erred in scolding > Nina for not meditating. The study and contemplation of abhidhamma could > encompass samma sati. Although it is extremely unconventional for a > Buddhist to have never meditated. I think this is unique to Acharn Sujin > and her school. > > Many, if not most, meditation traditions are wary of jhana. This makes > me a little uneasy. Not sure what to make of it. There *are* dangers. > The Tibetans are very heavy duty meditators but there is lots of > supervision and many levels of training. > > Sorry for the ramble. I expect Kom would object to what I said about > concept and paramattha dhammas, but he is probably too busy to respond. > > Larry 15366 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 3:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ack! Hi Chris & Frank, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > A bit of Trivia: If RobEp or Rob M (or anyone) had been inspired to > write > yesterday and had a few replies, dsg would have broken an eight month > record on the number of posts. We must have all had more energy in > March. And what were you lot all doing in February and June, might I > ask - I see a need to lift your game? :)) .... This is great, Chris... I see you’ve taken on the List Cheer Leadership without any prompting. We’ll add it to your accumulating titles. If you wish to give a monthly report (with right speech and no slander of course), no need to fear the ‘telling the truth even if it hurts and begins to resemble wrong speech’ when it comes to Frank;-) Frank, you suggest ‘the world can’t handle too many of my posts’ and I’m inclined to agree....rumours tell me we should be grateful for receiving the self-moderated ones here;-) I think a ‘whacky wit’ was about what I had in mind. You are getting plenty of brownie points and thankfully your earlier comment to Howard and Rob Ep on Herman’s homepage viewing was too obscure for me to follow. Luckily we are still blessed by Jesus on the homepage in Hong Kong (Asian censors know we have delicate atta-less souls here;-)) Two suggestions for cash reserves in Paradise: 1. Move to Koh Samui for half the year: - Great surf in winter months (forget June-August), a debating neighbour to challenge any idea you’ve ever had about Buddhism (read: Erik), occasional visits from us to join you in the surf, yoga and tai-chi on the beach and assistance with the debates with Erik, super cheap accomo and living (read: Erik can arrange it all), celestial maidens? (read: no comment). 2. Maybe we could turn the ‘Abhidhamma for Family Insomnia’ into a best-seller between us. I have quite a few favourites already. While others count sheep, I count cetasikas in order (phassa, vedana, sanna.....) or paccaya (hetu, arammana, adhipati...). Usually I get lost and have to return to the start and that’s the point that sleep always kicks in. Just like one might introduce variations into an astanga series, one can start introducing the sub-categories if it gets easy. Of course there are many simpler ones like khandhas of Noble 8fold Path and then there are the hard ones like the 89 or 121 cittas (I’m falling asleep at the thought) and so on. We could add a few monopoly-type rules....you can’t pass a list until it’s without mistake or something like that, but that might only be acceptable to the ‘tell the truth even if it hurts’ members;-) ***** Just to show we’re not merely following trivial pursuits and Heavenly Realms, let me quote from ‘Good Sleep’ (AN,3s,p.50 B.Bodhi trans) for those with greater confidence in the Suttas and for those who are beyond need of any cures for insomnia: “ “Now, prince, the lust, hatred and delusion by which that householder is tormented, and which cause him to sleep bacly, have been abandoned by the Tathagata, cut off at the root, made barren like palm-tree stumps, obliterated so that they are no more subject to arise in the future. Therefore, prince, I have slept well.” The brahmin who is quenched within Always sleeps happily; he does not cling to sensual desires, Free from props, one cool in mind. Having cut all straps of attachment, Removed care deep within the heart, the peaceful One sleeps happily, Attained to perfect peace of mind.” ***** Sarah p.s. One last silly thought - Perhaps Christian sites have a Buddha blessing the homepage?? ==================================================== 15367 From: rikpa21 Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 7:27am Subject: Re: Anapanasati and Mindfulness Practice --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: Hi Rob & Jon, Rob: > How ever, [Jon] may be > correct that sitting and focussing on the breathing in a formal session may not be > explicitly mentioned in the sutta. To get a bit Clintonian, this seems a case of it depending on what the definition of 'is' is. The hermeneutical hair-splitting on this point of formal practice vs. no formal practice seems little more than eel-wriggling (amaravikkhepa). Unless of course we're talking about meditation with or without a black tie, in which case, I'd say that the best meditation is informal, since a black tie tends to hinder breathing, constrict the flow of blood to the brain, and thus serves as a support condition for the meditative hindrances of sloth & torpor (thinha and middha). Besides, the Dhamma taught by the Buddha is aimed at helping us get rid of ties of all kinds, so I think we can set this aside and get down to what matters: all proper meditation is informal, yet within a very clear set of guidelines that instruct us on seeking out the very best possible conditions for replicating the Buddha's understanding ourselves. If one reads carefully, without extreme bias, I do not think there's much room for eel-wriggling wrt. to regular practice performed in the ways outlined by the Buddha, since these comprise the essential aspects of the path, and are thus prerequisites. On this point, the [Anapanasati] Sutta seems pretty clear to me: "Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination? "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." Recently, thanks to Howard's fine inspiration, I have begun again to follow my respiration (after pretending to be practicing "daily life" mediattion), so that before my expiration, there is only the remainderless cessation and fading away of that ignorance that conceives of an "I, me, mine". I can only attest to the efficacy of following these instructions in my own practice--to the point that the difference between following them vs. not following them is as stark as night and day. Others may have different experiences; so be it. Jon: > > Would you agree that the Anapanasati Sutta is an elaboration of a > > particular passage within the Satipatthana Sutta and, as such, should be > > read in the overall context of the Satipatthana Sutta? The Buddha suggests that anapanasati is sufficient to bring all four foundations to their culmination: "[4] On whatever occasion a monk trains himself to breathe in... &... out focusing on inconstancy; trains himself to breathe in... &... out focusing on dispassion; trains himself to breathe in... &... out focusing on cessation; trains himself to breathe in... &... out focusing on relinquishment: On that occasion the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- subduing greed & distress with reference to the world. He who sees clearly with discernment the abandoning of greed & distress is one who oversees with equanimity, which is why the monk on that occasion remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. "This is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued so as to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination." It is left as an exercise to the lightly-biased reader how to interpret the last sentence. If the Sutta merely ended here, it would still be "good enough" to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination. But it doesn't. It goes much further than that. "And how are the four frames of reference developed & pursued so as to bring the seven factors for Awakening to their culmination?" [...] Here the Buddha hasn't just detailed how anapanasati brings the Four Foundations of Mindfulness to their culmination, but goes on to describe how these act as the foundation for the seven factors of awakening as well: "This is how the seven factors for Awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." [...] In other words, according to what the Buddha taught, following the in-breath & out-breath with right mindfulness is "good enough" (and that's all it need be--perfectionism and the fear of doing something even a little wrong is a nasty enemy of development of all kinds), and leads all the way to the end of the path. > Just my own presumption that meditation would be the setting for this practice, > and of course, I am used to Theravada traditions which have interpreted it that > way for centuries. And thank the Buddhas for that interpretation, otherwise the Buddha- sasana would be a mouldering corpse by now. Rob: > Honestly, Abhidhamma is the only tradition I have personally ever come > across that casts any doubt on [formal practice]. Hmmm... If any interpretation of the Dhamma serves as a condition for skeptical doubt (vicikicca) about the efficacy of the practices outlined by the Buddha in great detail, especially ones (like anapanasati) praised so highly by the Tathagata, then I strongly question that interpretation, and would encourage others to do the same. The Abhidhamma "school" (Vaibhasika), for example, is rejected in the Tibetan Geluk school's analysis of Right View. It is rejected on the basis that it asserts ultimately, or truly, self-existing realities--paramattha dhammas. This was a view held by enough Abhidhammikas to warrant special attention and refutation. Such is the danger of the Abhidhamma as a "school", that it is the first one dispensed with by Je Tsongkhapa in the analysis of what is definitive (nitattha), and what requires further interpretation (neyyattha). Je Tsongkhapa moves on to subtler and subtler schools' views, such as "Mind Only" (Cittamatra/Yogacara)--that there is only Mind as an absolute reality, for example. I mention this only to point out the pitfalls of Abhidhamma, grasped at the wrong way. It can and does bite, sometimes fatally. In other words, if the study of Abhidhamma isn't informed by direct knowledge of the Path and is taken for a system in itself, divorced from direct meditative experience, or, for that matter, the Suttas, that it is at best useless puff, and a potentially dangerous trap. It is very easy to misuse the Abhidhamma's classifications to create extremely subtle and pernicious views that /sound/ right, but are really the near enemy of authentic understanding. In terms of true understanding--the understanding the Buddha was trying to point us at with every word--all views are direct hindrances to that understanding. In other words, interpretations of the Abhidhamma uninformed by direct meditative experience of the path are potentially fatal traps--especially for those with overweening intellectual pride, the perfectionists who obsess over minutiae and miss the bigger picture, or those who believe that study (pariyatti) alone, without the concomitant discipline and development (patipatti), leads to direct knowledge (pativedha). When the study of Abhidhamma /is/ informed by direct meditative experience, I see the Abhidhamma as a very useful pedagogical tool, both in terms of helping experienced meditators put a label on those experiences, and as an aid to communicating that experience within a common framework. I see it as especially useful for those tasked with instructing others on points of Dhamma, since its theoretical (with the emphasis on theoretical) breakdowns can be very helpful for teachers who need to give a student further explanation on certain points. Rob: > I wonder if > there are living traditions of Theravada that can still trace the verbal teachings > of the early Arahants back to their roots? I have no idea if this is the case. Does it really matter if a teaching can be traced back to the arahants of old, or even the Buddha? The only thing that matters, in the final analysis, is the direct knowledge of the Dhamma. The Buddha observed that the Dhamma is ehipassiko (to be investigated directly), sanditthiko (bearing visible results here & now), and akaliko (timeless). Unless the Dhamma is realized directly, all there is is the /belief/ that the Buddha pointed out the correct path. And until it is verified directly, one's understanding remains consigned to the realm of speculation, conjecture, belief, and views. Jon: > > You ask why, out of all the 'practices', mindfulness of breathing has been > > singled out for its own sutta. If we had access to the commentary we > > would probably have an authoratitive anser to that question. The only authoritative answer is found in the direct knowledge and vision of the way. One could spend lifetimes without end learning every category of the Abhidhamma, memorizing the Suttas, and still never know the cool peace of Nibbana. > We have covered a lot, but still cannot settle the main object of our discussion! The only thing that needs settling is the untamed mind! :) May all beings have happiness and cause of happiness! Cheers, Erik 15368 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 7:29am Subject: Perfections, Ch 5, Wisdom, no. 3 Perfections, Ch 5, Wisdom, no. 3. People who have developed paññå know that dukkha, suffering, arises because of clinging to rúpa. In order to abandon dukkha, we should eliminate clinging to rúpas. The dukkha in our life is caused by rúpas, because we cling and take delight in the sense objects of colour, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object. All these objects are the cause of diverse kinds of dukkha. Further on we read: The term ³by rúpas² (rúpesu) means: by the four great Elements and the derived rúpas that are dependent on these 3). Beings are disturbed and troubled, they are hurt and killed because of rúpa; rúpa is the condition and the cause of this. Because of rúpa, Kings commit many kinds of deeds, they inflict many kinds of punishment. They have someone beaten by whips.... They have people¹s hands, feet, earlobs, and nose cut off. They have a pot of boiling rice placed on someone¹s head.... Since there are rúpas one will experience the effect of being punished, one will be beaten by whips etc. We read further on: The skin of the head is stripped off so that its colour is white as a conchshell...their body is cut up and smeared with a biting liquid...They have their skin stripped off, their bones smashed; they have the body sprinkled with hot oil; they let the dogs eat the flesh of their body, they let their body be pierced by spears, or they have it cut up with a knife.... All beings are bound to be troubled, harmed and killed, because of rúpa. One can see, investigate and consider this so that paññå develops and one sees clearly that all beings are troubled and harmed in those ways. Therefore the Buddha said, that he saw all beings being troubled because of rúpa. When we part from this world, we do not know where we will go. It may happen that we shall receive punishment in the aforesaid ways. So long as we have a body we do not know what will happen to it, but when there is a cause for receiving tortures, which is the result of akusala kamma, rúpa is the cause, the reason for experiencing painful feeling. We read further on: When the eyesight declines, or even disappears altogether, people are troubled. Apart from trouble caused by the ear, the nose, the tongue, visible object, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object, it is caused by the family (which supports the monk), by the fellow monks of the monastery, gain, honour, praise, wellbeing, robes, almsfood, dwelling, medicines; when these things decline or disappear altogether so that one is without them, people are troubled. Because of these reasons it is said that everybody is disturbed because of rúpa. One should eliminate attachment to rúpa so that one can give it up in this life. With regard to Pingiya, he attained enlightenment when the Buddha had finished this Dhamma discourse. We see from this example that although Pingiya had accumulated perfections through listening to the Dhamma, he also needed the perfection of energy and of patience because paññå develops only very gradually, it is a long and difficult process. The perfection of truthfulness and the perfection of determination are a nessary foundation for being able to listen to the Dhamma. One should be unshakable in one¹s determination to listen, no matter in what circumstances one may be. Footnote: 3. The four Great Elements are: Earth or solidity, Water or cohesion, Fire or temperature and Wind, motion or pressure. The derived rúpas are twenty four rúpas. Rúpas arise and fall away in groups, consisting of at least eight rúpas: the four Great Elements and four derived rúpas. 15369 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 7:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind Hi Howard, see below, I do not have much to add, since the subject is so difficult and not much is explained in the texts. The Vis. has Recollection of Peace, and there you will see the description of nibbana as a refuge, which you rightly mentioned. It is also in the Suttas described as the cool. op 31-08-2002 15:51 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: Old post: In the first book of the Abhidhamma, the Dhammasangani (Buddhist >> Psychological Ethics) Nibbana is referred to as the unconditioned element, >> asankhata dhatu (See Appendix II) and it is nama or arupa( non rupa), but >> it >> is different from conditioned nama, it does not experience an object. >> Realities are either nama or rupa, and since nibbana is not rupa it is >> classified as nama. >> > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > So, by fiat, all dhammas are namas or rupas. But if nibbana is not > cognitive in any sense whatsoever, why is it not, then, a rupa? Nina: nibbana is not a place where one would go to, it could not be physical. But if we take it that all phenomena are either nama or rupa, nibbana must be nama. I understand if that does not appeal so much to you. ----------------------------------------------------------- old post: Kom has explained very clearly about the> >> classification >> of the four paramattha dhammas. >> We read in the Atthasalini, Expositor (II, Book II, Part II, Suttanta >> Couplets, 392) an explanation of nama. Nama is derived from namati, >> bending >> towards an object, and it can also be a name. Citta and cetasika bend >> towards an object, experience an object. And also: they cause one another >> to >> bend on to the object: "The four khandhas are name (nama) in the sense of >> bending, for they bend towards the object. In the sense of causing to bend >> all (of the foregoing, namely nibbana and the four nama khandhas) are >> "name" >> (nama). >> > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > But nama pertains to bending *towards*, not *causing* something else > to bend towards it. > -------------------------------------------------- N: For the four khandhas cause one another to bend on to the object;> >> and nibbana bends faultless dhammas on to itself by means of the causal >> relation of the dominant influence of the object." > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Talking about "bending", I find this not just a stretch, but a > *contortion*! N: Yes, it is difficult to understand, I could not blame you. The commentator uses often word associations: nama and namati, to bend. We should try to get to the meaning. I could use another word: the object draws the citta to itself, the citta is drawn towards it, citta inclines towards the object, bends towards the object. Is that more acceptable? The lokuttara citta is drawn towards nibbana, inclines towards nibbana. The conditions are right for its arising, nobody can prevent it from experiencing nibbana. Example of citta drawn towards, bending towards an object: I try to read my Email with concentration, but alas, the unmusical neighbour up blows her recorder so loudly that I must hear it. I am just drawn towards that sound, even though I like to concentrate, not to speak of the aversion. The object is is intruding, it bends, causes citta to incline towards it. Here I am not speaking of object predominance (this unpleasant sound is not highly valued, not object predominance-condiiton) and not of nibbana. The old post: Thus, nibbana does not bend towards an object, it does not experience an >> object, but, it is predominant object condition for the lokuttara cittas >> that experience it, it bends them towards itself in that way. > N: the object is highly estimable, highly valued. ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > That makes it closer to being a rupa (towards which the mind bends) > than a nama (which does the bending). N: If nibbana were experiencing an object, it would be conditioned by that object. Since nama is unconditioned, as you agree, it could not experience any object. You may remember Suan's post to Rob Ep about the luminous mind, and also what Jim wrote. These were long discussions. I understand that you find my arguments not satisfactory. So long as we have not developed precise understanding of citta, cetasika and rupa, and the way they are conditioned, how could we understand the unconditioned dhamma? I better understand sound now, pleasant or unpleasant, hearing, aversion on account of it. > ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: (snip) The notion of the > unconditioned dhamma serving as object for a conditioned dhamma, namely > citta, is at best odd. It seems to me plausible that there could be the > awareness of the *imminence* of cessation (or even of the cessation, itself, > i.e., the *entry* to nibbana), a kind of an experiencing of nibbana at a > distance like the feeling when one is *about* to pass out (or is passing > out), or *about* to drop off to sleep (or is dropping off to sleep). If that > is what it means for lokutara cittas to experience nibbana, that would make > sense to me. It would amount to the awareness by conditioned dhammas of their > imminent demise, which might correspond to what the Zen Buddhists sometimes > describe as water breaking through the bottom of the bucket. But nibbana, > itself, the utter absence of all conditions, does not strike me as something > which is cognizable by conditioned cittas, nor could it be something which > could serve as object, in the usual sense of 'object', even for itself. N: Of course we cannot understand this yet. One of those things we just read about. H: If nibbana is nama, that nama would have to be a nondual awareness radically > different from all conditioned nama, close, perhaps, to what the Zen people > mean by 'no-mind'. It would have to be an awareness without an object, and, > in that case, even using the word 'awareness' is misleading, because nibbana > is totally "other" from anything we have known. That, and only that, would > satisfactorily account for nibbana being nama, from my perspective. N: Right, it is totally unknown from anything we have known. H:It seems > to me that nibbana, the summum bonum, is not a darkness, but a light, not > dead, but alive, not avijja, but vijja. That would make sense to me. N: I am afraid to say much, because whatever we say, it may be wrong. Vis. VII, 248: nibbana is: the auspicious, the safe, the marvellous, the intact, the unafflicted, the purity, the island, the shelter. But not vijja, because that is a property of citta, panna cetasika which knows nibbana. Panna is called illumination. Best wishes from Nina. 15370 From: Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 3:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind Hi, Rob - In a message dated 9/1/02 1:35:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > Yes, it is also confusing that it is said of Nibbana that 'all namas > and rupas cease here' and yet Nibbana itself is a nama. How can the > 'object' that is the cesssation of both nama and rupa itself be a nama > at the same time that all namas have ceased? > > ============================ Well, I would think that the word 'nama' is serving double duty here. In << Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases without remainder. By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here. >> I think that 'nama' simply means 'conditioned nama' - that is, it refers to citta and cetasika. Most often, 'nama' means 'conditioned nama'. I think the apparent contradiction here is not substantive, but is just due to the language being a bit underspecific. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15371 From: Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 4:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation and Satipatthana Hi, Larry - In a message dated 9/1/02 1:51:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Rob Ep (&Jon), > > I very much appreciate your comments but I think I want to take > exception to characterizing satipatthana as a discrimination between > concept and paramattha dhammas. In doing a quick review of Ven > Nyanaponika's "The Heart of Buddhist Meditation" it occurs to me that > the practice as it is outlined in the sutta makes extensive use of > concepts. The contemplation of mind objects seems to be overtly > contemplative and therefore necessarily conceptual. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: In fact, I've seen expositors who describe dhammanupassana (sp?) as contemplation of ideas! (Such as the 4 noble truths) --------------------------------------------------- The other categories> > of mindfulness seem to have a mix of contemplation and identifying > present experience. This identification is tantamount to naming and is > therefore pannatti. Admittedly concept is not recognized as an object. > > It seems that there is some variation among the various meditation > traditions as to what to emphasize. Apparently nothing is set in stone. > Many traditions focus on the breath in a one pointed manner but I think > this may be an attempt to mix satipatthana and jhana. There is no > mention of 'one pointed focus' in the satipatthana. (Don't know about > Anapanasati Sutta) > > What I see in the Satipatthana Sutta is an emphasis on identifying > experience in a simple straight forward objective way and understanding > certain processes. Not an attempt to get to a really real experience. > Contemplation definitely stands out. So, I may have erred in scolding > Nina for not meditating. The study and contemplation of abhidhamma could > encompass samma sati. Although it is extremely unconventional for a > Buddhist to have never meditated. I think this is unique to Acharn Sujin > and her school. > > Many, if not most, meditation traditions are wary of jhana. This makes > me a little uneasy. Not sure what to make of it. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: In most cases, the wariness does *not* bring with it the suggestion of avoidance. It is generally considered a very useful preparation of the mind for investigation of dhammas, holding hindrances at bay, suppressing defilements, and making the mind flexible and fit for further work. The wariness, as I see it, is twofold: 1) jhana alone will not result in liberation, and 2) the delight of the jhanas is a danger - the ecstacy engendered can be addictive. ------------------------------------------------------- > > The Tibetans are very heavy duty meditators but there is lots of > supervision and many levels of training. > > Sorry for the ramble. I expect Kom would object to what I said about > concept and paramattha dhammas, but he is probably too busy to respond. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, hey, your timing was superb, then! ;-)) ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > > =========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15372 From: Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 5:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind Hi, Nina - In a message dated 9/1/02 10:31:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Hi Howard, > see below, I do not have much to add, since the subject is so difficult and > not much is explained in the texts. The Vis. has Recollection of Peace, and > there you will see the description of nibbana as a refuge, which you > rightly > mentioned. It is also in the Suttas described as the cool. > op 31-08-2002 15:51 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > Old post: In the first book of the Abhidhamma, the Dhammasangani (Buddhist > >> Psychological Ethics) Nibbana is referred to as the unconditioned > element, > >> asankhata dhatu (See Appendix II) and it is nama or arupa( non rupa), > but > >> it > >> is different from conditioned nama, it does not experience an object. > >> Realities are either nama or rupa, and since nibbana is not rupa it is > >> classified as nama. > >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > So, by fiat, all dhammas are namas or rupas. But if nibbana is not > > cognitive in any sense whatsoever, why is it not, then, a rupa? > Nina: nibbana is not a place where one would go to, it could not be > physical. But if we take it that all phenomena are either nama or rupa, > nibbana must be nama. I understand if that does not appeal so much to you. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, actually it very much appeals to me. My intention was to zero in on exactly *why* it is a nama. I wanted to carry out a bit of an analysis, looking at various sides of the issue. My main point is that nibbana, inexpressible as it is, should nevertheless not be thought of as some dead and isolated dhamma without cognitive aspect. ----------------------------------------------------------- > ----------------------------------------------------------- > old post: Kom has explained very clearly about the> > >> classification > >> of the four paramattha dhammas. > >> We read in the Atthasalini, Expositor (II, Book II, Part II, Suttanta > >> Couplets, 392) an explanation of nama. Nama is derived from namati, > >> bending > >> towards an object, and it can also be a name. Citta and cetasika bend > >> towards an object, experience an object. And also: they cause one > another > >> to > >> bend on to the object: "The four khandhas are name (nama) in the sense > of > >> bending, for they bend towards the object. In the sense of causing to > bend > >> all (of the foregoing, namely nibbana and the four nama khandhas) are > >> "name" > >> (nama). > >> > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > But nama pertains to bending *towards*, not *causing* something else > > to bend towards it. > > -------------------------------------------------- > N: For the four khandhas cause one another to bend on to the object;> > >> and nibbana bends faultless dhammas on to itself by means of the causal > >> relation of the dominant influence of the object." > > -------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Talking about "bending", I find this not just a stretch, but a > > *contortion*! > N: Yes, it is difficult to understand, I could not blame you. The > commentator uses often word associations: nama and namati, to bend. We > should try to get to the meaning. > I could use another word: the object draws the citta to itself, the citta > is > drawn towards it, citta inclines towards the object, bends towards the > object. Is that more acceptable? > The lokuttara citta is drawn towards nibbana, inclines towards nibbana. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: As I see it, that makes the lokuttara citta nama, but does not make nibbana nama. For nibbana to be nama, there must be some cognitive aspect to it, albeit radically different from what we are used to. ---------------------------------------------------------- The> > conditions are right for its arising, nobody can prevent it from > experiencing nibbana. > Example of citta drawn towards, bending towards an object: > I try to read my Email with concentration, but alas, the unmusical > neighbour > up blows her recorder so loudly that I must hear it. I am just drawn > towards > that sound, even though I like to concentrate, not to speak of the > aversion. > The object is is intruding, it bends, causes citta to incline towards it. > Here I am not speaking of object predominance (this unpleasant sound is not > highly valued, not object predominance-condiiton) and not of nibbana. > The old post: Thus, nibbana does not bend towards an object, it does not > experience an > >> object, but, it is predominant object condition for the lokuttara cittas > >> that experience it, it bends them towards itself in that way. > > N: the object is highly estimable, highly valued. > ----------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > That makes it closer to being a rupa (towards which the mind bends) > > than a nama (which does the bending). > N: If nibbana were experiencing an object, it would be conditioned by that > object. Since nama is unconditioned, as you agree, it could not experience > any object. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that nibbana would not experience an object. And yet it is nama. This says to me that it is an objectless awareness, a nondual awareness of absence of conditions, and, simultaneously, that very absence. For nibbana, the light is on, but it encounters no objects to reflect off of. ----------------------------------------------------- > You may remember Suan's post to Rob Ep about the luminous mind, and also > what Jim wrote. These were long discussions. I understand that you find my > arguments not satisfactory. So long as we have not developed precise > understanding of citta, cetasika and rupa, and the way they are > conditioned, > how could we understand the unconditioned dhamma? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: As I see it, only the direct seeing of conditioned dhammas and their emptiness enables the seeing of the unconditioned (at a distance) and the eventual "entry" to it. And we cannot understand the unconditioned dhamma at all until actual contact with it or entry to it is made. ----------------------------------------------------- I better understand sound> > now, pleasant or unpleasant, hearing, aversion on account of it. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: But that is theoretical understanding, understanding via the intellect. It is not the understanding that is freeing (though it *is* supportive of that understanding). ------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > (snip) The notion of the > > unconditioned dhamma serving as object for a conditioned dhamma, namely > > citta, is at best odd. It seems to me plausible that there could be the > > awareness of the *imminence* of cessation (or even of the cessation, > itself, > > i.e., the *entry* to nibbana), a kind of an experiencing of nibbana at a > > distance like the feeling when one is *about* to pass out (or is passing > > out), or *about* to drop off to sleep (or is dropping off to sleep). If > that > > is what it means for lokutara cittas to experience nibbana, that would > make > > sense to me. It would amount to the awareness by conditioned dhammas of > their > > imminent demise, which might correspond to what the Zen Buddhists > sometimes > > describe as water breaking through the bottom of the bucket. But nibbana, > > itself, the utter absence of all conditions, does not strike me as > something > > which is cognizable by conditioned cittas, nor could it be something > which > > could serve as object, in the usual sense of 'object', even for itself. > N: Of course we cannot understand this yet. One of those things we just > read > about. > > H: If nibbana is nama, that nama would have to be a nondual awareness > radically > > different from all conditioned nama, close, perhaps, to what the Zen > people > > mean by 'no-mind'. It would have to be an awareness without an object, > and, > > in that case, even using the word 'awareness' is misleading, because > nibbana > > is totally "other" from anything we have known. That, and only that, > would > > satisfactorily account for nibbana being nama, from my perspective. > N: Right, it is totally unknown from anything we have known. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: A clear point of agreement! :-) ------------------------------------------------------- > > H:It seems > > to me that nibbana, the summum bonum, is not a darkness, but a light, not > > dead, but alive, not avijja, but vijja. That would make sense to me. > N: I am afraid to say much, because whatever we say, it may be wrong. Vis. > VII, 248: nibbana is: the auspicious, the safe, the marvellous, the intact, > the unafflicted, the purity, the island, the shelter. > But not vijja, because that is a property of citta, panna cetasika which > knows nibbana. Panna is called illumination. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. Then "vijja beyond vijja". ;-)) [But, I agree with you in a sense - to say *anything* with regard to nibbana is fundamentally to err.] ---------------------------------------------------------- > Best wishes > from Nina. > > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15373 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 1:34pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Meditation and Satipatthana Dear Larry, I will be too busy to respond in a few days, but for now... > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > I very much appreciate your comments but I think > I want to take > exception to characterizing satipatthana as a > discrimination between > concept and paramattha dhammas. In doing a quick > review of Ven > Nyanaponika's "The Heart of Buddhist Meditation" > it occurs to me that > the practice as it is outlined in the sutta makes > extensive use of > concepts. The contemplation of mind objects seems > to be overtly > contemplative and therefore necessarily > conceptual. My personal favorite interpretation is that satipatthana is knowing the dhammas as they truly are. What are the objects of satipatthana? The 5 kandhas, the 12 ayatanas, and the 18 dhatus. And how are these related to the categoizations of paramatha dhammas that we are studying? They are all paramatha dhammas. It's interesting that you think what is describe in the "dhamma" section in the maha-satipatthana sutta is conceptual. Personally, the section that is most difficult to map with paramatha theory is the rupa section because many objects discussed in that section are concepts, and the commentaries also discuss those conceptual objects in further details. Would you mention specifically which objects in the dhamma section that you found to be "overtly contemplative and therefore necessarily conceptual"? > The other categories > of mindfulness seem to have a mix of > contemplation and identifying > present experience. How do you define "contemplation?" >This identification is > tantamount to naming and is > therefore pannatti. Admittedly concept is not > recognized as an object. As far as I know, when the Buddha says something like: "When feeling a painful feeling of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling of the flesh", this is not the same as identification by naming. It is merely discernment of the painful feeling (of the flesh) as painful feeling, different from the painful mental feeling, different from other mental feeling, and different from other objects. When one becomes more familiar with such objects, it begins to be clearer at the experiential level why there is no self anywhere in these dhammas, and there are only these dhammas. > > It seems that there is some variation among the > various meditation > traditions as to what to emphasize. Apparently > nothing is set in stone. > Many traditions focus on the breath in a one > pointed manner but I think > this may be an attempt to mix satipatthana and > jhana. There is no > mention of 'one pointed focus' in the > satipatthana. (Don't know about > Anapanasati Sutta) > > What I see in the Satipatthana Sutta is an > emphasis on identifying > experience in a simple straight forward objective > way and understanding > certain processes. Not an attempt to get to a > really real experience. > Contemplation definitely stands out. If you says contemplation, i.e., thinking about the stories about the dhammas even when it is true, is satipatthana. I would disagree with you. Although thinking and contemplation is good and necessary to learn about the teachings of the Buddha, the wisdom at that level is not very firm. We may think that impermanence is suffering, but we cannot truly understand (and be firm about) that until we truly see how objects are rising and falling away rapidly at each every moment of our life. When we experience this, the theory of impermanence is backed up by the truth (what wisdom experiences) and is not merely theory anymore. It is firm because it is backed up by what can be verified. When we have objects that are conceptual, these objects don't have any characteristics, including the characteristics of falling away. When I think of Larry (conceptual object), it is regardless of whether or not Larry is dead or alive, or if there is really a Larry there or not (maybe Larry is some other guy under the alias of Larry), but it is as if Larry is there. Larry doesn't arise and doesn't fall away, only thinking about Larry does. Paramatha objects aren't like Larry: when it appears, its characteristics are there, and its 3 common characteristics are also there (anicca, dukkha, anatta). > So, I may > have erred in scolding > Nina for not meditating. The study and > contemplation of abhidhamma could > encompass samma sati. Although it is extremely > unconventional for a > Buddhist to have never meditated. I think this is > unique to Acharn Sujin > and her school. There are some categorizations of teachings (I think, according to the commentaries) that are "rooted" in the buddha teachings: 1) The buddha's sayings (the textual scriptures, including the Vinaya, the Suttanta, and the Abhidhamma) [buddha-vacana] 2) The explanation of the Buddhas saying, specifically meaning the atthagatha [sutta-nulome] 3) Our teacher's teaching, including tika and anu-tika [Acariya-vata] 4) Our own thinking [attanomatti] There are obvious levels of confidence that we can place in these sources of teachings. As I mention in a previous post, we should compare what we hear to the scriptures and to the commentaries (and to your teacher's and your own thinking), at the very least to be able to say who says what. If you decide to hold something as the current "working theory", then you can say (largely) from which sources this theory comes from. Are there a lot of "Buddhist" schools (my teacher's teaching?) nowadays? Yes. Do they all teachings only what comes from the tipitakas. Mostly no. Do they teach what is deviant from the tipitakas? Some do. Is is hard to tell what is the buddha teachings and what is not? Depending on accumulations! The deviation goes from very gross to very subtle. When it begins to be subtle enough that we cannot tell right-off, then additional studies are required. However, as all things go, eventually things become so subtle even the texts cannot help you. My advise to you (and myself) is this: learn what you can (in details) from the people that you have the confidence in, and study for yourself (from the scriptures) how what they teach compares with the texts. When there appear to be conflicts, ask questions. Even hearing the right dhammas depend on conditions: good kamma conditions you to hear the right dhamma, and bad kamma conditions you to hear the wrong dhamma. More anatta! > Many, if not most, meditation traditions are wary > of jhana. This makes > me a little uneasy. Not sure what to make of it. > There *are* dangers. > The Tibetans are very heavy duty meditators but > there is lots of > supervision and many levels of training. > I think as long as one: 1) understands what the path is, and what isn't the path 2) works wisely and dilligently toward the true liberation from defilements, and not just suppression 3) knows the conditions that allow samatha to progress (perhaps to the point of Jhana), knows the differences between kusala and akusala. Then, there is no danger in developing Jhana. Jhana is said to be difficult to attain, so one shouldn't understimate the task and overestimate oneself. kom 15374 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 2:53pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States (long message) Dear Rob M, I have looked through the notes in The Four Sublime States section which you took from Nyanoponika Thera, and found them to raise fewer questions than the notes from B. Buddharakkhita's, probably because they don't have specific references, and therefore, there are fewer things to compare to. I do have a few ramblings, though. The bikkhu seems to imply that that are relationships between the objects of concentration/samatha and the level of samatha. For example, as one goes from having agreeable people, to both agreeable and disagreeble people as the object of the meditation, "At that point of the practice one will have come to the higher stages of concentration: with the appearance of the metnal reflex-image, 'access contcentration' will have been reached and further progress will lead to the full concentration for the first jhana, then the higher jhana.". What do you think about this? The paragraph "Embracing all beings...", the low-minded and evil-minded are included because they are those are most in need of love. Many of them the seed of goodness may have died meerly because... It almosts sound like by embracing these low-mided and evil-mided beings as the object of concentrations, they are now "reseeded" with goodness. This sounds completely way out to me... We can increase kusala in others by saying useful things, or by showing by examples, or by not increasing akusala by not saying anything at all, but increasing other people's goodness by meditation and by thinking of them is not practical or helpful (I think.) The paragraph "Lying like a soft...", same thing as above. Like this sentence: "This insight into the general law of suffering is the real foundation fo our compassion". His thougths, words, and deeds are full of pity. I personally don't think pity (as I understand it) goes well with compassion, so I would be careful with explaining what this means. That it doesn't mean we pity others for their sufferings, but that we offer to help when we see others' sufferings... Also like these: "A stil nobler cause for our joy with others is their faith in the Dhamma, their understanding of the Dhamma, and their following of the Dhamma." "Equanimity is a perfect, unshakable balance of mind, rooted in insight." (really like this simile) "These waves of emotion carry us up and fling us down; and no sonner do we find rest, than we are in the power of a new wave again. How can we expect to get a footing on the crest of the waves? How can we erect the building of our lives in the midst of this ever restless ocean of existence, if no on the island of Equanimity." "By looking at suffering as our teacher and friend, we shall better succeed in enduring it with equanimity." "It is the delusion of a self that creates suffering and hinders or disturbs equanimity" I have a question for you. When he say this "To establish equanimity as an unshakable state of mind, one has to give up all possesive thoughts of "mine". How do you think he propose that we do "give up" the possessive thoughts of mine? kom 15375 From: Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 7:35pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Meditation and Satipatthana Hi Kom, glad to see you are still around. So here are my answers to your questions and a question for you. K: Would you mention specifically which objects in the dhamma section that you found to be "overtly contemplative and therefore necessarily conceptual"? L:"He knows how the arising of the non-arisen sense-desire comes to be; he knows how the abandoning of the arisen sense-desire comes to be; and he knows how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned sense-desire comes to be." "Herein, monks, a monk thinks, "Thus is material form;..." "Herein, monks, a monk knows the eye and visual forms and the fetter that arises dependent on both..." "Herein, monks, when the enlightenment-factor of mindfulness is present, the monk knows, "The enlightenment-factor of mindfulness is in me,"" "Herein, monks, a monk knows, "This is suffering," according to reality..." K: How do you define "contemplation?" L: Conceptual cognition; not necessarily papanca but definitely vitakka and vicara. All the examples above are more than naming, but not a lot more. It isn't encyclopedic. "Naming" is how I interpret something like this: "Herein, monks, a monk knows the consciousness with lust, as with lust...". I think several meditation masters teach that the proper way to deal with this is to "note". I'm calling it naming. It is more than simply paying attention to what is happening or witnessing. It is a little nugget of cognition; although it is often mechanical and not so cognitive. I think panna is conceptual but I guess you don't. Could you explain? Also, I think the function of satipatthana is to cultivate detachment; detachment leads to tranquility; tranquility leads to definitive detachment ( a magga citta) if there is a foundation of right view. So I guess I'm saying working on right view (panna) is a different track than practicing satipatthana; although there is an element of panna in satipatthana and an element of satipatthana in the cultivation of panna. That's why I think the study of abidhamma without any meditation discipline _could_ accomplish samma sati. In spite of all this babble about meditation, I am definitely not an eager meditator. Meditation seems to be something many of us have to force ourselves to practice. There are many other more pleasurable activities. That obviously says something about attacment. What is A. Sujin's view on satipatthana meditation? Why doesn't she teach it? Does she teach a similar discipline for developing detachment? Larry 15376 From: Antony Woods Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 7:49pm Subject: Bhavana Dear Christine, Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary says: "BHAVANA: 'Mental Development' (lit. 'calling into existence, producing') is what in English generally but rather vaguely, is called 'meditation'. One has to distinguish 2 kinds: Development of Tranquillity (samatha-bhavana), i.e. concentration (samadhi), and Development of Insight (vipassana-bhavana), i.e. wisdom (panna)." with metta / Antony. 15377 From: Antony Woods Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 7:50pm Subject: Concepts and Satipatthana Dear Larry, Rob Ep, Howard and all, The late Ven Mahasi Sayadaw said: "The Buddha himself used the language of concepts and told us to be aware 'I am walking' etc. when we walk, bend or stretch. He did not use the language of realities and tell us to be aware 'It is supporting, moving' etc. Although you meditate using the language of concepts like 'walking, bending, stretching', as your mindfulness and concentration grow stronger, all the concepts disappear and only the realities like support and moving appear to you." ftp://ftp.buddhanet.net/medbud/mahasifv.zip with metta / Antony. 15378 From: jinavamsa Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 9:05pm Subject: Re: Concepts and Satipatthana hello Antony, thank you so much for this link to such a gem. I have a few things here from Mahasi, but not this one! in appreciation for your offering, Jinavamsa --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Antony Woods" wrote: > Dear Larry, Rob Ep, Howard and all, > > The late Ven Mahasi Sayadaw said: > > "The Buddha himself used the language of concepts and told us to be > aware 'I am walking' etc. when we walk, bend or stretch. He did > not use the language of realities and tell us to be aware 'It is > supporting, moving' etc. Although you meditate using the language > of concepts like 'walking, bending, stretching', as your > mindfulness and concentration grow stronger, all the concepts > disappear and only the realities like support and moving appear to > you." > ftp://ftp.buddhanet.net/medbud/mahasifv.zip > > with metta / Antony. 15379 From: frank kuan Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 9:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ack! (sarah) --- Sarah wrote: > > Two suggestions for cash reserves in Paradise: > > 1. Move to Koh Samui for half the year: - Great surf > in winter months > (forget June-August), a debating neighbour to > challenge any idea you’ve > ever had about Buddhism (read: Erik), occasional > visits from us to join > you in the surf, yoga and tai-chi on the beach and > assistance with the > debates with Erik, super cheap accomo and living > (read: Erik can arrange > it all), celestial maidens? (read: no comment). > Is Koh Samui on the big island of hawaii? Don't know about debating with Erik. His posts seem pretty sensible, even the Mahayana influenced ones. Group sitting would be nice though. Haven't had that in a long time. > 2. Maybe we could turn the ‘Abhidhamma for Family > Insomnia’ into a > best-seller between us. I don't know if I could stay awake to help write it. Whenever my eyes get to the third syllable of the word "abhidhamma", I'm already half asleep. Speaking of dreams, I had a nightmare a few nights ago where I was getting murdered, but I was calm throughout the murder, and woke up calmly afterwards. My attitude throughout the dream was to not become to wrapped up in the drama of identifying with self and situations, and as a result I didn't really go through any kind of anxiety or pain. -fk 15380 From: frank kuan Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 9:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ack! (rob e) --- epsteinrob wrote: > > Hi Frank! > Always enjoy your posts. Feel free to post more, we > can take it! : ) Glad you enjoy my posts. But trust me, the world can not handle the truth, or at least my interpretation of truth - not even most of the fine people on this list. > Um...Frank, on a more important subject.....uh, how > do you feel about > having guests? : ) > I have a studio here in Kauai, could probably have 3 or 4 adults crash on the floor. Unbeatable location. 5 minute walk to beach, 2 minute walk to middle of town. If any DSG'ers are serious about visiting, you can write me off line. Depending on timing, number of guests, I'd be happy to let you crash in my studio. -fk 15381 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 10:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ack! (sarah) Hi Frank, --- frank kuan wrote: > > Is Koh Samui on the big island of hawaii? Don't know > about debating with Erik. His posts seem pretty > sensible, even the Mahayana influenced ones. Group > sitting would be nice though. Haven't had that in a > long time. ..... Perhaps if there is a library with an atlas in Kaui you could take a look. Hint: forget Hawaii. Re debates with Erik; New Plan - enjoy the group sittings with him and then assist him in the debates when we visit;-) ..... > I don't know if I could stay awake to help write it. > Whenever my eyes get to the third syllable of the > word "abhidhamma", I'm already half asleep. > > Speaking of dreams, I had a nightmare a few nights ago > where I was getting murdered, but I was calm > throughout the murder, and woke up calmly afterwards. > My attitude throughout the dream was to not become to > wrapped up in the drama of identifying with self and > situations, and as a result I didn't really go through > any kind of anxiety or pain. ..... A chapter on Painless Nightmares with Abhidhamma would definitely help the sales;-) I’m not at all sure there can be awareness (of any kind) whilst dreaming but maybe threre were moments of wakefulness in betwen the dreaming. I have an idea we’ve discussed sleep and dreams before. No dreams for those that have eradicated defilements as discussed in the sutta. Btw, I meant to comment yesterday on your post to New Sarah about considering changing your name to an ‘unpronouncable symbol’.....I think we need to hear pretty good reasons here for any name changes (we get confused enough as it is). We know you don’t like accumulating ‘baggage’ but a label does (like other concepts) offer much assistance and the ‘real’ concept label is best of all;-). Sarah ===== p.s. Ken O, I think we will be a lot less confused by sticking to this and we don’t confuse you with Ken H. (also I’m pretty attached to the ‘O’ now ;-)) ===== 15382 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 11:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind Hi Howard & All, ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: So, by fiat, all dhammas are namas or rupas. But if nibbana is not cognitive in any sense whatsoever, why is it not, then, a rupa? ----------------------------------------------------------- In a couple of places it seems that you have the idea that nama cannot be object of citta and cetasikas (i.e of other namas). Of course, any nama or rupa or even concepts can be objects and therefore condition cittas by way of object condition. Aything can be an object of experience. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: But nama pertains to bending *towards*, not *causing* something else to bend towards it. -------------------------------------------------- It can do either. As arammana paccaya (object condition), it is the conditioning factor, the paccaya, for the other namas, ie the cittas and cetasikas to be the conditioned realities (paccayupanna). -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Talking about "bending", I find this not just a stretch, but a *contortion*! ------------------------------------------------ This whole post is being written because I read your line here about bending just after we came out of the really funny film ‘Bend it Like Beckham’. (Num - you’d love it and so would Chris and Sarah F- more questions about courage for the Sikh teenage girl who just wants to play football like the star). -------------------------------------------------- Nina:> Thus, nibbana does not bend towards an object, it does not experience an > object, but, it is predominant object condition for the lokuttara cittas > that experience it, it bends them towards itself in that way. > -------------------------------------------------- Further to Nina’s later comments, I’d like to quote a little more from her ‘Conditions’ which touches on this area. If you remember from my post to Frank, when we count paccaya (conditions) instead of sheep, the third one is adhipati paccaya (predominance condition). Under this paccaya, there are two kinds;- conascent predominance and object predominance. As Nina indicated in her recent post, object predominance condition only relates to ‘desirable’ or ‘esteemed’ objects: ***** QUOTE We read in the “Paììhåna” (Faultless Triplet, VII, Investigation Chapter, Conditions: Positive, 1, Classification Chapter, Predominance, 10, § 413): ... After having offered the offering, having undertaken the precept, having fulfilled the duty of observance, (one) esteems and reviews it. (One) esteems and reviews (such acts) formerly well done... Wholesomeness can be object-predominance-condition for kusala citta which esteems and considers the wholesome deed which was done. In this case one gives preponderance to that object. When we have been generous we can recollect our generosity and then there can be the arising again of kusala cittas...... We read in the same section of the “Paììhåna” (§ 416): Learners esteem and review (lower) Fruition. (They) esteem and review Nibbåna. Nibbåna is related to change-of-lineage, purification 1, Path by predominance-condition. Nibbåna is object-predominance-condition for the eight lokuttara cittas which experience it, and it can also be object-predominance-condition for mahå-kusala citta accompanied by paññå and mahå-kiriyacitta (of the arahat) accompanied by paññå. Lokuttara cittas can be object-predominance-condition for the cittas which arise after the attainment of enlightenment and which review, consider with paññå, the lokuttara cittas which arose. ***** To relate this topic a little to our present study and consideration, often people comment they are too busy to read or consider dhamma. Another argument goes that if there is no self to direct or choose, i.e. no “free-will”, then what is the point or purpose or intention to read and consider. At the end of the above chapter in ‘Conditions’ we read about (MN1,37) how Sakka, lord of the devas ‘had inclination to mental development, but when there were conditions to enjoy sense-pleasures, he was absorbed in these’: ***** QUOTE Moggallåna wanted to find out whether Sakka had grasped the meaning of the Buddha’s words and to this end he appeared among the “devas of the Thirtythree”. Sakka, who was equipped and provided with five hundred deva-like musical instruments, was amusing himself. When he saw Moggallåna coming he stopped those instruments and welcomed Moggallåna. Moggallåna then asked Sakka to repeat the Buddha’s words about freedom by the destruction of craving. Sakka answered: I, my good Moggallåna, am very busy, there is much to be done by me; both on my own account there are things to be done, and there are also (still more) things to be done for the devas of the Thirtythree. Further, my good Moggallåna, it was properly heard, properly learnt, properly attended to, properly reflected upon, so that it cannot vanish quickly.... Sakka invited Moggallåna to come and see the delights of his splendid palace. Moggallåna thought that Sakka lived much too indolently and wanted to agitate him. By his supernatural power he made the palace tremble, shake and quake. Moggallåna asked Sakka again to repeat the Buddha’s words and then Sakka did repeat them. We may recognize ourselves in Sakka when he tries to find excuses not to consider the Dhamma. We also are inclined to think at times that we are too busy to develop right understanding of realities, to be aware of nåma and rúpa over and over again, until they are thoroughly understood. When Moggallåna agitated Sakka there were conditions for him to give preponderance to the development of right understanding. Our life is likewise. When we listen to the Dhamma or read the scriptures there can be conditions to give preponderance to the consideration of the Dhamma and the development of right understanding. When there is mindfulness of nåma and rúpa as they appear one at a time, they can eventually be known as they are: elements which are non-self. ***** I can relate to this story very easily. So, by conditions, we are reading and considering dhamma now. What is seen, heard and considered can be object predominance condition for the namas to bend towards these objects which may condition wise reflection, sati and panna at this moment. Gradually by understanding a little more about conditions and all the other details which Kom mentioned such as the dhatus and ayatanas and so on, the Abhidhamma seems less of a ‘contortion’ and more a practical description of realities being experienced now, whether or not there is any awareness. Howard, I think in another post you suggested you thought there were levels of consciousness. I’d suggest the cittas (consciousness) and the other realities are just as they are regardless of whether there is any awareness of them or not. In other words, it is the understanding and awareness which develop and change, rather than the ordinary realities of daily life. On this note, for anyone (not Howard, I know) who considers there is a self until one is enlightened, let me quote from AN, 3s, The Three Characteristics of Existence, B.Bodhi transl): Whether Thathagatas arise in the world or not, it still remains a fact, a firm and necessary condition of existence, that all formations are impermanent...that all formations are subject to suffering...that all things are non-self”. ***** In the same way, whether or not it is taught by a Buddha, whether or not any understanding is ever developed, paccaya (conditions) and all the other details about paramattha dhammas that we read about in the Tipitaka are true as some of us have confidence. Sarah ............ p.s Nina, when Howard mentioned details about Lance Cousins and the Samatha Trust before, did it remind you of our trip to Manchester sometime in the 70s when you were invited to discuss abhidhamma questions with the group there? I had completely forgotten all about it until Howard mentioned these details;-) ================================ 15383 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 11:18pm Subject: Welcome Dear Anthony, I'm very glad to see you've 'broken the ice' and with such helpful quotes and support. We all look forward to your contributions and hope you find it useful here. There was another Anthony B here (who may still be lurking), but we haven't heard from him in a long while. He was the first member to meet us without any pic or special tips. He told everyone that it was Ok because we were 'ordinary' or 'normal'...forget now which. Anyway, as you'll have seen, there are many discussions about very ordinary experiences and actualities and all the ups and downs, joys and reactions in our studies and practices. If you'd care to add any details about where you live or your interest in the Teachings, we'd be glad to hear. Best wishes, Sarah ===== 15384 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 11:51pm Subject: Re: Welcome --- Dear Sarah, Antony, like the other Antony is from down under, and is well known to any of us who have posted on d-l in the past. A helpful and insightful writer, I'm very pleased to see him here. Robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Anthony, > > I'm very glad to see you've 'broken the ice' and with such helpful quotes > and support. > > We all look forward to your contributions and hope you find it useful > here. > > > If you'd care to add any details about where you live or your interest in > the Teachings, we'd be glad to hear. > > Best wishes, > > Sarah > ===== 15385 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Mon Sep 2, 2002 0:41am Subject: Re: Hi attn: Sarah, Jon & Sumane, Dear Sarah, Jon & Sumane, Missed the original letter but got hold of this letter form Mr. Rathnasuriya. What a good news. So when is going to be the date? And Sarah, this time I will try not to work half-day...on the discussion day (by the way how long you are going to stay and I hope there will be a chance for a discussion). Awaithing to see you all and Kun Sujin, metta ranil >Dear Sarah & Jon, >What pleasant reminiscence I experience when you mention your next visit >to Colombo! My heartiest appreciation of you all and of course for Khun >Sujin for deciding to return to my blessed country. Why I am so >emotional is that at least a few like Ranil, Gayan, self etc. who are in >the list & the ones who join for discussions as Nihal, Suren & his wife >will benefit once more with clarifications they have been piling up for >the discussion. As for me it was a “Course Correction”! You all know >that. > >Further, any land will be blessed with so much reality seekers stepping >in there. MY LAND needs it most! > >Thanks again >Sumane > >PS: Dear Jon, >Nihal’s sister in law’s son (s-i-l works with you, we learnt) is keen on >Dhamma study. Though a Buddhist, he has had little exposure in HK, Nihal >says. Just some info to extend the light of Dhamma to someone who could >benefit therefrom. > >Sumane Rathnasuriya 15386 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 2, 2002 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dilemma Nr 183 & 184 Hi Herman (& Erik), We haven’t chatted in a while and I hope I don’t end up having to poke out my eyes again;-( I read these dilemmas with interest while we were away and was surprised not to see any response. Actually, Erik assured me he was set to respond to them which is why his name gets a mention. I’ll just repeat your message in full as it was some time ago now: ***** --- egberdina wrote: > Hi all, > > Following on from the discussion re the debt we owe our parents, > regardless of the quality of the parenting, I have the following > questions and would appreciate your consideration. > > Is it wisdom to not have children, because: > > 1 ]that way one can devote much more effort to the realisation of the > path, and > 2 ]there is no control over the being one brings into the world. One > may well be consigning a being to aeons of hell by virtue of having > brought this being into this world. Whatever way one looks at it, > samsara goes yet another revolution. > > or is it selfish and unwise to not have children, because: > > 1 ]children are very adept at exposing all the preconceptions one > clings to, thus opening the way for the possibility of the shedding > of some views, and > 2 ]by not having children, one is preventing a being from > experiencing birth in this realm, with all it's concomitant benefits. ***** In brief, I don’t think we can set any rules about what is best. Conditions are so very complex that we don’t know how our life will work out at all. Realisation of the path depends on understanding and not on lifetstyle. Selfishness and lobha depend on accumulations and will always find an object regardless. Life never works out as we intend in any case. When we were in Noosa meeting several friends from long back, it turned out that those who had really wanted to have children were childless and one who never intended to have children now has two grown kids. I think that when we see life’s dilemmas in terms of ‘situations’ we forget about conditioned realities changing from moment to moment. You commented in ‘the Snow’ post about the ‘sublte movements of the mind’ and how ‘realisation that neither the avoidance of the unpleasant or the clinging to the pleasant is of any intrinsic value.’ As we know, so many factors affect rebirth and in that lifetime the different experiences. No one can control them. from a section of ADL (20-1) we read: >Birth as a human being is a happy rebirth. In the human plane there is opportunity for the cultivation of kusala. One can study Dhamma and learn to develop the way leading to the end of defilements and the end of birth and death. Birth in the human plane is kusala vipaka, but during one's lifespan in this plane there are both kusala vipaka and akusala vipaka. Each person experiences different results in life: there is gain and loss, honour and dishonour, praise and blame, happiness and misery. Each person is born into the family which is the right condition for him to experience the results of his deeds. It is due to one's kamma that one experiences pleasant and unpleasant things through eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body-sense.< Earlier it also said: “However, we should realize that happiness and unhappiness are only mental phenomena which arise because of conditions and fall away again. Our whole life is a sequence of phenomena which arise and fall away again.” ***** What is good, what is bad, what is the solution to the dilemma? There are no rules. We will live whatever lifestyle we do, by conditions. The development of the Path does not depend on whether we have or don’t have children, on our job or how many of few possessions we have. As Kom wrote to Rob M “One lives a simple life because one knows that attachments toward complicated living only brings more troubles.” When the Buddha talks about living alone, it refers to seeing the danger of attachments whether one is in the city or the forest.,learning to live alone with seeing, hearing and so on. So, Herman, whether you add to your gang or not, there are realities to be known, living alone to be experienced. ***** As we read in the Migajala Sutta; ‘There are, Migajala, sounds cognizable by the ear..odours cognizable by the nose..tastes cognizable by the tongue..tactile objects cognizable by the body..mental phenomena cognizable by the mind that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, pleasing, sensually enticing, tantalizing. If a bhikkhu does not seek delight in them..he is called alone dweller. ‘Migajala, even though a bhikkhu who dwells thus lives in the vicinity of a village, associating with bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, with male and felmale lay follower, with kings and royal ministers, with sectarian teachers and their disciples, he is still called a lone dweller. For what reason? Because craving is his partner and he has abandoned it; therefore his is called a lone dweller.” (SN, Bk of 6 Sense Bases.63, B.Bodhi trans) .......... Best wishes, Sarah ====== 15387 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 2, 2002 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Upekkha vs. Tatramajjhattata Dear Nina & Rob M, Thanks for the discussion on this subject which can be quite confusing I find also. ..... --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob M, > I shall paste from A. Sujin's Dhamma in Cambodia: > > The term upekkhå, equanimity, has several meanings . Upekkhå can refer > to > the feeling that is neither happy nor unhappy, to indifferent feeling; > thus, > it can be the cetasika that is feeling, vedanå. It can also refer to > paññå > cetasika in the development of vipassanå, paññå that is neutral towards > the > realities arising because of conditions. Therefore, when we have > equanimity, > this can be indifferent feeling or it can be tatramajjhattatå cetasika, > or > it can be paññå in the development of vipassanå. ..... This reminds me of the comments Jaran gave from talks by K.Sujin on TMT (as he called it). I had hoped he was going to add more. I really find comments about tatramajjhattata cetasika very useful indeed - so little impartiality in a day. Panna has to be impartial to its object. I found Larry’s quote from Vism very helpful indeed as a reminder of the impartiality of panna or TMT: "Hi all, in case you are curious, here is the definition of tatramajjhattata from Vism. XIV 153: Specific neutrality (tatra-majjhattata--lit. 'neutrality in regard thereto') is neutrality (majjhattata) in regard to those states [of consciousness and consciousness-concomitants arisen in association with it]. It has the characteristic of conveying consciousness and consciousness-concomitants evenly. Its function is to prevent deficiency and excess, or its function is to inhibit partiality. It is manifested as neutrality. It should be regarded as like a conductor (driver) who looks with equanimity on thoroughbreds progressing evenly.” ***** In U.P. under ‘equanimity’ and under ‘upekkha’ there are more details and helpful comments: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Rob, I also appreciated your correspondence with Kom on metta.and I’m glad you see the harm in any misleading. I really liked this quote of Kom’s: “When one is kind towards another person, one has the person as the object. When we are kind to this person, we are not thinking about sending out kindness to that person: one is simply kind (thinnking kindly, saying kind things, doing kind things) to the person.” I remember he gave some good examples before but they’re not in front of me. I think examples of misleading info or leading to wrong views would be: If there is an idea of a special time, place, radiating, universal from the start, partiality or a particular person, confusion with insight, suggestion it can lead to all jhanas, or can be applied and should be applied to oneelf or has one’s own interest at heart. You had some discussions on karuna, compassion. There is also more in U.P. Again if there is an idea of a story or situation or an occasion for compassion, I think it’s a conventional idea and not the specific cetasika that arises briefly and without any unhappiness, just wishing the one suffering to be well. These cittas are ‘light’ and without any unpleasant feeling. Mudita - sympathetic joy when one’s just glad for the other’s good fortune at any time. Is one glad when one’s colleague gets the promotion, when one’s friends are enjoying life in Hawaii, when someone else has the chance for dana or other kusala, when a friend in class gets a good score....appreciating the kusala vipaka without any trace of envy or thought of oneself? Sarah ===== > See Acharn Sujin1s 3Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, Appendix to Cetasika, > where it has been explained that there are ten kinds of equanimity, > upekkhå > (Visuddhimagga IV, 156-1660). It can refer, for example, to > tatramajjhattatå, to indifferent feeling, to equanimity of effort, > viriya, > that is neither overstrenuous nor lax in mental development. It can > refer to > paññå that is equanimity in vipassanå. Paññå is neutral as it > investigates > the object that arises because of the appropriate conditions. > > As to the Brahma Vihara of upekkha, this has, just as in the case of the > other Brahma Viharas, living beings as object. It is Tatram, but it is > called upekkha. Is this slow motion enough ? :-) 15388 From: robmoult Date: Mon Sep 2, 2002 3:24am Subject: Re: Upekkha vs. Tatramajjhattata Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Rob, I also appreciated your correspondence with Kom on metta.and I 'm glad > you see the harm in any misleading. I encourage all DSGrs to help me root any out anything that could lead to wrong view from my Class Notes. I am now deep inside the thought process and learning a lot. My thought process lecture is on Sept. 15. (I am goin to buy some time next week by doing a review). I would appreciate any links to detailed analysis of the thought process. I find the Abhidhammathasangha to be quite light in this area. Which of the original seven volumes did the thought process appear in? I know it wasn't the first as I have a copy. Thanks, Rob M :-) PS: Sorry if there are weird characters in my posting, I am using an airport terminal in Seoul and sometimes Korean characters appear in my message. 15389 From: egberdina Date: Mon Sep 2, 2002 3:32am Subject: The Phone Hi all, Just letting you know that since a thunderstorm last Thursday night we have been phoneless until just a while ago. So lots of business, personal and dhamma matters to catch up with. I did miss the interchange, but I think the garden did quite well out of it :-) All the best Herman 15390 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Sep 2, 2002 7:47am Subject: RE: [dsg] Meditation and Satipatthana Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > L:"He knows how the arising of the non-arisen > sense-desire comes to be; > he knows how the abandoning of the arisen > sense-desire comes to be; and > he knows how the non-arising in the future of the > abandoned sense-desire > comes to be." I am going to read some more in this area in response to comments in this area (from multiple people to me.), so I will get back to you. Meanwhile, maybe other people will say something about what they think on this being contemplative/conceptual. > I think panna is conceptual but I guess you > don't. Could you explain? Just like lobha is not conceptual, panna is not conceptual. It co-arises with the citta and cetasikas that know the dhamma as they are (which is a function of panna). An example may be knowing the difference between kusala and akusala (especially kusala and lobha, as it seems to be extra-ordinarily difficult for me). When there is a correct realization, panna arises with that citta. > Also, I think the function of satipatthana is to > cultivate detachment; > detachment leads to tranquility; tranquility > leads to definitive > detachment ( a magga citta) if there is a > foundation of right view. Yes, I think this is a function of satipatthana and panna. But why do you think Satipatthana leads to detachment? Some people think that when they realize that they have lobha/dosa, they should "let go" of that lobha/dosa. Is that "letting go" satipatthana? > So I > guess I'm saying working on right view (panna) is > a different track than > practicing satipatthana; although there is an > element of panna in > satipatthana and an element of satipatthana in > the cultivation of panna. When there is wisdom, right attention, right efforts, right mindfulness, and right concentration come with the wisdom automatically (in the mundane path, also with right conduct, right speech, and right livelihood in the supramundane path). Wisdom leads to detachment [if you know for a fact that attachment leads to suffering, wouldn't you be less attached?]. What else do you think satipathana leads to that panna doesn't? > That's why I think the study of abidhamma without > any meditation > discipline _could_ accomplish samma sati. I am not sure if you know this, but A. Sujin and her associates (including Nina, Sarah, etc.) have never said that conceptual studying alone is enough to grow wisdom towards the path. As long as one doesn't directly realize dhamma for themselves, then it is impossible to reach the supramundane path. Realizing the dhamma directly as dhamma is the mundane path which eventually conditions the supramundane path. The controversies/disagreements regarding the meditations (I think) are two-folds: 1) The distinctions between jhana development and vipassana development. Some don't appear to make distinctions and some do. Some think vipassana development is not possible / is too hard to do with out jhana development, and some don't. What's your take on this? 2) What exactly is vipassana development? Is it following the steps that are popularly taught by people like V. Mahasi or Goenka? How about steps as taught by V. Buddhadhasa or V. Chah? Does one have to be formal (i.e., has to be in specific place, doing specific things; otherwise, one is not fast enough to "catch" the dhamma)? Does one have to sit to develop vipassana, or is sitting a requirement for the panna to be developed? > In spite of all this babble about meditation, I > am definitely not an > eager meditator. Meditation seems to be something > many of us have to > force ourselves to practice. There are many other > more pleasurable > activities. That obviously says something about > attacment. What is A. > Sujin's view on satipatthana meditation? Why > doesn't she teach it? Does > she teach a similar discipline for developing detachment? > Whenever I see her (which is not often), satipatthana development and development of panna are the only topics she talks about, sometimes almost seemingly in exclusion of all other kusala development. I don't think she views (as evident by what all her students say!) Satipatthana the same way as popularly viewed by others. The more important question (I think) is whether or not what she (or anybody else) teaches matches what the Buddha has taught. kom 15391 From: Date: Mon Sep 2, 2002 5:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 9/2/02 2:09:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Hi Howard & All, > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > So, by fiat, all dhammas are namas or rupas. But if nibbana is not > cognitive in any sense whatsoever, why is it not, then, a rupa? > ----------------------------------------------------------- > In a couple of places it seems that you have the idea that nama cannot be > object of citta and cetasikas (i.e of other namas). Of course, any nama or > rupa or even concepts can be objects and therefore condition cittas by way > of object condition. Aything can be an object of experience. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I am aware of that. I know that vi~n~nana takes emotions, feelings, thoughts etc as objects. My point is that rupa can be taken as object, but has no cognitive function. What makes nama "nama" except for its having a cognitive aspect? How is nama defined? Nyanatiloka writes "náma: (lit. 'name'): 'mind', mentality." If there is no cognitive aspect to nibbana, if it is not the nondual awareness of absence of objects and conditions, if it can be taken as object but is, itself, unknowing in addition to being unconditioned, then it sounds more like an "unconditioned rupa" than a nama. Moreover, in this case, *entry* to final nibbana sounds more like annihilation to me than liberation - it sounds like a final turning off of the light. Instead of being the freeing of consciousness, the dropping off of all conditions, entry to nibbana inaugurates the ultimate avijja (non-seeing). Let me ask you - what is it you would find lovely in that? ------------------------------------------------------ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > But nama pertains to bending *towards*, not *causing* something > else > to bend towards it. > -------------------------------------------------- > It can do either. As arammana paccaya (object condition), it is the > conditioning factor, the paccaya, for the other namas, ie the cittas and > cetasikas to be the conditioned realities (paccayupanna). > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: But what is distinctive about namas? ------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Talking about "bending", I find this not just a stretch, but a > *contortion*! > ------------------------------------------------ > This whole post is being written because I read your line here about > bending just after we came out of the really funny film ‘Bend it Like > Beckham’. (Num - you’d love it and so would Chris and Sarah F- more > questions about courage for the Sikh teenage girl who just wants to play > football like the star). > -------------------------------------------------- > Nina:> Thus, nibbana does not bend towards an object, it does not > experience an > > object, but, it is predominant object condition for the lokuttara cittas > > that experience it, it bends them towards itself in that way. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Further to Nina’s later comments, I’d like to quote a little more from her > ‘Conditions’ which touches on this area. If you remember from my post to > Frank, when we count paccaya (conditions) instead of sheep, the third one > is adhipati paccaya (predominance condition). Under this paccaya, there > are two kinds;- conascent predominance and object predominance. As Nina > indicated in her recent post, object predominance condition only relates > to ‘desirable’ or ‘esteemed’ objects: > ***** > QUOTE > We read in the “PaììhÃ¥naâ€? (Faultless Triplet, VII, Investigation Chapter, > Conditions: Positive, 1, Classification Chapter, Predominance, 10, § 413): > > ... After having offered the offering, having undertaken the precept, > having fulfilled the duty of observance, (one) esteems and reviews it. > (One) esteems and reviews (such acts) formerly well done... > > Wholesomeness can be object-predominance-condition for kusala citta which > esteems and considers the wholesome deed which was done. In this case one > gives preponderance to that object. When we have been generous we can > recollect our generosity and then there can be the arising again of kusala > cittas...... > > We read in the same section of the “PaììhÃ¥naâ€? (§ 416): > > Learners esteem and review (lower) Fruition. (They) esteem and review > NibbÃ¥na. NibbÃ¥na is related to change-of-lineage, purification 1, > Path by predominance-condition. > > NibbÃ¥na is object-predominance-condition for the eight lokuttara cittas > which experience it, and it can also be object-predominance-condition for > mahÃ¥-kusala citta accompanied by paññå and mahÃ¥-kiriyacitta (of the > arahat) accompanied by paññå. Lokuttara cittas can be > object-predominance-condition for the cittas which arise after the > attainment of enlightenment and which review, consider with paññå, the > lokuttara cittas which arose. > ***** > To relate this topic a little to our present study and consideration, > often people comment they are too busy to read or consider dhamma. Another > argument goes that if there is no self to direct or choose, i.e. no > “free-willâ€?, then what is the point or purpose or intention to read and > consider. > > At the end of the above chapter in ‘Conditions’ we read about (MN1,37) how > Sakka, lord of the devas ‘had inclination to mental development, but when > there were conditions to enjoy sense-pleasures, he was absorbed in these’: > ***** > QUOTE > MoggallÃ¥na wanted to find out whether Sakka had grasped the meaning of the > Buddha’s words and to this end he appeared among the “devas of the > Thirtythreeâ€?. Sakka, who was equipped and provided with five hundred > deva-like musical instruments, was amusing himself. When he saw MoggallÃ¥na > coming he stopped those instruments and welcomed MoggallÃ¥na. MoggallÃ¥na > then asked Sakka to repeat the Buddha’s words about freedom by the > destruction of craving. Sakka answered: > > I, my good MoggallÃ¥na, am very busy, there is much to be done by me; both > on my own account there are things to be done, and there are also (still > more) things to be done for the devas of the Thirtythree. Further, my good > MoggallÃ¥na, it was properly heard, properly learnt, properly attended to, > properly reflected upon, so that it cannot vanish quickly.... > > Sakka invited MoggallÃ¥na to come and see the delights of his splendid > palace. MoggallÃ¥na thought that Sakka lived much too indolently and wanted > to agitate him. By his supernatural power he made the palace tremble, > shake and quake. MoggallÃ¥na asked Sakka again to repeat the Buddha’s words > and then Sakka did repeat them. > We may recognize ourselves in Sakka when he tries to find excuses not to > consider the Dhamma. We also are inclined to think at times that we are > too busy to develop right understanding of realities, to be aware of nÃ¥ma > and rúpa over and over again, until they are thoroughly understood. When > MoggallÃ¥na agitated Sakka there were conditions for him to give > preponderance to the development of right understanding. Our life is > likewise. When we listen to the Dhamma or read the scriptures there can be > conditions to give preponderance to the consideration of the Dhamma and > the development of right understanding. When there is mindfulness of nÃ¥ma > and rúpa as they appear one at a time, they can eventually be known as > they are: elements which are non-self. > ***** > I can relate to this story very easily. > > So, by conditions, we are reading and considering dhamma now. What is > seen, heard and considered can be object predominance condition for the > namas to bend towards these objects which may condition wise reflection, > sati and panna at this moment. Gradually by understanding a little more > about conditions and all the other details which Kom mentioned such as the > dhatus and ayatanas and so on, the Abhidhamma seems less of a ‘contortion’ > and more a practical description of realities being experienced now, > whether or not there is any awareness. > > Howard, I think in another post you suggested you thought there were > levels of consciousness. I’d suggest the cittas (consciousness) and the > other realities are just as they are regardless of whether there is any > awareness of them or not. In other words, it is the understanding and > awareness which develop and change, rather than the ordinary realities of > daily life. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The "levels of consiousness" are variations among the cittas, particularly as regards their intensity and the kinds of cetasikas associated, nothing more mysterious. Bhavanga cittas, for example, have low intensity, and are subliminal. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > On this note, for anyone (not Howard, I know) who considers there is a > self until one is enlightened, let me quote from AN, 3s, The Three > Characteristics of Existence, B.Bodhi transl): > > Whether Thathagatas arise in the world or not, it still remains a fact, a > firm and necessary condition of existence, that all formations are > impermanent...that all formations are subject to suffering...that all > things are non-selfâ€?. > ***** > In the same way, whether or not it is taught by a Buddha, whether or not > any understanding is ever developed, paccaya (conditions) and all the > other details about paramattha dhammas that we read about in the Tipitaka > are true as some of us have confidence. > > Sarah > ............ > > p.s Nina, when Howard mentioned details about Lance Cousins and the > Samatha Trust before, did it remind you of our trip to Manchester sometime > in the 70s when you were invited to discuss abhidhamma questions with the > group there? I had completely forgotten all about it until Howard > mentioned these details;-) > ================================= This last doesn't ring a bell with me. I think it must have been someone else who talked about this. (I did have some e-mail correspondence once with Lance Cousins - but that's it.) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15392 From: frank kuan Date: Mon Sep 2, 2002 9:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dilemma Nr 183 & 184 sarah: > I read these dilemmas [whether to have children] with interest while we were > away and was surprised > not to see any response. Actually, Erik assured me > he was set to respond > to them which is why his name gets a mention. Sarah sure knows how to get people to respond to a question. Mention specific individuals by name, and throw down an implicit challenge to the rest of the list for being silent :) Herman's question on children dilemma: > > Is it wisdom to not have children, because: > > > > 1 ]that way one can devote much more effort to the > realisation of the > > path, and > > 2 ]there is no control over the being one brings > into the world. One > > may well be consigning a being to aeons of hell by > virtue of having > > brought this being into this world. Whatever way > one looks at it, > > samsara goes yet another revolution. > > > > or is it selfish and unwise to not have children, > because: > > > > 1 ]children are very adept at exposing all the > preconceptions one > > clings to, thus opening the way for the > possibility of the shedding > > of some views, and > > 2 ]by not having children, one is preventing a > being from > > experiencing birth in this realm, with all it's > concomitant benefits. Any combination of all 4 motivations you mention can be active simultaneously. Maybe it wasn't your intention, but it seems like you were asking for a thumbs up or thumbs down response on having children. No universal answer to that one. I agree with Sarah, it depends on the person and their situation. A catholic priest should not be having children for example. Lay people having children can be a wonderful thing. But if one wants to have children, they should be careful not to use this as a justification: > > 1 ]children are very adept at exposing all the > preconceptions one > > clings to, thus opening the way for the > possibility of the shedding > > of some views, and This sounds suspiciously like an anonymous friend of mine who chooses to hang out with drug dealers, partiers, with the so called motivation that it presents many opportunities to develop wisdom and also gives the evil friends an opportunity to hear the dhamma. Right. This is a deluded intention, and a horrible investment of precious limited resources, with little to no chance on the return of investment. Not to mention our "good intentioned" friend is more likely to get sucked down into that vortex of evil rather than save their friends. Our life is short, best to use it on wise investments with favorable chance of return. I'm not saying that kids don't provide opportunites for developing wholesome qualities and wisdom, I'm just saying it's deluded and misguided to use that as a justification to HAVE kids. Good kamma does not stack the odds in your favor for having a good kid. For example, my parents are people of excellent virtue, yet they ended up with me. Bet they got a good lesson they'll never forget in how good kamma doesn't always ripen in the form of well behaved children. :) I just hung out with a couple of friends and their 6 month old for a few hours. What a monumental effort maintaining baby! Really makes me appreciate what my parents had to go through, and what I don't want to go through. Better to be born into one of those deva realms where fully grown children spring forth on their birthday and (hopefully) potty trained, quiet and can feed themselves to a certain extent. :) -fk 15393 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 2, 2002 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation and Satipatthana Dear Larry, see below: op 01-09-2002 07:50 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Contemplation definitely stands out. So, I may have erred in scolding > Nina for not meditating. N: Larry, I had a good laugh, you did not scold me, you merely suggested something :-) L: Although it is extremely unconventional for a > Buddhist to have never meditated. I think this is unique to Acharn Sujin > and her school. N: How do you know this :-) :-) Although you have seen this before, I paste again from Perfections, about the story of the Bodhisatta who saw the evanescent dewdrops: You see, apart from mindfulness of breath, there are other subjects very apt to contemplate in daily life. I have several occasions now for mindfulness of death, and in this way I can be reminded of momentary death: nama and rupa which last only for a moment. And there are opportunities to develop metta and karuna, especially when there are troubles around us with regard to relationships. As I wrote to someone: when there are problems with persons, it is good to remember that one may see that person for the last time, because who knows when death occurs? This really helps me. As we read above in the quote about the dewdrops: we should not let such opportunities pass by, but we can be reminded to develop understanding of nama and rupa now, so that one day (we do not know when) their impermanence can be realized. Insight and samatha can be combined in this way. If we do not see the value of understanding this moment the Buddha has taught us in vain, we let the opportunity to develop understanding slip. Understanding is essential, also for samatha, because we can delude ourselves. A moment of metta feels so good, we are delighted, but immediately we are attached to this pleasant feeling. Should this not be known? I have an insignificant example, but just an illustration. Yesterday we visited my father who is sick and gave him soup. We also had soup, and I was hungry. But since my father wanted more soup, we gave away ours and I said that I wanted to give it with love, but then I was attached to the pleasant feeling coming in. How tricky. You may wonder whether the satipatthana sutta teaches about concepts, but then, it is good to note that after each section it is said that arising and ceasing should be realized. This pertains to nama and rupa. Only a Buddha can teach this, and let it not be in vain for us. Another meditation subject: we can pay respect to the Triple Gem, together with the development of understanding. Even when we understand a little more, it is thanks to whom? Best wishes from Nina. 15394 From: robmoult Date: Mon Sep 2, 2002 10:58am Subject: Time for a change (a long post) Hi All, I am reading a book, "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" by E. Sarachchandra, M.A., Ph.D., D. Litt., Chancellor, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. Actually, the book was his thesis submitted to the University of London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. A little light reading :-) The book has three sections: "Theories of Perception in the Nikayas", "Perception in the Abhidhamma" and "Theory of Bhavanga". Here is a quote from the book, "The results of the investigations embodied in the Nikayas were made use of by the schoolmen of the fifth century for the formulation of a theory of perception which, while being faithful as far as possible to the views of early Buddhism, attempted also to fill in the gaps that were left by it. The theory is quite unique in the history of Indian thought, and it was probably the work of Buddhaghosa after having immersed himself in Sanskrit philosophy. There are in it unmistakeable signs of the influence of the theories of perception that were current in the schools of Indian philosophy and the schools of Mahayana Buddhism. Whenever borrowings were made, however, they were modified and adapted so as to be in keeping with the ideology of Theravada Buddhism." There is a chapter of the book titled, "Developments in the Twelfth Century", where the theory of moments was introduced into the Abhidhamma, to merge/adapt/refute positions of the Yogacara and Sautrantika schools which also had developed similar theories at that time. Later, the book spent some time explaining the parallels and differences between bhavanga and the Alaya Vijnana of the Yogacara school. As I delve into the details of the thought process in preparation for my class, I come to the conclusion that if I want anything more than a very simple overview, I am wandering into the realm of "speculative theories" put forth by philosophers. The philosophers can't agree; there is a different view of the importance of the registration citta as explained in the Visuddhi Magga (early concept; registration is an exceptional case, rarely occurring), the Abhidhammatthasangaha (late concept; registration occurs in most thoughts) and the Atthasalini (wavers between early and late concepts). I even find that some of the "simple overview" was added later into the Abhidhamma and is not clearly supported in the Suttas. For example, it appears as though the registration citta was introduced by Buddhaghosa. In brief, I am starting to lose faith in the accuracy and authenticity of the Abhidhamma. Here is another quote from the book, "... the Abhidhamma does not make any attempt to explain the phenomenon of memory, for, having postulated process without substance, they were without any known equipment for explaining it, and were obliged to merely recognize it as a fact." Why is it that the Abhidhamma does not give a clear description on the function of memory? I think that memory is a very important topic that deserves a detailed explanation. The beginning few paragraphs of the final chapter, "Philosophical Basis of the Buddhist Theory of Perception", gives some comfort (to me, at least): ===== As far as the early texts reveal, the Buddha's examination of mental phenomena was undertaken with a purely practical end in view. His immediate environment suggested to him the expediency of arriving at a practical solution to the problem of pain. There was theorizing and speculation around him ad nauseam. The very failure of these theoretical methods to arrive at and advocate a satisfactory solution to the problem would have emphasized the immediate need for a method that would, at least as far as the individual was concerned, same him from the inner unrest that was tormenting him. No sensitive soul could remain untouched by the pervading chaos and disintegration of values. What the Buddha advocated was that each individual should retreat from the battleground and seek to gain his own inward happiness. Let the wranglers go on abusing one another and demonstrating their several theories with the help of logic. What finality was there in this method of logical demonstration? The theory that one of them held to be true and irrefutable, the other proved to be false by equally convincing arguments (Yam ahu saccam tathiyam ti eke, Tam ahu anne tuccham musa ti - Sutta Nipata 883). The alternatives, surely were either that all of these contradictory views were correct or that they were all false. It is impossible to accept the first alternative, for there cannot be several truths in the world (Ekam hi saccam na dutiyam atthi - Ibid 884). We are driven to the conclusion, therefore, that they are all false, and that some method other than logical demonstration must be found to help us in the search for truth. ===== As a young teenager, I started reading Descartes, Kant and a number of other Western Philosophers. At first, I was impressed by the skill of their arguments, but then I became disillusioned. These were the greatest minds produced by the Western World and they could not agree! I postulated that either there was no solution (I did not want to accept this) or that they had all taken a wrong turn out of the starting gate. My conclusion was that the use of logical arguments was somehow the wrong tool for philosophers. For example "X" = "cup is on the table" "NOT X" = "the cup is not on the table". The intersection of "X" and "NOT X" is the null set. In other words, "the cup cannot be both on the table and not on the table". The fallacy is that this statement, developed through symbolic logic, is only true at one instant in time. The questions being asked by philosophers are outside the domain of time and therefore logic (at least symbolic logic) is not an appropriate tool to deal with philosophical questions. I gave up reading philosophy (Wittgenstein did me in) and spent a few years developing "my own" philosophy. I thought long and hard about this. Later, when I was 19 and had a girlfriend whose father was a Christian minister. We were sitting around the campfire at their cottage one night and her father (the father) asked me about my views on religion. I explained that I had been brought up Christian but had developed my "own philosophy" over the past few years. He was open-minded and asked me to explain my "own philosophy". I had never verbalized it before and I talked solidly for two hours. The father listened respectfully, asking questions and clarifications where appropriate. When it was over, he said to me, "To become a minister, you have to take a course on comparative religions. What you have described over the past two hours is Buddhism." I was shocked! I had never read anything about Buddhism and I found it difficult to believe that "on my own" I had come up with one of the world's major religions! Later I realized that I had been a Buddhist in a previous life and it started to make sense. So here I am, twenty-five years later facing similar challenges with the Abhidhamma as I faced with the western philosophers as a teenager. Fortunately, the next few paragraphs in the last section of the book I am reading give some guidance: ===== One thing noticeable about the argumentations of these clever philosophers is that they are by no means salutary to the attainment of happiness which, in the last resort, should constitute their ultimate aim. One philosopher calls the other a fool, and the other retorts with the same term of abuse. If they were both correct, either they should both be fools or they should both be wise men and there should be no fools at all among the religieux (Parassa ce hi vacasa nihino, Tumo saha hoti nihinapanno, atha ce sayam vedagu hoti dhiro, na koci balo samanesu atthi - Sutta Nipata 890). Besides, these arguments engender passion and lead to a considerable amount of heart-breaking. The sad fact about them is, therefore, that they defeat their own purpose. Consequently we might suspect that there is something inherently wrong in the very premises from which these arguments start. On examination, they are all seen to rest on three things, dittha, suta and muta, that is, things seen, heard and cogitated. These three things belong to the sphere of sense perception, the sphere of discursive reasoning (sanna). Multiplicity of views is the natural result of dependence on sense knowledge (Na h'eva saccani bahuni nana, annatra sannaya niccani loke - Ibid 886) Logical reasoning leads to an inevitable dualism of thought. One is driven to the correlatives of truth and falsehood. Only these two alternatives are open to the way of logic (Takkan ca ditthisu pakappayitva, saccam musa ti dvayadhammam ahu - Ibid 886). How is one to escape from this vicious circle? It is here that introspective analysis helps us. Every form of mental activity is seen to lead to our attainment of a kind of knowledge which does not satisfy in the last resort. The polarities (dvandva) of happiness and sorrow (sukha, dukkha), pleasure and unpleasure (piya, appiya), attraction and repulsion (raga, dosa) agreeability and disagreeability (satam, asatam) are ultimately seen to rest on sense impression (Phassanidanam satam asatam - Ibid 870). Our notion of the diversity of external nature is derived from the sphere of the senses. All these polarities of thought and feeling lead to conflict and strife (kalahavivada), to rancour and pride (manamacchariya). ===== I have come to the conclusion that if I were to have the opportunity to meet the Buddha and ask about the detailed functions of the thoughts in the thought process, the Buddha would answer me as he answered Malunkyupatta, "If a man who is pierced by a poison arrow, refuses to allow the surgeon to remove the arrow until he is told the name, height, etc. of the archer, he would die before learning the answers to all of his questions." My view on the Abhidhamma has changed. No longer is it a subject worthy of study for its own sake, nor is it accurate in all respects. The Abhidhamma is, however, an excellent structure to help study and understand the Dhamma as laid out the Suttas. I will continue to teach Abhidhamma each Sunday morning. I will focus even more on the practical aspects of the teaching rather than the theoretical side (focusing on the practical has been my habit and style, anyway). I will put more focus on the Suttas. I will deliver my lecture on "Inside the Thought Process" on September 15, but my focus will using the structure of the thought process to be able to cover all seven neutral universal cetasikas and all six neutral occasional cetasikas in one class. Yes, the lecture will be almost purely theory (how to make a neutral cetasika "practical"?), but covering thirteen cetasikas in one class is not bad. This has been an extremely long post. I feel that my direction is shifted a little bit away from the Abhidhamma as a subject of study and more to the Suttas as a subject of study (using the Abhidhamma as a structure and to provide some background details). This is new territory for me and I'm not sure where it will lead. I would be interested in feedback from others either supporting or not supporting this shift in focus (with your reasons, of course). Thanks, Rob M :-) 15395 From: Date: Mon Sep 2, 2002 7:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind Hi, Sarah (and all) - A bit more about nibbana. I found a (possibly) interesting item at the web site http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/panadi10.htm, where nibbana is described as an unmanifestive consciousness: ************************************************** In the Theravada Canon there are references to assert that Nibbana is the consciousness liberated from all worldly objects and thoughts, as is stated in the Dighanikaya. "Nibbanam-Vinnanam anidassanam anantam sabbato pabbam" - Nibbana is the consciousness that has no sign perceptible to the senses and it is immeasurable, purest and a state wherein all the connection with elements cease, leaving no trace (assesam uparujjhati). (D.i. 223). *************************************************** Now, I have discovered that this is actually a (probably unfaithful) translation of what appears near the very end of the Kevatta Sutta of the D. Nikaya. The formulation given on ATI as well as in the Maurice Walshe "The Long Discourses of the Buddha" is the following: **************************************************** "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements -- the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property -- cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this: > Where do water, earth, fire, & wind > have no footing? > Where are long & short, > coarse & fine, > fair & foul, > name & form > brought to an end? "'And the answer to that is: > Consciousness without feature, > without end, > luminous all around: > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > have no footing. > Here long & short > coarse & fine > fair & foul > name & form > are all brought to an end. > With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness > each is here brought to an end.'" *************************************************** Note that, contrary to what the monk wrote (in my first reference), there is no mention here of nibbana. I *do* believe that it pertains to nibbana, as does, for example, Peter Harvey, who also does not indicate the word 'nibbana' as actually occurring. If the word 'nibbana' doesn't actually occur - and it seems that it does not - the monk could have asserted that he *understands* this to refer to nibbana, but he should *not* have just inserted the word. To just insert it is, well - you know! ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15396 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Sep 2, 2002 11:55am Subject: Re: Re: [dsg] Re: The Problem Of The Greater Mind Dear Howard (and Larry), Thanks for the detailed posts. -----Original Message----- From: upasaka@a... Note that, contrary to what the monk wrote (in my first reference), there is no mention here of nibbana. I *do* believe that it pertains to nibbana, as does, for example, Peter Harvey, who also does not indicate the word 'nibbana' as actually occurring. If the word 'nibbana' doesn't actually occur - and it seems that it does not - the monk could have asserted that he *understands* this to refer to nibbana, but he should *not* have just inserted the word. To just insert it is, well - you know! ;-) I think this is a good reason to check references and commentaries. The commentaries sometimes have discussions of words in the sutta, often shedding light (or obfuscating, depending on how it is translated). I am not suggesting you believe everything the commentaries say, of course. But again, who does? kom 15397 From: Date: Mon Sep 2, 2002 8:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Time for a change (a long post) Hi, Rob - I consider this post of yours to be important enough for me to save. Thank you. I would very much appreciate a fuller reference for the book "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" by E. Sarachchandra, M.A., Ph.D., D. Litt., Chancellor, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. In particular, I would like the date, publisher, and the ISBN, and I would also like to know the price of the book. Is there a pbk edition, or only hardcover? With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/2/02 2:02:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi All, > > I am reading a book, "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" by E. > Sarachchandra, M.A., Ph.D., D. Litt., Chancellor, University of > Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. Actually, the book was his thesis submitted > to the University of London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. > A little light reading :-) The book has three sections: "Theories of > Perception in the Nikayas", "Perception in the Abhidhamma" > and "Theory of Bhavanga". > > Here is a quote from the book, "The results of the investigations > embodied in the Nikayas were made use of by the schoolmen of the > fifth century for the formulation of a theory of perception which, > while being faithful as far as possible to the views of early > Buddhism, attempted also to fill in the gaps that were left by it. > The theory is quite unique in the history of Indian thought, and it > was probably the work of Buddhaghosa after having immersed himself > in Sanskrit philosophy. There are in it unmistakeable signs of the > influence of the theories of perception that were current in the > schools of Indian philosophy and the schools of Mahayana Buddhism. > Whenever borrowings were made, however, they were modified and > adapted so as to be in keeping with the ideology of Theravada > Buddhism." > > There is a chapter of the book titled, "Developments in the Twelfth > Century", where the theory of moments was introduced into the > Abhidhamma, to merge/adapt/refute positions of the Yogacara and > Sautrantika schools which also had developed similar theories at > that time. Later, the book spent some time explaining the parallels > and differences between bhavanga and the Alaya Vijnana of the > Yogacara school. > > As I delve into the details of the thought process in preparation > for my class, I come to the conclusion that if I want anything more > than a very simple overview, I am wandering into the realm > of "speculative theories" put forth by philosophers. The > philosophers can't agree; there is a different view of the > importance of the registration citta as explained in the Visuddhi > Magga (early concept; registration is an exceptional case, rarely > occurring), the Abhidhammatthasangaha (late concept; registration > occurs in most thoughts) and the Atthasalini (wavers between early > and late concepts). I even find that some of the "simple overview" > was added later into the Abhidhamma and is not clearly supported in > the Suttas. For example, it appears as though the registration citta > was introduced by Buddhaghosa. In brief, I am starting to lose faith > in the accuracy and authenticity of the Abhidhamma. > > Here is another quote from the book, "... the Abhidhamma does not > make any attempt to explain the phenomenon of memory, for, having > postulated process without substance, they were without any known > equipment for explaining it, and were obliged to merely recognize it > as a fact." Why is it that the Abhidhamma does not give a clear > description on the function of memory? I think that memory is a very > important topic that deserves a detailed explanation. > > The beginning few paragraphs of the final chapter, "Philosophical > Basis of the Buddhist Theory of Perception", gives some comfort (to > me, at least): > > ===== > > As far as the early texts reveal, the Buddha's examination of mental > phenomena was undertaken with a purely practical end in view. His > immediate environment suggested to him the expediency of arriving at > a practical solution to the problem of pain. There was theorizing > and speculation around him ad nauseam. The very failure of these > theoretical methods to arrive at and advocate a satisfactory > solution to the problem would have emphasized the immediate need for > a method that would, at least as far as the individual was > concerned, same him from the inner unrest that was tormenting him. > No sensitive soul could remain untouched by the pervading chaos and > disintegration of values. > > What the Buddha advocated was that each individual should retreat > from the battleground and seek to gain his own inward happiness. Let > the wranglers go on abusing one another and demonstrating their > several theories with the help of logic. What finality was there in > this method of logical demonstration? The theory that one of them > held to be true and irrefutable, the other proved to be false by > equally convincing arguments (Yam ahu saccam tathiyam ti eke, Tam > ahu anne tuccham musa ti - Sutta Nipata 883). The alternatives, > surely were either that all of these contradictory views were > correct or that they were all false. It is impossible to accept the > first alternative, for there cannot be several truths in the world > (Ekam hi saccam na dutiyam atthi - Ibid 884). We are driven to the > conclusion, therefore, that they are all false, and that some method > other than logical demonstration must be found to help us in the > search for truth. > > ===== > > As a young teenager, I started reading Descartes, Kant and a number > of other Western Philosophers. At first, I was impressed by the > skill of their arguments, but then I became disillusioned. These > were the greatest minds produced by the Western World and they could > not agree! I postulated that either there was no solution (I did not > want to accept this) or that they had all taken a wrong turn out of > the starting gate. My conclusion was that the use of logical > arguments was somehow the wrong tool for philosophers. For > example "X" = "cup is on the table" "NOT X" = "the cup is not on the > table". The intersection of "X" and "NOT X" is the null set. In > other words, "the cup cannot be both on the table and not on the > table". The fallacy is that this statement, developed through > symbolic logic, is only true at one instant in time. The questions > being asked by philosophers are outside the domain of time and > therefore logic (at least symbolic logic) is not an appropriate tool > to deal with philosophical questions. I gave up reading philosophy > (Wittgenstein did me in) and spent a few years developing "my own" > philosophy. I thought long and hard about this. > > Later, when I was 19 and had a girlfriend whose father was a > Christian minister. We were sitting around the campfire at their > cottage one night and her father (the father) asked me about my > views on religion. I explained that I had been brought up Christian > but had developed my "own philosophy" over the past few years. He > was open-minded and asked me to explain my "own philosophy". I had > never verbalized it before and I talked solidly for two hours. The > father listened respectfully, asking questions and clarifications > where appropriate. When it was over, he said to me, "To become a > minister, you have to take a course on comparative religions. What > you have described over the past two hours is Buddhism." I was > shocked! I had never read anything about Buddhism and I found it > difficult to believe that "on my own" I had come up with one of the > world's major religions! Later I realized that I had been a Buddhist > in a previous life and it started to make sense. > > So here I am, twenty-five years later facing similar challenges with > the Abhidhamma as I faced with the western philosophers as a > teenager. Fortunately, the next few paragraphs in the last section > of the book I am reading give some guidance: > > ===== > > One thing noticeable about the argumentations of these clever > philosophers is that they are by no means salutary to the attainment > of happiness which, in the last resort, should constitute their > ultimate aim. One philosopher calls the other a fool, and the other > retorts with the same term of abuse. If they were both correct, > either they should both be fools or they should both be wise men and > there should be no fools at all among the religieux (Parassa ce hi > vacasa nihino, Tumo saha hoti nihinapanno, atha ce sayam vedagu hoti > dhiro, na koci balo samanesu atthi - Sutta Nipata 890). Besides, > these arguments engender passion and lead to a considerable amount > of heart-breaking. The sad fact about them is, therefore, that they > defeat their own purpose. > > Consequently we might suspect that there is something inherently > wrong in the very premises from which these arguments start. On > examination, they are all seen to rest on three things, dittha, suta > and muta, that is, things seen, heard and cogitated. These three > things belong to the sphere of sense perception, the sphere of > discursive reasoning (sanna). Multiplicity of views is the natural > result of dependence on sense knowledge (Na h'eva saccani bahuni > nana, annatra sannaya niccani loke - Ibid 886) Logical reasoning > leads to an inevitable dualism of thought. One is driven to the > correlatives of truth and falsehood. Only these two alternatives are > open to the way of logic (Takkan ca ditthisu pakappayitva, saccam > musa ti dvayadhammam ahu - Ibid 886). > > How is one to escape from this vicious circle? It is here that > introspective analysis helps us. Every form of mental activity is > seen to lead to our attainment of a kind of knowledge which does not > satisfy in the last resort. The polarities (dvandva) of happiness > and sorrow (sukha, dukkha), pleasure and unpleasure (piya, appiya), > attraction and repulsion (raga, dosa) agreeability and > disagreeability (satam, asatam) are ultimately seen to rest on sense > impression (Phassanidanam satam asatam - Ibid 870). Our notion of > the diversity of external nature is derived from the sphere of the > senses. All these polarities of thought and feeling lead to conflict > and strife (kalahavivada), to rancour and pride (manamacchariya). > > ===== > > I have come to the conclusion that if I were to have the opportunity > to meet the Buddha and ask about the detailed functions of the > thoughts in the thought process, the Buddha would answer me as he > answered Malunkyupatta, "If a man who is pierced by a poison arrow, > refuses to allow the surgeon to remove the arrow until he is told > the name, height, etc. of the archer, he would die before learning > the answers to all of his questions." > > My view on the Abhidhamma has changed. No longer is it a subject > worthy of study for its own sake, nor is it accurate in all > respects. The Abhidhamma is, however, an excellent structure to help > study and understand the Dhamma as laid out the Suttas. > > I will continue to teach Abhidhamma each Sunday morning. I will > focus even more on the practical aspects of the teaching rather than > the theoretical side (focusing on the practical has been my habit > and style, anyway). I will put more focus on the Suttas. I will > deliver my lecture on "Inside the Thought Process" on September 15, > but my focus will using the structure of the thought process to be > able to cover all seven neutral universal cetasikas and all six > neutral occasional cetasikas in one class. Yes, the lecture will be > almost purely theory (how to make a neutral cetasika "practical"?), > but covering thirteen cetasikas in one class is not bad. > > This has been an extremely long post. I feel that my direction is > shifted a little bit away from the Abhidhamma as a subject of study > and more to the Suttas as a subject of study (using the Abhidhamma > as a structure and to provide some background details). This is new > territory for me and I'm not sure where it will lead. > > I would be interested in feedback from others either supporting or > not supporting this shift in focus (with your reasons, of course). > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15398 From: Jim Anderson Date: Mon Sep 2, 2002 2:32pm Subject: the noumenal world Dear members, I'm not really all that familiar with many of the philosophical terms used by Western philosophers. I know that 'noumenon' is one of them and when Howard was asking those tough questions about naama and nibbaana, I wondered if there was a connection between 'naama' and 'noumenon'. Not knowing what 'noumenon' meant I had to look it up in a couple of dictionaries but as it turns out it doesn't have the meaning I was banking on. At one point I was even thinking of a similar parallel between ruupa and phenomenon but I have now dropped those ideas. What I found most interesting, however, was Kant's definition of the phenomenonal world vs the noumenal world which seem in my mind to relate quite well to the conventional and the real world of the Buddhist teachings. Here are the definitions given in D.D. Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy: Phenomenal World: The world of appearance as opposed to the world as-it-is-in-itself. The only world we know, said Kant, is the world-we-know, (appearance). The real world is beyond our knowledge. -- p. 231 Noumenal World: The real world as opposed to the appearance world. Kant said of the noumenal realm that it cannot be known. -- p. 215 The main difference being that the Buddhist would argue that the noumenal world can, in fact, be known through the higher understanding. I think what the Abhidhamma may be doing is describing this noumenal or real world. There is also this interesting comment in the article on Noumenon: In his [Kant's] practical philosophy, however, the postulation of a noumenal realm is necessary in order to explain the possibility of freedom. -- p. 215 Best wishes, Jim 15399 From: Date: Mon Sep 2, 2002 3:30pm Subject: ADL ch. 23 (1) [Note: The final two chapters of ADL have been revised and are viewable on the web only at the Zolag site. So with Christine's help I will post these last two chapters from the final version. Due to peculiarities of the transmission I have had to guess where to end paragraphs. Also, diacritical marks were transmitted which I haven't eased. These may misprint in your system. Many, many thanks to Binh Anson and Robert Kirkpatrick for making this invaluable work available on their web sites.] http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 23 (1) Lokuttara Cittas The Abhidhamma teaches us about different kinds of wholesome cittas. There are kåmåvacara kusala cittas (kusala cittas of the sensuous plane of consciousness, mahå-kusala cittas), rúpåvacara kusala cittas (rúpa-jhånacittas) and arúpåvacara kusala cittas (arúpa-jhånacittas). All these types of citta are kusala, but they do not eradicate the latent tendencies of defilements. Only lokuttara kusala cittas, magga-cittas, eradicate the latent tendencies of defilements. When all defilements are eradicated completely there will be an end to the cycle of birth and death. We may wonder whether lokuttara kusala cittas really eradicate defilements so that they never arise again. There are many defilements. We are full of lobha, dosa and moha. We have avarice, jealousy, worry, doubt, conceit and many other defilements. The clinging to the self is deeply rooted: we take our mind and our body for self. It is hard to understand how all these defilements can be eradicated. Defilements can be eradicated and there is a Path leading to it, but we have accumulated defilements to such an extent that they cannot be eradicated all at once. Ditthi, wrong view, has to be eradicated first; so long as we take realities for self there cannot be eradication of any defilement. There are four stages of enlightenment: the stages of the sotåpanna (streamwinner), the sakadågåmí (once-returner), the anågåmí (no-returner) and the arahat. At each of these stages the lokuttara kusala citta, the magga-citta, arises which experiences nibbåna and eradicates defilements. The sotåpanna, the ariyan who has attained the first stage of enlightenment, has eradicated ditthi completely, so that it can never arise again, but he has not eradicated all defilements. Defilements are eradicated stage by stage and only when arahatship has been attained all defilements have been eradicated. People may wonder how one can know that one has attained enlightenment. The lokuttara citta is accompanied by paññå (wisdom) which has been developed in vipassanå. One does not attain enlightenment without having developed insight-wisdom, vipassanå. There are several stages of insight-wisdom. First, doubt about the difference between nåma and rúpa is eliminated. It may be understood in theory that nåma is the reality which experiences an object and rúpa is the reality which does not know anything. However, theoretical understanding, understanding of the level of thinking, is not the same as direct understanding which realizes nåma as nåma and rúpa as rúpa. When there is, for example, sound, which is rúpa, there is also hearing, which is nåma, and these realities have different characteristics. There can be mindfulness of only one characteristic at a time and at such a moment right understanding of the reality which presents itself can develop. So long as there is not right mindfulness of one reality at a time there will be doubt as to the difference between nåma and rúpa. There has to be mindfulness of the different kinds of nåma and rúpa which appear in daily life in order to eliminate doubt. When the first stage of insight, which is only a beginning stage, is attained, there is no doubt as to the difference between the characteristics of nåma and rúpa. The characteristics of nåma and rúpa have to be investigated over and over again until they are clearly understood as they are and there is no more wrong view about them. The realization of the arising and falling away of nåma and rúpa is a higher stage of insight which cannot be attained so long as the characteristic of nåma cannot be distinguished from the characteristic of rúpa. All the different stages of insight have to be attained in the right order. Paññå should continue to investigate the characteristics of realities as they appear through the six doors so that the three characteristics of conditioned realities, namely: impermanence (anicca), dukkha and non-self (anattå), can be penetrated more and more. When paññå has clearly understood these three characteristics enlightenment can be attained; paññå can then experience nibbåna, the unconditioned reality. When paññå has been developed to that degree there cannot be any doubt as to whether one has attained enlightenment or not. The English word enlightenment can have different meanings and therefore it may create confusion. The Påli term for enlightenment is ``bodhi´´. Bodhi literally means knowledge or understanding. The attainment of enlightenment in the context of the Buddhist teachings refers to paññå which has been developed to the degree that it has become lokuttara paññå, ``supramundane paññå´´, which accompanies lokuttara cittas experiencing nibbåna. Enlightenment is actually a few moments of lokuttara cittas which do not last. Nibbåna does not arise and fall away, but the lokuttara cittas which experience nibbåna fall away and are followed by cittas of the sense-sphere; in the case of the ariyans who have not yet attained the fourth stage of enlightenment, also akusala cittas are bound to arise again. However, the defilements which have been eradicated at the attainment of enlightenment do not arise anymore. Only the right Path, the eightfold Path, can lead to enlightenment. If one develops the wrong path the goal cannot be attained. When one develops the wrong path one has ditthi, wrong view. In the Abhidhamma defilements are classified in different ways and also different kinds of wrong view are classified in various ways. For example, different kinds of wrong view are classified under the group of defilements which is clinging (upådåna). Three of the four kinds of clinging mentioned in this group are clinging to various forms of ditthi; these three kinds of clinging have been completely eradicated by the sotåpanna. One of them is: ``clinging to rules and ritual´´ (sílabbatupådåna), which includes the wrong practice of vipassanå. Some people think that they can attain enlightenment by following some path other than the eightfold Path but this is an illusion. There are no other ways leading to enlightenment. The eightfold Path is developed by being mindful of the nåma and rúpa which appear in daily life, such as seeing, visible object, hearing, sound, thinking, feeling, attachment, anger or the other defilements which arise. If the eightfold Path is not developed by being mindful of all realities which appear in one's daily life, wrong view cannot be eradicated and thus not even the first stage of enlightenment, the stage of the sotåpanna, can be attained. Therefore, there is no way leading to enlightenment other than the development of right understanding of realities, which is the wisdom (paññå) of the eightfold Path.