18600 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 0:33am Subject: Re: difficulty with Class Notes Hi Rob, Sorry - still doesn't work. Acrobat reader is now givig a message that the file has been damaged and cannot be repaired. I wonder if anyone else has been having trouble, or has anyone else been successful? I had a wonderful holiday season thank you Rob, and I hope you did also. :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult " wrote: > Hi Christine, > > Even better News! I think that the problem has been fixed. > > Please let me know if it still does not work. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > 18601 From: James Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 0:34am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, > > I disagree. > > My interpretation of "freed, dissociated, & released" in this > (Bahuna) sutta is different. > > "Freed, dissociated, & released" means that the three roots of > attachment, aversion and ignorance have been uprooted. > > Do you mean the Tathagata is putting up a show for Ananda? > > Do you mean that the Tathagata is putting up the world's greatest > show at his parinibbana? > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, You write: "Freed, dissociated, & released" means that the three roots of attachment, aversion and ignorance have been uprooted" How do you know that is what it means? If that is what it meant, that is what the Buddha would have said. No, he said that he dwells 'Freed, dissociated, and released'. Look at it this way, the aggregates and the round of becoming is like a prison. The Buddha realized this early on in life, that is why he wanted to be released from the prison. And so what happened? By his own efforts he became 'freed, dissociated, and released." He wasn't in prison anymore. What you are saying is that he was still in prison but he just learned to deal with it. You are suggesting that enlightenment is like 'putting on a happy face'. I believe it is much deeper than that. You seem to believe it just affects the brain/mind, I believe it affects the whole being. Enlightenment is a transformation and release down to the molecular level of the entire person, not just the brain. Those who were around the Buddha saw this and felt it. He didn't have to convince 'those with little dust in their eyes'; he didn't have to play twenty questions to prove that he was enlightened. They knew it automatically. I don't know if you meditate, but if you do you will know what I am talking about. Usually, meditation is like sitting in a prison of skin, bones, and bloody guts. But, the more you do it, the more you become released. When wisdom or insight 'arises' in you, it doesn't just arise in your mind; it arises in your whole body. You know that release is possible with your entire body. This is not a trick of the mind, this is a reality. Unless you have experienced it, you will try to figure these things out with your mind. That is a fruitless endeavor. Was the Buddha 'putting on a show'? Gosh, I never said that! The Buddha acted with compassion for the benefit of the unenlightened-- if you want to see that as 'putting on a show', so be it. He did not purposefully startle people, tell them things they were unprepared for, demonstrate his powers, and he acted in a way that they could relate to. He did this out of compassion, not to 'put on a show.' The sutta you quote about Ananda rubbing the Buddha's aching back is quite interesting. To Ananda, the Buddha's back was aching, the Buddha was looking old, etc.; the Buddha told Ananda what was appropriate for him to hear. Do I believe the Buddha's back was really aching? No. I believe that is what Ananda projected onto the Buddha. For example, since we keep talking about the parinibbana of the Buddha. The Buddha died because he ate bad food, bad meat. Have you ever eaten bad meat? If you haven't, please don't ever. It is the absolute worse experience in the world!! Here is a quote about food poisoning: "Food poisoning refers to an acute illness caused by ingestion of food contaminated by bacteria, bacterial toxins, viruses, natural poisons, or harmful chemical substances. It is characterized by a short incubation period (1 wk or less). The symptoms, varying in degree and combination, include abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, and prostration; more serious cases can result in life- threatening neurologic, hepatic, and renal syndromes leading to permanent disability or death." Now, you think that the Buddha's back hurt so bad that Ananda had to rub it and yet when the Buddha was dying from food poisoning he did not scream out in pain, did not act adversely, and was actually able to meditate and reach all four Jhanas? No, that would be quite impossible. In other words, at that time you quote the Buddha was humoring Ananda; but at the Buddha's parinibbana, the Buddha acted just in the way he was supposed to act. None of it was real to him. Metta, James 18602 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 1:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Swee Boon, --- "nidive " wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > I think the question is, when we read "The Tathagata > > is `deep' ..." is it referring to the present state or > > the future Parinibbana of the Tathagata? > > It refers to the parinibbana of the Tathagata. ..... I’m not sure this is right as I wrote before..... we may have to leave it for now. ..... > I think it is very clear that the intention of Vaccha in asking > whether "the Tathagata `reappears' or not" refers to the death of > the Tathagata. ..... agreed ..... > If the Tathagata was alive, the Tathagata `appears' (right before > the eyes of Vaccha). > > If the Tathagata was dead, does the Tathagata `reappear'? This was > the intention of Vaccha's question. ..... agreed .... > > Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, > > tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, > > to-be-experienced by the wise. > > This statement refers to nibbana. Nibbana is the unconditioned > phenomenon. ..... as you corrected later, this refers to the Dhamma and thereby to realizing nibbana (as in the SN quote you gave also). ..... > > "Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the > > Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its > > root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the > > conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. > > The Tathagata, having realized the unconditioned phenomenon, > nibbana, has uprooted the roots for future arising. This refers to > the Tathagata alive. ..... agreed ..... > > Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is > deep, > > boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. > > 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' > > doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't > > apply. > > The Tathagata can only be freed from the classification of form at > death, parinibbana. While alive, the Tathagata is not yet freed from > form (though he has uprooted the roots by which form arises). The > five aggregates still remain in existence. ..... agreed. The phrase in brackets is the key, I think. .... > FREED (note past tense) from the classification of the five > aggregates, there is no longer wisdom. > > FREED (note past tense) from the classification of the five > aggregates, there is no longer any more liberation from samsara. > > Once FREED (parinibbana), the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to > fathom, like the sea (note that this is a different description by > the Buddha than the one given for nibbana earlier in the sutta). > Which means that any way by which we `point' to the Tathagata, > that `pointing' doesn't apply. ..... I don’t have the Pali (and know little Pali myself). : Freed may also be present passive - i.e (he is)freed. BB translation gives: “The Tathagata has abandoned that material form by which one describing the Tathagata might describe him; he has cut it off at the root...” Note: present perfect tense, i.e up til the present. sub-commentary note “adds that the material form has been abandoned by the abandonment of the fetters connected with it, and it has thus become incapable of arising again in the future.” ..... > And, IMHO, the Tathagata, though freed from the classification of > the five aggregates, is not nibbana. We cannot `point' to the > Tathagata as nibbana. Nibbana itself is a phenomenon, the > unconditioned phenomenon. Whereas the Tathagata, freed, is no longer > any phenomenon. The Tathagata, freed, is non-phenomenon, for a lack > of a better word. ..... Agreed. In context, I think ‘freed’ refers to freed from all kilesa and thereby freed from any future becoming by way of having experienced the unconditioned. I quite appreciate your reasoning and support all your other comments here. .... > My own reflections and considerations. > Mostly translations of suttas. No access to commentaries. Reads ADL > and ATI. ..... I highly respect these and thank you for sharing with us. ..... > I think it is only proper to correct my mistakes. ..... My respect again. Sarah ===== 18603 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 1:27am Subject: Hanging around :-) Hi Antony, Glad you made it into the album at photo number 69! Hopefully others will follow your good example, and make a resolution to hang around in the gallery as well this New Year. Delightful to see another great Aussie smiling out at us, Antony :-) For those unused to navigating their way around dhammastudygroup, click on this link: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst (then click on 'show all', then click on any photo to 'enlarge' it.) metta, Christine 18604 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 2:08am Subject: Golden Lotus Hi Sarah, I was browsing the Useful Posts and came across one (16672) where you asked for a reference to the Buddha giving a monk a golden lotus. Not sure if anyone sent you this previously... It is mentioned at the link below - Fundamentals of Vipassana Meditation by Mahasi Sayadaw. Click on "The dull young monk" http://www.palikanon.com/english/fundamentals/fundamentals.htm metta, Christine 18605 From: Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 11:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why did Buddha concentrate? Hi, TG - In a message dated 1/8/03 12:35:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > > Last month someone asked why did Buddha continue to concentrate even after > he > had been enlightened. Here is a relevant passage... > > "Now, Brahmin, it might be that you think: 'Perhaps the recluse Gotama is > not > free from lust, hate, and delusion even today, which is why he still > resorts > to jungle-thicket resting places in the forest.' But you should not think > thus. It is because I see two benefits that I still resort to > jungle-thickets resting places in the forest: I see a pleasant abiding for > myself here and now, and I have compassion for future generations." > (The Buddha...Majjhima Nikaya Sutta # 4) > > TG > > =========================== Both of these reasons are interesting. Each calls for elucidation, it seems to me. The first reason *suggests* that the Buddha might have still had preferences - specifically the preference for pleasant over unpleasanat and neutral. The second leaves open the question of *how* the Buddha's resorting "to jungle-thicket resting places in the forest" was of service to future generations. By example? By psychic influence? 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) 18606 From: Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 11:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi, Robert (and Sarah, and Jon) - In a message dated 1/8/03 12:43:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Howard: a number of people on this list, you a little bit, Sarah a > little more, and Jon even moreso, and others (all of whom I admire > and have great fondness for) consider that no-control is a 100% kind > of thing, and that, because there is no self, volition cannot be > exercised. """ > ______ > Sounds like Jon is a real no-control freak! Interestingly out the > three of us I would estimate Jon is the most restrained in behaviour. > ============================ I can't wait to hear what Sarah has to say about this! (C'mon, Sarah, isn't Jon really a crypto-wild-man? ;-)) With metta, Howard P.S. I hope you all can hear the affection in my voice. :-) /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18607 From: nidive Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 6:15am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi James, > How do you know that is what it means? If that is what it > meant, that is what the Buddha would have said. No, he said > that he dwells 'Freed, dissociated, and released'. And how do you know that the "unrestricted awareness" refers to the "Pure Mind" concept of yours? > He wasn't in prison anymore. What you are saying is that he > was still in prison but he just learned to deal with it. You > are suggesting that enlightenment is like 'putting on a happy face'. Yes, the Buddha was still in prison while alive. But he did not have attachment, aversion and ignorance with regard to this prison. He knew prison as prison. He had comprehended this prison to its very end. In this manner, *his mind* was freed, dissociated and released with regard to this prison. No new kamma was created with regard to this prison. The Buddha did not learn to deal with this prison after he was enlightened. At the point of enlightenment, the three roots are destroyed. Destroyed, the Buddha knows this prison as this prison. He did not need to put on a happy face for anyone, even himself. He felt physical pain, but he endured it. While enduring the pain, do you think he had a happy face at the same time? Or a sad face? No, he was tranquil, ever mindful of the pain. > Now, you think that the Buddha's back hurt so bad that Ananda had to > rub it and yet when the Buddha was dying from food poisoning he did > not scream out in pain, did not act adversely, and was actually able > to meditate and reach all four Jhanas? Whether Ananda had rubbed the Buddha's back or not, the Buddha would still be ever mindful of the pain. The fact that Ananda had rubbed his back is inconsequential. By the way, the sutta I quoted did not say anything about back pain. And lastly, what is the difference between the "awareness" in this sutta below and the "unrestricted awareness" that we talked about? : When the Blessed One was totally Unbound, simultaneously with the total Unbinding, Ven. Anuruddha uttered this verse: He had no in-&-out breathing, the one who was Such, the firm-minded one, imperturbable & bent on peace: the sage completing his span. With heart unbowed he endured the pain. Like a flame's unbinding was the liberation of awareness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16a.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18608 From: James Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 7:17am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, > > > How do you know that is what it means? If that is what it > > meant, that is what the Buddha would have said. No, he said > > that he dwells 'Freed, dissociated, and released'. > > And how do you know that the "unrestricted awareness" refers to > the "Pure Mind" concept of yours? > > > > He wasn't in prison anymore. What you are saying is that he > > was still in prison but he just learned to deal with it. You > > are suggesting that enlightenment is like 'putting on a happy > face'. > > Yes, the Buddha was still in prison while alive. But he did not have > attachment, aversion and ignorance with regard to this prison. He > knew prison as prison. He had comprehended this prison to its very > end. In this manner, *his mind* was freed, dissociated and released > with regard to this prison. No new kamma was created with regard to > this prison. > > The Buddha did not learn to deal with this prison after he was > enlightened. At the point of enlightenment, the three roots are > destroyed. Destroyed, the Buddha knows this prison as this prison. > He did not need to put on a happy face for anyone, even himself. He > felt physical pain, but he endured it. While enduring the pain, do > you think he had a happy face at the same time? Or a sad face? No, > he was tranquil, ever mindful of the pain. > > > > Now, you think that the Buddha's back hurt so bad that Ananda had > to > > rub it and yet when the Buddha was dying from food poisoning he > did > > not scream out in pain, did not act adversely, and was actually > able > > to meditate and reach all four Jhanas? > > Whether Ananda had rubbed the Buddha's back or not, the Buddha would > still be ever mindful of the pain. The fact that Ananda had rubbed > his back is inconsequential. By the way, the sutta I quoted did not > say anything about back pain. > > > And lastly, what is the difference between the "awareness" in this > sutta below and the "unrestricted awareness" that we talked about? : > > > When the Blessed One was totally Unbound, simultaneously with the > total Unbinding, Ven. Anuruddha uttered this verse: > > He had no in-&-out breathing, > the one who was Such, the firm-minded one, > imperturbable > & bent on peace: > the sage completing his span. > With heart unbowed > he endured the pain. > Like a flame's unbinding > was the liberation > of awareness. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16a.html > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, So, we come down to your opinion vs. mine. That is fine. Most of my evaluation comes from personal meditation experience. Though rudimentary compared to the Buddha, probably not too shabby. So tell me, when you meditate do you find that insight arises only in your mind or through out your body? Does your whole body feel liberated at moments of insight, or just your mind? Do your body feel different, or the same? Metta, James 18609 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 10:29am Subject: Perfections Ch 7, Patience, no 11 Perfections Ch 7, Patience, no 11 The present which is superior is the Triple Gem. We have met each other life after life in the cycle of birth and death, in some lives as friends, in other lives as enemies or as parents and relatives. However, to be born as friends in the Dhamma who are cooperating to spread the teachings is most beneficial. Such a life is superior to other lives in the cycle of birth and death, where we were born elsewhere without such an opportunity. We read further on in the Commentary: As regards King Pukkusåti, he arranged for decorations beginning with the border area in the following manner: King Pukkusåti arranged that the city would be decorated so that the royal present from King Bimbisåra could be received. When the royal present arrived in Takkasilå it was a day of vigil (uposatha). The courtiers who received the royal present announced the contents of the royal official letter to the King. After the King had listened to this he considered the duties he had to fulfill towards the courtiers who had come to offer the royal present. He let the royal present be carried to the palace and he said, ²Let nobody enter here². He asked people to guard the gate, he opened the window (used for receiving at official occasions), he had the royal present placed on a high bed, and he himself sat down on a low seat. He broke the royal seal, and he took off the coverings. When he opened the boxes subsequently and saw the box made of bamboomatting, he considered, ³I believe that other Gems do not have such accompaniments, and thus we should listen to this Jewel. This Jewel was certainly born in the Middle Country.² When he had opened those boxes and broken the royal seal, he took away from both sides the delicate blanket made of animal hair, he saw the golden sheet and unrolled this. He considered: ³These letters are really beautifully carved out in all details: they are of equal size, neat and quadrangle. I will start to read them from the beginning.² An intense feeling of joy arose in the King when he read and reread about the excellent qualities of the Buddha who appeared in this world. The tips of the ninetynine thousand bodyhairs stood on end. Because of his extreme delight and rapture the King did not know whether he should stand or sit down. When intense rapture arose within the King he said: ²We heard the teachings which are difficult to come across, even in a hundred thousand aeons, and this could happen because of a friend.² When the King was unable to read on he sat down until his rapture quieted down. Then he started to read on about the excellent qualities of the Dhamma: ³The Dhamma that was wellspoken by the Buddha...² The King experienced intense rapture and he sat down again until the strength of his rapture quieted down. After that he read about the excellent qualities of the Sangha, ³The ariyan disciples practise in the right way...² and he experienced intense rapture in the same way. 18610 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 35, Comm, Breathing Larry, this whole passage is not in my Pali text, and the same for the following page. The Co just mentions that this is in the Visuddhimagga. Nina. op 08-01-2003 02:10 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, The Section on Breathing, p.47 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html > > Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami... passasissamiti sikkhati... = > "Experiencing the whole body I shall breathe in... breathe out, thinking > thus, he trains himself." He trains himself with the following idea: I > shall breathe in making known, making clear, to myself the beginning, > middle, and end of the whole body of breathings in; 18611 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 2:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert K > > KC: I still remember I discuss this issue before. I think I was > wrong the previous times about cetana. You are right to say that > there is no control over the khandas but these are for pple who have > achieved a certain level of development. I do not know which level. > In the meantime, there is a need to direct cetana or not Buddha will > not talk about Sila, livelihood and sati. Or during his times, what > is to be done what is not to be done bc he knows we are fallable > Until we could do unprompted kusala behaviour and latent tendecies > are not that strong, there is a need to direct cetana and that needs > a certain form of directing cetana and hence Buddha talk about the > Eight Noble path which are cater for both mundane and supramundane > state. Ultimately, the Buddha path is no control when one developed > from citta to maga citta, there is no need for any control as it > becomes unprompted kusala behaviour like a tidal wave. > > > kind rgds > KC > > ++++++++++ Dear KenO, Thanks for coming into the discussion. Someone asked A. Sujin on a tape I heard, why she stressed anatta so much. She said that for those who have the ability to understand it this deepest aspect of the teachings can only be heard during a Buddhasasana. We can develop sila and samatha whether there exists the teachings of a buddha or not. I think it is not that one who learns about anatta necessarily neglects sila or samatha - rather they will drop away the wrong path (which can include a wrong approach to sila and samatha, silabbataparamasa). In thailand from childhood people chant "sabbe dhamma anatta": it may not be well comprehended but should we tell the monks not to teach it unless someone is at a certain stage? Can we choose when we will hear about anatta and its characteristic (no control)? RobertK 18612 From: Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 3:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 35, Comm, Breathing Thanks Nina, I see what you were saying now. Do you think this extra material is misleading? Larry ---------------- Nina: Larry, this whole passage is not in my Pali text, and the same for the following page. The Co just mentions that this is in the Visuddhimagga. Nina. 18613 From: Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 11:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Why did Buddha concentrate? In a message dated 01/08/2003 4:05:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: << Both of these reasons are interesting. Each calls for elucidation, it seems to me. The first reason *suggests* that the Buddha might have still had preferences - specifically the preference for pleasant over unpleasanat and neutral. The second leaves open the question of *how* the Buddha's resorting "to jungle-thicket resting places in the forest" was of service to future generations. By example? By psychic influence? With metta, Howard >> I read "compassion for future generations" to mean that he is setting an example of what to follow/do. One resorting to a jungle-thicket would be doing so because it is an ideal abiding for: -- seclusion, concentration, and insight. TG 18614 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 9:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 34, Comm, Breathing Hi Larry, maybe I was not clear, after the leopard passage, starting with nisidati pallankam (sits down, etc.), then digham va assasato, etc. , then he states: From patisambhida Magga, and after that sabbakayapatisamvedi...next pages, Passambhayam... until : indeed to the yogin training in... all these pages are not in my Pali text. Pali text says, pe, pe (etc.) and: in Visuddhimagga. I heard of a new translation, on Pali yahoo, here is a link you and Christine could try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/files/thepalicentre/anapanasati.zip I am curious, but have no time, and my access is not so good. Insight is from the first to the last item in this sutta, it is all about satipatthana. I shall highlight a few things. op 08-01-2003 06:33 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > L: I appended a Pm passage from a note by B. ~Nanamoli to clarify a > point in Ven. Soma's text which was the same as one in Visuddimagga. One > thing that is a little confusing is that in Vism the path is divided > into sila, samadhi, and panna and apparently satipatthana is mostly > discussed under the samadhi category. But we want to discuss it as > panna. So a textual clarification would be helpful here. Personally, I > like satipatthana as samadhi. Early on in the commentary it said body > contemplation and feeling contemplation were concerned with developing > calm and citta and dhamma contemplation were concerned with developing > insight. So we might have to wait until we get to cittanupassana before > we see anything like an insight. Several of the 16 topics of anapanasati > seem to be insight oriented but I don't know if they are discussed in > this commentary. > 18615 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 10:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Golden Lotus Hi Christine, --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I was browsing the Useful Posts and came across one (16672) where you > asked for a reference to the Buddha giving a monk a golden lotus. Not > sure if anyone sent you this previously... > It is mentioned at the link below - Fundamentals of Vipassana > Meditation by Mahasi Sayadaw. Click on "The dull young monk" > http://www.palikanon.com/english/fundamentals/fundamentals.htm ..... Exactly what I was looking for. The point of the story was that in this case, even Sariputta did not know what the suitable meditation object (of samatha) was. Only the Buddha knew....as it mentions, it turns out the monk had been a goldsmith for 500 existences and so was fascinated by the golden lotus. When the Buddha made it fade away, he realized the tri-lakkhana after developing jhana. The question at the time of the discussion was whether teachers really know what is suitable for students in this regard. Now Chris, we have a few more details, but I still can't see any sutta reference. If you or anyone else manages to track one down, pls let me know again;-) Thanks. Sarah ====== 18616 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 11:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > I can't wait to hear what Sarah has to say about this! (C'mon, > Sarah, > isn't Jon really a crypto-wild-man? ;-)) ..... Showing restraint, my lips are sealed <---> (hope I get some brownie points for this;-)) > P.S. I hope you all can hear the affection in my voice. :-) ..... :-) always. Glad the cataract surgery went so smoothly - I was amazed that you were back on line the same day. Ok, Howard, now you’ve dragged me into the discussion, you’ll have to put up with a few more ‘no-control’ comments. Apologies in advance for any misunderstanding of your points below --- 1. H. to Ken: “We start right in the midst of samsara, right in the midst of this world of illusion, and “here” WE must ACT. The ultimate fact that such acting is a mere seeming, mere illusion, does not dictate inacction. The nonexistent “self” must engage in “unreal actions”. ..... S: This sounds like the argument KC also presented (I think) and which I’ve heard quite often from others - namely that there is one rule for us worldlings with wrong view of self and another for those without any illusions. In other words, self rules and acts until it is seen as the illusion. I believe this is contrary to the comment you’ve been making recently to effect that regardless of whether the Buddha taught the dhamma or whether we’ve ever heard it, the truth is the truth. In other words, regardless of any wrong view there may be of self acting, there never is any self to act. ***** 2. H to Ken: “..what I take exception to is the implication of powerlessness and hopelessness. It is all well and good to intellectually grasp that there is nothing but the present moment and that nothing is as it seems, but to not take conventional action........” ..... S: That would be wrong view. There will always be ‘conventional action’ and there is nothing ‘powerless’ or ‘hopeless’ about any wholesome mental states. If there is any idea that the ‘no-control aspect of anatta’ means nothing can be done or all is hopeless, this would be a dangerous wrong view. I haven’t seen it expressed by Jon, Rob or myself. ***** 3. H to Robert K: “..consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised.” ..... According to the conditional relations, no-control is “a 100% kind of thing”. Outside of the various conditions which work together to bring about certain results, there is no other factor or agent, regardless of whether or not there is any insight. Cetana (volition) plays its part, along with all the other namas and rupas. Cetana arises with every citta and coordinates or directs the other mental factors. While it ‘wills’ or urges wholesome and unwholesome cittas (in the javana process), it is never exercised by any agent. “..there is no such thing as volition in the four planes of existence without the characteristic of coordinating; all volition has it. but the function of ‘willing’ is only in moral (kusala) and immoral (akusala) states...It has directing as manifestation. It arises directing associated states, like the chief disciple, the chief carpenter, etc, who fulfil their own and others’ duties.” Atthasalini (1, part 1V, Ch 1, 111) (see Nina’s ‘Cetasikas’ for more details on cetana) As I wrote to Rob Ep in a post on sakkaya ditthi (self view), we were discussing in Thailand how easily one kind or other can slip in even when we’ve heard and considered so much about different namas and rupas. ***** 4. H to Rob K: “The Buddha made differeing statements to different people to address differing “ailments”. He also directed his followers to engage in various actions, i.e. to exercise their will”. ..... S: I agree with the first comment. With regard to the second, I think as Rob K suggested, it depends how we read and understand directions to ‘engage in various actions’. When I give instructions to my students to work harder, not forget their books and so on.....these instructions can be said and received both with and without any idea of self. The instructions don’t change; the understanding does. ***** 5. H to Kom: On hearing a melody - “it is based on the existence of an actual pattern of relations holding among the notes.........pannati......is well-grounded.....useful information to the mind.” ..... S: I agree with your comments. I’d put it that depending on the actual sounds heard, the particular combination leads to pannatti forming a pattern of relations.....well-grounded and so on. It’s a good point because sometimes when people hear that seeing sees visible object only or hearing hears sound only, they then think this means some blank neutral visible object or sound without any variation. Clearly that would be nonsense and there would be no concepts and no functioning in the world in that case. ***** This last point was from another thread, but I thought I’d add it. I’d also like to say, Howard, that though I only ever seem to pick out points of yours that I may not agree with, you also write a lot which I really appreciate and fully support. For example, in your last post to Rob M you make some very helpful points about the limits of intellectual analysis and how “it has the capacity to generate...plenty of murkiness along with light.” you go on to explain how it is not a substitute for dhammavicaya and for sati and sampajanna and so on.* You put it all beautifully as you often do. I just mention this one example as I wouldn’t wish anyone to end up with the idea that we never agree. It’s just that we seldom discuss agreements here;-) As always, I greatly value all your sincere and honest comments and sharing of understanding. Sarah * (quote of yours more fully) H: “Just one more point: The intellectual analysis that we engage in, by individual thought and through our conversations, while often useful, doesn't always foster wisdom; it has the capacity to generate, I have no doubt, plenty of murkiness along with light. Intellectual analysis, while often supportive of the practice, is not the practice, and it is not a substitute for the enlightenment factor of investigation (dhammavicaya), which, as I see it, goes hand in hand with direct application of sati and sampaja~n~na to what actually arises from moment to moment. Investigation in the Dhammic sense will never run counter to the development of compassion in my opinion, though cold, dry intellectual examination may.” =============================================== 18617 From: James Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 1:38am Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: When I give instructions to my students to > work harder, not forget their books and so on.....these instructions can > be said and received both with and without any idea of self. The > instructions don't change; the understanding does. Hi Sarah, Now honestly, when you give instructions to your students, do you really know that there is no `you' giving assignments to `them'? I would bet that you are stuck in self-view just like the rest of us unenlightened folk; if I am mistaken I apologize. But assuming that I am right, given that you are stuck in self-view, of what benefit does it serve you to say that there is no self when you don't know directly that there is no self? Is that a method of eliminating craving? Does it lead to insight? I don't understand the point of anyone talking like they are enlightened when they aren't. What is the point of that? Before the Buddha reached enlightenment, did he have self-view? From my studies he did. After all, he wanted to find out where his `self' was and why it was that he existed. Now, if Gotama had self-view, operated under self-view, did not know anything other than self-view, how was it that he could become enlightened? I would assume it was because we all can become enlightened with self- view. How? By OUR OWN efforts. If that weren't possible, Gotama Siddhartha wouldn't have become enlightened. He wouldn't have become the Buddha. So why did he teach anatta after he discovered it? First of all, he only taught it a fraction of how the Abhidhamma goes on about it. Secondly, he only taught it to those who were serious about renunciation and meditation, he did not teach it to lay people. In other words, he didn't want a teacher dispersing instructions to students thinking `there is no self in this process.' What is the point of that? That will lead the teacher and the students to confusion. I don't believe the teaching of anatta is supposed to be dispersed to everyone like a polio vaccination. It is only supposed to be followed by those people who dedicate the entirety of their lives to it. If anyone really wants to know non-self, they need to give up everything, shave their head, wrap themselves in a sheet, and go live in the jungle-- with nothing! Maybe then they can begin to understand non-self; but even then it is difficult! This preaching of nama/rupa, no control, anatta, only the present moment, etc., etc., etc., is putting the cart before the horse, in my estimation. We all need to start right where we are..just like Gotama did. If where we are is in the middle of suburban life, with a job, responsibilities, and little time or energy to meditate-- then we need to start there. Otherwise, all of this emphasis on anatta is like trying to `wish your self away'; which is another form of conceit. If you push down one problem, it will more than likely just pop up somewhere else. Just some ideas I thought I would share. If you don't agree, okay. Metta, James 18618 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 1:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Larry, I really liked the way you answered your own question and found your own reference to the point you were discussing with Rob K, i.e “textual reference to the point that the sotapanna magga citta eradicates ditthi”. I like the simile of the archer very much: “Vism XXII 12: Here is a simile for this. An archer, it seems, had a target set up at a distance of eight usabhas (about 100 yards), and wrapping his face in a cloth and arming himself with an arrow, he stood on a wheel contrivance (a revolving platform). Another man turned the wheel contrivance, and when the target was opposite the archer, he gave him a sign with a stick. Without pausing after the sign the archer shot the arrow and hit the target. Herein, change-of-lineage knowledge is like the sign with the stick. Path knowledge is like the archer. Path knowledge's making nibbana its object without pausing after the sign given by change-of-lineage, and its piercing and exploding the mass of greed, hate and delusion never pierced and exploded before is like the archer's hitting the target without pausing after the sign. ” ***** I also agree with your conclusion here, whereby ‘act’ is the magga citta accompanied by the 8-fold path factors: ..... “L: I interpret this to mean the act of apprehending nibbana eradicates the anusaya as per whichever of the four path moments it may be.” ..... While I’m talking to you, I understand the middle way to be the 5-fold or 8-fold path. So at any moment of satipatthana, it is the way. I wasn’t sure about some of your other comments on ways, though, such as the middle way being samsara, kamma and so on. You also mentioned that you ‘like satipatthana as samadhi’. I don’t understand this comment at all. There cannot be any way or satipatthana development without panna (wisdom) and indeed without satipatthana, there cannot be any insights (vipassana). However, there has to be right concentration accompanying moments of satipatthana. I think the Visuddhimaga discusses all kinds of wholesome states and mental development. We can see that all the phenomena discussed are namas and rupas. When you say ‘satipatthana is mostly discussed under the samadhi category’, I’m not clear. Perhaps you’d give a quote. Also, I think some of your comments suggesting that kayanupassana and vedanupassana ‘are associated more with cultivation of quietude while cittanupassana and dhammanupassana are associated more with the cultivation of insight” are rather misleading. I understand why you make these comments from your reading of ‘Way’, but repeatedly in the texts we are encouraged to develop awareness of all realities with detachment and without any selection. After signing off, I want to find and quote some earlier very helpful comments you made about the inventory of reality and understanding of self-view. This applies to all realities (the 5 khandhas as discussed under the 4 sections in ‘Way’) as I understand it. Sorry for yet another long post, Larry. I always start off intending to send you a short reply, but like we read in the chicken and egg sutta, it depends on conditions what turns out, regardless of the initial intention;-) Sarah ====== “L: I've been studying and contemplating on "views" and have found that the Purification of View in the Path of Purification is basically an inventorying of reality with the result that a self is not found there-in. So saying "there is no self" or "there is no self in reality" or "this part of reality is not self and any other part of reality is not self"amounts to the same thing. However, for me, in order for this inventory to be convincing I need to recognize that grasping "I am" is the reality of grasping a usually meaningless concept. So, self-view is actually a reality even though a self is not found when sought. Also I should add there is a big difference between the Purification of View and the eradication of view that is Stream Entry. Purification of View is somewhat on the level of being 'politically correct' while Stream Entry is a glimpse of nibbana. For more info on Purification of View see ch. XVIII Visuddhimagga.” ========================== 18619 From: Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 11:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 1/9/03 2:52:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > > I can't wait to hear what Sarah has to say about this! (C'mon, > >Sarah, > >isn't Jon really a crypto-wild-man? ;-)) > ..... > Showing restraint, my lips are sealed <---> > (hope I get some brownie points for this;-)) > > >P.S. I hope you all can hear the affection in my voice. :-) > ..... > :-) always. > > Glad the cataract surgery went so smoothly - I was amazed that you were > back on line the same day. > > Ok, Howard, now you’ve dragged me into the discussion, you’ll have to put > up with a few more ‘no-control’ comments. Apologies in advance for any > misunderstanding of your points below --- > > 1. H. to Ken: “We start right in the midst of samsara, right in the midst > of this world of illusion, and “hereâ€? WE must ACT. The ultimate fact that > such acting is a mere seeming, mere illusion, does not dictate inacction. > The nonexistent “selfâ€? must engage in “unreal actionsâ€?. > ..... > S: This sounds like the argument KC also presented (I think) and which > I’ve heard quite often from others - namely that there is one rule for us > worldlings with wrong view of self and another for those without any > illusions. In other words, self rules and acts until it is seen as the > illusion. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is no self who acts. There is no *acting*, if 'acting' implies a self/agent which acts. But there is intention which has consequences, and that, formulated conventionally, is what I mean by "acting". There is kamma and kamma vipaka. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > I believe this is contrary to the comment you’ve been making recently to > effect that regardless of whether the Buddha taught the dhamma or whether > we’ve ever heard it, the truth is the truth. In other words, regardless of > any wrong view there may be of self acting, there never is any self to > act. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, not contrary. Just differing modes of expressing. When the two modes become conflated, which is a very easy thing for the run-of-the-mill worldling to do, the implication of "no-control because no self to do any controlling" comes to be understood as the impossibility of intentional action. (Nina wrote in Listening to Dhamma the following: "The dhammas which arise in our daily life are beyond control, we cannot own them. Seeing and hearing do not belong to us, they are non-self. We cannot choose what we see and hear, this depends on the appropriate conditions." Now all three of these sentences are true . But they can but they can be misunderstood. In fact, what dhammas are experienced are *not* beyond control, precisely because intention can serve as a condition. Closing one's eyes is a (conventional) volitional action which changes what is seen, just as looking elsewhere does, or, for that matter, taking a trip to a different locale. If the fact that there is, in reality, no agent to act is taken to mean that conventional action is impossible, then, among other things, people will be convinced that nobody is capable of following the Buddha's instructions. -------------------------------------------- > ***** > 2. H to Ken: “..what I take exception to is the implication of > powerlessness and hopelessness. It is all well and good to intellectually > grasp that there is nothing but the present moment and that nothing is as > it seems, but to not take conventional action........â€? > ..... > S: That would be wrong view. There will always be ‘conventional action’ > and there is nothing ‘powerless’ or ‘hopeless’ about any wholesome mental > states. If there is any idea that the ‘no-control aspect of anatta’ means > nothing can be done or all is hopeless, this would be a dangerous wrong > view. I haven’t seen it expressed by Jon, Rob or myself. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Wonderful. :) I think that pointing this out from time to time could be useful. --------------------------------------------------- > ***** > 3. H to Robert K: “..consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and > that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised.â€? > ..... > According to the conditional relations, no-control is “a 100% kind of > thingâ€?. Outside of the various conditions which work together to bring > about certain results, there is no other factor or agent, regardless of > whether or not there is any insight. Cetana (volition) plays its part, > along with all the other namas and rupas. Cetana arises with every citta > and coordinates or directs the other mental factors. While it ‘wills’ or > urges wholesome and unwholesome cittas (in the javana process), it is > never exercised by any agent. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: When I speak of control - and I prefer 'influence' to 'control' - I do *not* presume a controller. To me, influence is merely the intentional creation of events which serve as conditions, it is merely cetana (or, in the case of an arahant, kiriya kamma) in action. I see no more need for a "controller" than I do for a "thinker". Neither exists as far as I'm concerned. ----------------------------------------------------- > > “..there is no such thing as volition in the four planes of existence > without the characteristic of coordinating; all volition has it. but the > function of ‘willing’ is only in moral (kusala) and immoral (akusala) > states...It has directing as manifestation. It arises directing > associated states, like the chief disciple, the chief carpenter, etc, who > fulfil their own and others’ duties.â€? Atthasalini (1, part 1V, Ch 1, 111) > > (see Nina’s ‘Cetasikas’ for more details on cetana) > > As I wrote to Rob Ep in a post on sakkaya ditthi (self view), we were > discussing in Thailand how easily one kind or other can slip in even when > we’ve heard and considered so much about different namas and rupas. > ***** > 4. H to Rob K: “The Buddha made differeing statements to different people > to address differing “ailmentsâ€?. He also directed his followers to engage > in various actions, i.e. to exercise their willâ€?. > ..... > S: I agree with the first comment. With regard to the second, I think as > Rob K suggested, it depends how we read and understand directions to > ‘engage in various actions’. When I give instructions to my students to > work harder, not forget their books and so on.....these instructions can > be said and received both with and without any idea of self. The > instructions don’t change; the understanding does. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I completely agree. ------------------------------------------------------ > ***** > 5. H to Kom: On hearing a melody - “it is based on the existence of an > actual pattern of relations holding among the > notes.........pannati......is well-grounded.....useful information to the > mind.â€? > ..... > S: I agree with your comments. I’d put it that depending on the actual > sounds heard, the particular combination leads to pannatti forming a > pattern of relations.....well-grounded and so on. It’s a good point > because sometimes when people hear that seeing sees visible object only or > hearing hears sound only, they then think this means some blank neutral > visible object or sound without any variation. Clearly that would be > nonsense and there would be no concepts and no functioning in the world in > that case. > ***** > This last point was from another thread, but I thought I’d add it. I’d > also like to say, Howard, that though I only ever seem to pick out points > of yours that I may not agree with, you also write a lot which I really > appreciate and fully support. For example, in your last post to Rob M you > make some very helpful points about the limits of intellectual analysis > and how “it has the capacity to generate...plenty of murkiness along with > light.â€? you go on to explain how it is not a substitute for dhammavicaya > and for sati and sampajanna and so on.* You put it all beautifully as you > often do. I just mention this one example as I wouldn’t wish anyone to end > up with the idea that we never agree. It’s just that we seldom discuss > agreements here;-) ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, that would be dull! (And no one likes "dull"! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------ > > As always, I greatly value all your sincere and honest comments and > sharing of understanding. > > Sarah > * (quote of yours more fully) > H: “Just one more point: The intellectual analysis that we engage in, by > individual thought and through our conversations, while often useful, > doesn't > always foster wisdom; it has the capacity to generate, I have no doubt, > plenty of murkiness along with light. Intellectual analysis, while often > supportive of the practice, is not the practice, and it is not a > substitute > for the enlightenment factor of investigation (dhammavicaya), which, as I > see > it, goes hand in hand with direct application of sati and sampaja~n~na to > what actually arises from moment to moment. Investigation in the Dhammic > sense will never run counter to the development of compassion in my > opinion, > though cold, dry intellectual examination may.â€? > ============================= 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) 18620 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 8:38am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi James, > Most of my evaluation comes from personal meditation experience. > Though rudimentary compared to the Buddha, probably not too shabby. That's where the risk lies! What kind of insights do you perceive when you meditate? Things like 'Ananda projecting pain onto the Buddha'? It seems that you are trying to fit the Suttas into your meditation experiences. For me, I try to fit my meditation experiences into the Suttas. Whatever that is experienced during meditation that is not supported by the Suttas, I throw away. For example, I had experienced this so-called White Bright Radiant 'Mind', a.k.a. rigpa or whatever. Tibetan Buddhists (I had read a work on the so-called Book of the Dead) attribute this rigpa to one's true nature. But I rejected it. This rigpa is inconstant and a source of stress. It does not lead to liberation. This is not mine. > So tell me, when you meditate do you find that insight arises only > in your mind or through out your body? Does your whole body feel > liberated at moments of insight, or just your mind? Do your body > feel different, or the same? I do not know what kind of insight do you mean that is experienced by your body. But my body do feel rapturous (piti). It is like electricity running down the body and disappearing like a seawave. But this is not insight. As far as I know, insight only arises in the mind. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18621 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 8:56am Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi Howard and all, I would like to point to some passages about self-control: Dhammapada 12 The Self 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is self-control. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html Sutta Nipata I.10 Alavaka Sutta Endowed with these four qualities, -- truth, self-control, stamina, relinquishment -- a householder of conviction, on passing away, doesn't grieve. Now, go ask others, common priests & contemplatives, if anything better than truth, self-control, endurance, & relinquishment here can be found. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp1-10.html 103-105: Greater in battle than the man who would conquer a thousand-thousand men, is he who would conquer just one -- himself. Better to conquer yourself than others. When you've trained yourself, living in constant self-control, neither a deva nor gandhabba, nor a Mara banded with Brahmas, could turn that triumph back into defeat. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/08.html Metta, Victor > Howard: > No, not contrary. Just differing modes of expressing. When the two > modes become conflated, which is a very easy thing for the run-of- the-mill > worldling to do, the implication of "no-control because no self to do any > controlling" comes to be understood as the impossibility of intentional > action. (Nina wrote in Listening to Dhamma the following: "The dhammas which > arise in our daily life are beyond control, we cannot own them. Seeing and > hearing do not belong to us, they are non-self. We cannot choose what we see > and hear, this depends on the appropriate conditions." Now all three of > these sentences are true > . But they can but they can be misunderstood. In fact, what dhammas are > experienced are *not* beyond control, precisely because intention can serve > as a condition. Closing one's eyes is a (conventional) volitional action > which changes what is seen, just as looking elsewhere does, or, for that > matter, taking a trip to a different locale. If the fact that there is, in > reality, no agent to act is taken to mean that conventional action is > impossible, then, among other things, people will be convinced that nobody is > capable of following the Buddha's instructions. > -------------------------------------------- > > > ***** > > 2. H to Ken: “..what I take exception to is the implication of > > powerlessness and hopelessness. It is all well and good to intellectually > > grasp that there is nothing but the present moment and that nothing is as > > it seems, but to not take conventional action........â€? > > ..... > > S: That would be wrong view. There will always be ‘conventional action’ > > and there is nothing ‘powerless’ or ‘hopeless’ about any wholesome mental > > states. If there is any idea that the ‘no-control aspect of anatta’ means > > nothing can be done or all is hopeless, this would be a dangerous wrong > > view. I haven’t seen it expressed by Jon, Rob or myself. > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Wonderful. :) I think that pointing this out from time to time could > be useful. > --------------------------------------------------- > > > ***** > > 3. H to Robert K: “..consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and > > that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised.â€? > > ..... > > According to the conditional relations, no-control is “a 100% kind of > > thingâ€?. Outside of the various conditions which work together to bring > > about certain results, there is no other factor or agent, regardless of > > whether or not there is any insight. Cetana (volition) plays its part, > > along with all the other namas and rupas. Cetana arises with every citta > > and coordinates or directs the other mental factors. While it ‘wills’ or > > urges wholesome and unwholesome cittas (in the javana process), it is > > never exercised by any agent. > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > When I speak of control - and I prefer 'influence' to 'control' - I do > *not* presume a controller. To me, influence is merely the intentional > creation of events which serve as conditions, it is merely cetana (or, in the > case of an arahant, kiriya kamma) in action. I see no more need for a > "controller" than I do for a "thinker". Neither exists as far as I'm > concerned. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > “..there is no such thing as volition in the four planes of existence > > without the characteristic of coordinating; all volition has it. but the > > function of ‘willing’ is only in moral (kusala) and immoral (akusala) > > states...It has directing as manifestation. It arises directing > > associated states, like the chief disciple, the chief carpenter, etc, who > > fulfil their own and others’ duties.â€? Atthasalini (1, part 1V, Ch 1, 111) > > > > (see Nina’s ‘Cetasikas’ for more details on cetana) > > > > As I wrote to Rob Ep in a post on sakkaya ditthi (self view), we were > > discussing in Thailand how easily one kind or other can slip in even when > > we’ve heard and considered so much about different namas and rupas. > > ***** > > 4. H to Rob K: “The Buddha made differeing statements to different people > > to address differing “ailmentsâ€?. He also directed his followers to engage > > in various actions, i.e. to exercise their willâ€?. > > ..... > > S: I agree with the first comment. With regard to the second, I think as > > Rob K suggested, it depends how we read and understand directions to > > ‘engage in various actions’. When I give instructions to my students to > > work harder, not forget their books and so on.....these instructions can > > be said and received both with and without any idea of self. The > > instructions don’t change; the understanding does. > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I completely agree. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > ***** > > 5. H to Kom: On hearing a melody - “it is based on the existence of an > > actual pattern of relations holding among the > > notes.........pannati......is well-grounded.....useful information to the > > mind.â€? > > ..... > > S: I agree with your comments. I’d put it that depending on the actual > > sounds heard, the particular combination leads to pannatti forming a > > pattern of relations.....well-grounded and so on. It’s a good point > > because sometimes when people hear that seeing sees visible object only or > > hearing hears sound only, they then think this means some blank neutral > > visible object or sound without any variation. Clearly that would be > > nonsense and there would be no concepts and no functioning in the world in > > that case. > > ***** > > This last point was from another thread, but I thought I’d add it. I’d > > also like to say, Howard, that though I only ever seem to pick out points > > of yours that I may not agree with, you also write a lot which I really > > appreciate and fully support. For example, in your last post to Rob M you > > make some very helpful points about the limits of intellectual analysis > > and how “it has the capacity to generate...plenty of murkiness along with > > light.â€? you go on to explain how it is not a substitute for dhammavicaya > > and for sati and sampajanna and so on.* You put it all beautifully as you > > often do. I just mention this one example as I wouldn’t wish anyone to end > > up with the idea that we never agree. It’s just that we seldom discuss > > agreements here;-) > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Well, that would be dull! (And no one likes "dull"! ;-) > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > As always, I greatly value all your sincere and honest comments and > > sharing of understanding. > > > > Sarah > > * (quote of yours more fully) > > H: “Just one more point: The intellectual analysis that we engage in, by > > individual thought and through our conversations, while often useful, > > doesn't > > always foster wisdom; it has the capacity to generate, I have no doubt, > > plenty of murkiness along with light. Intellectual analysis, while often > > supportive of the practice, is not the practice, and it is not a > > substitute > > for the enlightenment factor of investigation (dhammavicaya), which, as I > > see > > it, goes hand in hand with direct application of sati and sampaja~n~na to > > what actually arises from moment to moment. Investigation in the Dhammic > > sense will never run counter to the development of compassion in my > > opinion, > > though cold, dry intellectual examination may.â€? > > > ============================= > With metta, > Howard 18622 From: James Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 9:19am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, > > > Most of my evaluation comes from personal meditation experience. > > Though rudimentary compared to the Buddha, probably not too shabby. > > That's where the risk lies! What kind of insights do you perceive > when you meditate? Things like 'Ananda projecting pain onto the > Buddha'? > > It seems that you are trying to fit the Suttas into your meditation > experiences. > > For me, I try to fit my meditation experiences into the Suttas. > Whatever that is experienced during meditation that is not supported > by the Suttas, I throw away. > > For example, I had experienced this so-called White Bright > Radiant 'Mind', a.k.a. rigpa or whatever. Tibetan Buddhists (I had > read a work on the so-called Book of the Dead) attribute this rigpa > to one's true nature. But I rejected it. This rigpa is inconstant > and a source of stress. It does not lead to liberation. This is not > mine. > > > > So tell me, when you meditate do you find that insight arises only > > in your mind or through out your body? Does your whole body feel > > liberated at moments of insight, or just your mind? Do your body > > feel different, or the same? > > I do not know what kind of insight do you mean that is experienced > by your body. > > But my body do feel rapturous (piti). It is like electricity running > down the body and disappearing like a seawave. But this is not > insight. > > As far as I know, insight only arises in the mind. > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, Well, I see that you and I are quite different. I look at the suttas as only a rudimentary finger pointing the direction to go. They are not the destination and they do not contain everything there is to know. Not only did the Buddha not intend that, the passage of time and translation makes that impossible. If you want to adhere to the suttas like Holy Scripture, more power to you. I refuse to do that. I have a mind of my own. In meditation, you should not `reject' or `attach' to anything. You simply observe everything closely as non-self, (i.e. with equanimity). When the white light arises in your mind, there is no need to `reject' it, but there is no need to put special significance to it either. It is just there. Let it be. The electricity-like energy running through your body that disappears in waves is more than likely not piti. Piti is the feeling of intense joy as one begins the process of release of the aggregates. It is a factor of the mind, an emotion, and must be abandoned (not rejected, nor attached to) as one progresses to higher stages. What I believe you are experiencing is the beginning to a realization of the aggregates themselves, a precursor to piti. As your mind becomes more tranquil and refined, the waves of electricity-like energy you feel running through your body will become smaller and smaller. You will them begin to feel them as minute vibrations throughout the body. You will then see that the vibrations: phase `in-and-out'. This will bring about the first stages of the feeling of piti, but not the most powerful feelings. Those powerful feelings come when you begin to `know' the vibration- nature of the mind itself: consciousness, thoughts, feelings, and perception. However, in all of this vibration-mass of energy phasing in and out, the one thing that remains constant…at least for me…is awareness. Awareness of this process seems to be separate from the mind or the body. This is what I call `Pure Mind'. If there weren't a pure, unrestricted awareness, Nibbana wouldn't be possible. The reason I say that Nibbana affects the whole body is because this awareness isn't restricted to the head alone. It doesn't seem to `dwell' anywhere; the entire body, including the brain and its functions, dwells within it. It is unrestricted by space or time. If this matches sutta references or not, I don't care. I know what I know. As the Lord Buddha advised, 'Be a light unto yourself'. Metta, James 18623 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 10:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 35, Comm, Breathing op 09-01-2003 00:42 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Thanks Nina, I see what you were saying now. Do you think this extra > material is misleading? > Dear Larry, well it depends on the citta of the reader. Nina. 18624 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 10:12am Subject: right thinking Dear Christine, I saw that you mentioned right thinking, but I was so hurried, I threw it. This was my last day of hard work and tomorrow I can react. I would like to share something with you: in Bgk at the house of Kunying Nopparath we all read the Vibhangasutta and commentary and discussed right thinking. I look it up, Nina. 18625 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:29am Subject: Re: right thinking Dear Nina, Thank you, I look forward to reading your post. I would really appreciate any clarification you may be able to give on 'right thought'. The previous message was at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/18585 metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Christine, > I saw that you mentioned right thinking, but I was so hurried, I threw it. > This was my last day of hard work and tomorrow I can react. I would like to > share something with you: in Bgk at the house of Kunying Nopparath we all > read the Vibhangasutta and commentary and discussed right thinking. I look > it up, > Nina. 18626 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:52am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hello James, Swee Boon and any interested meditators. I have been following with great interest your exchanges, but particularly the recent ones about meditation. I stopped meditation in the formal sense over a year ago, but recently read an article that has given me further to consider. I wonder if either of you, or anyone else, has time to read this article and share any considerations that may arise. (It is about ten pages long.) The article is called "Experiments in Insight Meditation" and is written by Rod Bucknell who was the translator of Ajahn Buddhadasa's 'Handbook for Mankind'. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/toc.htm#4 A little about the author: "Rod Bucknell first became seriously interested in Buddhism in the mid -1960's, when, during a visit to Thailand, he was introduced to the techniques of Insight Meditation. After spending a year in various Thai meditation centers and monasteries, he took ordination as a bhikkhu (monk) under the guidance of Ajahn Pannananda of Wat Cholapratan Rangsarit. He soon became interested also in the teachings of Ajahn Buddhadasa, and, recognizing their potential value to westerners, began translating some of the Ajahn's more important works into English. During the four years he spent in the Sangha, he translated altogether six works of varying length, usually in close consultation with the Ajahn in order to ensure accuracy in the rendering of key concepts. Despite his return to lay life, he maintains a close interest - both scholarly and practical - in Ajahn Buddhadasa's teachings, and has published several related articles in religious studies journals. He is currently a lecturer in the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Queensland, Australia." (actually, I think he is an assoc. prof. now.) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " > wrote: 18627 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Golden Lotus Hi Sarah, The only connection I found was a reference to Dhammapada v. 285 It mentions a lily in the verse, but a lotus in the story attached, though not a golden lotus, or Sariputta. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Christine, > > --- "christine_forsyth " > wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > > I was browsing the Useful Posts and came across one (16672) where you > > asked for a reference to the Buddha giving a monk a golden lotus. Not > > sure if anyone sent you this previously... > > It is mentioned at the link below - Fundamentals of Vipassana > > Meditation by Mahasi Sayadaw. Click on "The dull young monk" > > http://www.palikanon.com/english/fundamentals/fundamentals.htm > ..... > Exactly what I was looking for. The point of the story was that in this > case, even Sariputta did not know what the suitable meditation object (of > samatha) was. Only the Buddha knew....as it mentions, it turns out the > monk had been a goldsmith for 500 existences and so was fascinated by the > golden lotus. When the Buddha made it fade away, he realized the > tri-lakkhana after developing jhana. > > The question at the time of the discussion was whether teachers really > know what is suitable for students in this regard. > > Now Chris, we have a few more details, but I still can't see any sutta > reference. If you or anyone else manages to track one down, pls let me > know again;-) > > Thanks. > > Sarah > ====== 18628 From: Robert Eddison Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 0:12pm Subject: Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? TG: >> thus. It is because I see two benefits that I still resort to >> jungle-thickets resting places in the forest: I see a pleasant abiding for >> myself here and now, and I have compassion for future generations." Howard: > Both of these reasons are interesting. Each calls for elucidation, it >seems to me. The first reason *suggests* that the Buddha might have still had >preferences - specifically the preference for pleasant over unpleasanat and >neutral. The second leaves open the question of *how* the Buddha's resorting >"to jungle-thicket resting places in the forest" was of service to future >generations. By example? By psychic influence? I would think by example. The same two benefits are stated in an expanded form by Mahaakassapa when the Buddha asks him why he continues with the practice of forest dwelling, wearing rag-robes and other forms of ascesis now that he is an old man and no longer has any personal need to live in this way. Kassapa's reply is ranked by the commentary as a lion's roar: "For myself I see a pleasant dwelling in this very life, and I have compassion for later generations, thinking, 'May those of later generations follow my example! For when they hear, 'The enlightened disciples of the Buddha were for a long time forest dwellers and spoke in praise of forest dwelling, were almsfood eaters and spoke in praise of eating almsfood, were rag-robe wearers and spoke in praise of wearing rag-robes, were triple-robe users and spoke in praise of using the triple-robe, were of few wishes and spoke in praise of fewness of wishes, were content and spoke in praise of contentment; were secluded and spoke in favour of seclusion, were aloof from society and spoke in praise of aloofness from society, were energetic and spoke in praise of arousing energy,' then they will practise accordingly, and that will lead to their welfare and happiness for a long time." (Ji.n.na Sutta, S ii 203. Bodhi, Connected Discourses I 667) Best wishes, Robert 18629 From: Peter Da Costa Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 3:29pm Subject: Wrong view Hi Jon Just to say that your comments below have been quite valuable in the time since receiving them. Even attempts to rectify a given mental situation, regardless of how 'skillful' the remedy, can be seen as a predicament, which for its remedy requires just simple knowing. In other posts you assert that there is 'nothing to do'. I now understand this to mean that there is nothing to do but just know or be purely aware, since these are the fundamental function of mind. In other words, if there is no knowing or awareness then the mind is in fact doing something. If it seems as though nothing at all is happening then it is either dead (what ever that may be), or it is overwhelmed with background noise, or 'white' noise, just mass, random activity with no discernable, resultant signal. Happily the remedy is in just that knowing. It suddenly makes Dhamma universally applicable in daily life regardless of the current activity, or situation. Right now, I have decided to put my time into reading through Nina's AinDL as located on Zolag. I should have done this decades ago, but better late than never. I hope to be able to follow posts more closely and make contributions more in keeping with the tradition of the group. In appreciation Peter p.s. I've sent a cc to dsg. At 21:14 07/01/2003 +0800, you wrote: >Peter > >Delighted to hear that you are benefitting from the recent discussion. > > --- Peter Da Costa wrote: > Thank you Jon > Jon:- >There is of course no magic bullet, since the root cuse of our problems is >the accumulated ignorance and wrong view, which is so tenacious and deeply >ingrained. But just knowing that much can help. At least our >expectations are that much more realistic! > >Jon 18630 From: Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 3:58pm Subject: Way 36, Comm, Breathing "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on Breathing, p. 48 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Passambhayam kayasamkharam assasissamiti... passasissamiti sikkhati = "Calming the activity of the body I shall breathe in... breathe out, thinking thus, he trains himself." He thinks: " I shall breathe in and I shall breathe out, quieting, making smooth, making tranquil and peaceful the activity of the in-and-out-breathing body. And in that way, he trains himself." "In this connection coarseness, fineness and calm should be understood thus: Without contemplative effort, the body and the mind of this bhikkhu are distressed, coarse. When the body and the mind are coarse, the in-and-out-breathings too are coarse and proceed uncalmly; the nasal aperture becomes inadequate and he has to breathe through the mouth, too. But when the body and the mind are under control then the body and the mind become placid, restful. When these are restful, the breathings proceed so fine that the bhikkhu doubts whether or not the breathings are going on." "The breathing of a man who runs down from a hill, puts down a heavy burden from his head, and stands still is coarse; his nasal aperture becomes inadequate and he breathes through the mouth, too. But when he rids himself of his fatigue, takes a bath and a drink of water, and puts a wet cloth over his heart and is sitting in the shade, his breathing becomes fine, and he is at a loss to know whether it exists or not. Comparable to that man is the bhikkhu whose breaths become so fine after the taking up of the practice of contemplation that he finds it difficult to say whether he is breathing or not. What is the reason for this? Without taking up the practice of meditation he does not perceive, concentrate on, reflect on, or think over, the question of calming the gross activity of the breathing body, the breaths, but with the practice of meditation he does. Therefore, the activity of the breath-body becomes finer in the time in which meditation is practiced than in the time in which there is no practice. So the men of old said: "In the agitated mind and body the breath is of the coarsest kind. In the unexcited body, fully subtle does it wind." "How does he train himself with the thought: Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe in... breathe out? What are the activities of the body? Those things of the body of breaths, those things bound up with that body, are the activities of the body. Causing the body-activities to become composed, to become smooth and calm, he trains himself... He trains himself thinking thus: Calming the body-activity by way of (quieting) the bodily activities of bending forwards, sidewards, all over, and backwards, and (by way of the quieting of) the moving, quivering, vibrating, and quaking of the body, I shall breathe in... I shall breathe out. I shall breathe in and I shall breathe out, calming the activity of the body, by way of whatsoever peaceful and fine body-activities of non-bending of the body forwards, sidewards, all over and backwards, of non-moving, non-quivering, non-vibrating, and non-quaking of the body."[19] 19. In the explanation of the contemplation on breathing, the passage beginning with "When breathing in long, how does he understand, 'I breathe in long'" and ending with the words "non-quaking of the body", consists of extracts from pages 272-277 of the Visuddhi Magga, Part 1. P.T.S. Edition. 18631 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 4:56pm Subject: Re: Wrong view --- Dear Peter, I liked what you said below and thought you might appreciate this piece from a talk A. Sujin gave: ""..if one thinks that one should rather have objects other than the present one, since these appear to be more wholesome, one will never study the object which appears now. And how can one know their true nature when there is no study, no awareness of them? So it must be the present object, only what appears now. This is more difficult because it is not the object of desire. If desire can move one away to another object, that object satisfies one's desire. Desire is there all the time. If there is no understanding of lobha (desire) as lobha, how can it be eradicated? One has to understand different degrees of realities, also lobha which is more subtle, otherwise one does not know when there is lobha. Seeing things as they are. Lobha is lobha. Usually one does not see the subtle lobha which moves one away from developing right understanding of the present object.""endquote Robertk In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Peter Da Costa wrote: > Hi Jon > > > Even attempts to rectify a given mental situation, regardless of how > 'skillful' the remedy, can be seen as a predicament, which for its remedy > requires just simple knowing. > > In other posts you assert that there is 'nothing to do'. I now understand > this to mean that there is nothing to do but just know or be purely aware, > since these are the fundamental function of mind. In other words, if there > is no knowing or awareness then the mind is in fact doing something. If it > seems as though nothing at all is happening then it is either dead (what > ever that may be), or it is overwhelmed with background noise, or 'white' > noise, just mass, random activity with no discernable, resultant > signal. Happily the remedy is in just that knowing. It suddenly makes > Dhamma universally applicable in daily life regardless of the current > activity, or situation. 18632 From: Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 5:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Sarah, Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately I can't respond to many of the questions you raised concerning what I wrote because I don't remember the context and anything more than a week old is no longer "me" :)) Of current interest, I am a little puzzled by how satipatthana is treated in the Visuddhimagga. It seems to be discussed mostly as a preliminary to jhana. However, there is also incidental mention of two vehicles, pure insight and jhana. I haven't made a thorough search yet, but so far I haven't found a description of what a pure insight vehicle is and I haven't seen "pure insight vehicle" equated with satipatthana. So, where is the insight in satipatthana in Visuddhimagga? Larry 18633 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 6:14pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Wrong view Dear Friends, For a long time I have been pondering if I should ask this question. Now that you have again mention the name of A. Sujin, I feel I should ask. I have never met or know a thing about Sujin, I have started asking a few Thai monks here and the USA what they think of her or if they could give me some information. The answers. They hate her, the reason is that according to all the Thai monks, she is the one who hates the Shanga. They gave me all kind of other things which I am compeled to be quiet. So can somebody tell me why is it that she is so much dislake it by the Thai Shanga. Venerable Yanatharo -----Mensaje original----- De: rjkjp1 [mailto:rjkjp1@y...] Enviado el: Viernes, Enero 10, 2003 11:57 a.m. Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Asunto: [dsg] Re: Wrong view --- Dear Peter, I liked what you said below and thought you might appreciate this piece from a talk A. Sujin gave: ""..if one thinks that one should rather have objects other than the present one, since these appear to be more wholesome, one will never study the object which appears now. And how can one know their true nature when there is no study, no awareness of them? So it must be the present object, only what appears now. This is more difficult because it is not the object of desire. If desire can move one away to another object, that object satisfies one's desire. Desire is there all the time. If there is no understanding of lobha (desire) as lobha, how can it be eradicated? One has to understand different degrees of realities, also lobha which is more subtle, otherwise one does not know when there is lobha. Seeing things as they are. Lobha is lobha. Usually one does not see the subtle lobha which moves one away from developing right understanding of the present object.""endquote Robertk In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Peter Da Costa wrote: > Hi Jon > > > Even attempts to rectify a given mental situation, regardless of how > 'skillful' the remedy, can be seen as a predicament, which for its remedy > requires just simple knowing. > > In other posts you assert that there is 'nothing to do'. I now understand > this to mean that there is nothing to do but just know or be purely aware, > since these are the fundamental function of mind. In other words, if there > is no knowing or awareness then the mind is in fact doing something. If it > seems as though nothing at all is happening then it is either dead (what > ever that may be), or it is overwhelmed with background noise, or 'white' > noise, just mass, random activity with no discernable, resultant > signal. Happily the remedy is in just that knowing. It suddenly makes > Dhamma universally applicable in daily life regardless of the current > activity, or situation. 18634 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 6:48pm Subject: No-control & Destiny Dear everybody, I have some questions and I'd like to hear your opinion. __If there is absolutely << no-control >> in the sense that everything happens (or arises) because of << conditions >> then what is the difference with << destiny, fate >> ? Because destiny also means that things happen outside of << our >> control. __If deep down we realize that we have no control over any situation, no free will to << do >> anything then we become calm and un-disturbed by whatever happens in life. Is this a correct approach to life? __Can we say that the Buddha taught two levels of understanding? On the first level He stressed people to make effort, to exercise their << free will >> as if there were effectively a << doer or entity >> capable of << doing >> anything. But on a higher level of understanding, there were absolutely no-control, no free will, no entity, no doer whatsoever. Everything just happens by << conditions >> What do you think? Thanks. Regards, KKT 18635 From: Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 7:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No-control & Destiny Hi KKT, Everyone will have different answers, so here are mine and then you can give us yours: KKT: __If there is absolutely << no-control >> in the sense that everything happens (or arises) because of << conditions >> then what is the difference with << destiny, fate >> ? Because destiny also means that things happen outside of << our >> control. L: There is no control and no destiny because there is no self. "No control" and "no doer" mean exactly the same as anatta. There is no difference. KKT: __If deep down we realize that we have no control over any situation, no free will to << do >> anything then we become calm and un-disturbed by whatever happens in life. Is this a correct approach to life? L: This is a good approach. The correct approach is the 8-fold path that leads to the end of dukkha. This end is without striving and possibly even without calm, insofar as calm is like a blanket. KKT: __Can we say that the Buddha taught two levels of understanding? On the first level He stressed people to make effort, to exercise their << free will >> as if there were effectively a << doer or entity >> capable of << doing >> anything. But on a higher level of understanding, there were absolutely no-control, no free will, no entity, no doer whatsoever. Everything just happens by <> L: I think the Buddha taught one thing in many ways, all conventional. What does it mean to say "I understand" or "I don't understand"? You could look at the experience of understanding or bewilderment when it arises and see what is going on. Is there an "I" there? If not, where is the understanding or bewilderment? Larry 18636 From: Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 3:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hello Robert, >Yes, names are not important - it is always whether there is >understanding of the actual moments. You say "intention is free" >because its not determined. You seem to believe that if there is no >free will that there must be determinism? I don't think so. Instead >there are complex conditions are both conditioned and conditioning. >Cetana, intention, is one of the mental factors that are part of >sankhara khandha . Leaving aside that each moment of sankhara khandha >is conditioned by past moments (e.g.anantarapaccaya ) each cetana >that arises is also conditioned by other elements that arise together >with it - (sahajata paccaya , conascence condition,) according to the >Abhidhamma. I'm not sure what we're up to here; I said that a choice or intention was indeed conditioned, and even multiply so. If our intentions weren't conditioned (= caused) they would be random, something that merely *happens*. But if they're determined then they're not free; that's the meaning of the word. So: one could have done otherwise, given the conditioning (which is contra-causal causality). Perhaps we're just discussing language. (One needs to be careful about 'conditioned and conditioning' to avoid causality backwards in time.) ["Determinism is the view that everything in the universe is determined to be what it is by come cause; and, given the prior existence of that cause, it could not be otherwise... If determinism is correct, then every even in the universe, throughout all future time, is necessarily determined in advance by the first state of the universe." Keith Ward, Key Words in Philosophy.] >> This is merely another way of saying that we're not automatons >> or marionettes. >Could we be puppets though? >http://www.abhidhamma.org/Patthana%203%20chapter_7.htm >In the "Kindred Sayings"(I, Sagåthå-vagga, V, Suttas of Sisters, § 9), >Neither self-made the puppet is, nor yet By other wrought is this ill- >plighted thing. >By reason of a cause it came to be, >By rupture of a cause it dies away. >Like a certain seed sown in the field, >Which, when it comes upon the taste of earth, >And moisture likewise, by these two grows, >So the five khandhas, the elements, >And the six spheres of sense >even all these, >By reason of a cause they came to be; >By rupture of a cause they die away.""" That's a good definition of determinism; no choice or intention, everything that happens is a result of causes over which we have no control. Consequently there's no religious life, no kamma. The very definition, also, of what it means to be inauthentic. I reject this passage either as written or as translated. It's also possible that puppet is being used in some special sense, like the extinguishing of fire is, in the suttas. Perhaps we can say, regarding the quotes below, that physical and chemical bodily events are necessary causes of intentions (because we are embodied, and choices work through neurons and such) but they are not sufficient causes; they are not fully explanatory of an intentional action. For that we require free choice which is conditioned but not determined, and need not be made by a Self. >From the VisuddhiMagga, chap. xi. And it is when the body is >impelled by the wind element that it performs its four functions > of walking, standing, sitting, or lying-down, or draws in and > stretches out its arms, or moves its hands and its feet. Thus > does this machine made of the four elements move like a > puppet, and deceives all foolish people with its femininity, > masculinity, etc"endquote. > From majjhima nikaya 82 p683 Bodhi > "Behold a puppet here pranked out, > a body built from sores, > sick, an object of concern, where no stabilty abides" > > "Just as a wooden puppet though unsubstantial, lifeless and > inactive may by means of pulling strings be made to move > about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity; just so are > mind and body, as such, something empty, lifeless and inactive; but > by means of their mutual working together, this mental and > bodily combination may move about, stand up, and appear full > of life and activity." > from the Satipatthana sutta atthakatta (sections on modes of > deportment)"Just as a ship goes on by winds impelled, > Just as a shaft goes by the bowstring's force, > So goes this body in its forward course > Full driven by the vibrant thrust of air. > As to the puppet's back the dodge-thread's tied > So to the body-doll the mind is joined > And pulled by that the body moves, stands, sits. > Where is the living being that can stand, > Or walk, by force of its own inner strength, >Without conditions that give it support? " >Acharn Sujin spoke to me while we were in Kaeng Krachan about that >anattaness of this world. She said there really are no people, no >Sujin, no Robert, no Nina. There are only momentary phenomena. It >sort of shocked me at the time because I was in a slight daydream >about a grilfriend , enjoying being lost in concept, I didn't want to >know the truth right then. Didn't want to think there was just >conditions, nama and rupa. But then sometimes there is awareness of a >dhamma, like hardness or lobha, and there is just a little insight >that it really is that way. You do see that saying there are no people because 'people' is a concept but saying there is hardness, when 'hardness' is equally a concept, is a contradiction? This is a repeat of KKT's banned quote; people aren't real so don't worry about how you treat them. You can't mistreat something that isn't real. Nor can you mistreat someone if you can't refrain from mistreating them; that is, if one has no control over the situation. BTW, if bathing in rivers purified one then fishes would be especially pure. If having no concepts (language) just immediate awareness of nama and rupa purified one then animals, who have no concepts, would exceed us in the holy life ;-) >> (Someone(s) have systematically gone through the suttas putting in >>standard formulas for jhana and the hindrances. This isn't too harmful. When >>we come to the abhidhamma since there were 5 hindrances they decided to >>have 5 levels of jhana. Neato. By this point not only did these systematizers and >>copyist have no experiences to get in the way of their catalogs they're >>were no longer even interested in having any; truth had ceased to be a >>hindrance to them.) >"truth had ceased to be a hindrance to them". You mean that >Buddhaghosa and the monks who recorded the early commentaries were >liars? "Have no experience to get in the way" : how do you know they >had no experience of Jhana? Since lying requires knowing the truth they weren't lying; experience was not a matter of interest to them, merely categorizing. (I haven't read much of Buddhaghosa on the jhana so I don't have any specific comment here.) If there are 4 jhana and 5 hindrances to simply say, 'Hey, lets have 5 jhana to match up with the hindrances!' is possible only in someone who hasn't had a ny experience, nor are they interested in anyone acquiring the experiences; just lists. This is Samma Samadhi that's being amputated here. I don't really want to do a post on jhana. If you've done even bit of meditating with concentration in mind it's not difficult to spot drivel. (As a rule of thumb: any contemporary author who defines the first jhana in terms of nimitta and begins talking of kasina meditation should be ignored.) >You mean that consciousness lasts? Yes; it's called the specious present. It's empirical and investigated. You mean it has *no* duration? Okay, then the question is: lets measure it. This has been done. >Where do you get ideas about anything being 'faster than the speed of >light" Citta, consciousness arises and passes away- it doesn't go >anywhere. it's certainly not speeding around the universe. Nor does >it last billions of years to come to the earth as scientists talk >about light travelling from other planets. Not part of Abhidhamma. This is somewhat awkward for me, but this is an oft made statement (direct quote) from a peer of yours and Acharn Sujin (whose first name begins with A). I shall be pleased to drop it. (The fastest any mental event can occur would be measured, at the very very outside, in thousands of a second; really, many hundreds for even a subliminal consciousness. Isn't that more than fast enough?) Of course we shall never agree on many points of significant importance to both of us. I want to say: on the Big Picture. But perhaps it's the little picture that really matters (as Sarah sort of noted, if I don't misrepresent her). The passing phenomena, in themselves. I am not especially happy with countra-causal causality, but it's the best I've seen anyone do. It's all too easy to use a personal pronoun to wash out the difficulty, clearly faced by the abhidhamma, of giving a precise account of cetana and other mental events as they occur without a Self. In this and many other respects I do admire and find abhidhammic analysis useful. (I tried to give some inner sense or feel of this with the Taoist notion of wu-wei, or not-doing; doing, but not self-doing; doing with the grain of reality, not for an individuated self.) Perhaps we can pursue the issue in this manner; as I noted in the second post, I will no longer do so in terms of the above. metta, stephen 18637 From: Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 3:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hello Robert, >Dear Stephen and Howard >In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: >This intention is free: = controlled without a controller, >+++++++++++++++++++++++ >You say there is control without a controller. But where is this said >in the texts? The Buddha said that kamma is intention, did he not? "People have intentions then perform...kamma accordingly." A.III.415 The Buddha said if you're afraid of dukkha don't perform bad kamma, did he not? Ud.51 That entails one can refrain from performing bad kamma. And the Buddha exhorted us in many places to perform good kamma, did he not? Which means we're free to perform good kamma. Our intention is free, we can choose: = we have control. Since there's no self the conclusion above readily follows. >The point is not >whether we use conventional terms but the understanding. >And in daily life when we drive to the garage it makes no difference >whether we believe in self, think that we control it all or not. We >can still do so. (we might be more relaxed if we understand anatta >though) Belief isn't relevant. Control is. A robot could drive into a garage without any beliefs, subject only to conditions of programming. That doesn't describe a human situation. Show me how to drive into the garage with no control. Please don't use my garage;-) >But when discussing profound matters such as the nature of the >khandhas and no-self we should be cautious of saying there is >control. Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59 >Anatta-lakkhana Sutta >"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not >lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to >form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But >precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. >And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form >be thus. Let this form not be thus.' >"Feeling is not self... >"Perception is not self... >"[Mental] fabrications are not self... >"Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this >consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible >[to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. >Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because >consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. >And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my >consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'endquote >http://www.abhidhamma.org/samyutta_nikaya_59xxii.htm > > >There are simply conditioned phenomena that arise and perform their >functions: When we are fast asleep the khandhas are still arising and >passing away - no need to be watching them, trying to control or >influence them. The legs won't fall off (unless there are conditions >for that to happen). Exactly the same when we are awake. Pure determinism. Wow, what a relief to know that I'm not responsible for any of my actions since they're the result of conditions over which I had no control. Think you can use this to cop to insanity when you wreck my garage? ;-) The underlined portion above *defines the insanity plea* in California. "These words of the Buddha protect against overly extreme views that tend to see kamma only in terms of past kamma, portraying people as if they were passively lying around waiting for the fruits of their kamma to come knocking and determine their future. If this were the case, people need not think about improving or changing themselves. And this would be a most terrible mistake." Phra Prayudh Payutto, Buddhadhamma, p.149. Didn't Christine say that improving, changing, control, doing didn't really exist, were incompatible with anatta? Perhaps you should take your metaphysics more seriously. It's not that it's false, or leads to inaction: it's irresponsible. (Imagine telling such things to a battered woman. One such wrote dsg or dl this past year, as did others with mental problems — who, BTW, received completely inappropriate dhammic advice to psychiatric situations. I'm not putting up any more posts on this subject and I urge you to keep it in Pali, as it were, to avoid harming someone who might actually act on your advice.) >We won't forget our name or where we live (unless conditions are such >for this to happen). Indeed people have nervous breakdowns because >they try to control. If they could start to let go of obsessive ideas >about what they should and shouldn't do, and the fear (conditioned by >clinging to self) that is distorting perception they would become >sane in the truest sense. Someone who felt that they were a robot or puppet would be literally insane. I could introduce you to some autistic children who fit the bill. Someone who thought that they couldn't do anything, had no control over anything, that planning and improving were myths would be completely dysfunctional. It's just, fortunately, talk. I.e., "Ultimate Truths." >Because anatta-sanna , perception of >anatta, is perhaps the most calming perception we can have. Takes a >long time to develop though. I'd be very interested if you could sort of phenomenologically describe anatta-sanna. Does it make sense to do so, to ask for this description, in the context of walking down a street or among some trees? metta, stephen 18638 From: Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 3:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? It occurs to me that the Buddha had a bad back; he was once in so much pain that he couldn't continue a talk. (D.iii.209) Now I'm *wondering* if the Buddha needed to attain a fairly high state of jhana as relief; wouldn't he have taken a vicodin or pain pill of some sort? Jhana is (sort of) it's equivalent for the time. I'm not sure if there's anything about this scenario that's at odds with being a Buddha. metta, stephen 18639 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 9:05pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Wrong view Dear Ven Yanatharo, --- "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > > The answers. They hate her, the reason > is > that according to all the Thai monks, she is the one who hates the > Shanga. ..... I understand your concern. I would be very surprised to hear anyone be able to directly quote any words from A.Sujin herself to suggest even mild disapproval or any aversion at all on this topic. Certainly in the nearly 30 years I’ve known her (including weeks staying under her roof at a time when I was young), I haven’t heard her even discuss Thai monks in particular and almost everything I have learnt about respect for the Sangha, I’ve learnt from her. I think that others here who have also known her for a long time and gone on numerous trips with her would say the same. Last year when we were in Thailand, I think someone may have raised some articles in the newspaper about corrupt Thai monks. I remember she made no comments and took no interest. Her concern is always to help others understand the dhamma whilst following whatever lifestyle (as monk or lay person) is suitable according to their inclinations. As for the response of the Thai monks you mention, I can’t comment. For myself, I find all the reminders about not returning ‘hate’ with ‘hate’, not reciprocating, developing metta, guarding the sense doors, seeing kamma as the cause of our own results and so on to be very helpful. As Victor just reminded us: 103-105: Greater in battle than the man who would conquer a thousand-thousand men, is he who would conquer just one -- himself. Better to conquer yourself than others. When you've trained yourself, living in constant self-control, neither a deva nor gandhabba, nor a Mara banded with Brahmas, could turn that triumph back into defeat. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/08.html ***** Perhaps it is thus more useful to consider our own mental states and responses when we hear rumours than to be overly concerned about the others’. Wishing you a happy and wise New Year and hoping that your toe has recovered. (Having had a few broken toes myself, I know it takes a long time. Perhaps you will have the good fortune to meet A.Sujin yourself one day. I have no doubt that this would very quickly settle your concerns in this regard. metta, Sarah ====== 18640 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 9:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Wrong view ---Dear Venerable yanatharo, In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: You asked about this on d-l list many months ago. I'd like to add to what I said. I've recently left thailand after a 3 month spell including visits to the center where Sujin teaches. I think almost every time I visited there were Thai monks in the audience listening and asking questions in the large hall. If they hated Sujin I don't think they would come to a center where she is the head teacher. It may be that some monks hate her (none have ever indicated this to me though - and I've spoken with a hundred or so) but then I have noticed that a fair percentage of monks in Thailand also don't like Abhidhamma. Before I heard of Sujin I met several Thai monks who were openly critical of Burmese monks based on this fact. As sujin is a leading exponent of Abhidhamma in Thailand this may be the reason. Also there are many ex-monks who now teach at the center (friends of Sujin) who have a deep knowledge of Vinaya and who encourage the study of it by laypeople. Students of Sujin's would know, for example, that it is wrong for monks to accept money. As the foundation radio programs reach thousands I can imagine a few monks (who may be using money) being annoyed to be told by a follower that they heard on Sujin's program that they are wrong to take money. I was at a meeting with Sujin when one of the men at the center said some of the monks who come to the center buy the Cds (of Sujins talks) with their own money and he didn't like this. But the concensus was that it was not up to him (or us) to tell the monks what to do and that if the monks listened much to the CDS they would gain more respect for Dhammavinaya and stop using money by their own accord. Also Sujin has a refined understanding of Dhamma that she freely dispenses on the radio. There are, no doubt, monks who have a different understanding of Dhamma who might object to being told by over-enthusiastic listeners to the radio that "No, you are wrong, Acharn sujin said..." Last year Sujin was given an honorary degree by Mahamakut University: the monks university where advanced Pali ect is taught. This university is run by monks and no woman attend it. I understand that only two woman (sujin and the Kings daughter ) have ever received an honarary degree. I think it indicates that at least some knowledgeable monks don't hate Sujin. I asked her if I could add this to the preface of the new book (survey) but she said it was irrelevant. Not because of disdain but simply because it is not by honors or popularity that one can judge who follows Dhamma. Sujin can be direct about wrong view. About 5 years back I spoke to her about the Dhammakaya group after their abbot made an annoucement that there actually was a subtle self in Buddhism. She said to me that this was wrong view. I can imagine Thai people asking similar questions and then going and telling monks who hold such views that "Acharn Sujin said.....". Offense can be taken. I am sure that Sujin has much respect for those monks who follow and teach Dhammavinaya correctly. For example she told me about a well- known monk who runs a radio program (also on Abhidhamma) which she said was very good. His name slips me , it starts with a K. RobertK 18641 From: Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 10:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Christine, What sort of considerations did you have in mind? Larry ----------------- Christine: I wonder if either of you, or anyone else, has time to read this article and share any considerations that may arise. 18642 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 10:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara (rather large) Dear Peter, S:I'm combining your two posts. Hope it's not too confusing. I’ll start with the note from the end of your post and hope that’s OK. You wrote: ..... Peter: “Your support and encouragement are much appreciated. But the sad truth is that I cannot spell to save my life (spell checkers spare me from endless embarrassment (when I remember to use them)), nor can I tell my left hand from my right without a few moments to work it out: most awkward when navigating for others in heavy traffic! It takes me a day to read anything worthwhile, and if I don't get too ambitious and just keep my posting to perhaps one a day for most days, I'll probably get by....” ..... S:I think it’s helpful for others to read your comments and perhaps be inspired by the trouble you go to. I know quite a number of posters on DSG and I think we all have our own particular difficulties and obstacles with regard to writing in this forum. Whether they are physical problems, time constraints, various kilesa that play up such as impatience, expectations, attachments, aversions or whatever, I don’t believe anyone finds it easy. ..... Peter:“Even sadder, to my mind, is that I never get to read many of the posts on this list. I am perfectly sure that I am missing out on quite a lot. But I have learned to count my blessings. It would be rather grand to wave a magic wand and wish: May no other beings ever have anything worse to worry about!” ..... S: Just take your time, I suggest... I print out messages because I find it hard to read more than a paragraph or two on the computer screen. With regard to your left and right hand comments, it reminds me of the early days when I was learning Tai Chi. I’m really slow at being able to watch a demonstration by the teacher and then imitate it. I think it relates to hopeless spatial memory, i.e I always get lost in new places and can never retrace simple steps. So my early attempts at Tai chi were a source of great amusement to others and embarrassment(mana - conceit)to me. It was aggravated by the poetic Chinese used which was way over my head, but understood by everyone else. Anyway, I persevered, practised more than most and after a year was given a promotion to the front line. A few years later, I’m probably about the one only one who still practises the Tai chi regularly. So, in the grand scheme of things, whether we are quick or slow or what disabilities we have really doesn’t matter much. ***** P:> I believe 'sati' originally > meant 'memory' and that 'mindfulness' is a term coined by Rhys > Davids. I often wonder how Buddhism in the West would have > developed if he had chosen instead something like the > term 'recollectedness'. Perhaps he needed to include the concept > of 'clarity' and thus needed a new word that could contain both > ideas. Except that according to ~Naanamoli, in his 'Abhidhamma > Studies', memory = attentiveness + clarity: i.e. without clarity > being present at a moment of attention there will be no recollection > of it, (or something like that anyway). ..... S: I have no problem with ‘recollectedness’ unless someone has an idea of thinking or conventional memory when using it. ..... P: > I feel this way about a few other basic terms, and regret in > particular that 'proliferation' isn't made more use of, 'formations' > seems so dry and remote to my mind. Maybe RD needed to include the > concept of 'accumulation', which doesn't seem to be implied > in 'proliferation': (noo?) ..... S: Usually ‘proliferations’ is used for papanca, always in a negative sense. Formations is used for sankhara in the sense of phenomena being conditioned or ‘formed up’ as I understand. Accumulations are different again and usually relate to the collected wholesome and unwholesome states. > === > Peter: Too true. The 'Ajahn Dukkha' idea could easily lead to the > extreme view of self-mortification, at least in its more subtle > forms. I just felt that it was a more positive way of looking at > Dukkha so as to counter the other extreme view/inclination that it > is something wrong and needed avoiding: thus instead using it as a > ready tool/indicator that the mind was off balance. Within the > context of a balanced practice, which would include generous > helpings of BrahmaVihara reflections, I would have thought it > probably would be OK. ..... S: Sometimes a ‘balanced practice’ can again suggest a ‘doing’ or ‘selection’. I think it’s more helpful to see the value of understanding whatever reality appears as it is and the value of developing all kinds of wholesome states. As you say, it’s not a matter of avoiding, but of understanding. > === > Peter: This brings me to a point further on in your post. Like so > many other posts, I haven't read this one. It isn't just writing > that is an effort, reading is too. But I will now make a point of > taking it in. > === S: If you go to escribe and type in samvega (or any other key term you’re looking for), you’ll get the relevant posts up: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ ..... > Peter: I would agree. As I see it, understanding with wisdom is > one thing, but the motivation to make the effort to do this is quite > another. For some yogis, somewhere or other, Dukkha is present is > some form or other, in their motivation, at some stage in their > career. If instead, compassion (e.g. for all sentient beings) is > their motivation, such a yogi will enjoy a much more happier > career. However, for many of todays Westerners (well me anyway) > such happiness, unknowingly, often brings a sense of guilt, whereas > Ajahn Dukkha is for some strange reason much more acceptable. ..... S: Perhaps we’re not used to recognising and seeing the danger in all kinds of aversion, including the guilt? Or we just think of dukkha dukkha (unpleasant bodily and mental feelings) without appreciating the inherent dukkha in each reality, including the beloved? Whatever we think are the motivations, I think it is the moment of awareness and understanding now of what appears that leads to more awareness and understanding in future. ..... P: > (Please be so kind as to > remember that you are addressing the > worlds number one procrastinator!-)) > ==== S: No evidence of this so far;-) ..... Peter: “I think this answers the question I would have asked, namely: what was the wisdom that the Bodhisatta had, that was not the enlightenment/awakening that he attained as Buddha? Your last para seems to say that the Bodhisatta had enough wisdom to get enlightened at the very outset of his Bodhisatta career. Perhaps this was due to his encounter with the Buddha of that eon, to whom he made this vow (another requirement, as I understand from elsewhere). If so, this would make him a very remarkable being indeed (prior to his awakening): presumably this also applied to Yasodhara and all the rest of his close associates too.” ..... S: Yes, see my other post with comments about the conditions for becoming a Bodhisatta. Prior to his enlightenment, of course this wisdom was not of vipassana or that which eradicated the idea of self. In a footnote to MN4, describing the Bodhisatta’s wisdom, BB writes: “~Nm originally had rendered this phrase as “perfect in understanding,” and the correspondng phrase in the preceding section as “perfect in concentration.” However, since it seems inappropriate to ascribe perfection in samadhi and panna to the Bodhisatta prior to his enlightenment, I have chosen to render the suffix ‘sampanna’ throughout as “possessed of.” MA explains that this is neither the wisdom of insight nor of the path, but the wisdom that defines the nature of its object (aaramma.navavatthaanapa~n~a).” ..... P: “I can now see the appeal to some notable people of our own eon who have announced their own aspiration to meet the future Buddha Metreya. Very inspiring indeed!” ..... S: Of course, as we know from suttas like the chicken and egg one or the wishing one, whether such an aspiration is met or not will depend on the conditions rather than the aspiration. === Peter: Quite so. The jhanas, as I have read about them, require a lot of skill and patience to develop. I have never, as yet, made any attempt to develop such skills, and am probably too old to start. === S: Again, I think any development of any wholesome states, depends on the understanding and conditions rather than the attempts and any skills. If there is a ‘blank mind’ but no precise knowledge of the object or nature of kusala and akusala, I don’t understand there can be any samatha development even in the beginning stages, but I don’t think you meant any differently. Greatly appreciating your contributions which are very encouraging as well. Sarah ====== 18643 From: James Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:32pm Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hello James, Swee Boon and any interested meditators. > > I have been following with great interest your exchanges, but > particularly the recent ones about meditation. I stopped meditation > in the formal sense over a year ago, but recently read an article > that has given me further to consider. > I wonder if either of you, or anyone else, has time to read this > article and share any considerations that may arise. (It is about > ten pages long.) The article is called "Experiments in Insight > Meditation" and is written by Rod Bucknell who was the translator of > Ajahn Buddhadasa's 'Handbook for Mankind'. > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/toc.htm#4 > > A little about the author: > "Rod Bucknell first became seriously interested in Buddhism in the > mid -1960's, when, during a visit to Thailand, he was introduced to > the techniques of Insight Meditation. After spending a year in > various Thai meditation centers and monasteries, he took ordination > as a bhikkhu (monk) under the guidance of Ajahn Pannananda of Wat > Cholapratan Rangsarit. He soon became interested also in the > teachings of Ajahn Buddhadasa, and, recognizing their potential value > to westerners, began translating some of the Ajahn's more important > works into English. During the four years he spent in the Sangha, he > translated altogether six works of varying length, usually in close > consultation with the Ajahn in order to ensure accuracy in the > rendering of key concepts. Despite his return to lay life, he > maintains a close interest - both scholarly and practical - in Ajahn > Buddhadasa's teachings, and has published several related articles in > religious studies journals. He is currently a lecturer in the > Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Queensland, > Australia." > (actually, I think he is an assoc. prof. now.) > > metta, > Christine > Hi Christine, I read this article and I will give you my `considerations' or `impressions' of the material contained therein. This is not going to be easy to write out, as there are a lot of factors to consider, but I will try my best. If you want to follow up with more discussion, that would be fine. Overall, I feel that it is very unfortunate that Mr. Bucknell had such a poor introduction to Vipassana meditation as he experienced in Thailand. He is obviously eager, dedicated, and enthusiastic about the practice and the subject. What he was taught at the first center in Thailand was, in my estimation, very harmful to his later development and influenced his later development. A proper Vipassana teacher shouldn't direct the student toward focusing on any particular sensation or experience as `important'. For the teacher to tell him that he was having a `breakthrough' in mediation and to keep fostering a certain experience is not the right way. He discovered this himself and left the center in disgust. Unfortunately, that teacher gave him the wrong idea of Vipassana meditation. He came away with the impression that events that occur in the body or in the mind are significant and that if one could just `figure them out' insight will arise. This is wrong practice! Let me explain by responding to his new `experiments' in Vipassana mediation (which are not Vipassana mediation techniques, but are actually forms of bio-feedback and meta-cognition). His techniques of `Retracing', `The Inner Voice', `Link Watching', etc., are just different variations of the error in practice that he first picked up in Thailand. He is looking at his thoughts, trying to figure them out, putting special significance to certain events and combinations, and literally `driving himself crazy' with all of the resulting mental gymnastics! Did you feel a little manic reading about how his experiments progressed? I know I did! He got himself so entangled in layer after layer of mental pondering that he hardly knew up from down! Of course, after he got the technique down a bit, he was able to control his thinking to some extent. But not for very long…it always reverted back to his thinking getting out of control. Christine, I would not recommend that you follow any of these techniques. I believe that they could be quite dangerous as well as not being proper Vipassana mediation. You did not ask me to describe proper Vipassana mediation, only to respond to this article, so I will leave it at that. I don't want to tell you what you already know. But you may wonder, "Who is James to make this determination?" Well, since you gave Mr. Bucknell's qualifications in dhamma, I will give you a bit about my background. The following is a letter that the abbot of my temple wrote for me to become a Buddhist monk (which I ultimately didn't do because I do have problems with how the Sangha is being run…throughout the world. But some are better than others.): June 3, 2002 Phramaha Winai Booncham Abbot of Wat Promkunaram Ajahn Pasanno and Ajahn Jayasaro Wat Pah Nanachat Ban Bung Wai, Amper Warin Ubon Ratchathani 34310 Thailand Re: Mr. James Mitchell Dear Ajahan Pasanno and Ajahn Jayasaro: I am writing on behalf of Mr. James Mitchell who wishes to take residence at Wat Pah Nanachat to study and eventually become ordained as a Buddhist monk. Mr. James has been a Temple Disciple of Wat Promkunaram for seven years. During that time he was a student to Ajahn Somporn and assisted him in the leading of week, weekend, and daylong meditation retreats. His assistance was crucial in the translation of dharma talks/instruction and Vipassana meditation techniques. He is practiced in Samatha and Vipassana meditation and can teach the techniques of standing, walking, and sitting meditation to Americans unfamiliar with such techniques. His assistance helped to make the retreats helpful and popular for all participants. He is also very knowledgeable about Buddhism and has been a Buddhist, and has practiced meditation, for 15 years. His knowledge and background are unique for an American. Additionally, he has conducted his own, self-guided 10-day meditation retreat here at Wat Promkunaram. He is disciplined, knowledgeable, helpful, and sincere in his desire to learn and practice the teachings of the Buddha. His interest and ability lies in meditation, teaching meditation, and explaining the Buddha's teachings to those unfamiliar with them. He hopes to eventually help Westerners gain further understanding and appreciation of Buddhism. I believe your temple would be of great benefit to him as he pursues this noble goal. I recommend Mr. James Mitchell to become a novice at your temple with the goal of becoming ordained. Please contact me by mail to let me know if you can accommodate him within the next few months. He needs to make plans regarding his job and resolve his financial affairs. He is sincere in his desire and believes that your forest tradition will be of good benefit to him. I agree. Thank you for your attention to this letter and consideration of Mr. James Mitchell on my behalf. Have a good day. Sincerely, Pramaha Winai Booncham Abbot of Wat Promkunaram Actually Christine, it makes me sad to read this letter again. So many dreams unfulfilled. Oh well, such is karma. Metta, James 18644 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:33am Subject: Re: No-control & Destiny Hi KKT, > __If deep down we realize that > we have no control over any situation, > no free will to << do >> anything > then we become calm and un-disturbed > by whatever happens in life. That is an assumption. > Is this a correct approach to life? No. > > > __Can we say that the Buddha > taught two levels of understanding? > > On the first level He stressed people > to make effort, to exercise their > << free will >> as if there were > effectively a << doer or entity >> > capable of << doing >> anything. > > But on a higher level of understanding, > there were absolutely no-control, no free will, > no entity, no doer whatsoever. > Everything just happens by << conditions >> > The so-called "higher level of understanding" is a wrong view. The Buddha did not teach that. > > What do you think? > > Thanks. > > > Regards, > > > KKT Take care, Victor 18646 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:39am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi James (and Larry), Thanks for this honest post, and for sharing a little of your meditation and Dhamma experience via the Abbots' letter. Don't feel sad about your Thai experience James - dreams are unreal, always dissatisfying, never quite what one wanted, and they always end too soon - you have something far better to work with, real life. Just this moment, and then, just this moment ... My understanding of vipassana is that it is the direct analytical awareness of the totality of experience at a given moment: sensory perception, thinking, feeling, and acting. I think Vipassana is the seeing of this experience in its parts, as an impersonal process of activity. I quite enjoyed the article - seemed to fit the idea I had of vipassana, even if it was more of a 'practice' done at a special time than I do. Is your understanding of vipassana different to mine? I'd love to hear it...(and what about you, Larry - any thoughts?) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: 18647 From: James Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 5:26am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi James (and Larry), > > Thanks for this honest post, and for sharing a little of your > meditation and Dhamma experience via the Abbots' letter. Don't feel > sad about your Thai experience James - dreams are unreal, always > dissatisfying, never quite what one wanted, and they always end too > soon - you have something far better to work with, real life. Just > this moment, and then, just this moment ... > My understanding of vipassana is that it is the direct analytical > awareness of the totality of experience at a given moment: sensory > perception, thinking, feeling, and acting. I think Vipassana is > the seeing of this experience in its parts, as an impersonal process > of activity. > I quite enjoyed the article - seemed to fit the idea I had of > vipassana, even if it was more of a 'practice' done at a special > time than I do. > Is your understanding of vipassana different to mine? I'd love to > hear it...(and what about you, Larry - any thoughts?) > > metta, > Christine Hi Christine, I would not say that my understanding is different, or the same as yours. You don't give me enough to go on. If you wish to practice what this author suggests, I cannot stop you. Just be careful. Metta, James 18648 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 7:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Wrong view > Students of Sujin's would know, for example, that it is wrong for monks to accept money. Money is used so extensively in everyday life. For example, the public transport system requires us to pay by cash or by stored-value card (in Singapore's context). Surely, if a bikkhu needs to travel on a daily basis, he would need money. It can't be the case that there would be laypeople who are so free to ferry the bikkhu on private transport. Private transport is very expensive in Singapore. Most people take public transport. I think that for certain cases, bikkhus do need to have money, money donated by laypeople. So long as the bikkhus spend the money within that which is allowed, I see no wrong for bikkhus to accept monetary donations. Please enlighten on why monetary gifts used for allowed purposes is wrong. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18649 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 9:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 33, Comm, Breathing, sati alone Dear Larry, op 03-01-2003 03:52 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: (snipped): It might also > be being suggested that mindfulness of breathing is a way of approaching > jhana. Both kayanupassana and vedananupassana are associated more with > the cultivation of quietude while cittanupassana and dhammanupassana are > associated more with the cultivation of insight. The predominate insight > of body mindfulness is concerned with "casting out the illusion > (vipallasa) of beauty" but I don't think that applies to mindfulness of > breathing. So I would say a quiet, tamed mind is what we are cultivating > here, so far. Nina: This was partly discussed with Sarah. You remembered rightly what we read before, sati being under the samadhi khandha of the eightfold Path. I quote again a Pali text, from the subco I quoted before, I think this answers the question whether there is development of vipassana in the case of body contemplation : And also: We also read that sati alone cannot abandon defilements: Now I can correct a former mistake: satiyeva (last year Nov): yeva is eva, meaning : alone, only. Sati alone. This was in another passage. This is also a reminder that just sati is not enough, in satipatthana sati sampajanna is essential. This term, sati sampajanna, is also used in samatha, because it denotes panna that is not theoretical. In samatha sati sampajanna has to be so keen that it discerns right at the present moment whether there is attachment to calm or panna that directly understands the meditation subject as a means to subdue defilements. For today this is enough, but of course there is a great deal more to say. Nina. 18650 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 10:06am Subject: right thinking Dear Christine, Right thinking, sammasankappa, of the eightfold Path is sometimes translated by right intention. However, no matter what term is used we should understand its characteristic, as we learnt in Bgk. Vitakka cetasika, thinking, hits or strikes the object citta cognizes. This is theory, we should understand this in practice. Seeing, hearing and the other sense-cognitions are not accompanied by vitakka. Seeing just sees, it arises on the eyebase, it does not need vitakka. The other cittas in that process need vitakka, they do not see, they do not arise at the eyebase. You remember, A. Sujin said, all the cittas other than the sense-cognitions are completely different, they need more cetasikas. Seeing only needs the minimum of seven cetasikas, all the others need more, they need vitakka (I am not speaking about jhanacittas). Gradually we can verify this. When we are thinking about different subjects vitakka performs its function, arising with each citta during the thinking. But thinking as used in conventional language is different from the cetasika vitakka arising at the moments which are not the sense-cognitions. A. Sujin and other teachers (including A. Supee) spoke for two hours in Parlement about this subject. We have to consider this subject and then it can be absorbed. Only theoretical understanding is not enough. Now about right thinking. Thinking can be akusala, and it can also be kusala, of different degrees. We read about the three ways of kusala thinking: thinking with detachment, nekkhamma, thinking free from illwill and free from cruelty. As to nekkhamma, this means, departing from kama. Kama has two meaning: kilesa kama, the sensuality that is defilements, and vatthu kama: the base, the object of sensuality. The Commentary to the Vibhangasutta, K.S. V, on the Way, Ch I, §8, Analysis, (dealing with the factors of the eightfold Path), states that nekkhamma vitakka it has the nature of departing from sensuousness, because it is opposed to sensuousness. We were reminded that it is alobha, arising with all kusala. And, when there is sati sampajanna, mindfulness and understanding of a nama or rupa appearing now, there is a degree of departing from kama at that moment. There is right thinking accompanying the citta with sati sampajanna. Long ago we discussed that satipatthana takes the spice out of life (with Ven. Dhammadharo, also with Sarah). We do not have to worry, even the sotapanna likes pleasant objects. The Commentary explains that in the beginning these three ways of kusala thinking are different. When Maggacitta arises, there is one kind of right thinking, since it cuts off the base of the three kinds of wrong thinking. It accomplishes the non-arising of them. Thus, this is the highest sammasankappa. You remember, we were reminded that without satipatthana we cannot understand the Tipitaka. We cannot understand what we read about right thinking and we may become confused. The same goes for thinking about intricate subjects of Dhamma, it will not be as helpful as awareness. I should remind myself to just be aware of what appears now, and then panna will take care; gradually there will be more understanding of points we used to find so difficult. There may be doubt about the person of the Buddha, is he still present? He is present in his teachings, "who sees the Dhamma, sees me". The sotapanna understands more of what Buddhahood means, he has a deeper understanding of the Dhamma and also of the person of the Buddha. I remember that you quoted from a Single Excellent Night: How can we understand this without satipatthana? No way, we just think of stories. There can be awareness of hardness, but instead of thinking about it, dwelling on it, there can be attention to the next dhamma that presents itself. I have to remind myself of this. I do not let go of what is past or what is just past. Nina. 18651 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 10:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] khanti Dear Azita, thank you for your good wishes and reminders. See below op 05-01-2003 04:43 schreef azita gill op gazita2002@y...: I found this in my little > book from years ago. > 'Remember, the greatest intention [chanda] to > have, when kusala acts are performed, is the intention > to eradicate defilements. If intention is for good > results in the future then one can go on forever and > forever, but defilements will not be eradicated.' > However, chanda arises without 'us' doing > anything anyway - but still a good reminder. N: How good: without us doing kusala. I remember, it was repeated; do we develop satipatthana for our own sakes? It seems so often: we are doing this all for our own sake, but it must lead to detachment. A: And I also found this on patience: > 'Patience in reality, is many cetasikas, but > patience can help us to deal with a harmful person, > help us thro miserable conditions and in its highest > form, be patient for awareness to arise and experience > realities as they really are.' > I think the above must have followed on from a > discussion we were having because I have since learnt > that patience is one cetasika -Khanti. N: No, it is not one cetasika. Khanti includes patience towards a pleasant object, thus, alobha, and towards an unpleasant object, thus adosa. Not all paramis are separate cetasikas. Nina. 18652 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 10:48am Subject: [dsg] Re: Wrong view --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: Robert: Students of Sujin's would know, for example, that it is wrong for > monks to accept money. _________ > > Money is used so extensively in everyday life. > > > Surely, if a bikkhu needs to travel on a daily basis, he would need > money. > I think that for certain cases, bikkhus do need to have money, money > donated by laypeople. So long as the bikkhus spend the money within > that which is allowed, I see no wrong for bikkhus to accept monetary > donations. _________ Dear Swee Boon, I don't have much interest in telling monks what they should or shouldn't do. I had the idea it was against the vinaya for monks to carry money. But if you say it is fine then so be it. Robert 18653 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 0:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Wrong view --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " > wrote: > Robert: Students of Sujin's would know, for example, that it is wrong > for > > monks to accept money. > _________ > > > > Money is used so extensively in everyday life. > > > > > Surely, if a bikkhu needs to travel on a daily basis, he would > need > > money. > I think that for certain cases, bikkhus do need to have > money, money > > donated by laypeople. So long as the bikkhus spend the money within > > that which is allowed, I see no wrong for bikkhus to accept > monetary > > donations. > _________ Dear Swee boon, I thought you might like to read this article by a monk http://www.nibbana.com/pesala02.htm/ robert 18654 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:00pm Subject: He said ... I said Dear All, Rusty, my dog, came home last weekend after an operation and seven or eight weeks in kennels. His injured leg is bearing about three quarters of its normal weight load - perhaps it will never be 100% perfect. It is amazing what surgeons can do - he has had torn ligaments repaired and has an implant in his knee as the joint was showing arthritic changes. The reactions of my Christian, atheist and agnostic friends has been interesting. Many think I should have had Rusty 'put down' ('kindly' killed by someone else), and regard the amount of money spent on his operation and care in the kennels as something that should have been donated to the care of humans. It makes me feel uncertain about my actions. I have come to accept that all sentient beings are almost endlessly cycling through Samsara, and, I believe that, where possible, one should care for those one comes into contact with (whether in animal, human, bird, insect or fish form) to the best of one's ability. I explained this to one friend who understands a little about Buddhism, and has a growing interest. What he could not undersand was how I could then not be vegetarian. I said that the Buddha ate meat when given it, and had only forbidden the eating of meat if a person knew or suspected that the animal had been specially killed for them. My friend gently pointed out that using this as justification for an omnivorous diet could almost be considered hypocritical. To say this meant that the Buddha did not disapprove of the eating of meat was bordering on equivocation. It was clear to him from what I said that the Buddha was speaking to those who were beggars and who were eating, not for pleasure, but only for maintenance of the body, so therefore they should take what came without desire for something else and with no distinctions made. Ordinary people had a choice, and he saw no compassion or love in choosing to eat meat and knowingly encouraging an ever expanding industry, that caused fear-filled, painful deaths just to satisfy human tastes. I spoke about special dietary requirements for particular illnesses, and people living in areas where crops and vegetables could not be grown. He pointed to the common international transport of vegetables, grains and fruit. I put forward that sentient beings numbering in the thousands were killed per acre of vegetables ploughed, harrowed, fertilised, sprayed with insectisides, and harvested. He said that cows, pigs, sheep, fish and poultry (and even fertilised eggs) were intentionally 'bred and chosen for death' - whereas insects, worms, frogs, lizards, beetles etc. were mostly unintentional 'collateral damage' and should be more excusable from a Buddhist perspective. He asked - apart from legalities, cultural taboos, personal repugnance, and rationalising speciesist views - what then was the difference between breeding animals for consumption and breeding humans for that purpose - from a Buddhist point of view? I looked up the meaning of 'sentient being' in Nyanatiloka's dictionary - it wasn't there. I looked up satta, jiva, atta, puggala, and found only the impersonality of all existence. And so - I said, "I don't know". metta, Christine 18655 From: James Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:45pm Subject: Re: He said ... I said --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: Christine, The Lord Buddha was only concerned with mastery of the mind. Eating meat or not eating meat doesn't affect one's ability to master the mind. However, if a monk knows that an animal has been killed for him/her that will affect the tranquility of the mind...and thus adversely affect mastery. Feelings of guilt, sadness, concern, greed, etc. can arise because of such knowledge. Therefore the Buddha declared that if a monk knew that an animal had been killed specifically for the sangha or him/her, they should refuse to eat that meat. This isn't hypocrisy; this is following a different set of standards that you and your friend were arguing. I hope Rusty makes a full recovery! Metta, James 18656 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:42pm Subject: Thank you all Dear Sarah, Robert and others, thank you for all your replies, I do like what I see in this list that is why I read all your post. As a monk I do not take part because I am afraid to be misinterpreter. I will visit Sujin on my next trip to Thailand. Since you people mention dhammakaya, the Dhammakaya monks became very friendly with me and they invited me to all the ceremonies plus they invited me last February to go to Thailand for a cremation. Three months ago they asked me if I could give them $100.000 thouzand dollars for a building in Thailand. Of course I refused because now that I am a monk do not have money, all my millions are in a trust just in case I leave the order. Result , I have never hear from the Dhammakaya monks for the last three months. Metta. Ven. Yanatharo 18657 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:57pm Subject: buddhism Hello everyone, I'm Hilary Wong and I'm 11years old. I live in Hong Kong. My favourite subjects back in school are P.E,humanites and English. I have been reading a couple of the letters on Buddhism. After reading, a few questions about Buddhism popped into my mind. How does the rebirth work? How many lives has everyone got altogether? Where will it take place? Will even non-buddhists be reborn too? Looking foward to hear from you. Hilary 18658 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:00pm Subject: My letter to James Dear James, I hope you had a wonderful christmas and HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! Sorry, I didn't write to you for such a long time as I went to San Francisco and Vancouver for my christmas holidays. Ihad a great time there! I hope you are keeping well! By the way, where did you spent you christmas or New Years? Once again, thank you for the poems you sent me! I think you should try to become a poet writer! I have a question, does the Buddha make you happy? I think you are happy at everything you see and write! Iasked you this questions as I always think you are happy! Well, that's it for this letter! Remember to send me more happy poems Metta, Janice 18659 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:03pm Subject: My letter to Kom Dear Kom, I hope you had a wonderful christmas and HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! I went to San Francisco and Vancouver during the christmas holidays. I had a great time! I hope you are keeping well! Wheredid go for the christmas holidays? I wonder how does the Buddha creates different sounds in our ears? I am asking you this because you talked about the Buddha makes sounds about the different karmas! Well, that is it for this letter! Metta, Janice Chung 18660 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:07pm Subject: Re: Thank you all Hi Everybody, > Three months ago they asked me if I could give them $100.000 > thouzand dollars for a building in Thailand. Of course I > refused because now that I am a monk do not have money, > all my millions are in a trust just in case I leave the order. > Result , I have never hear from the Dhammakaya monks for the > last three months. Who are these Dhammakaya monks? What's wrong with them? Can anyone explain? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18661 From: Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Christine, I thought you were asking if you should experiment and my thought was sure, why not. Happy meditating. Larry 18662 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:46pm Subject: Re: Thank you all Hi Swee Boon, There are 17 articles from the Bangkok Post on Dhammakaya at: http://buddhism.newstrove.com/ scroll almost half-way down. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi Everybody, > > > Three months ago they asked me if I could give them $100.000 > > thouzand dollars for a building in Thailand. Of course I > > refused because now that I am a monk do not have money, > > all my millions are in a trust just in case I leave the order. > > Result , I have never hear from the Dhammakaya monks for the > > last three months. > > Who are these Dhammakaya monks? > > What's wrong with them? > > Can anyone explain? > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 18663 From: Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 33, Comm, Breathing, sati alone Hi Nina, Thanks for the clarification. I would like to see more textual references to the practice of sati sampajanna. This (below) is very informative. Larry -------------------- Nina: In samatha sati sampajanna has to be so keen that it discerns right at the present moment whether there is attachment to calm or panna that directly understands the meditation subject as a means to subdue defilements. 18664 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:55pm Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Beth --- Beth wrote: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ... Hello all, Hello Jon, Co-dependent recovery is what one does in relation to understanding that one's life has become unmanagable and the understanding of the steps one needs to make to break free of certain self destructive cycles. A codependent person is one who has let another person's behavior affect him/her, and who is obsessed with controlling that person's behavior(definition from Codependent No More by Melody Beattie). My daily practice for at least the last two years continues to be analytical in regards to thoughts/feelings. To know where these arise, what if anything to do about them and letting go. When I first began I purposefully began my days with at least an hour of quiet, not letting myself get distracted by things outside myself. I then let any feelings come that I may have been surpressing, I might cry for a while or write about what's going on with me.After I finish, I let myself know that I am loved, and forgive myself as well as those who may have offended me( I also extend loving wishes their way). Throughout my days if any anxious/fearful/anger filled thoughts come my way, I let those go and focus on what is going on at the moment (doing dishes for example). ~peace, Beth Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one's own acts, done and undone. Dhammapada 4:50 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing your thoughts on daily practice (and another useful Dhammapada verse). The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world around us is in fact dhammas (fundamental phenomena) of various kinds. He also taught that it is only by developing awareness and understanding of these dhammas, and seeing their true nature, that the root cause of our problems, namely ignorance about the true nature of things, can be overcome. There are many dhammas apart from those that comprise thoughts and feelings (two things that you particularly mention). Right now, for example, there are dhammas that are both experiencing and being experienced through the various sense-doors. At any given time, dhammas are present as potential objects of awareness. We do not have to direct our attention towards, or focus on, or a particular dhamma or aspect of our life. We talk quite a lot here about these dhammas and their characteristics, because although they are present now, they are not seen for what they are, due to our deeply ingrained ignorance and wrong view. I hope you find the discussion helpful in lifting the covers off these dhammas. Jon 18665 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Wendy --- Uan Chih Liu wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > Maybe I'm confused about kusala vs. akusala afterall. I always > thought > kusala/akusala is not intellectual considerations. Just because > one > finds the temperature just right, it does not make vipaka kusala. > One > cannot make an akusala vipaka kusala or vice versa. I always > thought > that a true understanding of whether a vipaka is kusala or akusala > grows with wisdom just like you mentioned in your last paragraph. > Or am I mis-understanding that as well? I think I may have confused you by being less specific than perhaps I should have. My apologies for that. Yes, kusala/akusala vipaka has nothing to do with whether the object being experienced is one that is liked or disliked. However, in the case of experience through the body-door (uniquely), the actual moment of sense-door contact is accompanied by bodily feeling that is either pleasant or unpleasant, depending on whether the object is inherently pleasant (i.e., is kusala vipaka) or unpleasant (i.e., is akusala vipaka). So an experience through the body door that is accompanied by painful bodily feeling is akusala vipaka. Now the point at which 'the weather' becomes too hot or too cold, so that it is accompanied by painful bodily feeling, varies from one person to the next, in the exact same weather conditions. This is why I made the comment that the vipaka differs in the 2 cases. > Just like what I raised in this group before, how can one tell > whether > anyone's understanding is purely intellectual consideration or > wisdom. > I don't see this case is any different. My point is one cannot > take > weather simply as environment either when it may be in fact > ecological > event. Yes, it may be environment only in one case, and ecological > event > at another moment. One will know only when understanding of the > situation comes with wisdom. To my understanding, what wisdom will know is the true nature of the presently appearing dhamma. That may be, for example, the heat/cold experienced through the body-sense that is brought about by 'the weather', or it may be the attachment or aversion that arises following that experience. These are examples of 'dhammas' (fundamental phenomena). Dhammas are described as the 'field' of wisdom, since they are what wisdom may directly experience. They include the different kinds of consciousness occurring through the 5 sense-doors, and the objects of those consciousnesses. Dhammas also include the consciousness that occurs through the mind-door. 'Consciousness' here includes the accompanying mental factors. It's a big subject, but it helps to have a good grasp of exactly what are the 'things' that wisdom 'knows', and what things are not dhammas and so not capable of being the object of insight/wisdom of the level of satipatthana/vipassana. I hope this post is less confusing than my last. ;-) Jon 18666 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 5:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No-control & Destiny Hi KKT, You wrote: ------- Dear everybody, I have some questions and I'd like to hear your opinion. __If there is absolutely << no-control >> in the sense that everything happens (or arises) because of << conditions >> then what is the difference with << destiny, fate >> ? Because destiny also means that things happen outside of << our >> control. ---------- KH: Paramattha dhammas arise because of conditions. Illusory dhammas (concepts), owe their illusory existence to illusory causes, eg, control, free-will, fate, destiny. When we mix absolute reality and illusory reality in the same sentence, it can sound as though conditionality means fate or destiny. (To some people it sounds as though conditionality means `free-will' or `control.') --------- KKT: __If deep down we realize that we have no control over any situation, no free will to << do >> anything then we become calm and un-disturbed by whatever happens in life. Is this a correct approach to life? -------- KH: If we realise there is no control over conditioned reality then, yes, there is calm at the moment of realisation. There will also be an increased tendency for calm to arise in the future. ---------- KKT: __Can we say that the Buddha taught two levels of understanding? On the first level He stressed people to make effort, to exercise their << free will >> as if there were effectively a << doer or entity >> capable of << doing >> anything. But on a higher level of understanding, there were absolutely no-control, no free will, no entity, no doer whatsoever. Everything just happens by << conditions >> What do you think? ---------- KH: I think he taught only the higher level. (Everyone else, including all the other great thinkers in history, taught only the lower level.) BUT, we must not be confused by the Buddha's frequent use of conventional (lower), language in teaching absolute (higher), reality. Kind regards Ken H 18667 From: James Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:32pm Subject: Re: No-control & Destiny --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear everybody, > > > I have some questions and > I'd like to hear your opinion. > > > __If there is absolutely > << no-control >> in the sense > that everything happens (or arises) > because of << conditions >> > then what is the difference > with << destiny, fate >> ? > Because destiny also means that > things happen outside of << our >> control. > > > __If deep down we realize that > we have no control over any situation, > no free will to << do >> anything > then we become calm and un-disturbed > by whatever happens in life. > > Is this a correct approach to life? > > > __Can we say that the Buddha > taught two levels of understanding? > > On the first level He stressed people > to make effort, to exercise their > << free will >> as if there were > effectively a << doer or entity >> > capable of << doing >> anything. > > But on a higher level of understanding, > there were absolutely no-control, no free will, > no entity, no doer whatsoever. > Everything just happens by << conditions >> > > > What do you think? > > Thanks. > > > Regards, > > > KKT Hi KKT, I am going to give you my perspective on these questions; a perspective quite separate from the Abhidhamma. A perspective based on the Vinaya Pitaka and the Sutta Pitaka. The Buddha taught that there is no self; that is a given. Did he also teach that there is no control? No. Although it may seem logical to conclude that no self equals no control, it doesn't equate. The Buddha taught that self-mastery would lead to selflessness; he did not teach that self-denial would lead to selflessness. If anyone can read the Vinaya Pitaka, with its 234 rules of discipline for monks and laypeople, with consequences for breaking the rules, and can say that the Buddha believed that we have no control over the choices we make in our lives, I don't know what to say for them. People also cannot say that the dhamma is descriptive rather than prescriptive. The Buddha went to great lengths to prescribe appropriate ways for people to behave in a variety of circumstances. So where is this idea of `no control' coming from? Well, obviously it is coming from the Abhidhamma. This idea of no control is a reductionism theory based on the reductionism of the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma goes to great length to prove that there is `no self' by reducing the sensory world to what it deems are the lowest units of reduction: called `dhammas'. As the famous chariot metaphor explains, the `chariot' cannot be found in the wheels, the axle, the pole, etc, of a chariot. It is just an assembly of parts. The Abhidhamma also reduces everything in the sensory world to various `dhammas' and shows that none of them are `the self'. Therefore `the self' doesn't exist. And because the self doesn't exist, there is no `agent' to `decide' courses of action. Everything is quite out of our hands and there is no control. There is only moment after moment of existence without future moments being born and the past moments no longer existing (this Abhidhamma reductionism extends to time as well). What is wrong with this theory? In my estimation, it is far too simplistic because it doesn't explain how all of these parts come together to create the `illusion' of self-hood. If you don't pinpoint the cause, the result is quite irrelevant. For example, yes, the chariot is not just the wheel, or the axle, or the pole, etc., but if you put all the parts together in a particular way and it is a chariot...but not forever. And while the `self' cannot be found in any of the aggregates individually, put all together in a particular way they create the `illusion' of a self. The Buddha wanted us to realize that there was `no self' in this conglomeration of aggregates because that `illusory' self is unstable, impermanent, and unsatisfactory. I will do another post later that explains how the suttas explain how the aggregates come together to create an illusionary self and how self-mastery, as opposed to self-denial, is the only way to end that process and reach Nibbana. I have already put out a lot of ideas for one post. :-) Metta, James 18668 From: Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hello Christine, I wondering if you have ever read R. Bucknell's (and someone else, can't go check) "The Twilight Language?" He ties "retracing" and "linking" into a general interpretation of Buddhadhamma that is quite interesting; so, at least at the time he authored the book, he felt that these two techniques were *very* important. And, he argues, probably taught by the Buddha. (If you don't do "formal" meditation you're not a Buddhist, just a Buddhist scholar. And in your case a quite good one. But I'll give you credit for former practice;-) BTW, I joined dl a bit over a year ago when my formal practice fell apart, to try and sort things out.) metta, stephen 18669 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 8:17pm Subject: Re: No-control & Destiny Dear everyone, Many thanks to Larry, Victor, Ken and James for sharing your thoughts. I know this is a difficult subject which requires deep reflection. We can put all in one block << anatta/no-self, no-control, destiny, free-will, conditions >> because they are all related. Personally, I believe in the theory of << many levels of understanding >> to explain many difficult points which seem << apparently >> contradictory in the Buddha's teaching. Again, thanks to everybody. Metta, KKT 18670 From: Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] He said ... I said Hi, Christine - I'm replying just to the first part of your post. In a message dated 1/10/03 4:02:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Rusty, my dog, came home last weekend after an operation and seven or > eight weeks in kennels. His injured leg is bearing about three > quarters of its normal weight load - perhaps it will never be 100% > perfect. It is amazing what surgeons can do - he has had torn > ligaments repaired and has an implant in his knee as the joint was > showing arthritic changes. > The reactions of my Christian, atheist and agnostic friends has been > interesting. Many think I should have had Rusty 'put down' ('kindly' > killed by someone else), and regard the amount of money spent on his > operation and care in the kennels as something that should have been > donated to the care of humans. It makes me feel uncertain about my > actions. I have come to accept that all sentient beings are almost > endlessly cycling through Samsara, and, I believe that, where > possible, one should care for those one comes into contact with > (whether in animal, human, bird, insect or fish form) to the best of > one's > ability. ============================ This is the way I feel about the matter: 1) Your dog is a sentient being who is in your care. You are caring for him lovingly. 2) Your dog has been with you, I presume, for a while at this point. You love him, and he, I'm sure, loves you. Why is he not worthy of your kind attention? 3) The money that you have spent - spent out of love and compassion - is, in fact, *your* money, earned by you and not by someone else who thinks they have a better way to spend your hard earned funds. 4) To hell with them! ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18671 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 8:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hello Stephen, I am torn between saying "Stephen, how ungenerous of you! I am deeply hurt!" OR, "Pull the other leg, mate, - it plays Waltzing Matilda!". :-) If the definition of a Buddhist is "one who perfectly follows the Teachings of the Buddha", then there aren't any buddhists in the world. If the definition is "one who 'tries' to follow the Teachings" then I am one of those. Do you have a saying in Yankee-land that sounds like, 'Put up - or shut up?' It means 'Saying it doesn't make it so, bring forward your proof, or drop the subject'. :-) I haven't read that book you mention - can you quote anything relevant and Sutta related from it? I look forward to some irrefutable proof from the Suttas, that 'one is not a buddhist if one does not do formal sitting meditation'. Or, flowers chocolates and an abject apology... :-) And Stephen .... tell me I'm not a Buddhist one more time and it's pistols at dawn. Oh, hang on, I think that splintering sound was one, and possibly two, of the precepts ... metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: > Hello Christine, > I wondering if you have ever read R. Bucknell's (and someone else, can't go > check) "The Twilight Language?" He ties "retracing" and "linking" into a > general interpretation of Buddhadhamma that is quite interesting; so, at > least at the time he authored the book, he felt that these two techniques > were *very* important. And, he argues, probably taught by the Buddha. > (If you don't do "formal" meditation you're not a Buddhist, just a Buddhist > scholar. And in your case a quite good one. But I'll give you credit for > former practice;-) > BTW, I joined dl a bit over a year ago when my formal practice fell apart, to > try and sort things out.) > metta, stephen 18672 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 9:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] He said ... I said Hi Howard, :-) I thank you for your support - and I'm SURE I just heard Rusty mutt-er, "Good bloke, that Howard!" :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > This is the way I feel about the matter: > > 1) Your dog is a sentient being who is in your care. You are caring > for him lovingly. > 2) Your dog has been with you, I presume, for a while at this point. > You love him, and he, I'm sure, loves you. Why is he not worthy of your kind > attention? > 3) The money that you have spent - spent out of love and compassion - > is, in fact, *your* money, earned by you and not by someone else who thinks > they have a better way to spend your hard earned funds. > 4) To hell with them! ;-)) > > With metta, > Howard 18673 From: James Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 9:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hello Stephen, > > I am torn between saying "Stephen, how ungenerous of you! I am > deeply hurt!" OR, "Pull the other leg, mate, - it plays Waltzing > Matilda!". :-) > > If the definition of a Buddhist is "one who perfectly follows the > Teachings of the Buddha", then there aren't any buddhists in the > world. If the definition is "one who 'tries' to follow the > Teachings" then I am one of those. > > Do you have a saying in Yankee-land that sounds like, 'Put up - or > shut up?' It means 'Saying it doesn't make it so, bring forward > your proof, or drop the subject'. :-) I haven't read that book you > mention - can you quote anything relevant and Sutta related from > it? I look forward to some irrefutable proof from the Suttas, > that 'one is not a buddhist if one does not do formal sitting > meditation'. Or, flowers chocolates and an abject apology... :-) > > And Stephen .... tell me I'm not a Buddhist one more time and it's > pistols at dawn. Oh, hang on, I think that splintering sound was > one, and possibly two, of the precepts ... > > metta, > Christine Hi Christine, LOL! Yea, I think Stephen is pulling your leg (does it really play 'Waltzing Matilada'? I love that song!:-) It is quite permissible for one to take a break from formal meditation for a week, a month, a year, or several years and still be considered a practicing Buddhist. Sometimes it is necessary to re-group and build Right View and Right Understanding before meditation will begin again. I think you should follow your instincts in this regard. Metta, James 18674 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 9:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Thank you James, you are a true gentleman - we'll send metta to Stephen. :-) I'll work very hard on my Right View and Right Understanding for you. :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > > Hello Stephen, > > > > I am torn between saying "Stephen, how ungenerous of you! I am > > deeply hurt!" OR, "Pull the other leg, mate, - it plays Waltzing > > Matilda!". :-) > > > > If the definition of a Buddhist is "one who perfectly follows the > > Teachings of the Buddha", then there aren't any buddhists in the > > world. If the definition is "one who 'tries' to follow the > > Teachings" then I am one of those. > > > > Do you have a saying in Yankee-land that sounds like, 'Put up - > or > > shut up?' It means 'Saying it doesn't make it so, bring forward > > your proof, or drop the subject'. :-) I haven't read that book > you > > mention - can you quote anything relevant and Sutta related from > > it? I look forward to some irrefutable proof from the Suttas, > > that 'one is not a buddhist if one does not do formal sitting > > meditation'. Or, flowers chocolates and an abject apology... :-) > > > > And Stephen .... tell me I'm not a Buddhist one more time and > it's > > pistols at dawn. Oh, hang on, I think that splintering sound was > > one, and possibly two, of the precepts ... > > > > metta, > > Christine > > Hi Christine, > > LOL! Yea, I think Stephen is pulling your leg (does it really > play 'Waltzing Matilada'? I love that song!:-) It is quite > permissible for one to take a break from formal meditation for a > week, a month, a year, or several years and still be considered a > practicing Buddhist. Sometimes it is necessary to re-group and > build Right View and Right Understanding before meditation will > begin again. I think you should follow your instincts in this > regard. > > Metta, James 18675 From: Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 9:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi all, A good example of what the no-control argument is about can be seen in the Culasaccaka Sutta, MN 35. http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/035-culasaccaka-sutta-e1.htm This is a debate between Aggivessana, the Nigantha's son, and the Buddha. Here are a couple of excerpts: Aggivessana: Good Gotama, a comparison occurs to me. Buddha: Say it Aggivessana. A: Like these seed groups and vegetable groups that grow and develop, established and supported on earth . So also all powerful work, that has to be done, should be done, established and supported on earth. In the same manner this person, established in matter, with the material self accrues merit or demerit. This feeling person established in feelings accrues merit or demerit. The perceiving person established in perceptions accrues merit or demerit. The determining person established in determinations, accrues merit or demerit. The conscious person established in consciousness, accrues merit or demerit.. B: Aggivessana, do you say Matter is my self. Feelings are my self. Perceptions are my self. Determinations are my self. Conscioussness is my self.? A: Good Gotama, I say. matter is my self. Feelings are my self. Perceptions are my self. Determinations are my self. Consciousness is my self, so also this large crowd says it. Aggivessana, you say that, matter is your self, do you wield power over that matter, as may my matter be thus, and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. Aggivessana, you that say, feelings are your self, do you wield power over those feelings, as may my feelings be thus, and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. Aggivessana, you that say, perceptions are your self, do you wield power over those perceptions, as may my perceptions be thus and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier, does not agree with what you say now.. Aggivessana, you, say that determinations are your self, do you wield power over those determinations, as may my determinations be thus and not otherwise. No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. Aggivessana, you, say that consciousness is your self, do you wield power over that consciousness, as may my consciousness be thus and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. What do you think, Aaggivessana, is matter permanent or impermanent? Impermanent good Gotama. That impermanent thing, is it unpleasant or pleasant? Unpleasant good Gotama. That impermanent, unpleasant, changing thing, is it suitable to be considered; that is mine, that I be, that is my self? No good Gotama.. Aggivessana, are feelings—are perceptions,--are determinations,--is consciousness permanent or impermanent? Impermanent good Gotama. That impermanent thing is it unpleasant or pleasant? Unpleasant, good Gotama.That impermanent, unpleasant, changing thing, is it suitable to be considered, that is mine, that I be, that is my self? No, good Gotama..Aggivessana, a certain one clinging to unpleasantness, over powered by it, pressed down by it and reflecting it's mine, would think it's my self. Would he accurately understand unpleasantness by himself or ward it off and abide? Good Gotama, how could it be. No, good Gotama, that would not happen. 18676 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 0:50am Subject: Re: Thank you all --- Dear Venerable Yanatharo, I understand your reluctance to say too much on this forum. Monks are the senior community of Buddhists which gives them special responsibilities (but we welcome your comments of course when you think it appropriate). I think you will be very welcome when you visit Sujin- there are other good teachers at the center too but she is the only one who speaks fluent English. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > Dear Sarah, Robert and others, thank you for all your replies, I do like > what I see in this list that is why I read all your post. As a monk I do not > take part because I am afraid to be misinterpreter. 18677 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 2:13am Subject: My letter Dear James: Thank You for the teaching me about the eight fold path. What gifts do you like? Who gave it to you? Have you enjoyed New Years? What does un-sharp mind mean? (In your letter) Please write to me! With Love, Janet 18678 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 2:16am Subject: Wish you all the best for the new year! Dear James, Thankyou for the letter that you sent me. It was great. You really explained alot of things about the difference between Buddhism and Christianity and Heaven and Hell. Do you believe that the Buddha is actually up above you always looking at you? Hope you had a great time at Christmas and wish you all the best for the new year. Take care Love Sandy 18679 From: Beth Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 3:01am Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Jonothan Abbott wrote: Beth, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on daily practice (and another useful Dhammapada verse). The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world around us is in fact dhammas (fundamental phenomena) of various kinds. He also taught that it is only by developing awareness and understanding of these dhammas, and seeing their true nature, that the root cause of our problems, namely ignorance about the true nature of things, can be overcome. There are many dhammas apart from those that comprise thoughts and feelings (two things that you particularly mention). Right now, for example, there are dhammas that are both experiencing and being experienced through the various sense-doors. At any given time, dhammas are present as potential objects of awareness. We do not have to direct our attention towards, or focus on, or a particular dhamma or aspect of our life. We talk quite a lot here about these dhammas and their characteristics, because although they are present now, they are not seen for what they are, due to our deeply ingrained ignorance and wrong view. I hope you find the discussion helpful in lifting the covers off these dhammas. Jon *************************** Hello Jon, Thank you for your reply :-) I do find the discussion very helpful although I may not understand all at this point. ~peace, Beth 18680 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 2:01am Subject: A Recommended Article Hi, all - I just finished reading the section on Right Intention in the following and was impressed. For those of you who have not seen this work by Bhikkhu Bodhi, I pass on the url for your consideration: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/waytoend.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) 18681 From: James Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 7:19am Subject: Re: My letter to --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James, > I hope you had a wonderful christmas and > HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! Sorry, I didn't > write to you for such a long time as I went to San > Francisco and Vancouver for my christmas holidays. > Ihad a great time there! I hope you are keeping well! > By the way, where did you spent you christmas or New > Years? Once again, thank you for the poems you sent > me! I think you should try to become a poet writer! > > I have a question, does the Buddha make you happy? I > think you are happy at everything you see and write! > Iasked you this questions as I always think you are > happy! > > Well, that's it for this letter! Remember to send me > more happy poems > > Metta, > Janice Hi Star Kid Janice! I am very glad that you had such a good holiday! It is always fun to travel isn't it? I hope you learned a lot about the places you went. San Francisco and Vancouver are too entirely different places! You had an interesting holiday! Some might assume I like San Francisco but I don't really like it too much. It is very hilly and the buildings are too close together for me. I like the spread out landscape and open skies of Arizona, where I live. I haven't been to Vancouver, but I have been to Montreal and Toronto. Canada is really nice and Canadians are really nice too, actually sometimes too nice for us rude Americans! ;-) Janice, I'm not the one who wrote the poems I sent to you. I do write poetry, but it isn't usually funny. The poetry I write is usually about emotions or Buddhism. But I did write one kinda funny poem once about my car. I drive a New Beetle, one of the bright yellow ones! ;-): Because I cannot be a Buddhist monk My parents won't allow me. I cannot wear a yellow robe The Thai community would give me. I over-compensate for this I guess With my bright, yellow Beetle…fit for me. It is my Super-Duper MONK MOBILE!! So, kindly please, don't rear-end me!! Hehehe…kinda goofy I know, but fun. You ask about my happiness. Does the Buddha make me happy? Sure he does! Am I happy all the time? Of course not. Janice, there are two kinds of happiness in the world: the kind that lasts and the kind that doesn't. The Buddha taught us all how to have the kind of happiness that lasts; society tries to teach us about the kind that doesn't last. Let me give you two examples of what I am talking about. Let's say you go to a pizza parlor with your friends, play lots of games, tell each other jokes, and laugh and have a lot of fun. Gosh, you can just be hysterically happy at a time like that can't you? But then when you go home, your friends have gone home, and the pizza parlor is closed, where is your happiness then? It is gone. That is the kind of happiness that doesn't last. But think about a time you did something nice for someone: returned an item to someone that they lost, helped a fellow classmate with their homework, or got an A+ on a work assignment because you worked hard on it. All of those things will make you feel very happy also, won't they? And each time you think about them or remember them afterwards, you feel happy again. That is the kind of happiness that lasts. Granted, the kind of happiness that lasts isn't as strong as the kind of happiness that doesn't, but you get more return…'more bang for your buck'! ;-). The Buddha taught us all how to build a kind of happiness that comes from inside and isn't dependent on doing things or getting things. It is a kind of happiness that never goes away. Now, some Buddhists believe that in order to have the one type of happiness you have to give up the other. In other words, in order to have the happiness that lasts you have to give up the happiness that doesn't last. I don't agree with that. I think you can have both types of happiness. There is plenty of happiness to go around! ;-) Thank you again for you letter, Janice. I hope you have a lot of fun in the New Year, do your work, and are very happy…all the time. Love, James Ps. Here are some more poems for you. I didn't write them, so they are a bit better! ;-) How to Torture Your Teacher (Mrs. Abbot) by Bruce Lansky Only raise your hand when you want to sharpen your pencil or go to the bathroom. Repeat every ten minutes. Never raise your hand when you want to answer a question: instead, yell, "Oooh! Oooh! Oooh!" and then, when the teacher calls on you, say, "I forgot what I was going to say." Lean your chair back, take off your shoes, and put your feet on your desk. Act surprised when the teacher puts all four legs of your chair back on the floor. Drop the eraser end of your pencil on your desk. See how high it will bounce. Drop your books on the floor. See how loud a noise you can make. Hum. Get all your friends to join in. Hold your nose, make a face, and say, "P.U.!" Fan the air away from your face, and point to the kid in front of you. On the last day of school, lead your classmates in chanting: "No more pencils! No more books! No more teachers' dirty looks!" Then, on your way out the door, tell the teacher, "Bet you're looking forward to summer vacation this year. But I'll sure miss you. You're the best teacher I've ever had." ------------------- Most Outstanding Students of the Year Awards* by Bruce Lansky I'm making this announcement to honor STAR KIDS's best. I think you will all agree they rose above the rest. Our most outstanding artist is Christopher McKnight. He's the one who painted all the classroom blackboards white. Our most outstanding sportsman is Stephen Montague. He scored a basket for his team-- and the opponents', too. The student teachers like the best is Alexander Brash. Most kids give teachers apples. But Alex gave them cash. The winner for attendance is Mary Anne McKay. She came to school on every, single day of Christmas holiday. Congratulations, winners! Let's all give them a cheer-- the STAR KIDS students of the year! --------------- What I Found in My Desk by Bruce Lansky A ripe peach with a ugly bruise, a pair of stinky tennis shoes, a day-old ham-and-cheese on rye, a swimsuit that I left to dry, a pencil that glows in the dark, some bubble gum found in the park, a paper bag with cookie crumbs, an old kazoo that barely hums, a spelling test I almost failed, a letter that I should have mailed, and one more thing, I must confess, a note from my teacher, Mrs. Abbot: Clean This Mess!!!! 18682 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 9:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: wrong view, misunderstandings. Venerable Bhikkhu, op 10-01-2003 03:14 schreef ven.yanatharo.bikkhu op sanz@n...: For a long time I have been pondering if I should ask this > question. Now that you have again mention the name of A. Sujin, I feel I > should ask. I have never met or know a thing about Sujin, I have started > asking a few Thai monks here and the USA what they think of her or if they > could give me some information. The answers. They hate her, the reason is > that according to all the Thai monks, she is the one who hates the Shanga. > They gave me all kind of other things which I am compeled to be quiet. So > can somebody tell me why is it that she is so much dislake it by the Thai > Shanga. Nina: It is unfortunate that there are so many misunderstandings in the world, and unnecessary. When I was in Thailand recently, I saw monks sitting at the Foundation and listening to A. Sujin and to the teachers who asist her. The venerable patriarch of Thailand approves of the foundation, this appeared when it was inaugurated a few years ago. Also in the past there were monks attending her lectures, all the time. A. Sujin recently went with a group to Wat Dong Devi, a place I also know. The Abbot is a very remarkable, serious, excellent monk. He is always most interested in what A. Sujin says, has great respect for her teaching of Dhamma. I went many times to India with A. Sujin and my Thai friends. In Saranath relics of the Buddha are kept in the temple and they are only showed to the public once a year. But each time A. Sujin comes, the monks make it a special occasion for the group and allows us to pay repect to the relics. Several times now A. Sujin went down to the crypt where they are kept and then they were placed on her head and she came out with the relics on her head. Then we all were allowed to pay respect and have the relics placed on our heads. The head monk is always full of kindness to A. Sujin and all of us. Each time we offer a sanghadana to 150 foreign monks there. A. Sujin explained: when it is sangha dana you offer to the sangha and do not show preference to a particular monk. A few years ago I joined a tour to Cambodia, where A. Sujin was the main lecturer. The patriarch of Cambodia was present in the main temple, and so were many monks. We went to all the temples of Pnom Pen and all the time many monks were present, intently listening. The people welcomed A. Sujin at each temple with flowers, calling loudly anumodanyia, it was overwhelming. Also at Anchor Wat many monks had come to greet Acharn, although the journey from Pnom Pen was very long. They had wanted to hear Dhamma talk from her but because of circumstances it was not possible. A. Sujin is full of metta, karuna, works non stop for Dhamma, not for her own sake. I have known her for more than thirty years and when living in Thailand we visited many temples, also in the provinces, and talked with many monks. If people have doubts about her, they should meet her, to see for themselves the truth about her. She just could not hate anybody. She has the greatest respect for the Sangha. If a person comes to her for advice about becoming a monk, she explains that it is important to know one's real accumulations, that one should scrutinize oneself and be very honest as to one's accumulations and one's motives. It may be possible that this point may have been misinterpreted by some. I hope I can help to clear this up. Misunderstandings should be cleared up, and as soon as possible. Nina. 18683 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 9:36am Subject: no expectations Dear Jonothan, I am always on the look out for reminders from you. They are concise and very effective. I appreciate this one I saved: the accumulated ignorance and wrong view, which is so tenacious and deeply >ingrained. But just knowing that much can help. At least our >expectations are that much more realistic!> Yes, it helps. Through satipatthana we see more and more our ignorance and wrong view. That subtle feeling of self, always present, developing understyanding for one's own sake. Thank you, I am hungry for more of this, Nina. 18684 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 11:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi all, Contemplating the Culasaccaka Sutta further has changed my mind on the free-will question. The way I interpret it in conjunction with the refutation of nihilism and eternalism is that the Buddha is saying kamma is real but always operates with a belief in an unreal self. The "no control" point is that we cannot control the result of kamma enough to make that result last. Seeing this can give us an insight into anatta and the end of kamma. For example, contemplating body maintenance problems we can glimpse that body is not self. Contemplating the impermanence of pleasant feeling, we can glimpse that feeling is not self. Contemplating memory problems, we can glimpse that understanding is not self. Contemplating emotional problems, we can glimpse that the emotional personality is not self. Contemplating eye-consciousness problems, we can glimpse that consciousness is not self. Contemplating that neither the best engineering in the universe nor the best meditative discipline in the universe can produce a lasting result, we can glimpse that science and concept are not self. Even kamma itself eventually comes to an end in nibbana. No matter what we do or what our special skill or virtue is, it is not self because we cannot make it last. I don't see any indication here that the Buddha is saying we have no choice or saying "no control" = "no choice". Therefore, I would say the Buddha is advocating free-will, based on this and other suttas. However, I think he is also saying free-will is limited by deterministic laws: bad intentions only produce bad results and all results are impermanent and therefor not self. Plus he is saying all kamma is based on a self view. So no matter how virtuous one may be, there will always be problems. Seeing that kamma is not self is the end of kamma and the end of problems. Does anyone know of a sutta where the Buddha says we have no choice and therefor no free-will? Larry 18685 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 0:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Larry and all, One can control oneself. Without exercising of self-control, observing the five precepts is impossible, the Noble Eightfold Path is impossible, the cessation of the dukkha is impossible. Each and every five aggregate has no power over itself. It is impermanent. It lends itself to dis-ease. It has no control over itself. The five aggregates have no control over themselves. When one identifies oneself with the aggregates, contradiction arises. The argument that the Buddha used in refuting Aggivessana's self- view is reductio ad absurdum: if each and every aggregate is your self, then you, the body, the feeling, the perception, the consciousness, the formation, would have power over your self. However, that contradicts the fact that each and every aggregate has no control over itself. A lot of people take the reductio ad absurdum argument that the Buddha used as: one has no control over the body, the feeling, the perception, the consciousness, the formation. A question for reflection: What is the assumption when we say we have no control over the body, the feeling, the perception, the consciousness, the formation? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > A good example of what the no-control argument is about can be seen in > the Culasaccaka Sutta, MN 35. > http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima1/035-culasaccaka-sutta-e1.htm 18686 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi, Victor - In a message dated 1/11/03 3:58:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Larry and all, ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Victor, the following three paragraphs of yours constitute an argument in favor of the existence of a self outside of the five khandhas. Is that your intention? ******************************************* > > One can control oneself. Without exercising of self-control, > observing the five precepts is impossible, the Noble Eightfold Path > is impossible, the cessation of the dukkha is impossible. > > Each and every five aggregate has no power over itself. It is > impermanent. It lends itself to dis-ease. It has no control over > itself. The five aggregates have no control over themselves. > > When one identifies oneself with the aggregates, contradiction > arises. > **************************************** With metta, Howard (The rest of your post follows below, Victor.) > > The argument that the Buddha used in refuting Aggivessana's self- > view is reductio ad absurdum: if each and every aggregate is your > self, then you, the body, the feeling, the perception, the > consciousness, the formation, would have power over your self. > However, that contradicts the fact that each and every aggregate has > no control over itself. > > A lot of people take the reductio ad absurdum argument that the > Buddha used as: one has no control over the body, the feeling, the > perception, the consciousness, the formation. > > A question for reflection: > What is the assumption when we say we have no control over the body, > the feeling, the perception, the consciousness, the formation? > > Metta, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >A good example of what the no-control argument is about can be > seen in > >the Culasaccaka Sutta, MN 35. > >http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- > Nikaya/Majjhima1/035-culasaccaka-sutta-e1.htm > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18687 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 2:04pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Howard, There is no need to get into that kind of speculation. It's not good for yourself. :-) Take care, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 1/11/03 3:58:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > > > Hi Larry and all, > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Victor, the following three paragraphs of yours constitute an argument > in favor of the existence of a self outside of the five khandhas. Is that > your intention? > > > ******************************************* > > > > One can control oneself. Without exercising of self-control, > > observing the five precepts is impossible, the Noble Eightfold Path > > is impossible, the cessation of the dukkha is impossible. > > > > Each and every five aggregate has no power over itself. It is > > impermanent. It lends itself to dis-ease. It has no control over > > itself. The five aggregates have no control over themselves. > > > > When one identifies oneself with the aggregates, contradiction > > arises. > > > **************************************** > > With metta, > Howard > > (The rest of your post follows below, Victor.) > > > > > The argument that the Buddha used in refuting Aggivessana's self- > > view is reductio ad absurdum: if each and every aggregate is your > > self, then you, the body, the feeling, the perception, the > > consciousness, the formation, would have power over your self. > > However, that contradicts the fact that each and every aggregate has > > no control over itself. > > > > A lot of people take the reductio ad absurdum argument that the > > Buddha used as: one has no control over the body, the feeling, the > > perception, the consciousness, the formation. > > > > A question for reflection: > > What is the assumption when we say we have no control over the body, > > the feeling, the perception, the consciousness, the formation? > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > >Hi all, > > > > > >A good example of what the no-control argument is about can be > > seen in > > >the Culasaccaka Sutta, MN 35. > > >http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- > > Nikaya/Majjhima1/035-culasaccaka-sutta-e1.htm > > 18688 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 9:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny LOL! ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/11/03 5:06:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > There is no need to get into that kind of speculation. It's not > good for yourself. :-) > > Take care, > Victor > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18689 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 2:52pm Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello > The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world > around us is in fact dhammas (fundamental phenomena) of various > kinds. That is not what the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught that body is not self, feeling is not self, perception is not self, formations are not self, consciousness is not self. Regards, Victor 18690 From: christineforsyth Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 3:27pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hello Larry (and Victor), (Victor, in the last 'round' on Anatta you didn't answer the direct question as to whether you believed there was 'something' standing behind the impermanent aggregates ... like a Soul, or universal Self. It may be worthwhile to draw to your notice (as Howard has just done) that mostly your arguments in any thread seem to try to support this conclusion, and many times when you are asked about it, you use deflection(as you have just done), without answering transparently. Do you believe the Buddha taught that a permanent, unchanging soul or self exists? I don't. And I think all traditions agree on this point.) Larry, don't you think that No-self means there is no 'one' to have Free Will? My dictionary meaning of Free Will is: 'Loosed from any limitation, or condition, uncontrolled, unrestricted, unconditional.' But the Buddha says: "This being that becomes, from the arising of this, that arises; This not being, that does not become; From the ceasing of this, that ceases." The importance of understanding relations, or conditionality, is clearly indicated in the Buddha's own words. On a number of occasions the Buddha specifically associated the understanding of conditionality with the attainment of liberation. Don't you think that in saying that there is Control and Free Will (whatever that may be) OR in saying there is No control and No free will, one is operating under the sway of different extremes of self view? i.e. A Self who can either have control or not have control. Anatta and Dependant Origination are bound together - just cause and effect - conditionality. No I, no me, no you, no One, no continuing personality, no doer, no actor, no Watcher. Not understanding this continues the weary wandering through Samsara. I liked the Culasaccaka sutta Larry. Another relevant one is MN148 The Chachakka Sutta 'The six sets of six'. Its divisions are Synopsis, Enumeration, Demonstration of Not Self, The Origination of Personality, The Cessation of Personality, The Underlying Tendencies, The Aandonment of the Underlying Tendencies, Liberation. (B. Nanamoli B.Bodhi 1995) I think you would find it very worthwhile, as I did, to read through the Useful Posts under "Anatta - no control?". http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > Contemplating the Culasaccaka Sutta further has changed my mind on the > free-will question. The way I interpret it in conjunction with the > refutation of nihilism and eternalism is that the Buddha is saying kamma > is real but always operates with a belief in an unreal self. The "no > control" point is that we cannot control the result of kamma enough to > make that result last. Seeing this can give us an insight into anatta > and the end of kamma. For example, contemplating body maintenance > problems we can glimpse that body is not self. Contemplating the > impermanence of pleasant feeling, we can glimpse that feeling is not > self. Contemplating memory problems, we can glimpse that understanding > is not self. Contemplating emotional problems, we can glimpse that the > emotional personality is not self. Contemplating eye-consciousness > problems, we can glimpse that consciousness is not self. Contemplating > that neither the best engineering in the universe nor the best > meditative discipline in the universe can produce a lasting result, we > can glimpse that science and concept are not self. Even kamma itself > eventually comes to an end in nibbana. No matter what we do or what our > special skill or virtue is, it is not self because we cannot make it > last. > > I don't see any indication here that the Buddha is saying we have no > choice or saying "no control" = "no choice". Therefore, I would say the > Buddha is advocating free-will, based on this and other suttas. However, > I think he is also saying free-will is limited by deterministic laws: > bad intentions only produce bad results and all results are impermanent > and therefor not self. Plus he is saying all kamma is based on a self > view. So no matter how virtuous one may be, there will always be > problems. Seeing that kamma is not self is the end of kamma and the end > of problems. > > Does anyone know of a sutta where the Buddha says we have no choice and > therefor no free-will? > > Larry 18691 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 3:47pm Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Victor Thanks for these comments. This is an area well worth discussing further. Just to clarify where our difference lies, I wonder how you would feel about the following statement: "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each of these khandhas is not self." Jon --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > > The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world > > around us is in fact dhammas (fundamental phenomena) of various > > kinds. > > That is not what the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught that body is > > not self, feeling is not self, perception is not self, formations > are not self, consciousness is not self. > > Regards, > Victor 18692 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 4:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Christine, You drew the conclusion yourself, not me. I did not answer your question because I see your question as to be put aside. Why? Because it involves speculation, and it springs from speculation. That kind of discussion and the kind of question that you ask me are not beneficial at all. Taking a metaphysical position only leads to stress/unsatisfactoriness/dukkha. It is not conducive to the cessation of stress/unsatisfactoriness/dukkha. Take care, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christineforsyth " wrote: > Hello Larry (and Victor), > > (Victor, in the last 'round' on Anatta you didn't answer the direct > question as to whether you believed there was 'something' standing > behind the impermanent aggregates ... like a Soul, or universal > Self. It may be worthwhile to draw to your notice (as Howard has > just done) that mostly your arguments in any thread seem to try to > support this conclusion, and many times when you are asked about it, > you use deflection(as you have just done), without answering > transparently. Do you believe the Buddha taught that a permanent, > unchanging soul or self exists? I don't. And I think all traditions > agree on this point.) 18693 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 4:32pm Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello No problem, Jon. About the statement, the Buddha did not teach that what we take for ourselves are the five aggregates. It is not necessary to say what we take for ourselves are the five aggregates. If you see yourself as five aggregates, abandon that view. The aggregates are not what you are. They are not yours. They are not your self. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > Thanks for these comments. This is an area well worth discussing > further. > > Just to clarify where our difference lies, I wonder how you would > feel about the following statement: > > "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world > around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each > of these khandhas is not self." > > Jon 18694 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 4:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Dear everyone, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Howard: Victor, the following three paragraphs of yours constitute an argument in favor of the existence of a self outside of the five khandhas. Is that your intention? KKT: I just like to add some more info on this subject. Among the 18 Buddhist schools of the pre-Mahayanic era (i.e. the first 500 years after Buddha's Parinibbana) there was an important school which is worth to be mentioned. This is the Pudgalavada (Personalism) Its name comes from the word Pudgala = person, individual. This school defended a thesis on the existence of a << pudgala >> which is << NOT OF THE 5 KHANDHAS >> but << NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE 5 KHANDHAS >> Also this Pudgala is not Atman (Self) of Brahmanism or Jiva (Life Principle) of Jainism. This is this Pudgala that goes from one life to another (rebirth) reaps its own kamma-vipaka and even enters into Nibbana ! This school was strongly criticised by other Buddhist schools as heresy (especially by Theravada and Sarvastivada) Despite those criticisms, Pudgalavada flourished widely over more than 10 centuries. On the 7th century AD, the Chinese pilgrim Hsuan-tsang observed that there were more than 1,351 monasteries in India sheltering approximately 66,500 Pudgalavadin monks against 728 monasteries and 68,300 monks of all other schools (Hinayana & Mahayana) This proves that the problem of Anatta is not an easy one to understand :-)) Peace, KKT 18695 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 1:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi, KKT (and Victor) - Yes, I thought of the personalists also while engaged in my recent conversation with Victor. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/11/03 7:47:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > > Dear everyone, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Howard: > Victor, the following three paragraphs of yours constitute an > argument in favor of the existence of a self outside of the five > khandhas. Is that your intention? > > > > > KKT: I just like to add some > more info on this subject. > > Among the 18 Buddhist schools > of the pre-Mahayanic era > (i.e. the first 500 years > after Buddha's Parinibbana) > there was an important school > which is worth to be mentioned. > > This is the Pudgalavada (Personalism) > > Its name comes from the word > Pudgala = person, individual. > > This school defended a thesis > on the existence of a <> > which is <> > but <> > Also this Pudgala is not Atman (Self) > of Brahmanism or Jiva (Life Principle) > of Jainism. > > This is this Pudgala that goes > from one life to another (rebirth) > reaps its own kamma-vipaka > and even enters into Nibbana ! > > This school was strongly criticised > by other Buddhist schools as heresy > (especially by Theravada and Sarvastivada) > > Despite those criticisms, Pudgalavada > flourished widely over more than > 10 centuries. On the 7th century AD, > the Chinese pilgrim Hsuan-tsang > observed that there were more than > 1,351 monasteries in India sheltering > approximately 66,500 Pudgalavadin monks > against 728 monasteries and 68,300 monks > of all other schools (Hinayana &Mahayana) > > > This proves that the problem of Anatta > is not an easy one to understand :-)) > > > Peace, > > > KKT > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18696 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 7:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Howard, How did you get that idea? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, KKT (and Victor) - > > Yes, I thought of the personalists also while engaged in my recent > conversation with Victor. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 1/11/03 7:47:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, > phamdluan@a... writes: > > > > > Dear everyone, > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > > > > Howard: > > Victor, the following three paragraphs of yours constitute an > > argument in favor of the existence of a self outside of the five > > khandhas. Is that your intention? > > > > > > > > > > KKT: I just like to add some > > more info on this subject. > > > > Among the 18 Buddhist schools > > of the pre-Mahayanic era > > (i.e. the first 500 years > > after Buddha's Parinibbana) > > there was an important school > > which is worth to be mentioned. > > > > This is the Pudgalavada (Personalism) > > > > Its name comes from the word > > Pudgala = person, individual. > > > > This school defended a thesis > > on the existence of a <> > > which is <> > > but <> > > Also this Pudgala is not Atman (Self) > > of Brahmanism or Jiva (Life Principle) > > of Jainism. > > > > This is this Pudgala that goes > > from one life to another (rebirth) > > reaps its own kamma-vipaka > > and even enters into Nibbana ! > > > > This school was strongly criticised > > by other Buddhist schools as heresy > > (especially by Theravada and Sarvastivada) > > > > Despite those criticisms, Pudgalavada > > flourished widely over more than > > 10 centuries. On the 7th century AD, > > the Chinese pilgrim Hsuan-tsang > > observed that there were more than > > 1,351 monasteries in India sheltering > > approximately 66,500 Pudgalavadin monks > > against 728 monasteries and 68,300 monks > > of all other schools (Hinayana &Mahayana) > > > > > > This proves that the problem of Anatta > > is not an easy one to understand :-)) > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > KKT 18697 From: peterdac4298 Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 7:57pm Subject: Re: Wrong view Hi ven.yanatharo.bikkhu and Robertk Much appreciation for bringing Ajahn Sujin's truly inspired reflections to the notice of dsg's messages. She is indeed a remarkable teacher and I am sure we all feel most fortunate, if not blessed, to have encountered her and her disciples through dsg. Thank you Peter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: > --- Dear Peter, > I liked what you said below and thought you might appreciate this > piece from a talk A. Sujin gave: > > ""..if one thinks that one should rather have objects other > than the present one, since these appear to be more > wholesome, one will never study the object which > appears now. And how can one know their true nature > when there is no study, no awareness of them? > So it must be the present object, only what appears now. This is more > difficult because it is not the object of desire. If desire can move > one away to another object, that object satisfies one's > desire. Desire is there all the time. If there is no > understanding of lobha (desire) as lobha, how can > it be eradicated? One has to understand different > degrees of realities, also lobha which is more subtle, > otherwise one does not know when there is > lobha. Seeing things as they are. Lobha is lobha. > Usually one does not see the subtle lobha which > moves one away from developing right understanding of the > present object.""endquote > Robertk > 18698 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:03pm Subject: A book about Buddhism tales Dear Everyone who is interested in a Buddhist book, A few weeks ago, I was reading a book called "Twenty Jataka tales". This book is about Buddhism and this book is similar to the americans "Aesop's Fables". My favorite story in this book is called "The fairy and the hare" and "The masters test". The fairy and the hare is about a group of friends (animals). One day the hare, which was the leader of them told all his friends that they will find some food and give the food to the people that they meet and on the next day, if they still have some food then they could eat the food. While everyone was finding food, the hare couldn't find anything so he decided to kill himself for "It" to eat. Then later, a beggar who was actually a fairy, went around and asked everyone for food but she wouldn't take it until she came to Hare. The hare told her that he would kill himself for her to eat and so the beggar(fairy) made some fire but when the hare jumped into the fire he didn't die. The beggar told him that she was actually a fairy and that she was checking his generosity. There was one part in the story that i didn't understand. Why didn't the fairy take the food that all the other animals offered. if any of you understand, please reply and tell me... Thx, From, Jan Tanyatip Chearavanont (my VERY long name...hahaa..) 18699 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:10pm Subject: hi...i like your poems!!! Dear James (A.K.A the person who likes poems), Hi james! im very sorry that i didnt write so often anymore. I was REALLY busy lately and so i didnt have time. Well i was wondering if do you have any kids, age?, sex?, name? I have 3 brothers and all of them are VERY annoying... their names are: Kane/14/M Mark/5/M Sean/2/M I hope you got this other letter about a book (Jataka Tales)....Did you read it? Which one do you like? I have to go now..BYE! From Jan C. P.S: i love all your peoms...dont you ever run out? Well if you didnt plz write me some more!!! THANKS!!!! 18700 From: James Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:22pm Subject: Re: No-control & Destiny --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear everyone, > > > Many thanks to Larry, Victor, Ken > and James for sharing your thoughts. Hi KKT and All, Well, here is the second part of the post I promised. I know you already thanked me, and everyone for our contributions, maybe hoping that would shut me up (???), but I'm not done! ;-) You can't get off that easy! ;-) Okay, I already said that I don't believe in Abhidhamma reductionism because I believe it is too simplistic. I know that this is hard to believe with its extensive lists and Pali terms so long I wonder if the writer accidentally leaned on his/her keyboard! ;-) But I think it is an oversimplification of the matter at hand. Even though the Abhidhamma demonstrates that the self doesn't exist in all of these `dhammas', it still doesn't account for the fact that the unenlightened think they have a self. It doesn't explain how all the pieces fit together to create the illusion of self-hood. I believe its main purpose is to convince people that they don't have a self. Like if they read all of this stuff about nama/rupa, cittas, and `ad nauseum' dhammas, and each of these things having the characteristics of anatta, impermanence, and dukkha, they will naturally abandon the idea of self. Ohhhh…if it were only that simple! The problem that the Abhidhamma doesn't seem to take into account is that the five aggregates exist for the sole purpose of creating the illusion of a lasting and permanent self! Does anyone really think that kind of power can just be explained away and thus made ineffectual? If so, I have some beachfront property here in Arizona I have to sell them! ;-) Form, consciousness, thoughts, perception, and feelings are all focused on the task of creating a false sense of a permanent, lasting self. These aggregates are fueled by ignorance (an not stupidity, but wrong view), desire for existence, and craving. This is what the Buddha taught in the Sutta Pitaka. To use a metaphor for this process (one of my favorite things…if you haven't noticed), imagine each aggregate as a laser machine standing side-by-side in a circle that is shooting its laser into the center. In the center of these lasers a hologram is being formed. That hologram is the illusion of `self'. These lasers are being fueled by ignorance, desire for existence, and craving. Each laser forms a part of the hologram so that it is quite 3-D and life-like. These lasers project life form after life form with birth, disease, old age, and death, which is part of the `script' on which they run. The lasers stay the same, but the form they create changes… therefore there are different lives. This holographic form is inconstant, suffering, and incomplete. Are we the lasers? No. Are we the holograms they create? No. Are we the fuel that supplies them? No. There is no `self' in this process…the self is an illusion created by the process. Where does the fuel come from? What started this process? Even the Buddha couldn't answer that; he just knew it had to be stopped. The way it has to be stopped is to develop `self-mastery' by following the Eightfold Path. All parts of the path must be followed in order to stop identifying with the projection formed by the aggregates and see the `big picture'. When the three poisons are stopped, the image projected by the aggregates also stops. Even if the fuel is lessened, the image becomes less strong and less believable. Of course this is just a metaphor and doesn't completely describe the process. After all, it is a very complicated one. This is how I choose to view the process of becoming. If you don't agree, okay. Metta, James 18701 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 5:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Victor, Can you control yourself enough to be happy all the time? No. I think that is what the Buddha is saying. Do we control our destiny by making choices? Yes. I think the Buddha is also saying this. Are we the prisoner of our choices? Yes. No matter what choice we make the outcome is dukkha. Is there an escape from choice? Yes, nibbana. I think the Buddha is saying all this. Larry ---------------------- Victor: One can control oneself. Without exercising of self-control, observing the five precepts is impossible, the Noble Eightfold Path is impossible, the cessation of the dukkha is impossible. 18702 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 6:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Christine, I've snipped some of your questions and comments for discussion: C: Larry, don't you think that No-self means there is no 'one' to have Free Will? L: Yes. No on has free will and actually seeing that is the end of free will, aka choice. C: My dictionary meaning of Free Will is: 'Loosed from any limitation, or condition, uncontrolled, unrestricted, unconditional.' But the Buddha says: [dependent arising]. L: My dictionary meaning of free will is the ability to choose between kusala or akusala activities. I think the Buddha says we can do this. C: Don't you think that in saying that there is Control and Free Will (whatever that may be) OR in saying there is No control and No free will, one is operating under the sway of different extremes of self view? L: I am saying there is free will but no control. However, the answer to your question is, yes. Any choice assumes a self view. When we really see there is no self all choosing ceases and we become free from kamma. By "no control" I mean we cannot control the result of kamma to the extent that it becomes a self, i.e., permanent. However, we can choose between kusala and akusala and making that choice *to a certain extent* controls the result of kamma. But we can't make it last forever. Thanks for the reference to MN 148. I'll look into it. Does it say we can't choose between kusala and akusala? This is kind of a convoluted argument. If it doesn't make sense we could just discuss one point at a time. What do you disagree with? Larry 18703 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 9:43pm Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Victor First, a clarification. You say: << If you see yourself as five aggregates, abandon that view.>> I of course didn't say that, although I find it an interesting area and I may respond separately on this point. What I said was: "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each of these khandhas is not self." Both parts of this statement are, to my understanding, a part of what the Buddha taught. The Buddha was at pains to point out that this very moment, whatever we may take it to be, in reality is nothing other than the khandhas and, furthermore, that every aspect of the present moment (except for concepts/pannatti) falls within the rubric of the 5 khandhas and hence shares the common characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta. To say, "The Buddha taught that the 5 khandhas are not self" is correct as far as it goes. However, it leaves open the question of how the khandhas relate to the present moment and to the development of the understanding of their being not self. Is there anything here you would disagree with? Jon --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > No problem, Jon. About the statement, the Buddha did not teach > that > what we take for ourselves are the five aggregates. It is not > necessary to say what we take for ourselves are the five > aggregates. If you see yourself as five aggregates, abandon that > view. The aggregates are not what you are. They are not yours. > They are not your self. > > Regards, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > > Victor > > > > Thanks for these comments. This is an area well worth discussing > > further. > > > > Just to clarify where our difference lies, I wonder how you would > > feel about the following statement: > > > > "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world > > around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that > each > > of these khandhas is not self." > > > > Jon 18704 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 4:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi, Victor - In a message dated 1/11/03 10:17:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > How did you get that idea? > > Regards, > Victor > ================================== I never quite seem to know whether you are "speaking" with tongue in cheek. The conclusion of a self outside of the khandhas, of course, made me think of the Pudgalavadins. 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) 18705 From: christineforsyth Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 10:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hello Larry, and all, To discuss some of the knotty issues about Anatta, No control or Free Will would be very worthwhile, as I still have so much to learn. As well, kusala and akusala and how we tell just which type is present has always been a difficulty for me. I remember, in particular, my struggle with emotions like 'righteous' anger before I could accept there wasn't any such thing, just a common old defilement called dosa; and the ongoing attempts to see 'mana' in all its forms. So often I mistake akusala states of consciousness for kusala states. I would also be interested to hear more of what you are saying about kamma - I'm not quite clear on this point about controlling the result of kamma: Larry: "By "no control" I mean we cannot control the result of kamma to the extent that it becomes a self, i.e., permanent. However, we can choose between kusala and akusala and making that choice *to a certain extent* controls the result of kamma. But we can't make it last forever." Are you speaking of kammically neutral actions? Perhaps this is another instance of mundane and supramundane mental states? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Christine, I've snipped some of your questions and comments for > discussion: > 18706 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 10:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Howard, How did you reach that conclusion? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 1/11/03 10:17:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > How did you get that idea? > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > ================================== > I never quite seem to know whether you are "speaking" with tongue in > cheek. The conclusion of a self outside of the khandhas, of course, made me > think of the Pudgalavadins. > > With metta, > Howard 18707 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 10:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong view Peter --- Peter Da Costa wrote: > Hi Jon ... <> I like the way you put this, 'just simple knowing'. It is 'just knowing' because there is nothing *to be done* in the way of a specific 'practice'. It is 'simple knowing' in the sense that, as Nina points out in her very helpful translation of the commentary from the Satipatthana Sutta, it is bare attention (Pali: satima) accompanied by understanding (Pali: sampajanna). <> Yes, 'just that knowing' is the only remedy that is a true, permanent remedy. It is of course a very long-term prospect, and can only be developed by minute increments in a single given lifetime. But any sort of more immediate remedy is only a patch-up by comparison. There will continue to be plenty of those 'no-knowing' moments for the foreseeable future, but we have to take ouselves as we are. This is where the parami's of patience, determination and the rest come in. <> Right on. And when you think about it, this is as it should always have been! <> I think ADL is a very good choice. Please feel free to share with us any comments or queries you may have. Further discussion is always of benefit (for everyone, and especially the lurkers). Jon 18708 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 11:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - ... ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I was conjecturing as to why cetana is spoken of little, and, then, almost always only negatively. I think it is true that most people think of willing as something that a "self" does, and I conjecture that this is a reason for Buddhists to look askance at cetana. I cannot give you chapter and verse, Robert, but my impression, and I don't think that I'm wrong in this, is that a number of people on this list, you a little bit, Sarah a little more, and Jon even moreso, and others (all of whom I admire and have great fondness for) consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised. I have read enumerable posts on DSG to convince me of this. If I'm incorrect in this, then I am very pleased. If I'm correct, well, so it is. ----------------------------------------------------- I'm just trying to figure out exactly what I stand accused of here ;-)) I think the crux of your comments is: "most people think of willing as something that a "self" does ... [Jon and others] consider that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised. " (I take you to be using 'willing ' and 'volition' interchangeably here). As far as I'm concerned, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the idea that 'volition can be exercised'. It has a perfectly valid and understandable meaning when used in its ordinary, conventional sense. As Stephen has pointed out, most drivers manage to avoid running into the garage most of the time, and they are able to do this because they exercise care (a kind of volition) in driving. This is beyond argument; nor is there anything inherently unwholesome about conventional volition. The question on which you and I have had many exchanges in the past (and are yet to agree ;-)) is what the Buddha meant when he spoke of 'arousing effort' etc. in the context of the 4 samma-paddhanas/Right Effort of the path/performing kusala. Was he referring to conventional 'willing'/'volition'? To my understanding he was likely to be referring exclusively to effort of the wholesome kind, i.e., as a wholesome (kusala) quality/mental factor accompanying a mind-state that is kusala. This is because any intention/willing at a time when there is no kusala, whether to make kusala occur or to have less akusala, etc, is more than likely, given our inherent tendencies, to be wishful thinking or some other aspect of akusala. On the other hand, every moment of wholesome mindstate (kusala citta) is accompanied by wholesome effort (viriya) and intention (cetana), and these factors are in turn further developed by the development of wholesome mind-states. The way I see it, the more that a particular form of kusala has been developed and become part of one's inherent tendencies, the greater the accumulations of 'right effort' for that particular kind of kusala, and consequently the more natural or (in conventional terms, and paradoxically) effort-less the performing of that kusala becomes. (And also, the less one will be tempted to think in terms of conventional volition as a means of further development of that kusala). Any common ground here, Howard ;-))? Jon 18709 From: Egberdina Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 3:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Jon, You write much about kusala. What are the knowable properties of kusala (only so that we may talk.) Does a category have knowable properties? Herman PS Don't welcome me back , you won't like my return. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > ... > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I was conjecturing as to why cetana is spoken of little, and, > then, almost always only negatively. I think it is true that most > people think of willing as something that a "self" does, and I > conjecture that this is a reason for Buddhists to look askance at > cetana. I cannot give you chapter and verse, Robert, but my > impression, and I don't think that I'm wrong in this, is that a > number of people on this list, you a little bit, Sarah a little more, > and Jon even moreso, and others (all of whom I admire and have great > fondness for) consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and > that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised. I have > read enumerable posts on DSG to convince me of this. If I'm incorrect > in this, then I am very pleased. If I'm correct, well, so it is. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > I'm just trying to figure out exactly what I stand accused of here > ;-)) > > I think the crux of your comments is: > "most people think of willing as something that a "self" does ... > [Jon and others] consider that, because there is no self, volition > cannot be exercised. " > > (I take you to be using 'willing ' and 'volition' interchangeably > here). > > As far as I'm concerned, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the > idea that 'volition can be exercised'. It has a perfectly valid and > understandable meaning when used in its ordinary, conventional sense. > As Stephen has pointed out, most drivers manage to avoid running > into the garage most of the time, and they are able to do this > because they exercise care (a kind of volition) in driving. This is > beyond argument; nor is there anything inherently unwholesome about > conventional volition. > > The question on which you and I have had many exchanges in the past > (and are yet to agree ;-)) is what the Buddha meant when he spoke of > 'arousing effort' etc. in the context of the 4 samma-paddhanas/Right > Effort of the path/performing kusala. Was he referring to > conventional 'willing'/'volition'? > > To my understanding he was likely to be referring exclusively to > effort of the wholesome kind, i.e., as a wholesome (kusala) > quality/mental factor accompanying a mind-state that is kusala. This > is because any intention/willing at a time when there is no kusala, > whether to make kusala occur or to have less akusala, etc, is more > than likely, given our inherent tendencies, to be wishful thinking or > some other aspect of akusala. > > On the other hand, every moment of wholesome mindstate (kusala citta) > is accompanied by wholesome effort (viriya) and intention (cetana), > and these factors are in turn further developed by the development of > wholesome mind-states. > > The way I see it, the more that a particular form of kusala has been > developed and become part of one's inherent tendencies, the greater > the accumulations of 'right effort' for that particular kind of > kusala, and consequently the more natural or (in conventional terms, > and paradoxically) effort-less the performing of that kusala becomes. > (And also, the less one will be tempted to think in terms of > conventional volition as a means of further development of that > kusala). > > Any common ground here, Howard ;-))? > > Jon 18710 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 4:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kusala and akusala (was, Intention, willing and no-control) Herman Nice to hear from you again. --- "Egberdina " wrote: > Jon, > > You write much about kusala. And about akusala (with which I'm more familiar;-)). > What are the knowable properties of kusala (only so that we may > talk.) Good, I look forward to talking. I agree that it's best to agree terms first. From my reading, the terms 'kusala' and 'akusala' are mostly used in the context of either kusala and akusala citta or kusala and akusala vipaka. The meaning differs with the context. I take your enquiry to be about the former (i.e., kusala and akusala citta). By 'knowable properties' I take you to be asking about the characteristic common to all kusala cittas that can be known by panna (understanding). I believe it takes a certain level of panna to know kusala from akusala. According to my studies, the difference would have to do with the accompanying mental factors. All kusala cittas are accompanied by passaddhi (calm, tranquillity), so I guess I would give this quality as the main 'knowable property' of kusala citta. How am I doing so far? Jon > PS Don't welcome me back , you won't like my return. Sounds ominous, Herman! But welcome back, nonetheless. PS You asked: > Does a category have knowable properties? For reasons already given, I don't regard 'kusala' in the context of 'kusala citta' to be a mere category. 18711 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 4:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? Robert Ed, TG & Howard Thanks for the interesting discussion. Just to add 1 further passage, this from the commentary to TG's Bhayabherava Sutta (MN 4) as cited in a note to the MLDB translation (Bh. Bodhi), note 68: "MA: He has "compassion for future generations" insofar as later generations of monks, seeing that the Buddha resorted to forest dwellings, will follow his example and thus hasten their progress towards making an end of suffering." This seems to accord with the passage from the Ji.n.na Sutta cited by Robert (below). Jon --- Robert Eddison wrote: > TG: > > >> thus. It is because I see two benefits that I still resort to > >> jungle-thickets resting places in the forest: I see a pleasant > abiding for > >> myself here and now, and I have compassion for future > generations." > > Howard: > > > Both of these reasons are interesting. Each calls for > elucidation, it > >seems to me. The first reason *suggests* that the Buddha might > have still had > >preferences - specifically the preference for pleasant over > unpleasanat and > >neutral. The second leaves open the question of *how* the Buddha's > resorting > >"to jungle-thicket resting places in the forest" was of service to > future > >generations. By example? By psychic influence? > > > I would think by example. The same two benefits are stated in an > expanded > form by Mahaakassapa when the Buddha asks him why he continues with > the > practice of forest dwelling, wearing rag-robes and other forms of > ascesis > now that he is an old man and no longer has any personal need to > live in > this way. Kassapa's reply is ranked by the commentary as a lion's > roar: > > "For myself I see a pleasant dwelling in this very life, and I have > compassion for later generations, thinking, 'May those of later > generations > follow my example! For when they hear, 'The enlightened disciples > of the > Buddha were for a long time forest dwellers and spoke in praise of > forest > dwelling, were almsfood eaters and spoke in praise of eating > almsfood, were > rag-robe wearers and spoke in praise of wearing rag-robes, were > triple-robe > users and spoke in praise of using the triple-robe, were of few > wishes and > spoke in praise of fewness of wishes, were content and spoke in > praise of > contentment; were secluded and spoke in favour of seclusion, were > aloof > from society and spoke in praise of aloofness from society, were > energetic > and spoke in praise of arousing energy,' then they will practise > accordingly, and that will lead to their welfare and happiness for > a long > time." > > (Ji.n.na Sutta, S ii 203. Bodhi, Connected Discourses I 667) > > Best wishes, > > Robert 18712 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:51am Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Jon, There are two points I would like to make: 1. You said that: "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each of these khandhas is not self." Whom is the pronoun "we" referring to? Is it referring to you and me? Or is it referring to you and some others? Or is it referring to everyone? If you take the five aggregate for yourself, I would suggest you abandon the view "the aggregates are self." 2. Concept is impermanent. It is unsatisfactory/dukkha. It is not self. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > First, a clarification. You say: > << If you see yourself as five aggregates, abandon that view.>> > > I of course didn't say that, although I find it an interesting area > and I may respond separately on this point. > > What I said was: > "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world > around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each > of these khandhas is not self." > > Both parts of this statement are, to my understanding, a part of what > the Buddha taught. > > The Buddha was at pains to point out that this very moment, whatever > we may take it to be, in reality is nothing other than the khandhas > and, furthermore, that every aspect of the present moment (except for > concepts/pannatti) falls within the rubric of the 5 khandhas and > hence shares the common characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta. > > To say, "The Buddha taught that the 5 khandhas are not self" is > correct as far as it goes. However, it leaves open the question of > how the khandhas relate to the present moment and to the development > of the understanding of their being not self. > > Is there anything here you would disagree with? > > Jon 18713 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 2:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi, Victor - In a message dated 1/12/03 1:55:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > How did you reach that conclusion? > > Regards, > Victor ============================= WHICH conclusion, Victor? And is what you are asking about? The *means* used to reach a conclusion, the "machinery"? And are you implying *ever* so subtlely something about a presumed agent which does things? Victor, the Socratic method wears thin after a while, especially when it is not executed sufficiently well to elicit the desired responses. I wish, if just for a brief while, you were to say straight out exactly what you mean and what you are driving at. With metta, Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Victor - > > > >In a message dated 1/11/03 10:17:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > >yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > >>Hi Howard, > >> > >>How did you get that idea? > >> > >>Regards, > >>Victor > >> > >================================== > > I never quite seem to know whether you are "speaking" with > tongue in > >cheek. The conclusion of a self outside of the khandhas, of > course, made me > >think of the Pudgalavadins. > > > >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) > > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18714 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 7:27am Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 12 Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 12 Then he read about the meditation subject of Mindfulness of Breathing, and finally he attained the fourth and the fifth stage of jhåna. The King spent his time with the happiness of jhåna. Other people could not see him, except for the royal page. About one month passed in this way. The citizens assembled at the royal courtyard and announced with acclamations: ³Since the day the King has received the royal present he has not looked anymore at the city nor at the shows of the dancing girls nor has he given judgement. May the King return the royal present to his friend.² The citizens said further: ³Usually Kings try to deceive even with presents. They try to get hold of the kingdom of other Kings. What should our King do?² The King heard the sound of acclamations and he considered: ³Shall we maintain the Kingdom or shall we maintain the teachings?² After that he thought, ³We shall maintain the teachings of this Teacher.² He took his sword which he kept on a bed and cut off his hair. He requested his royal page to get at the market two yellow robes and an earthenware alms bowl. He dedicated himself to the Teacher with the words, ³Arahats in the world, we dedicate ourselves in going forth.² He put on one yellow robe and then donned another one. He carried his bowl on his shoulder and left his palace. The citizens saw three dance girls standing at the three doors, but they could not recognize the King who came out of the palace. They thought that he was a Silent Buddha who had come to preach Dhamma to the King. King Pukkusåti left his royal palace and all his possessions in order to go forth. He must have had the utmost patience to change his usual way of life and status, in order to be able to realize the four noble Truths. If one has not accumulated such patience one is not able to act like King Pukkusåti. We read further on: The son of a prominent family (the King who had gone forth as a monk [11) thought, ³Our teacher left the homelife and went forth alone, he went on his way alone. I feel shame and awe with regard to the Teacher. I heard that after our Teacher had gone forth he did not go on a vehicle and he did not use any footwear, not even one layer, nor did he use a paper sunshade.² That son of a prominent family thought, ²I am travelling far and therefore I should not go alone. I shall follow a group of merchants.² When the son of a prominent family who was delicate by nature walked on very hot ground, the soles of both of his feet were with pus and wounds, and therefore, he experienced painful feeling. When the merchants had set up a camp, and sat down to rest, the son of a prominent family went away to sit at the root of a tree. There was nobody there to take care of his legs or massage his back. That son of a prominent family attained the fourth jhåna with Mindfulness of Breathing and he could thus suppress the hardship of his journey, his tiredness and agitation. He spent his time with the joy of jhåna. Footnote 11. Son of a noble family is used commonly to refer to the monk who is actually the Buddha¹s son. 18715 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Hi, Jon (and all) - In a message dated 1/12/03 2:26:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Robert - > ... > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I was conjecturing as to why cetana is spoken of little, and, > then, almost always only negatively. I think it is true that most > people think of willing as something that a "self" does, and I > conjecture that this is a reason for Buddhists to look askance at > cetana. I cannot give you chapter and verse, Robert, but my > impression, and I don't think that I'm wrong in this, is that a > number of people on this list, you a little bit, Sarah a little more, > and Jon even moreso, and others (all of whom I admire and have great > fondness for) consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and > that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised. I have > read enumerable posts on DSG to convince me of this. If I'm incorrect > in this, then I am very pleased. If I'm correct, well, so it is. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > I'm just trying to figure out exactly what I stand accused of here > ;-)) > > I think the crux of your comments is: > "most people think of willing as something that a "self" does ... > [Jon and others] consider that, because there is no self, volition > cannot be exercised. " > > (I take you to be using 'willing ' and 'volition' interchangeably > here). > > As far as I'm concerned, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the > idea that 'volition can be exercised'. It has a perfectly valid and > understandable meaning when used in its ordinary, conventional sense. > As Stephen has pointed out, most drivers manage to avoid running > into the garage most of the time, and they are able to do this > because they exercise care (a kind of volition) in driving. This is > beyond argument; nor is there anything inherently unwholesome about > conventional volition. > > The question on which you and I have had many exchanges in the past > (and are yet to agree ;-)) is what the Buddha meant when he spoke of > 'arousing effort' etc. in the context of the 4 samma-paddhanas/Right > Effort of the path/performing kusala. Was he referring to > conventional 'willing'/'volition'? > > To my understanding he was likely to be referring exclusively to > effort of the wholesome kind, i.e., as a wholesome (kusala) > quality/mental factor accompanying a mind-state that is kusala. This > is because any intention/willing at a time when there is no kusala, > whether to make kusala occur or to have less akusala, etc, is more > than likely, given our inherent tendencies, to be wishful thinking or > some other aspect of akusala. > > On the other hand, every moment of wholesome mindstate (kusala citta) > is accompanied by wholesome effort (viriya) and intention (cetana), > and these factors are in turn further developed by the development of > wholesome mind-states. > > The way I see it, the more that a particular form of kusala has been > developed and become part of one's inherent tendencies, the greater > the accumulations of 'right effort' for that particular kind of > kusala, and consequently the more natural or (in conventional terms, > and paradoxically) effort-less the performing of that kusala becomes. > (And also, the less one will be tempted to think in terms of > conventional volition as a means of further development of that > kusala). > > Any common ground here, Howard ;-))? > > Jon > ===================================== You make it clear in the foregoing that it is your understanding that we can and do (conventionally) exercise volition - sometimes usefully and often times not so usefully, and I stand disabused of my impression that "willing" is deemed impossible by you. I also agree - certainly - that volition exercised under the sway of dominating akusula conditions is not an instance of right effort. I think that probably where we differ is in the status of right effort. I see it as specific conventional mental activity, whereas I *think* you see it as something else. From my perspective, the following excerpts taken from ATI show right effort to be quite conventional and to be something that one really has to *work* at with diligence and considerable expenditure of energy led by rigorous application of concentration and mindfulness. [I do think, however, that the *habits* of mindfulness, wise attention, and right effort can be cultivated so that, after a while they become more and more automatic, requiring less and less reminding of oneself and less and less "girding for battle"]. My apologies to all for this being a lengthy post. I didn't wish to cut out any of Jon's post, I did want to make the above remarks, and the excerpts to follow are a small part of a large article, which I thought better to directly include rather than giving the url for the entire article. The excepts follow at the end of this post. With metta, Howard ****************************** Passages from the Pali Canon § 49. There are these four right exertions. Which four? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen...(and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. These are the four right exertions. Just as the River Ganges flows to the east, slopes to the east, inclines to the east, in the same way when a monk develops & pursues the four right exertions, he flows to Unbinding, slopes to Unbinding, inclines to Unbinding. > > > -- SN XLIX.1 § 50. There are these four exertions. Which four? The exertion to guard, the exertion to abandon, the exertion to develop, & the exertion to maintain. And what is the exertion to guard? There is the case where a monk, on seeing a form with the eye, does not grasp at any theme or variations by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. He practices with restraint. He guards the faculty of the eye. He achieves restraint with regard to the faculty of the eye. (Similarly with the ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.) This is called the exertion to guard. And what is the exertion to abandon? There is the case where a monk does not acquiesce to a thought of sensuality that has arisen [in him]. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, wipes it out of existence. He does not acquiesce to a thought of ill will... a thought of harmfulness... any evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen [in him]. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, wipes them out of existence. This is called the exertion to abandon. And what is the exertion to develop? There is the case where a monk develops the mindfulness factor for Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the investigation of qualities factor for Awakening... the persistence factor for Awakening... the rapture factor for Awakening... the serenity factor for Awakening... the concentration factor for Awakening... the equanimity factor for Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, resulting in letting go. This is called the exertion to develop. And what is the exertion to maintain? There is the case where a monk maintains a favorable theme of concentration -- the skeleton perception, the worm-eaten perception, the livid perception, the festering perception, the falling-apart perception, the bloated perception. This is called the exertion to maintain. [§30] These are the four exertions. > Guarding & abandoning, > developing & maintaining: > these four exertions, taught > by the Kinsman of the Sun > [the Buddha]. A monk who strives > ardently at them > reaches the ending > of stress. > >> -- AN IV.14 > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18716 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 8:19am Subject: RE: [dsg] My letter to Kom Dear Janice, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > Dear Kom, > I hope you had a wonderful Christmas and HAPPY > NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! I went to San > Francisco and Vancouver during the Christmas holidays. Thanks for the good wish. I had a great Christmas and New Year (more dhamma discussions / trip to LA). I am glad you like San Francisco and Vancouver: they are both very pretty cities. > I wonder how does the Buddha creates different > sounds in our ears? I am asking you this because you > talked about the Buddha makes sounds about the > different karmas! > The Buddha doesn't create sounds in our ears. How could he? He has already passed away completely. He doesn't speak, nor does he have any body or mind like we do. The Buddha teaches that seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching are results of karma. When you hear a pleasant sound (like somebody praises you), hearing (although not the sound) is a result of good karma. When you hear an unpleasant sound (like somebody saying something not too nice to you), hearing is a result of bad karma. Each one person sees, hears, tastes, smells, and touches things that are different from another person. This is because each person has his/her own karma that was done in the past and in the present. You may be seeing what I write now, but your friend might be busy reading a book, or watching TV, or playing game. Everyone has their own karma and results of karma. I hope this answers your questions. If not, please do let me know. I like the ending of your letter. Metta. Kindness (Metta), Compassion (Karuna), Sympathetic Joy (Mudita), and Equanimity (Upekkha): these are the four divine abidings with which one can live happily in this very life. kom 18717 From: Frank Kuan Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 9:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) > PS Don't welcome me back , you won't like my return. > Welcome back Herman! 18718 From: Frank Kuan Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 9:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Recommended Article --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > I just finished reading the section on Right > Intention in the > following and was impressed. For those of you who > have not seen this work by > Bhikkhu Bodhi, I pass on the url for your > consideration: HREF="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/waytoend.html"> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/waytoend.html > That section on right intention is awesome. Here's an excerpt: Since the most important formulation of right view is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths, it follows that this view should be in some way determinative of the content of right intention. This we find to be in fact the case. Understanding the four truths in relation to one's own life gives rise to the intention of renunciation; understanding them in relation to other beings gives rise to the other two right intentions. When we see how our own lives are pervaded by dukkha, and how this dukkha derives from craving, the mind inclines to renunciation -- to abandoning craving and the objects to which it binds us. Then, when we apply the truths in an analogous way to other living beings, the contemplation nurtures the growth of good will and harmlessness. We see that, like ourselves, all other living beings want to be happy, and again that like ourselves they are subject to suffering. The consideration that all beings seek happiness causes thoughts of good will to arise -- the loving wish that they be well, happy, and peaceful. The consideration that beings are exposed to suffering causes thoughts of harmlessness to arise -- the compassionate wish that they be free from suffering. 18719 From: peterdac4298 Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong view Jon: >Further discussion is always of benefit (for everyone, and >especially the lurkers). Hi Jon Thank you for your inspiring encouragement. May the lurkers remain a worthy object of our compassion. May they always be a motive for future posting. Cheers Peter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Peter > > --- Peter Da Costa wrote: > > Hi Jon > ... > < how 'skillful' the remedy, can be seen as a predicament, which for > its remedy requires just simple knowing.>> > > I like the way you put this, 'just simple knowing'. It is 'just > knowing' because there is nothing *to be done* in the way of a > specific 'practice'. It is 'simple knowing' in the sense that, as > Nina points out in her very helpful translation of the commentary > from the Satipatthana Sutta, it is bare attention (Pali: satima) > accompanied by understanding (Pali: sampajanna). > > < understand this to mean that there is nothing to do but just know or > be purely aware, since these are the fundamental function of mind. > In other words, if there is no knowing or awareness then the mind is > in fact doing something. If it seems as though nothing at all is > happening then it is either dead (what ever that may be), or it is > overwhelmed with background noise, or 'white' noise, just mass, > random activity with no discernable, resultant signal. Happily the > remedy is in just that knowing.>> > > Yes, 'just that knowing' is the only remedy that is a true, permanent > remedy. It is of course a very long-term prospect, and can only be > developed by minute increments in a single given lifetime. But any > sort of more immediate remedy is only a patch-up by comparison. > > There will continue to be plenty of those 'no-knowing' moments for > the foreseeable future, but we have to take ouselves as we are. This > is where the parami's of patience, determination and the rest come > in. > > < regardless of the current activity, or situation.>> > > Right on. And when you think about it, this is as it should always > have been! > > < Nina's AinDL as located on Zolag. I should have done this decades > ago, but better late than never. I hope to be able to follow posts > more closely and make contributions more in keeping with the > tradition of the group.>> > > I think ADL is a very good choice. Please feel free to share with us > any comments or queries you may have. Further discussion is always > of benefit (for everyone, and especially the lurkers). > > Jon 18720 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:18am Subject: Re: right thinking Hi Nina, Thank you for your post. It triggered lots of other reflections, seemingly only slightly related. I found the subject matter 'right thinking' quite difficult because it is so different to my conventional ideas of the term. I've been reading Ch. 8 in Cetasikas, but kept getting interrupted and having to start again. (one of 'those' weekends.) As well, I find I will need to read the post and the chapter over a few times more and consider them in small portions due to their impersonal language, and my slowness at understanding. (satipatthana :-)) I don't know what it was in the post, but reading about the two cetasikas vitakka and vicara brought anatta to mind more clearly. (Maybe 'thinking' is to me the essence of 'my being'? who knows...) The wandering thoughts revolved around: Even though I no longer believe I am a 'creation' of a God, it occurred to me that I had continued to believe that *I* was here for a 'reason', that *I* existed for a 'purpose', that *I* was part of a 'grand plan', that the current, individual *I* had great importance. Considering this, *I* felt suddenly that life really has no point or purpose - that it just 'is' because of whatever has gone before. That just as in the uncountable lives in the past, in the uncountable future ones *I* will not be a 'human-in-exile' embodied in another form enduring different Planes of existence. *I* don't own any form. Bodies, gender, species, personality, consciousness - like everything, are all anatta, don't last, aren't peaceful, are not desirable. How trite this looks in print - but it made a significant impact when I was driving on the Motorway at 110 kms.p.h. :-) So - no need to want to be anywhere or anyone else. There is only ever just this moment. I too will remind myself to just be aware of what is appearing now, and again .. now - and trust that panna will be growing little by little. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Christine, > Right thinking, sammasankappa, of the eightfold Path is sometimes translated > by right intention. 18721 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Hello Herman, Good topic 'kusala' and 'akusala'. Bigger than it looks at first. Larry and I are touching on this as well, so we might stroll along with you and Jon for a while if you don't mind - Happy New Year. :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > Jon, > > You write much about kusala. > > What are the knowable properties of kusala (only so that we may talk.) > > Does a category have knowable properties? > > > Herman > PS Don't welcome me back , you won't like my return. 18722 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 2:31pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Howard, How did you reach the conclusion of a self outside of the khandhas? Please remember that it was you who reach that conclusion, not me. Read Dhammapada 12. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html I believe it will help you understand how the pronoun "self" is used. There is no need to get into all the speculation and assumption that you are implying. The speculation, assumption, and self-view only lead to stress. Discussion on them is not beneficial at all. Take care, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 1/12/03 1:55:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > How did you reach that conclusion? > > > > Regards, > > Victor > ============================= > WHICH conclusion, Victor? And is what you are asking about? The > *means* used to reach a conclusion, the "machinery"? And are you implying > *ever* so subtlely something about a presumed agent which does things? > Victor, the Socratic method wears thin after a while, especially when > it is not executed sufficiently well to elicit the desired responses. I wish, > if just for a brief while, you were to say straight out exactly what you mean > and what you are driving at. > > With metta, > Howard 18723 From: Egberdina Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 4:01pm Subject: Re: Kusala and akusala (was, Intention, willing and no-control) Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Herman > > Nice to hear from you again. > Thank you, and thank you for your well-considered reply. > --- "Egberdina " wrote: > > Jon, > > > > You write much about kusala. > > And about akusala (with which I'm more familiar;-)). > > > What are the knowable properties of kusala (only so that we may > > talk.) > > Good, I look forward to talking. I agree that it's best to agree > terms first. > > From my reading, the terms 'kusala' and 'akusala' are mostly used in > the context of either kusala and akusala citta or kusala and akusala > vipaka. The meaning differs with the context. I take your enquiry > to be about the former (i.e., kusala and akusala citta). > > By 'knowable properties' I take you to be asking about the > characteristic common to all kusala cittas that can be known by panna > (understanding). I believe it takes a certain level of panna to know > kusala from akusala. > > According to my studies, the difference would have to do with the > accompanying mental factors. All kusala cittas are accompanied by > passaddhi (calm, tranquillity), so I guess I would give this quality > as the main 'knowable property' of kusala citta. > > How am I doing so far? I am sure you are doing just fine. I am trying to get my understanding of the terms in line with the common understanding. I am pretty sure I understand what you are saying, but I do not understand why kusala is therefore not a category. A citta is an irreducible experience, whose qualities can be known. A citta is then categorised according to the plane of existence , the moral nature, and/or the underlying motivation. These divisions are conceptual are they not? By which I mean, one can not experience "wholesomeness", but one can experience calm and tranquility. Just like tree is a conceptual category for a number of more elementary perceptions, so is the concept kusala. I hope you can see where I am stuck. > > Jon All the best Herman 18724 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 4:19pm Subject: Way 37, Comm, Breathing "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on Breathing, p.49 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Indeed, to that yogi training in respiration-mindfulness according to the method taught thus: "He, thinking 'I breathe in long,' understands when he is breathing in long... Calming the activity of the body... I breathe out, thinking thus, he trains himself" [digham va assasanto digham assasamiti pajanati... passambhayam kayasankharam passasissamiti sikkhati], the four absorptions [cattari jhanani] arise in the respiration sign [assasapassasanimitte uppajjanti]. [Tika] In the respiration sign = In the reflex image [patibhaga nimitta]. Having emerged from the absorption, he lays hold of either the respiration body or the factors of absorption. There the meditating worker in respiration [assasapassasa kammika] examines the body (rupa) thinking thus: Supported by what is respiration? Supported by the basis [vatthunissita]. The basis is the coarse body [karajja kaya]. The coarse body is composed of the Four Great Primaries and the corporeality derived from these [cattari mahabhutani upadarupañca]. [T] The worker in respiration examines the respiration while devoting himself to the development of insight through the means of corporeality. [T] The basis, namely, the coarse body, is where the mind and mental characteristics occur. Thereupon, he, the worker in respiration, cognizes the mind (nama) in the pentad of mental concomitants beginning with sense-impression. The five beginning with sense-impression are sense-impression, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. They are taken here as representative of mind. 18725 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi, Victor - The three premisses of yours that I think imply the existence of a self outside of the khandhas were the following: 1) One can control oneself. Without exercising of self-control, observing the five precepts is impossible, the Noble Eightfold Path is impossible, the cessation of the dukkha is impossible. 2) Each and every five aggregate has no power over itself. It is impermanent. It lends itself to dis-ease. It has no control over itself. The five aggregates have no control over themselves. 3) When one identifies oneself with the aggregates, contradiction arises. I understood the 1st of these to say that there is something - someting you refer to as "one" - which exercises control over itself. (Inasmuch as you do not accept the conventional / ultimate distinction, I presume that you really mean there is some thing which exercises such contol.) The 2nd of these says that this thing which exercises control is not any (element of) the five khandhas. These two, together, already say that there is something which exercises control, but is different from any of the five khandhas. That would be the alleged self outside of the khandhas the existence of which I claim is being implied. Your 3rd statement in facts only emphasizes the part of the conclusion that the alleged self asserted by the first sentence cannot be identified with the khandhas. Now, it may be that I am misunderstanding the meaning of your 1st premiss. Exactly what do you mean - exactly, please - by saying one can control oneself? What is this "one"? Are you simply speaking conventionally, and mean by this that within any given psychophysical stream of experience moments of willing can and do occur which have consequences? If that isn't what you mean, what *do* you mean? It is what *I* mean when I say that we can exercise self-control (or any sort of control). I do not mean literally that there is some agent exercising control. [If there were, then, indeed, it would be contradictory to identify it with any of the khandhas.] If you *do* mean there is such an agent, could you please give some indication of what the nature of that agent is? With metta, Howard P.S. With regard to your statement "The speculation, assumption, and self-view only lead to stress. Discussion on them is not beneficial at all.": I am not speculating, making an assumption, or putting forward a self-view. I'm merely quoting your own premisses [speculations on your part?], asking you exactly what you mean by them, particularly the first, and also stating what they, as I understood them, directly imply. In a message dated 1/12/03 5:33:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Howard, > > How did you reach the conclusion of a self outside of the khandhas? > > Please remember that it was you who reach that conclusion, not me. > > Read Dhammapada 12. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html > I believe it will help you understand how the pronoun "self" is used. > > There is no need to get into all the speculation and assumption that > you are implying. > > The speculation, assumption, and self-view only lead to stress. > Discussion on them is not beneficial at all. > > Take care, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Victor - > > > >In a message dated 1/12/03 1:55:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, > >yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > >> > >> > >>Hi Howard, > >> > >>How did you reach that conclusion? > >> > >>Regards, > >>Victor > >============================= > > WHICH conclusion, Victor? And is what you are asking about? > The > >*means* used to reach a conclusion, the "machinery"? And are you > implying > >*ever* so subtlely something about a presumed agent which does > things? > > Victor, the Socratic method wears thin after a while, > especially when > >it is not executed sufficiently well to elicit the desired > responses. I wish, > >if just for a brief while, you were to say straight out exactly > what you mean > >and what you are driving at. > > > >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) 18726 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kusala and akusala (was, Intention, willing and no-control) Hi, Herman (welcome back!) and Jon - In a message dated 1/12/03 7:02:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: > > I am sure you are doing just fine. I am trying to get my > understanding of the terms in line with the common understanding. > > I am pretty sure I understand what you are saying, but I do not > understand why kusala is therefore not a category. > > A citta is an irreducible experience, whose qualities can be known. > > A citta is then categorised according to the plane of existence , the > moral nature, and/or the underlying motivation. > > These divisions are conceptual are they not? By which I mean, one can > not experience "wholesomeness", but one can experience calm and > tranquility. > > Just like tree is a conceptual category for a number of more > elementary perceptions, so is the concept kusala. > > I hope you can see where I am stuck. > > > > >Jon > > All the best > > > Herman > > ====================================== The following from Nyanatiloka's dictionary sure seems to me to indicate that kusala cittas constitute a (rather precisely defined) category of mindstates: > kusala: 'karmically wholesome' or 'profitable', salutary, morally good, > (skillful) Connotations of the term, according to Com. (Atthasálini), are: > of good health, blameless, productive of favourable karma-result, skillful. > It should be noted that Com. excludes the meaning 'skillful', when the term > is applied to states of consciousness.It is defined in M. 9 as the 10 > wholesome courses of action (s. kammapatha). In psychological terms, > 'karmically wholesome' are all those karmical volitions (kamma-cetaná) and > the consciousness and mental factors associated therewith, which are > accompanied by 2 or 3 wholesome roots (s. múla), i.e. by greedlessness > (alobha) and hatelessness (adosa), and in some cases also by non-delusion > (amoha: wisdom, understanding). Such states of consciousness are regarded > as 'karmically wholesome' as they are causes of favourable karma results > and contain the seeds of a happy destiny or rebirth. From this explanation, > two facts should be noted: (1) it is volition that makes a state of > consciousness, or an act, 'good' or 'bad'; (2) the moral criterion in > Buddhism is the presence or absence of the 3 wholesome or moral roots (s. > múla).The above explanations refer to mundane (lokiya, q.v.) wholesome > consciousness. Supermundane wholesome (lokuttara-kusala) states, i.e. the > four paths of sanctity (s. ariyapuggala), have as results only the > corresponding four fruitions; they do not constitute karma, nor do they > lead to rebirth, and this applies also to the good actions of an Arahat > (Tab. I, 73-80) and his meditative states (Tab. 1, 81-89), which are all > karmically inoperative (functional; s. kiriya).Kusala belongs to a > threefold division of all consciousness, as found in the Abhidhamma (Dhs.), > into wholesome (kusala), unwholesome (akusala) and karmically neutral > (avyákata), which is the first of the triads (tika) in the Abhidhamma > schedule (mátiká); s. Guide, pp. 4ff., 12ff; Vis.M. XIV, 83ff. ============================ 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) 18727 From: Antony Woods Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:33pm Subject: Time Travel Dear Sarah and all, In Dipa Ma’s Life Story condensed from "Knee Deep in Grace: The Extraordinary Life and Teaching of Dipa Ma" "In 1963, her teacher Munindra began to instruct her in the ancient Indian siddhis, or practice of spiritual powers. She was selected not only for her extraordinary concentration but also for her impeccable morality. Dipa Ma, Hema, and three of their daughters were introduced to dematerialization, body-doubling, cooking food without fire, mind-reading, visitation of the heaven and hell realms, time travel, knowledge of past lives, and more. Dipa Ma was the most adept of all Munindra’s students. Her mastery of the siddhis was tested by skeptical observers and researchers and left them astounded." http://www.dharma.org/~amys/bio.html What is meant by time travel? Thanks / Antony. 18728 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 6:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing Hi all, It looks like we are getting into the anxiously awaited (by me) section on insight here. I just have a couple of questions. "There the meditating worker in respiration [assasapassasa kammika] examines the body (rupa) thinking thus: Supported by what is respiration? Supported by the basis [vatthunissita]. The basis is the coarse body [karajja kaya]. The coarse body is composed of the Four Great Primaries and the corporeality derived from these [cattari mahabhutani upadarupañca]." Are we switching from "minding" the body of the breath to examining the whole body? Is the whole body the object of insight in the remainder of this section? "Thereupon, he, the worker in respiration, cognizes the mind (nama) in the pentad of mental concomitants beginning with sense-impression." [T] "The five beginning with sense-impression are sense-impression, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. They are taken here as representative of mind." L: Why is there a pentad of mental concomitants instead of the usual 4? Thanks. Larry 18729 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 1:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Time Travel Hello Antony, I can't answer your exact question but Dipa Ma was closely associated with Sylvia Boorstein who I heard speak recently. She stated that Dipa Ma could walk through walls. (BTW, I did my senior thesis on the philosophy of time travel; I believe that the paradoxes are resolvable so it's theoretically possible. But I find claims such as these risible.) metta, stephen 18730 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 7:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kusala and akusala (was, Intention, willing and no-control) Hi Howard, I didn't understand this definition. Are an arahant's consciousness and deeds kusala but kammicly neutral? If so, what is the meaning of kusala in this case? Larry 18731 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Christine, You ask about how to discriminate between akusala and kusala. I expect Nina will have something to say on this. Personally, I think the best way to begin is to just use conventional values, common sense, and whatever insight may arise. In this group I think the bias is on the side of being too harsh on oneself. I don't think goodness is particularly rare or uncommon. You don't have to be a saint to offer a kindness and continually denigrating oneself is sometimes a way of sneaking in the back door of a supposedly elite goodness. Specifically, what I mean by choosing kusala is following the Buddha's instructions to the best of one's ability. C: I'm not quite clear on this point about controlling the result of kamma: Larry: "By "no control" I mean we cannot control the result of kamma to the extent that it becomes a self, i.e., permanent. However, we can choose between kusala and akusala and making that choice *to a certain extent* controls the result of kamma. But we can't make it last forever." Are you speaking of kammicly neutral actions? Perhaps this is another instance of mundane and supramundane mental states? L: Could you rephrase this question. I'm not sure what you are asking. By "no control" I mean something like this: I feel dirty and ugly so I take a shower and feel clean and handsome. But that clean and handsome won't last very long so "clean and handsome" is not who I am, not my self, precisely because it doesn't last. Clean and handsome is a kammic consequence of the virtue (kusala) of cleanliness. Because it doesn't last, it makes me sad (dukkha). If I were an arahant, I wouldn't think "I feel dirty" or "I feel clean" because I wouldn't have a sense of "I" and the impermanence of cleanliness would not make me sad precisely because of that absence of an "I". I would, however, probably be meticulous about following conventional values of cleanliness for the good of others. So, yes, I am talking about mundane and supramundane. We can choose to do good. That choosing is kamma process and assumes a nonexistent self. The choosing is real but the self is not. Once we make a choice we can't control the result by making it last forever. It is dukkha. If we really were convinced there is no self [a supramundane insight] there would be no hopeful choosing or resultant disappointment. Freewill is basically acting on desire. Reading this over, I can see this still isn't very clear. I have a feeling there are disconnections in the logic I'm not seeing. Maybe someone else can straighten it out. Larry 18732 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 8:09pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: < snip > C: I'm not quite clear on this point about controlling the result of kamma: Larry: "By "no control" I mean we cannot control the result of kamma to the extent that it becomes a self, i.e., permanent. However, we can choose between kusala and akusala and making that choice *to a certain extent* controls the result of kamma. But we can't make it last forever." Are you speaking of kammicly neutral actions? Perhaps this is another instance of mundane and supramundane mental states? L: Could you rephrase this question. I'm not sure what you are asking. By "no control" I mean something like this: I feel dirty and ugly so I take a shower and feel clean and handsome. But that clean and handsome won't last very long so "clean and handsome" is not who I am, not my self, precisely because it doesn't last. Clean and handsome is a kammic consequence of the virtue (kusala) of cleanliness. Because it doesn't last, it makes me sad (dukkha). If I were an arahant, I wouldn't think "I feel dirty" or "I feel clean" because I wouldn't have a sense of "I" and the impermanence of cleanliness would not make me sad precisely because of that absence of an "I". I would, however, probably be meticulous about following conventional values of cleanliness for the good of others. So, yes, I am talking about mundane and supramundane. We can choose to do good. That choosing is kamma process and assumes a nonexistent self. The choosing is real but the self is not. Once we make a choice we can't control the result by making it last forever. It is dukkha. If we really were convinced there is no self [a supramundane insight] there would be no hopeful choosing or resultant disappointment. Freewill is basically acting on desire. Reading this over, I can see this still isn't very clear. I have a feeling there are disconnections in the logic I'm not seeing. Maybe someone else can straighten it out. KKT: Your explanation is very good, Larry. So there would be << choice without the sense of self >> KKT 18733 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 9:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Time Travel Hi Antony, --- Antony Woods wrote: > What is meant by time travel? ..... I'm sorry - no idea. I also don't know anything about Dipa Ma and I don't recall Munindra even mentioning her name to me. Always good to see yr around and thx for sharing the pic. Sarah ====== 18734 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 8:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi KKT, KKT: Your explanation is very good, Larry. So there would be << choice without the sense of self >> L: I'm not sure "choice" is the right word. I may have heard this described as "auspicious coincidence". Larry 18735 From: Antony Woods Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:07pm Subject: Re: Time Travel Dear Stephen and all, This quote from Bhikkhu Nanamoli was on my mind: "When the seen, heard, sensed and cognized (see Udana I,10**) are misperceived to be (this that I see,...., that I think about, is that man, so-and-so, that thing of mine), to have temporal endurance and reality, it is because the three periods of time, these three modes by which we subjectively process our raw world in perceiving it, have been projected outwards by ignorance on the raw world and misapprehended along with that as objectively real. That is how we in our ignorance come to perceive things and persons and action." (from "Does Saddha mean Faith?" in "Pathways of Buddhist Thought" Wheel 52/53, bps@m...) ** http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/udana/ud1-10.html 18736 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? Dear All, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Just to add 1 further passage, this from the commentary to TG's > Bhayabherava Sutta (MN 4) as cited in a note to the MLDB translation > (Bh. Bodhi), note 68: > > "MA: He has "compassion for future generations" insofar as later > generations of monks, seeing that the Buddha resorted to forest > dwellings, will follow his example and thus hasten their progress > towards making an end of suffering." > > This seems to accord with the passage from the Ji.n.na Sutta cited by > Robert (below). > > (Ji.n.na Sutta, S ii 203. Bodhi, Connected Discourses I 667) ..... Also in MN 32, Mahagosinga Sutta, we read the discussion between the leading disciples, including Ven Sariputta, Maha Mogallana, Maha Kassapa and Ven Ananda, about ‘what kind of bhikkhu could illuminate the Gosinga Sala-tree Wood’. Maha Kassapa praises forest dwelling, being of few wishes, content, secluded, energetic, attaining virtue, concentration and wisdom. Mogallana praises discussion between two bhikkhus on abhidhamma and the Sariputta praises ‘mastery over the mind’. When the conversation is repeated to the Buddha, he says they have all spoken well, ‘each in his own way’. He then adds that the monk resolved not to leave his sitting position until his ‘mind is liberated from the taints’ illuminates the wood. We know MahaKassapa led an exemplary life, aloof from society, wearing rag robes and content with little until he died at 120 yrs old, setting an example for other monks. We know he was always guided by compassion for monks and lay people, concerned for the preservation of the Teachings and was opposed to any minor rules being left out at the First Council so as not to discourage lay supporters. ..... In the Sammohavinodani (Dispeller of Delusion, PTS, Classification of the Jhanas,1799f) there is some detail about all the terms used in the descriptions such as ‘secluded’,’forest’, ‘tree root’, ‘jungle thicket’ and so on. Under ‘vivitta.m (‘secluded’) we read that forest dwelling is not for everyone: ..... “What does he show by vivitta.m (‘secluded’)? He shows a suitable abode as a place of training for a course of practice (yoga) for that bhikkhu. For a forest dwelling is appropriate for one who has within him a certain number of qualities. But for one in whom they are not, it is inappropriate, since for such a one dwelling in the forest is like the jungle dwelling of black monkeys, bears, hyenas, leopards, deer and so on. Why? Because of having entered it on account of a need (cf Mi 19). For there is no benefit based on a forest dwelling at all for him. He fouls both forest dwelling and the forest dwellers and he creates distrust in the dispensation. But it is appropriate only for one in whom there are a certain number of qualities. For in a forest dwelling he establishes insight, reaches Arahatship and attains complete extinction; he glorifies all forest dwellings, he washes the head of forest dwellers and he extends the whole dispensation. That is why the Master said: ‘He frequents a secluded abode’ and so on, showing a suitable abode as a place of training for a course of practice for such a bhikkhu.” ...... I think the phrase ‘for such a bhikkhu’ is important. We have to know our own ‘qualities’ and what is ‘appropriate’. In the MN sutta referred to (MN 19, Dvedhavitakka Sutta, transl by B.Bodhi), appropriately for other current discussions, it is about wrong and right thought (vitakka) and it discusses the 3 kinds of Right Thought - of renunciation, non-ill will and non-cruelty. It discusses the point about accumulating wholesome states after clearly distinguishing between kusala (wholesome) and akusala (unwholesome) states when they arise. This clear knowledge of the distinction was developed whilst he was an ‘unenlightened Bodhsatta’: “Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind. If he frequently thinks and ponders upon thoughts of renunciation, he has abandoned the thought of sensual desire to cultivate the thought of renunciation, and then his mind inclines to thoughts of renunciation. If he frequently thinks and ponders upon thoughts of non-ill will...upon thoughts of non-cruelty, he has abandoned the thought of cruelty to cultivate the thought of non-cruelty, and then his mind inclines to thoughts of non-cruelty.” This was given in contrast to accumulating thoughts of sensual desire, ill-will and cruelty And then in the sutta we read the example that I believe the commentary above was referring to. Two men might approach a marsh in a wooded area where there is a herd of deer. The first man means harm, closes off the safe path, sets up a decoy and dummy and the deer come to disaster. The second man wishes to protect them, closes off the false path, removes the decoy and the deer come to ‘fulfilment’. In the simile, the marsh represents sensual pleasures, the deer represent beings. The man who means harm represents Mara. The false path represents the wrong eightfold path, i.e wrong view, wrong intention etc. The decoy represents delight and lust and the dummy, ignorance. The man desiring their good is the Tathagata, the safe path is the Noble Eightfold path and so on. “So, bhikkhus, the safe and good path that leads to happiness has been reopened by me, the wrong path has been closed off, the decoy removed, the dummy destroyed....” ..... In other words, as I understand, it is not the forest or marsh in the wooded area that is of itself significant, but the intentions, ‘need’ or sincerity of purpose and understanding whilst dwelling there according to conditions and habitual inclinations. Sarah ====== 18737 From: Egberdina Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 0:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Kusala and akusala (was, Intention, willing and no-control) Hi Howard, Thanks for the welcome and the reply. I'll wait and see if Jon has any further insights into the matter. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Herman (welcome back!) and Jon - > > > > > Just like tree is a conceptual category for a number of more > > elementary perceptions, so is the concept kusala. > > > > I hope you can see where I am stuck. > > > > > > > >Jon > > > > All the best > > > > > > Herman > > > > > ====================================== > The following from Nyanatiloka's dictionary sure seems to me to > indicate that kusala cittas constitute a (rather precisely defined) category > of mindstates: > > > > kusala: 'karmically wholesome' or 'profitable', salutary, morally good, > > (skillful) Connotations of the term, according to Com. (Atthasálini), are: > > of good health, blameless, productive of favourable karma-result, skillful. > > It should be noted that Com. excludes the meaning 'skillful', when the term > > is applied to states of consciousness.It is defined in M. 9 as the 10 > > wholesome courses of action (s. kammapatha). In psychological terms, > > 'karmically wholesome' are all those karmical volitions (kamma- cetaná) and > > the consciousness and mental factors associated therewith, which are > > accompanied by 2 or 3 wholesome roots (s. múla), i.e. by greedlessness > > (alobha) and hatelessness (adosa), and in some cases also by non- delusion > > (amoha: wisdom, understanding). Such states of consciousness are regarded > > as 'karmically wholesome' as they are causes of favourable karma results > > and contain the seeds of a happy destiny or rebirth. From this explanation, > > two facts should be noted: (1) it is volition that makes a state of > > consciousness, or an act, 'good' or 'bad'; (2) the moral criterion in > > Buddhism is the presence or absence of the 3 wholesome or moral roots (s. > > múla).The above explanations refer to mundane (lokiya, q.v.) wholesome > > consciousness. Supermundane wholesome (lokuttara-kusala) states, i.e. the > > four paths of sanctity (s. ariyapuggala), have as results only the > > corresponding four fruitions; they do not constitute karma, nor do they > > lead to rebirth, and this applies also to the good actions of an Arahat > > (Tab. I, 73-80) and his meditative states (Tab. 1, 81-89), which are all > > karmically inoperative (functional; s. kiriya).Kusala belongs to a > > threefold division of all consciousness, as found in the Abhidhamma (Dhs.), > > into wholesome (kusala), unwholesome (akusala) and karmically neutral > > (avyákata), which is the first of the triads (tika) in the Abhidhamma > > schedule (mátiká); s. Guide, pp. 4ff., 12ff; Vis.M. XIV, 83ff. > ============================ > With metta, > Howard > 18738 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 0:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] No-control & Destiny Hi KKT, and All, I think these are good questions and I’ve been interested to read the various responses: __”Can we say that the Buddha taught two levels of understanding? On the first level He stressed people to make effort, to exercise their << free will >> as if there were effectively a << doer or entity >> capable of << doing >> anything. But on a higher level of understanding, there were absolutely no-control, no free will, no entity, no doer whatsoever. Everything just happens by << conditions >>” ..... Actually, I think this is a good summary of what we read and the listeners would understand according to any wisdom developed. In truth, I understand, there is only the ‘higher level’, the ultimate realities, regardless of the terms used. Yesterday I was reading through the first chapter in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy - the Abhidhamma text, PTS)and its commentary (the Debates Commentary) There is a lot of discussion about commonly used terms. The following quote from the Commentary (On the Person, p 41)is relevant to your comments, I think: “ “Without self” means deprived of self, of soul, of person. The sense is: even in one and the same quality, there is no ‘person’. Thus the meaning should be understood as said in all the Suttas and Commentaries. In this connection, however, we shall say merely so far as it was uttered........ “Even in such expressions as ‘there is the person who works for his own good’(DN iii, 232), (MNi, 341, 411), (AN ii, 95)and so on, thre is no such person as bodily and mental aggregates, known in their specific and general senses. Given bodily and mental aggregates, it is customary to say such and such a name, a family. Thus, by this popular turn of speech, convention, expression, is meant: “there is the person.” This is the sense here. Hereon it was also said by the Exalted One: “These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in the world.” (Dialogues, i 263). What is meant here is: even without reference to bodily and mental aggregates the term ‘person’ is used to denote a popular convention in both its specific and its general sense. The Buddhas have two kinds of discourse, the popular and the philosophical. Those relating to a being, a person, a deva, a brahma and so forth, are popular discourses, while those relating to impermanence, ill, soul-less, the aggregates, the elements, the senses, the application of mindfulness, the intent contemplation, and so forth, are discourses on highest meaning. Therein, in the popular discourse, when there is speech of a being, a person, a deva or a brahma, he who is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahan, HIM the Exalted One teaches, at the very outset, about a being, a person, a man, a deva or a brahma. He who, on hearing differently in discourse on highest meaning about impermanence, or ill, or the like, is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahan, him (the Exalted One) teaches differently about impermanence, and so forth. Thus, he does not teach at first the highest-meaning discourse to anyone, even to one who understands him in popular discourse. Taking his stand on popular discourse he, on the other hand, teaches the highest-meaning discourse afterwards. He does not teach at first popular discourse to one who can understand him in highest-meaning discourse. One the other hand, having enlightened him in highest-meaning discourse, he teaches him popular discourse afterwards. Highest-aim discourse is, as a rule, too severe to begin with; therefore the buddhas teach at first by popular discourse, and then the highest-meaning discourse. But popular discourse they teach consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method selected. And highest-meaning discourse, too. ‘they teach consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method selected.’....” “There is another way of putting it. The teaching of the Exalted One is of two kinds, the highest-meaning teaching consisting of the aggregates, and so forth, and the popular taching consisting of ‘butter-jar,’ and so forth. The Exalted One does not, indeed, overrun consistency. Hence, on the mere expression “there is the person who,” must not command adherence. The highest meaning has been declared by the Teacher, without transgressing the concept. So another wise man also should not, in explaining the highest meaning, overrun a concept.” ***** I’ll be interested to hear any further comments from you or anyone on this. Sarah ===== 18739 From: Egberdina Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 0:56am Subject: [dsg] Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? Hi Sarah, If I can comment on just a small portion of this post. My comments probably belong on another thread. I'll let you think of a suitable heading should this become another discussion :-). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear All, > > In the MN sutta referred to (MN 19, Dvedhavitakka Sutta, transl by > B.Bodhi), appropriately for other current discussions, it is about wrong > and right thought (vitakka) and it discusses the 3 kinds of Right Thought > - of renunciation, non-ill will and non-cruelty. It discusses the point > about accumulating wholesome states after clearly distinguishing between > kusala (wholesome) and akusala (unwholesome) states when they arise. This > clear knowledge of the distinction was developed whilst he was an > `unenlightened Bodhsatta': > On another thread I am asking what the qualities of (a)kusala are and how they can be known. To me, a(kusala) is a conceptual categorisation. You often say that it is important to distinguish between kusala and akusala cittas, as you do here. Is it a matter of rote learning of how the cittas are divided up in the Tipitaka, and then when identifying the citta dropping it in its correct pigeon hole? Isn't this an unnecessary proliferation? And how would one go about verifying that the classification is correct ie that certain cittas lead to good results, and that other cittas lead to bad results? Wouldn't one need to know what the purpose or goal of the whole exercise was in order to determine whether a citta removed one or brought one closer to the goal? And if this is so, what is the goal? > Sarah > ====== All the best Herman 18740 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 1:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi KKT (& Howard), I decided to split my post to KKT into two. --- "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > This is the Pudgalavada (Personalism) > > Its name comes from the word > Pudgala = person, individual. > > This school defended a thesis > on the existence of a << pudgala >> > which is << NOT OF THE 5 KHANDHAS >> > but << NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE 5 KHANDHAS >> > Also this Pudgala is not Atman (Self) > of Brahmanism or Jiva (Life Principle) > of Jainism. > > This is this Pudgala that goes > from one life to another (rebirth) > reaps its own kamma-vipaka > and even enters into Nibbana ! > > This school was strongly criticised > by other Buddhist schools as heresy > (especially by Theravada and Sarvastivada) ..... I mentioned that yesterday I was reading through the first chapter in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy - the Abhidhamma text, PTS)and its commentary (the Debates Commentary). This was because they discuss the Puggalavadin points and questions in detail and your comments made me curious. In these texts there are also long introductions about the various sects. I think you both and others would find these texts very interesting and imho, easier reading than other Abhidhamma texts. Another interesting Abhidhamma text is the Puggala -Pan~n~natti (Designation of Human Types, PTS. In the introduction to this translation by Bimala Charan Law, he writes a summary of a Puggalavadin’s view): “A Puggalavadin’s view is that the person is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, but he is not known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, but he is known in the same way as other real and ultimate facts are known.(Pts of Controv.pp8-9)”He or she is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, and his material quality is also known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact. But it cannot truly be said that the material quality is one thing and the person another(PoC pp14-15);nor can it be truly predicated that the person is related or absolute, conditioned or unconditioned, eternal or temporal, or whether the person has external features or whether he is without any.(PoC p21)One who has material quality in the sphere of matter is a person, but it canot be said that one who experiences desires of sense in the sphere of sense-desires is a person. The genesis of the person is apparent, his passing away and duration are also distinctively apparent, but it cannot be said that the person is conditioned.” ..... I’m not sure this is very clear to me (it’s trying to summarise several of the controverted points), but having typed it out, you can see what you make of it...;-) In the commentary to the Katthavatthu on the first controverted point of whether a ‘person’ is known, it says more simply a Puggalavadin ‘is one who believes in the existence of a personal entity, soul, or perduring immortal essence in man’. ‘Who among th eighteen schools of thought were Puggalavadins? In the Sasana the Vajjiputtakas and Sammitiyas, and many other teachers besides, not belonging to the Sasana. ‘Person’ means soul, being, vital principle. ‘Is known’: is approached and got at by the understanding, is cognized....’ ***** I think I’ve only added a few academic interest details here, but it may be of some interest. Let me know if there’s anything you wish me to check. Sarah p.s KKT, I’d be very glad sometime if you’d let us know what your full name is and where you live. A pic would be even better;-) ============== 18741 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi James, Sorry for the delay.... --- "James " wrote: > Now honestly, when you give instructions to your students, do you > really know that there is no `you' giving assignments to `them'? I > would bet that you are stuck in self-view just like the rest of us > unenlightened folk; if I am mistaken I apologize. But assuming that > I am right, given that you are stuck in self-view, of what benefit > does it serve you to say that there is no self when you don't know > directly that there is no self? ..... ;-) I don’t think it’s necessary to 'say' anything. However, in between all the many moments of being ‘stuck in self-view just like the rest of us unenlightened folk’, there can be moments when the dust is removed just a little from the eyes and there is a glimmer of insight when it’s just a little more apparent that there really is no ‘chariot’ or ‘me’ or ‘you’, wouldn’t you say? And of course moments of awareness (of whatever kind) can of course arise unpredictably at any time, even when giving out assignments, don’t you think? ..... >Is that a method of eliminating > craving? Does it lead to insight? I don't understand the point of > anyone talking like they are enlightened when they aren't. What is > the point of that? ..... ;-) I find it very helpful indeed to hear, consider and read more about actual dhammas as opposed to conventional dhammas. I certainly have no intention to make it sound as though I’m talking from any ‘englightened’ state. On the other hand, if we never hear and consider what the truth is at this moment, the understanding which knows this truth cannot develop, wouldn’t you say, James? Btw, I noticed in a couple of your other posts that contary to your intentions, you’re actually beginning to understand rather more about the abhidhamma and absolute realities than you bargained for;-) You asked in one post (not in front of me, so apologies for any misparaphrasing) what causes or brings about these dhammas. The answer is the combination of the 24 conditions as enumerated in detail in the last book of the Abhidhamma, the Pattana (AKA the Great Book). We read that when it came to contemplating the Great Book, multi-coloured rays issued from the Buddha’s body. So no dhamma at all occurs without the intricate working of these various complex conditions. Nina has written a helpful introduction in her book ‘Conditions’. http://www.zolag.co.uk/ When you are ready, a little more understanding of the conditions will provide many of the missing pieces, I think. ..... > Before the Buddha reached enlightenment, did he have self-view? > From my studies he did. After all, he wanted to find out where > his `self' was and why it was that he existed. Now, if Gotama had > self-view, operated under self-view, did not know anything other > than self-view, how was it that he could become enlightened? I > would assume it was because we all can become enlightened with self- > view. How? By OUR OWN efforts. If that weren't possible, Gotama > Siddhartha wouldn't have become enlightened. He wouldn't have > become the Buddha. ..... I understand that the Bodhisatta could become enlightened because he was the future Buddha and had developed all the prerequisites;-) We all need to hear the Buddha’s teachings and understanding has to develop. In other words, it’s not a case of having non-stop wrong self view and then non-stop right view of anatta. The understanding of what is true can begin at this moment and imho it’s not by looking for a ‘self’ or working out why it exist or by using OWN effort. It is by understanding more about the phenomena experiencing and being experienced at this moment (I’m trying to avoid namas and rupas ad nauseum for you, James;-)), including the precise distinction between wholesome and unwholesome states as being discussed. Of course, for most of us, any understanding is bound to be very brief and slight and there are bound to be many moments of ignorance and wrong view in between. One step at a time as they say. Hence the simile of the adze handle -- it’s not worn away in one rub;-) ..... > So why did he teach anatta after he discovered it? First of all, he > only taught it a fraction of how the Abhidhamma goes on about it. > Secondly, he only taught it to those who were serious about > renunciation and meditation, he did not teach it to lay people. In > other words, he didn't want a teacher dispersing instructions to > students thinking `there is no self in this process.' What is the > point of that? That will lead the teacher and the students to > confusion. I don't believe the teaching of anatta is supposed to be > dispersed to everyone like a polio vaccination. ..... It depends how one reads and understands the suttas, I think....for me, I read that he is teaching anatta throughout and this is the heart of the Teachings. That doesn’t mean everyone can understand the essence. What would be the point of not teaching anatta? How would the teachings be any different from other teachings? ..... >It is only supposed > to be followed by those people who dedicate the entirety of their > lives to it. If anyone really wants to know non-self, they need to > give up everything, shave their head, wrap themselves in a sheet, > and go live in the jungle-- with nothing! Maybe then they can begin > to understand non-self; but even then it is difficult! ..... I’m not sure where you get this idea. Our lives are just the various phenomena at any given moment and I think the Buddha made it clear that his teachings were for monks and lay people, otherwise how do you understand the 4 groups in the Mahaparinibbana sutta or the various lay people who reached stages of enlightenment? Again step by step. Knowing non-self is no different to understand the characteristic of a kind of consciousness, such as seeing or a physical object such as hardness or sound when ‘appearing’ at this moment. .... > This preaching of nama/rupa, no control, anatta, only the present > moment, etc., etc., etc., is putting the cart before the horse, in > my estimation. We all need to start right where we are..just like > Gotama did. If where we are is in the middle of suburban life, with > a job, responsibilities, and little time or energy to meditate-- > then we need to start there. ..... OK, we’re agreed here....just start as is - no need to change our lifestyle at all. But what, James, is the truth HERE? When you say that you have experiences in your body, what is this body if there are no rupas? I’d be genuinely glad to hear more. ..... >Otherwise, all of this emphasis on > anatta is like trying to `wish your self away'; which is another > form of conceit. If you push down one problem, it will more than > likely just pop up somewhere else. Just some ideas I thought I > would share. If you don't agree, okay. ..... I agree that if it is a wishing away of anything, it’s quite useless and one is just accumualting more wishing (and conceit quite probably too;-)). I like your comments because they are very honest and it’s better to recognize al the subtle kinds of wishing away than to kid oneself they aren’t there. So what is ‘YOU’ at this moment that pushes away, pushes down or makes an effort? What in truth is YOU?? Thx for the challenging and useful qus;-) Sarah ===== 18742 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 3:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kusala and akusala (was, Intention, willing and no-control) Herman I can see you have given this area considerable thought. Anumodana on that. The picture you give is almost complete. I think the only piece of information lacking is that cittas are always accompanied by cetasikas, and are never experienced in isolation from their cetasikas. It is the cetasikas that give the citta its 'flavour'. Thus the cetasikas that accompany a kusala citta are of an entirely different 'flavour' to those accompanying an akusala citta. Since these cetasikas are also, like the citta, irreducible dhammas, the 'kusalaness' or 'akusalaness' of the respective cittas can be the known by panna. So, as regards your conclusion ... <> ... I would say that yes, in terms of ultimate/fundamental phenomena, is there is no "quality of wholesomeness" apart from the mental factor passaddhi (translated as calm or tranquillity), but no, the wholesome flavour of a citta is not conceptual (for reasons I hope I have managed to explain above). This is to the best of my understanding (I am of course only re-stating what I have learnt from my study). I may not have it completely right. Happy to discuss further. Jon --- "Egberdina " wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > I am sure you are doing just fine. I am trying to get my > understanding of the terms in line with the common understanding. > > I am pretty sure I understand what you are saying, but I do not > understand why kusala is therefore not a category. > > A citta is an irreducible experience, whose qualities can be known. > > A citta is then categorised according to the plane of existence , > the > moral nature, and/or the underlying motivation. > > These divisions are conceptual are they not? By which I mean, one > can > not experience "wholesomeness", but one can experience calm and > tranquility. > > Just like tree is a conceptual category for a number of more > elementary perceptions, so is the concept kusala. > > I hope you can see where I am stuck. > > > > > Jon > > All the best > > > Herman 18743 From: Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 1:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kusala and akusala (was, Intention, willing and no-control) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/12/03 10:11:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I didn't understand this definition. Are an arahant's consciousness and > deeds kusala but kammicly neutral? If so, what is the meaning of kusala > in this case? > > Larry > =========================== You've made a good point. I would suppose that either Nyanatiloka's definition applies only to worldlings or one would have to say that an arahant's mindstates are neither kusala nor akusala. 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) 18744 From: nidive Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 7:05am Subject: Which cittas experience nibbana? Hi Abhidhamma Friends, Besides gotrubhu, magga and phala cittas, are there any other cittas that can experience nibbana? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18745 From: nidive Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 7:36am Subject: Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? Hi Abhidhamma Friends, I would like to ask another related question: How does a dry-insight sotapanna (without jhana attainment, and thus without fruition attainment) review nibbana? I know it is possible to review a rupa which had fallen away. For example, if I experienced rupa which is solidity, I can review that solidity even though that rupa and the cittas which experienced that rupa had fallen away. That solidity is remembered. So I am asking whether a dry-insight sotapanna reviews nibbana in the same manner (the difference being that rupa falls away, but nibbana doesn't). Or is there another way? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18746 From: Tal Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 8:31am Subject: dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi all, Can someone please clarify this point: We say that clinging to beings is a result of ignorance as dividing and dissecting them into body parts and mind aggregates will end up with nothing worth clinging to. But can't we say the same regarding to positive mental factors like compassion or gratitude? Is the leg of a sentient being worth being compassionate towards? His/her liver, intestines, Brain,....sanna, vinnana…? Is the leg of the Buddha worth having gratitude towards? His other aggregates?…etc. Doesn't it lead us to nihilism? What are the ultimate objects of these mental factors? Thanks, Tal 18747 From: Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi, Tal - In a message dated 1/13/03 11:32:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, tal2460@h... writes: > Hi all, > > Can someone please clarify this point: > > We say that clinging to beings is a result of ignorance as dividing > and dissecting them into body parts and mind aggregates will end up > with nothing worth clinging to. > > But can't we say the same regarding to positive mental factors like > compassion or gratitude? Is the leg of a sentient being worth being > compassionate towards? His/her liver, intestines, Brain,....sanna, > vinnana…? Is the leg of the Buddha worth having gratitude > towards? His other aggregates?…etc. > > Doesn't it lead us to nihilism? What are the ultimate objects of > these mental factors? > > Thanks, > Tal > > ============================== The conventional "person", upon close inspection, is not to be found. There is only a stream of experienced conditions. But those conditions are interrelated in multiple ways - there is a discernable pattern of interrelationships among those conditions. This entirety is mentally packaged into a so-called "person". So, a "person", while not a directly apprehended ultimate reality is not a groundless concept such as the hair of a tortoise either. When we feel compassion we are responding in empathy to apparent occurrences of dukkha in another psychophysical flow, but we conventionally think of that as feeling compassion for the suffering of another sentient being. Likewise for gratitude etc. That's how I see 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) 18748 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 10:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] why me? Dear Herman, my musical friend. Music gives a special tie, does it not? Welcome back. I hope you still play the organ? See below. op 12-01-2003 12:44 schreef Egberdina op hhofman@t...: > PS Don't welcome me back , you won't like my return. Nina: I want to share an experience with all of you. We had visited my father who was very nervous and afraid when thinking of death (102 years old). With our music we could calm him down (Loeillet, tenor recorder and piano). Lodewijk was very tired and stressed because of the problems with my father, and while driving backwards towards the street in the dark he made a dent in someone else's car. He was so shocked and upset, he takes such things very much to heart. It is bad for his self confidence. We ask ourselves, "why me?". There is a saying in Thai, "why me? Because it has to be you." I was afterwards listening to a tape and transcribing it. I read to Lodewijk a consoling message. A. Sujin said: I also listened to what A. Sujin said about Lodewijk's nightmares (Howard knows about this). They are an effect of akusala. They can be a reminder to develop more kusala. She also said to me: So there was an unfortunate event and a dhamma lesson which can change everything for the better . Nina. 18749 From: Egberdina Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:09pm Subject: Re: why me? Dear Nina, Thank you for your kind words. I find myself "jamming" with the boys a lot these days, so it tends to be popular music we play. But when a group makes effort to a common beautiful purpose I always find it very rewarding to participate. (I should write down some Bach pieces as chord progressions. Then we can jam to that :-)) I am very sorry to hear of your father's and Lodewijk's distress in various situations. I feel very powerless when I become aware of the suffering of other people. When I become aware of my own distress, discomfort or suffering, I know I can find a place within myself where there is calmness and an understanding that it is all just the rolling by of the "weather" (Often I suffer so unnecessarily because I am just not aware of it, just so caught up in whatever situation). But I find that I can do nothing for other people. I cannot tell them how to find that place. I can just say words, or put an arm around a shoulder, and hope that some of it makes sense. And if it does , it is just pure luck. The strangest things can create a little bit of a flicker of insight in people. I am happy that you are with your father and Lodewijk (for their sake). All the best to you and your family Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Herman, my musical friend. Music gives a special tie, does it not? > Welcome back. I hope you still play the organ? See below. > op 12-01-2003 12:44 schreef Egberdina op > hhofman@t...: > > PS Don't welcome me back , you won't like my return. > > Nina: I want to share an experience with all of you. > We had visited my father who was very nervous and afraid when thinking of > death (102 years old). With our music we could calm him down (Loeillet, > tenor recorder and piano). Lodewijk was very tired and stressed because of > the problems with my father, and while driving backwards towards the street > in the dark he made a dent in someone else's car. He was so shocked and > upset, he takes such things very much to heart. It is bad for his self > confidence. > We ask ourselves, "why me?". There is a saying in Thai, "why me? Because it > has to be you." I was afterwards listening to a tape and transcribing it. I > read to Lodewijk a consoling message. A. Sujin said: one should remember that it is because of conditions. Nobody can do > anything, you cannot change a particular thought to another one. You cannot > change seeing right now to the experience of another object. When you > understand this, you do not go away from the present object. When you > understand that it is conditioned in this way you do not think, why me. It > is useless to cry over it or think more about it. > > I also listened to what A. Sujin said about Lodewijk's nightmares (Howard > knows about this). They are an effect of akusala. They can be a reminder to > develop more kusala. She also said to me: father), there is him in the thinking, and it is very difficult to get rid > of the idea of belonging. Everything belongs to us: seeing, thinking, the > story we think of. When you see him, what could you do for him? After that > forget everything. There is no connection with the story of yesterday, last > year, two years ago. Clinging to self is a danger, it brings evermore > akusala. We can have more metta, in reality there is not a particular > person.> > So there was an unfortunate event and a dhamma lesson which can change > everything for the better . > Nina. 18750 From: James Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 3:11pm Subject: Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi James, Sorry for the delay.... (James: No problem…I haven't been on much myself. Just caught up today.) I don't think it's necessary to 'say' anything. However, in between all the many moments of being `stuck in self-view just like the rest of us unenlightened folk', there can be moments when the dust is removed just a little from the eyes and there is a glimmer of insight when it's just a little more apparent that there really is no `chariot' or `me' or `you', wouldn't you say? And of course moments of awareness (of whatever kind) can of course arise unpredictably at any time, even when giving out assignments, don't you think? (James: Yes, I have had such moments but I don't talk about them or write about them. And I don't know if I would necessarily describe them as `non-self' (because the very phrase supposes a `self' existing in the first place…whatever that is). I would describe them as `non-previous self'.) I find it very helpful indeed to hear, consider and read more about actual dhammas as opposed to conventional dhammas. I certainly have no intention to make it sound as though I'm talking from any `englightened' state. On the other hand, if we never hear and consider what the truth is at this moment, the understanding which knows this truth cannot develop, wouldn't you say, James? (James: No, actually I wouldn't say. Words and `considering' are quite inadequate to reach the state you are aiming for. Also, I don't recognize the word `dhammas' since I don't agree with a reductionism view of reality; I prefer `Ultimate Truth' and `Conventional Truth'. Along those lines, I believe that conventional truth is a bridge to ultimate truth and it is a very long and arduous bridge to walk. When you reach the other side, you see both truths…and that both are one truth. If you try shortcuts, you end up not being able to see either truth, or the one truth, properly.) Btw, I noticed in a couple of your other posts that contary to your intentions, you're actually beginning to understand rather more about the abhidhamma and absolute realities than you bargained for;-) (James: As they say, it's good to know the enemy. ;-) You asked in one post (not in front of me, so apologies for any misparaphrasing) what causes or brings about these dhammas. The answer is the combination of the 24 conditions as enumerated in detail in the last book of the Abhidhamma, the Pattana (AKA the Great Book). We read that when it came to contemplating the Great Book, multi-coloured rays issued from the Buddha's body. (James: If this is so, it is in direct contradiction to the suttas. The Buddha stated many times that he did not know what started the round of becoming and transmigration; he only knew how to stop it. I am not going to pull out a bunch of sutta quotes unless I know we are speaking about the same thing. Since the Buddha didn't say anything about `dhammas', I have a hard time following the exact meaning of your contention.) So no dhamma at all occurs without the intricate working of these various complex conditions. Nina has written a helpful introduction in her book `Conditions'. http://www.zolag.co.uk/ When you are ready, a little more understanding of the conditions will provide many of the missing pieces, I think. (James: Hmmm…when I am ready. You are clever Jedi Master, but I cannot be drawn to the dark side of the force that easily! ;-) I understand that the Bodhisatta could become enlightened because he was the future Buddha and had developed all the prerequisites;-) We all need to hear the Buddha's teachings and understanding has to develop. In other words, it's not a case of having non-stop wrong self view and then non-stop right view of anatta. The understanding of what is true can begin at this moment and imho it's not by looking for a `self' or working out why it exist or by using OWN effort. It is by understanding more about the phenomena experiencing and being experienced at this moment (I'm trying to avoid namas and rupas ad nauseum for you, James;-)), including the precise distinction between wholesome and unwholesome states as being discussed. Of course, for most of us, any understanding is bound to be very brief and slight and there are bound to be many moments of ignorance and wrong view in between. One step at a time as they say. Hence the simile of the adze handle -- it's not worn away in one rub;-) (James: I would agree with this…except you seem to be missing a little something here. Namely you are not stressing the other seven arms of the eight-armed path. Right View is only one part, not everything. There is a lot more to be done than to keep cultivating Right View. And I don't believe that Abhidhamma view is Right View anyway. BTW, thank you for avoiding those ad nauseum namas and rupas for me ;-) It depends how one reads and understands the suttas, I think....for me, I read that he is teaching anatta throughout and this is the heart of the Teachings. That doesn't mean everyone can understand the essence. What would be the point of not teaching anatta? How would the teachings be any different from other teachings? (James: I didn't say that the Buddha shouldn't have taught anatta. Please re-read what I wrote. I said that it shouldn't be taught to everyone like a panacea for life's dukkha. Yes, it is the heart of his teachings…but what use is a heart without the body?) I'm not sure where you get this idea. Our lives are just the various phenomena at any given moment and I think the Buddha made it clear that his teachings were for monks and lay people, otherwise how do you understand the 4 groups in the Mahaparinibbana sutta or the various lay people who reached stages of enlightenment? Again step by step. Knowing non-self is no different to understand the characteristic of a kind of consciousness, such as seeing or a physical object such as hardness or sound when `appearing' at this moment. (James: I am not going to argue this extensively. Actually, I was speaking of monks of the past, not monks of the present. Nowadays, there is little substantial, important difference between monks and laypeople…at least where it matters. That is all I am going to say in this regard, though I could write pages more....) OK, we're agreed here....just start as is - no need to change our lifestyle at all. But what, James, is the truth HERE? When you say that you have experiences in your body, what is this body if there are no rupas? I'd be genuinely glad to hear more. (James: Maybe later Sarah, when you are ready…;-) I agree that if it is a wishing away of anything, it's quite useless and one is just accumualting more wishing (and conceit quite probably too;-)). I like your comments because they are very honest and it's better to recognize al the subtle kinds of wishing away than to kid oneself they aren't there. So what is `YOU' at this moment that pushes away, pushes down or makes an effort? What in truth is YOU?? (James: I'm a chariot ;-) Thx for the challenging and useful qus;-) (James: You're welcome.) Sarah Metta, James 18751 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 3:37pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Howard, I would suggest reading Dhammapada 12, learning from it, and putting into practice. Take care, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > The three premisses of yours that I think imply the existence of a > self outside of the khandhas were the following: > > 1) One can control oneself. Without exercising of self- control, > observing the five precepts is impossible, the Noble Eightfold Path is > impossible, the cessation of the dukkha is impossible. > > 2) Each and every five aggregate has no power over itself. It is > impermanent. It lends itself to dis-ease. It has no control over itself. > The five aggregates have no control over themselves. > > 3) When one identifies oneself with the aggregates, contradiction > arises. > > I understood the 1st of these to say that there is something - > someting you refer to as "one" - which exercises control over itself. > (Inasmuch as you do not accept the conventional / ultimate distinction, I > presume that you really mean there is some thing which exercises such > contol.) The 2nd of these says that this thing which exercises control is not > any (element of) the five khandhas. These two, together, already say that > there is something which exercises control, but is different from any of the > five khandhas. That would be the alleged self outside of the khandhas the > existence of which I claim is being implied. Your 3rd statement in facts only > emphasizes the part of the conclusion that the alleged self asserted by the > first sentence cannot be identified with the khandhas. > Now, it may be that I am misunderstanding the meaning of your 1st > premiss. Exactly what do you mean - exactly, please - by saying one can > control oneself? What is this "one"? Are you simply speaking conventionally, > and mean by this that within any given psychophysical stream of experience > moments of willing can and do occur which have consequences? If that isn't > what you mean, what *do* you mean? It is what *I* mean when I say that we can > exercise self-control (or any sort of control). I do not mean literally that > there is some agent exercising control. [If there were, then, indeed, it > would be contradictory to identify it with any of the khandhas.] If you *do* > mean there is such an agent, could you please give some indication of what > the nature of that agent is? > > With metta, > Howard > > P.S. With regard to your statement "The speculation, assumption, and > self-view only lead to stress. Discussion on them is not beneficial at all.": > I am not speculating, making an assumption, or putting forward a self-view. > I'm merely quoting your own premisses [speculations on your part?], asking > you exactly what you mean by them, particularly the first, and also stating > what they, as I understood them, directly imply. 18752 From: Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 5:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi Tal, There is a footnote in Visuddhimagga VIII n. 11 that confirms Howards view. It is a long, involved note, but the gist of the part that pertains to your question is that the "ultimate sense" allows for the concept of the continuity of body and mind. This continuity is termed "atta-bhava" translated as person or personality and is differentiated from "atta", a permanent self. My first thought was that brahmavihara shouldn't be mixed with dhammavicaya because they have different goals, but a quick look at the chapter on brahmavihara in Vism. suggested to me there is no problem mingling the two. Nihilism is basically a denial of kamma, I think. Larry 18753 From: James Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 5:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Howard, > > I would suggest reading Dhammapada 12, learning from it, and putting > into practice. > > Take care, > Victor Victor, This is a curious post. Why just Dhammapada 12 and why just Howard? I bet I could learn from Dhammapada 12 also; why didn't you write to me? I feel left out! :-( And couldn't you also learn from Dhammapada 12? And what about everyone else on this list? You know, when you write to Howard...you write to us all. It is like you have no self, Howard has no self, and we have no self...that is why the Internet is so cool. Please don't focus important information on just one person...send it to us all...and even yourself. Self and other...all the same in the end. Peace friend. Metta, James 18754 From: Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 0:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi, Victor - In a message dated 1/13/03 6:38:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Howard, > > I would suggest reading Dhammapada 12, learning from it, and putting > into practice. > > Take care, > Victor > > ====================== I've read it. (sigh.) 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) 18755 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 8:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No-control & Destiny Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: Hi KKT, and All, I think these are good questions and I've been interested to read the various responses: KKT: Thanks alot for your abundant quotes. I'm particularly interested in the following one: --------------- < snip > The Buddhas have two kinds of discourse, the popular and the philosophical. Those relating to a being, a person, a deva, a brahma and so forth, are popular discourses, while those relating to impermanence, ill, soul-less, the aggregates, the elements, the senses, the application of mindfulness, the intent contemplation, and so forth, are discourses on highest meaning. Therein, in the popular discourse, when there is speech of a being, a person, a deva or a brahma, he who is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahan, HIM the Exalted One teaches, at the very outset, about a being, a person, a man, a deva or a brahma. He who, on hearing differently in discourse on highest meaning about impermanence, or ill, or the like, is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahan, him (the Exalted One) teaches differently about impermanence, and so forth. Thus, he does not teach at first the highest-meaning discourse to anyone, even to one who understands him in popular discourse. Taking his stand on popular discourse he, on the other hand, teaches the highest-meaning discourse afterwards. He does not teach at first popular discourse to one who can understand him in highest-meaning discourse. One the other hand, having enlightened him in highest-meaning discourse, he teaches him popular discourse afterwards. Highest-aim discourse is, as a rule, too severe to begin with; therefore the buddhas teach at first by popular discourse, and then the highest-meaning discourse. But popular discourse they teach consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method selected. And highest-meaning discourse, too. `they teach consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method selected.'...." "There is another way of putting it. The teaching of the Exalted One is of two kinds, the highest-meaning teaching consisting of the aggregates, and so forth, and the popular taching consisting of `butter-jar,' and so forth. The Exalted One does not, indeed, overrun consistency. Hence, on the mere expression "there is the person who," must not command adherence. The highest meaning has been declared by the Teacher, without transgressing the concept. So another wise man also should not, in explaining the highest meaning, overrun a concept." ***** I'll be interested to hear any further comments from you or anyone on this. Sarah ===== KKT: So it seems that the Abhidhamma supports the theory that the Buddha taught two levels of understanding, does it not? Metta, KKT 18756 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 8:06pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: Hi KKT (& Howard), < snip > Another interesting Abhidhamma text is the Puggala -Pan~n~natti (Designation of Human Types, PTS. In the introduction to this translation by Bimala Charan Law, he writes a summary of a Puggalavadin's view): "A Puggalavadin's view is that the person is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, but he is not known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, but he is known in the same way as other real and ultimate facts are known.(Pts of Controv.pp8-9)"He or she is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, and his material quality is also known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact. But it cannot truly be said that the material quality is one thing and the person another(PoC pp14-15);nor can it be truly predicated that the person is related or absolute, conditioned or unconditioned, eternal or temporal, or whether the person has external features or whether he is without any.(PoC p21)One who has material quality in the sphere of matter is a person, but it canot be said that one who experiences desires of sense in the sphere of sense-desires is a person. The genesis of the person is apparent, his passing away and duration are also distinctively apparent, but it cannot be said that the person is conditioned." ..... KKT: The above paragraph is very difficult to understand :-)) --------- p.s KKT, I'd be very glad sometime if you'd let us know what your full name is and where you live. A pic would be even better;-) KKT: My full name is on the handle of my email: Pham Dinh Luan. KKT (in Vietnamese) = Kha Kha Tieu = Laughing Ha Ha :-)) I use these initials just for fun :-)) I live in Arlington, Texas, USA. As for the picture, I'll see if I can find one ... :-)) Thank you, Sarah. KKT 18757 From: Egberdina Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 8:14pm Subject: Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Victor, Long time no write. Good to be writing to you again. Do you allow for the possibility that Howard has already done as you suggested, but that what he has learned from it is quite different from what you have learned from it? Howard does not hide, or is not coy about, what he learns (and therefore teaches). I honestly cannot say the same about you. Please tell me what Dammapada 12 teaches you. I do not wish to dispute what it teaches you, I simply want to know what it teaches you. And how do you put it into practise? Wishing you well-being Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Howard, > > I would suggest reading Dhammapada 12, learning from it, and putting > into practice. > > Take care, > Victor > 18758 From: Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 8:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing "the four absorptions [cattari jhanani] arise in the respiration sign [assasapassasanimitte uppajjanti]. [Tika] In the respiration sign = In the reflex image [patibhaga nimitta]." Hi all, Does anyone know anything about nimita? These days anapanasati is taught using the touch of the breath on the nostrils or the rise and fall of the abdomen rather than the "body of the breath". Will a nimita (image) arise from touch sensation? Larry 18759 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 10:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi Howard, Nice to get back to you after being distracted by other threads;-) S: >It’s just that we seldom discuss > agreements here;-) ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, that would be dull! (And no one likes "dull"! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------ S:....and these days I think we’re in danger of just that;-) (i.e too many agreements...) -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is no self who acts. There is no *acting*, if 'acting' implies a self/agent which acts. But there is intention which has consequences, and that, formulated conventionally, is what I mean by "acting". There is kamma and kamma vipaka. -------------------------------------------------------- S: agreed ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, not contrary. Just differing modes of expressing. When the two modes become conflated, which is a very easy thing for the run-of-the-mill worldling to do, the implication of "no-control because no self to do any controlling" comes to be understood as the impossibility of intentional action. (Nina wrote in Listening to Dhamma the following: "The dhammas which arise in our daily life are beyond control, we cannot own them. Seeing and hearing do not belong to us, they are non-self. We cannot choose what we see and hear, this depends on the appropriate conditions." Now all three of these sentences are true . But they can but they can be misunderstood. In fact, what dhammas are experienced are *not* beyond control, precisely because intention can serve as a condition. --------------- S: pausing here a sec.-- I agree that the statements can be misunderstood as can anything said. Certainly ‘beyond control’ is never meant to suggest there are not very precise conditions in operation. In this regard, I wouldn’t particularly single out ‘intention’ although when it arises with kusala and akusala cittas and performs the function of kamma, it is a very important mental factor and condition, I agree. ------------------ Howard:Closing one's eyes is a (conventional) volitional action which changes what is seen, just as looking elsewhere does, or, for that matter, taking a trip to a different locale. If the fact that there is, in reality, no agent to act is taken to mean that conventional action is impossible, then, among other things, people will be convinced that nobody is capable of following the Buddha's instructions. -------------------------------------------- S: Well, ultimately of course ‘nobody’ can follow or do anything. I think we’re all agreed that ‘conventional action’ happens all the time. If we look at what this conventional action is, however, there’s no self controlling or intending -- there are just the various phenomena arising and falling away and performing their respective tasks. So when there is the closing of one’s eyes, there are in fact many cittas accompanied by many different mental factors (not just cetana, intention)and many different rupas involved in a complex process. The reason the eyes are closed at one moment and not another will depend on the various conditioning factors and conditioned phenomena at any particular instant. I do agree that the idea that it’s all hopeless and nothing can be done can be just as pernicious as the idea that a self can do it all. I think that wrong view will always lead us astray and it’s good that you point this out. ----------------------------------- Howard: Wonderful. :) I think that pointing this out from time to time could be useful. --------------------------------------------------- S: Thx and pls keep giving prompts;-) ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: When I speak of control - and I prefer 'influence' to 'control' - I do *not* presume a controller. To me, influence is merely the intentional creation of events which serve as conditions, it is merely cetana (or, in the case of an arahant, kiriya kamma) in action. I see no more need for a "controller" than I do for a "thinker". Neither exists as far as I'm concerned. ----------------------------------------------------- S: Agreed again ;-) Just a comment on why cetana is not stressed more when discussing the path to enlightenment and so on. Simply put, it is not one of the 4 iddhi-padas (Roads to Power) which are chanda (wish-to-do), viriya (energy), citta and vimamsa(investigation). It is not one of the 5 indriyas (Spiritual Faculties) either which are saddha (confidence), viriya (energy), sati (mindfulness), samadhi (concentration), panna (wisdom). It is not one of the factors of the eightfold path and it is not one of the 5 balas (powers) either which are saddha, viriya, sati, samadhi and panna. Finally, it is not one of the 7 bojjhangas (enlightenment factors). These are sati, dhamma-vicaya (investigation of dhamma), viriya, piti (rapture), passaddhi (calm), samadhi and uppekkha (equanimity. So, though cetana plays a very important role (esp. in the javana process), like other universal mental factors which are also very crucial and stressed in other contexts, eg sanna (perception), vedana (feeling) and phassa (contact), they are not usually stressed particularly in the context of stages of insight perhaps. Does that make them neglected second-rate mental factors? I’ll leave that to you to decide;-) I’ve just seen that we agree on everything else. When I wrote last time I also meant to say that I thought your reply to Christine (18562) contained many very helpful points and I agreed with almost all of it. The farmer example worked well, I thought. Perhaps (and these are mere quibbles in the grand scheme of things)where you say “The Buddha taught us to guard the senses and to be vigilant. He had us exercise volition...”,I’d emphasise a little more on panna, viriya and sati rather than on volition. At the end, you also said “The Buddha taught a program of training for us to put into practice”. I understand your point because you clearly explained it earlier. However, I think this is likely to be just as misleading (perhaps more;-)) as the ‘whatever will happen will happen’ comments. No? It’s just as well we’re all here to keep an eye on each other and I always appreciate your feedback. As we’re in so much agreement, let me leave you with two quotes about anatta (part of a longer quote I’ve given before)which I consider a lot and you’ll appreciate I know.(from the Sammohavinodani - Disp. of Delusion p.59): “The characteristic of no-self is unobvious, dark, unclear, difficult to penetrate, difficult to illustrate, difficult to make known”. “The characteristic of no-self does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating the resolution into the various elements (naanaadhaatu-vinibboga) owing to its beng concealed by compactness.” Sarah ===== 18760 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:11pm Subject: Pigeon holes for kusala and akusala? Hi Herman, Good to see all your useful points and questions. I'm not sure I can add much to your other discussions, but let's see: --- "Egberdina " wrote: ..... > On another thread I am asking what the qualities of (a)kusala are and > how they can be known. > > To me, a(kusala) is a conceptual categorisation. You often say that > it is important to distinguish between kusala and akusala cittas, as > you do here. Is it a matter of rote learning of how the cittas are > divided up in the Tipitaka, and then when identifying the citta > dropping it in its correct pigeon hole? Isn't this an unnecessary > proliferation? ..... I think that if it is just rote learning and proliferation without any understanding then it isn’t really any kind of distinguishing and it won’t lead to any development of kusala (wholesome consciousness). As we know, unless the cittas (in the javana process - i.e not talking about moments of seeing and hearing etc) are cittas involved in dana, sila or bhavana (mental development), then they are akusala (unwholesome). It may seem, as Larry suggested, that we’re too tough on the akusala states, but I think that we’re far more likely at any given time to take the akusala for kusala than vice versa. What do you think? In the sutta I was referring to (MN19), the Buddha says that as a Bodhisatta “I set on one side thoughts of sensual desire, thoughts of ill will, and thoughts of cruelty, and I set on the other side thought of renunciation, thoughts of non-ill will, and thoughts of non-cruelty.” ..... Like Howard and I have been discussing, it’s not a matter of a self dividing up or putting anything into a pigeon hole as this might suggest. It’s a matter of understanding the various states when they arise and knowing the characteristics of what is useful and what is harmful. I have a close friend who is a psychotherapist and she cannot accept intellectually that a value judgment can be made with regard to ‘this is kusala, this is akusala.’ That makes it difficult. At the moment of anger, the nature of the state can be directly and immediately known to be different from that of metta. It doesn’t matter whether one says or categorises them - they have characteristics that can be tested and proved to be different. ..... “As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of sensual desire arose in me. this leads to my own affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbana.......ill-will.........a thought of cruelty arose in me...my own afliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties.......” ..... > And how would one go about verifying that the classification is > correct ie that certain cittas lead to good results, and that other > cittas lead to bad results? Wouldn't one need to know what the > purpose or goal of the whole exercise was in order to determine > whether a citta removed one or brought one closer to the goal? .... Very good questions and not easy to answer. I think that initially, we all have some inkling that certain states such as fear or anger lead to bad results and that others such as kindness and generosity lead to good results (though many dispute even this - as Chris mentioned with the ‘righteous anger’ and so on). The only way, I believe, is to hear, consider and test it out when these states arise. What is the nature of the citta when there is anger? What is the effect on ourselves and others? What is the effect of generosity? How is it different from clinging or regret which may follow? I understand your question about the purpose or goal. Many people think they need to know more about nibbana for this reason. I don’t agree and I don’t think that knowing in theory that some states will lead to good results of kamma and others to bad results is necessarily of lasting benefit in itself either. In the end, I think there is no way to avoid understanding the inherent qualities of the various states when they arise and knowing what at that moment ‘causes difficulties’ and ‘obstructs wisdom’ and what promotes ease and wisdom. ..... > And if this is so, what is the goal? ..... Gradually, I think in this way the gross layers can be known and then the not-quite-so-gross and so on. The goal is the eventual eradication of all defilements, little by little, by seeing the ‘defiling’ nature of these when they arise, the contrast of the kusala states and all other phenomena for what they are - ‘by resolution into the various elements’ - no-self at all. Does this help? I’d be glad to hear more of your ideas on this topic, Herman. Sometimes just articulating the sticking points helps to clarify. Sarah ===== 18761 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi James, I agree. I find the lessons in Dhammapada 12 valuable. Everyone could learn from it. Everyone could put it into practice. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao > " wrote: > > Howard, > > > > I would suggest reading Dhammapada 12, learning from it, and > putting > > into practice. > > > > Take care, > > Victor > > Victor, > > This is a curious post. Why just Dhammapada 12 and why just > Howard? I bet I could learn from Dhammapada 12 also; why didn't you > write to me? I feel left out! :-( And couldn't you also learn from > Dhammapada 12? And what about everyone else on this list? You > know, when you write to Howard...you write to us all. It is like > you have no self, Howard has no self, and we have no self...that is > why the Internet is so cool. Please don't focus important > information on just one person...send it to us all...and even > yourself. Self and other...all the same in the end. Peace friend. > > Metta, James 18762 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi KKT, I'll get back on the quotes later (perhaps;-)) I agree that the one by Law was very difficult to follow - I'll take another look sometime.The first one from the commentary is very interesting and I look f/w to discussing it more, but I've got a bit of a backlog of posts I'm trying to reply to first;-) --- "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > KKT: My full name is on the handle > of my email: Pham Dinh Luan. > > KKT (in Vietnamese) = Kha Kha Tieu = Laughing Ha Ha :-)) > I use these initials just for fun :-)) ..... Thank you so much for these little gems....Actually, I had a little regret after asking for the info (sometimes just too nosey;-( ), so very relieved that you took them so well. I had always wondered whether 'phamdluan' was yr name....I can just imagine how James may start addressing you now :-)) (btw, I used to teach a lot of Vietnamese students in Australia before - seems like a long time ago now... There were wonderful Vietnamese restaurants too;-)) ..... > > I live in Arlington, Texas, USA. > > As for the picture, I'll see if I can find one ... :-)) .... Oh, there seem to be a few people around from Texas. Chris, James and I (to name just three) will greatly look f/w to the pic - Remember if you need any assistance or cosmetic changes, we have a highly skilled album committee now;-) Thx for being a good sport, KKT. Sarah ====== 18763 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:10am Subject: Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Herman, I think every verse in Dhammapada 12 is true and of practical value. This is what I learn from Dhammapada 12: 157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. Thus the wise man will not be reproached. (I find this is true. If I don't watch myself diligently, I would hurt myself. Since I hold myself dear, I practice self-control in body, speech, and mind.) 158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached. (I can't teach others if I am not established myself in what is proper.) 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is self-control. (I find that self-control in body, speech, and mind is indeed difficult. As long as I am not fully well controlled myself in body, speech, and mind, I would not try to instruct others in Dhamma.) 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain. (True indeed. I am the protector of myself. No one else could be my protector. I protect myself with self-control in body, speech, and mind.) 161. The evil a witless man does by himself, born of himself and produced by himself, grinds him as a diamond grinds a hard gem. (I myself have verified the truth in this verse.) 162. Just as a single creeper strangles the tree on which it grows, even so, a man who is exceedingly depraved harms himself as only an enemy might wish. (True.) 163. Easy to do are things that are bad and harmful to oneself. But exceedingly difficult to do are things that are good and beneficial. (True.) 164. Whoever, on account of perverted views, scorns the Teaching of the Perfected Ones, the Noble and Righteous Ones -- that fool, like the bamboo, produces fruits only for self destruction. (I would not destroy myself by scorning the Teaching of the Perfected Ones, the Noble and Righteous Ones.) 165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another. (True indeed. By myself evil is done. By myself I am defiled. By myself evil is left undone. By myself I am made pure. Purity and impurity depends on myself. Only I can purify myself, no one else can.) 166. Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good. (I would not neglect my own welfare for the sake of another, however great. The highest welfare is the cessation of dukkha.) To learn and put these verses into practice, I try to internalize and remember them. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Long time no write. Good to be writing to you again. > > Do you allow for the possibility that Howard has already done as you > suggested, but that what he has learned from it is quite different > from what you have learned from it? > > Howard does not hide, or is not coy about, what he learns (and > therefore teaches). > > I honestly cannot say the same about you. > > Please tell me what Dammapada 12 teaches you. I do not wish to > dispute what it teaches you, I simply want to know what it teaches > you. And how do you put it into practise? > > Wishing you well-being > > > Herman 18764 From: Egberdina Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:39am Subject: Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Victor, Thank you for sharing this. I think Dhammapada 12 is very rich in wisdom, and also the guidelines are very difficult for a man like me to aspire to. Thank you again for your answer. Be well Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Hi Herman, > > I think every verse in Dhammapada 12 is true and of practical value. > > This is what I learn from Dhammapada 12: > > 157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch > oneself. Thus the wise man will not be reproached. > > (I find this is true. If I don't watch myself diligently, I would > hurt myself. Since I hold myself dear, I practice self-control in > body, speech, and mind.) > > 158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only > should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be > reproached. > > (I can't teach others if I am not established myself in what is > proper.) > > 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train > others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is > self-control. > > (I find that self-control in body, speech, and mind is indeed > difficult. As long as I am not fully well controlled myself in > body, speech, and mind, I would not try to instruct others in > Dhamma.) > > 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the > protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery > that is hard to gain. > > (True indeed. I am the protector of myself. No one else could be > my protector. I protect myself with self-control in body, speech, > and mind.) > > 161. The evil a witless man does by himself, born of himself and > produced by himself, grinds him as a diamond grinds a hard gem. > > (I myself have verified the truth in this verse.) > > 162. Just as a single creeper strangles the tree on which it grows, > even so, a man who is exceedingly depraved harms himself as only an > enemy might wish. > > (True.) > > 163. Easy to do are things that are bad and harmful to oneself. But > exceedingly difficult to do are things that are good and beneficial. > > (True.) > > 164. Whoever, on account of perverted views, scorns the Teaching of > the Perfected Ones, the Noble and Righteous Ones -- that fool, like > the bamboo, produces fruits only for self destruction. > > (I would not destroy myself by scorning the Teaching of the > Perfected Ones, the Noble and Righteous Ones.) > > 165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself > is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and > impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another. > > (True indeed. By myself evil is done. By myself I am defiled. By > myself evil is left undone. By myself I am made pure. Purity and > impurity depends on myself. Only I can purify myself, no one else > can.) > > 166. Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, > however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be > intent upon the good. > > (I would not neglect my own welfare for the sake of another, however > great. The highest welfare is the cessation of dukkha.) > > To learn and put these verses into practice, I try to internalize > and remember them. > > Regards, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " > wrote: > > Hi Victor, > > > > Long time no write. Good to be writing to you again. > > > > Do you allow for the possibility that Howard has already done as > you > > suggested, but that what he has learned from it is quite different > > from what you have learned from it? > > > > Howard does not hide, or is not coy about, what he learns (and > > therefore teaches). > > > > I honestly cannot say the same about you. > > > > Please tell me what Dammapada 12 teaches you. I do not wish to > > dispute what it teaches you, I simply want to know what it teaches > > you. And how do you put it into practise? > > > > Wishing you well-being > > > > > > Herman 18765 From: Egberdina Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:48am Subject: Re: Pigeon holes for kusala and akusala? Hi Sarah and Jon and everybody, Thank you both for your answers. Yes, it does help :-) Thank you Herman 18766 From: Egberdina Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? Hi Sarah and everyone, I haven't followed this thread at all, so I am not purposefully replying to anything that anyone may have said. I am really just replying to the subject heading, because, wait for it, ............ I've got a theory about that. Oh God no, not another theory .... :-) Anyway, I am assuming that by "concentrate" "dwelling in jhana" is meant. The jhanas are the highest, greatest kusala. If you are able, why do anything else? To sit cross legged with a next to empty mind, is there a better example to follow? All the best Herman 18767 From: nidive Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 4:55am Subject: Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? Hi All, > Besides gotrubhu, magga and phala cittas, are there any other cittas that can experience nibbana? Nobody knows? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18768 From: Tal Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 7:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Howard wrote: >When we feel compassion we are responding in > empathy to apparent occurrences of dukkha in >another psychophysical flow, If so, the moment a compassion cetasika arises, what is its object and through which sense door it appears? Larry, I don't have the Visuddhimagga. Could you quote the relevant part? Although I don't see a direct relation between this issue and the brahmavihara states of Mind. Tal --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Tal - > > In a message dated 1/13/03 11:32:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, > tal2460@h... writes: > > > Hi all, > > > > Can someone please clarify this point: > > > > We say that clinging to beings is a result of ignorance as dividing > > and dissecting them into body parts and mind aggregates will end up > > with nothing worth clinging to. > > > > But can't we say the same regarding to positive mental factors like > > compassion or gratitude? Is the leg of a sentient being worth being > > compassionate towards? His/her liver, intestines, Brain,....sanna, > > vinnana…? Is the leg of the Buddha worth having gratitude > > towards? His other aggregates?…etc. > > > > Doesn't it lead us to nihilism? What are the ultimate objects of > > these mental factors? > > > > Thanks, > > Tal > > > > > ============================== > The conventional "person", upon close inspection, is not to be found. > There is only a stream of experienced conditions. But those conditions are > interrelated in multiple ways - there is a discernable pattern of > interrelationships among those conditions. This entirety is mentally packaged > into a so-called "person". > So, a "person", while not a directly apprehended ultimate reality is > not a groundless concept such as the hair of a tortoise either. When we feel > compassion we are responding in empathy to apparent occurrences of dukkha in > another psychophysical flow, but we conventionally think of that as feeling > compassion for the suffering of another sentient being. Likewise for > gratitude etc. That's how I see it. > > With metta, > Howard 18769 From: Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 3:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi, Tal - In a message dated 1/14/03 10:45:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, tal2460@h... writes: > Howard wrote: > > >When we feel compassion we are responding in > >empathy to apparent occurrences of dukkha in > >another psychophysical flow, > > If so, the moment a compassion cetasika arises, what is its object > and through which sense door it appears? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: For a worldling, the intended object is a "sentient being". I don't know the answer for an arahant. The sense door is the mind door. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Larry, > I don't have the Visuddhimagga. Could you quote the relevant part? > Although I don't see a direct relation between this issue and the > brahmavihara states of Mind. > > Tal > > ============================ 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) 18770 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 10:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? Dear Neo, op 13-01-2003 16:36 schreef nidive op nidive@y...: > How does a dry-insight sotapanna (without jhana attainment, and thus > without fruition attainment) review nibbana? > > I know it is possible to review a rupa which had fallen away. For > example, if I experienced rupa which is solidity, I can review that > solidity even though that rupa and the cittas which experienced that > rupa had fallen away. That solidity is remembered. > > So I am asking whether a dry-insight sotapanna reviews nibbana in > the same manner (the difference being that rupa falls away, but > nibbana doesn't). _____________________ N: In BGk we discussed the stages of insight: they fall away and then the world may appear again as a whole. But, the understanding is not like before, it has developed, that person does not forget the stage of insight that was attained. Just after enlightenment, the sotapanna has to review patrh-consciousness, fruition-consciousness, nibbana, to review the defilements that were eradicated, ro review the defilements that still remain. Paccavekkhana ~naa.na. See B. Dictionary. I think it is this way: he does not forget. And when he reviews it is very shortly after his attainment. _____ your other qu: Besides gotrubhu, magga and phala cittas, are there any other cittas that can experience nibbana? __________ N: No other cittas that directly experience nibbana. Nina 18771 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 10:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing op 13-01-2003 03:48 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > "There the meditating worker in respiration [assasapassasa kammika] > examines the body (rupa) thinking thus: Supported by what is > respiration? Supported by the basis [vatthunissita]. The basis is the > coarse body [karajja kaya]. The coarse body is composed of the Four > Great Primaries and the corporeality derived from these [cattari > mahabhutani upadarupañca]." > > Are we switching from "minding" the body of the breath to examining the > whole body? Is the whole body the object of insight in the remainder of > this section? _____________________________ N: I quote again from my post on anapana sati sutta: In the Papancasudani, the Co to the Anapanasati sutta, there is more explanation on rupas which should be objects of awareness after the meditator has emerged from jhana. As we read at the end of the first tetrad, The Commentary explains, this is a certain body, kåya~n~natara: >L: > "Thereupon, he, the worker in respiration, cognizes the mind (nama) in > the pentad of mental concomitants beginning with sense-impression." > > [T] "The five beginning with sense-impression are sense-impression, > feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. They are taken here as > representative of mind." > > L: Why is there a pentad of mental concomitants instead of the usual 4? _______________ N: citta and some of the cetasikas (phassa etc, here four) accompanying it. Thus here, the development of insight is described. understanding nama and rupa, realizing their difference, then the different stages of insight can follow in order, so that one sees Dependent Origination, transcends doubt: when the stage of the sotapanna is attained there is no more doubt about realities, about non-self. 18772 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 10:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: right thinking op 12-01-2003 20:18 schreef christine_forsyth op cforsyth@v...: > I don't know what it was in the post, but reading about the two > cetasikas vitakka and vicara brought anatta to mind more clearly. > (Maybe 'thinking' is to me the essence of 'my being'? who knows...) > The wandering thoughts revolved around: Even though I no longer > believe I am a 'creation' of a God, it occurred to me that I had > continued to believe that *I* was here for a 'reason', that *I* > existed for a 'purpose', (snipped) > So - no need to want to be anywhere or anyone else. There is only > ever just this moment. I too will remind myself to just be aware of > what is appearing now, and again .. now - and trust that panna will > be growing little by little. __________________ N: Dear Christine, it is always a pleasure to correspond with you. As Jon said: knowing how deeply engrained our ignorance and wrong view is, will cure us from expecting too much. It is so natural to cling to *I*. I especially like your last sentences. Nina. P.S. Glad Rusty is around. Of course he is worth all the loving care. 18773 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 10:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kusala and akusala Hi Larry and Christine, op 13-01-2003 02:19 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > You ask about how to discriminate between akusala and kusala. I expect > Nina will have something to say on this. Personally, I think the best > way to begin is to just use conventional values, common sense, and > whatever insight may arise. In this group I think the bias is on the > side of being too harsh on oneself. I don't think goodness is > particularly rare or uncommon. You don't have to be a saint to offer a > kindness and continually denigrating oneself is sometimes a way of > sneaking in the back door of a supposedly elite goodness. Specifically, > what I mean by choosing kusala is following the Buddha's instructions to > the best of one's ability. _______________________ N: I like your remarks of not being too harsh, and you don't have to be a saint etc. It may seem that we are too harsh, does it not? The reason is, lobha is so tricky, always around the corner. We do not see our subtle defilements. It is liberating to see them. We should not be too harsh, but just realistic. How to discriminate between kusala and akusala: a big question. By knowing their characteristics when they appear, now. The theory is not enough. It takes time. When we do not think of ourselves but of others, there are kusala cittas. But there are so many cittas and they are so fast. Sati sampajanna can know the difference: no words, no definitions, no thinking, no speculation. We shall also know the meaning and purpose of the Abhidhamma. Direct understanding is different, but it is in conformity with what we learnt from the books. A moment of awareness is very short, but it can lead to more understanding of the characteristics of realities. Acharn Sujin said that it is so useful to study the Dhamma, because we can learn to develop our own understanding. Then we can fully appreciate the Abhidhamma: its purpose is not knowledge of terms and classifications, but direct understanding of what appears now. The Abhidhamma supports the development of satipatthåna. We should remember that the Buddha taught Abhidhamma in akternation with satipatthåna. I heard on a tape a discussion on the different characters, caritas or cariyas. Num was reading aloud from the Guide, Netti, p. 247, nineteen types of persons. He said, it is like a confession, and he was laughing (no harshness with himself). p. 247, Part VI, Ch 4, §947. The Pattern of Dispensation: The Pali has for steadied: ti.t.thi, to stand on. Num translated: leading to. There are nineteen variations of these three roots and each of them is the foundation for more and more of that akusala root. An eye-opener, don't you think? No need for depression. Rob M. realizes, when he is teaching, that there is also conceit, but it does not prevent him from teaching with enthusiasm and cheerfulness. (I was sorry to miss you in Bgk, Rob.) Nina 18774 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 10:05am Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 13 Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 13 The next day at dawn he took care of his bodily needs and followed again the group of merchants. When it was time for breakfast, the merchants took the bowl of the son of a prominent family and placed in it hard food and soft food as an offering. This food consisted of raw husked rice that was not delicious, curry that was like a heap of gravel, soup with very salty ingredients. The son of a prominent family reflected on his resting place, and the hard and soft food were like divine nectar to him while he swallowed everything with a great deal of water. He travelled one-hundred and ninetytwo leagues [12] in all, and although he passed close to the gates of the Jeta Grove, he did not enquire where the Teacher was staying. Why did he not enquire? The answer is that he revered the Teacher, and also because of the royal official letter sent by the King which seemed to convey that the Teacher had appeared in Råjagaha, since it stated, ³The Tathågata has appeared in this world.² Therefore he understood that the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Råjagaha. Although he went near the gate of the Jeta Grove, he travelled on fortyfive leagues more. At sundown the son of a prominent family reached Råjagaha and there he asked where the Teacher was staying. When a villager learnt that he came from the northern country (Uttara Pradesh) he informed him as follows, ³You have passed the city of Såvatthí and travelled on fortyfive leagues to Råjagaha, but the Teacher is dwelling in Såvatthí.² The son of a prominent family Pukkusåti thought, ³ Now it is not the right time to return to the city of Såvatthí, and today I shall first take lodging here. Tomorrow I shall go to the Teacher¹s dwelling place.² He asked the villager where recluses who arrived at an imappropriate time could find a lodging. The villager answered that he could dwell in this potter¹s workshop. Then the son of a prominent family asked the potter whether he could dwell there. He entered and sat down, in order to make use of the lodging in the workshop of that potter. In the morning before Pukkusåti went to stay in the potter¹s workshop, the Buddha investigated the world and saw the son of a prominent family Pukkusåti. He considered, ³This son of a prominent family left his kingdom as soon as he had read the official letter that his friend sent him. He went forth and dedicated himself specifically to me, and he travelled all of the hundred and twentynone leagues to the city of Råjagaha. If I do not go there he will not realize the fruits of a recluse (he will not realize the four noble Truths); he will realize the three fruits of a recluse, that is, he will not attain the third stage of enlightenment, the stage of the non-returner (anågåmí). He will die without any refuge after he has dwelt there just for one night. When I have gone there he will realize the three fruits of a recluse. Since I have developed all the perfections during four incalculable periods and a hundred thousand aeons only for the benefit and support of people, I shall help the son of a prominent family Pukkusåti.² Footnote: 12. One yojana or league is 7.3 kilometer. 18775 From: bodhi2500 Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Clinging Aggregates Hi Sarah Thanks for the reply and the links. > --- "bodhi2500 " wrote: > Hi > > Does anyone have any info on where the article/book >"Aggregates > > and Clinging Aggregates" can be found by Bhikkhu Bodhi.). ------- Sarah> When I next f/w some posts to BB, I > can also ask if he has a copy of the article he can f/w if it's a problem > to get hold of. Let me know, perhaps. ------ That would be great. I havnt been able to locate a copy or find out where I might be able to get one. Thanks Christine for the Ref. Thank-you Steve 18776 From: Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 3:43pm Subject: Way 38, Comm, Breathing "TheWay of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on Breathing, p. 50 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The worker in respiration examines the mind and the body, sees the Dependent Origination of ignorance and so forth, and concluding that this mind and this body are bare conditions, and things produced from conditions, and that besides these there is neither a living being nor a person, becomes to that extent a person who transcends doubt. [Tika] "Besides these phenomena there is neither a living being nor a person" refers to vision that is purified [añño satto va puggalo natthiti visuddhiditthi]. [T]Mind-and-body is a bare impersonal process. It is not unrelated to a cause and also not related to a discordant cause (which is fictive) like god, but is connected with (the really perceivable fact of) a cause like ignorance [tayidam dhammamattam na ahetukam napi issariyadi visamahetukam atha kho avijjadihi eva sahetukam]. [T] "A person who has transcended doubt" regarding the past, the future and the present (of his own existence and so forth, as for instance taught in the Sabbasava Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya). And the yogi who has transcended doubt while cultivating insight, applies the three characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and soullessness, to the mind and body together with the conditions and gradually reaches arahantship [sappaccaya nama rupe tilakkhanam aropetva vipassanam vaddhento anukkamena arahattam papunati]. [T] "Applies the three characteristics" in order to grasp the qualities of the aggregates according to the method taught in the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya beginning with the words: "Whatsoever form." The worker in absorption, namely, he who contemplates upon the factors of absorption, also thinks thus: Supported by what are these factors of absorption? By the basis. The basis is the coarse body. The factors of absorption are here representative of the mind. The coarse body is the body. Having determined thus, he, searching for the reason of the mind and the body, seeks it in Conditions' Mode beginning with ignorance, concludes that this mind and the body comprise just conditions and things produced by conditions and that besides these there is neither a living being nor a person, and becomes to that extent a person who transcends doubt. And the yogi who transcends doubt thus, while cultivating insight, applies the three characteristics of impermanence, suffering and soullessness, to the mind and the body together with conditions and gradually reaches arahantship. 18777 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 3:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Howard Thanks for these comments. I think we understand each other's position a little better. Before commenting on the rest of your post (and the sutta quoes), I'd just like to clarify a point that I think is key to this whole area. You say: <> Surely 'right effort' is a form of kusala. But if we are talking about the thinking that is designed to arouse kusala where there is none (i.e., where there is only akusala) then we must be talking about thinking that is akusala, even if you would see it as leading to/resulting in the arising of kusala. Or have I misunderstood what you are saying? Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and all) - ... > ===================================== > You make it clear in the foregoing that it is your > understanding that > we can and do (conventionally) exercise volition - sometimes > usefully and > often times not so usefully, and I stand disabused of my impression > that > "willing" is deemed impossible by you. I also agree - certainly - > that > volition exercised under the sway of dominating akusula conditions > is not an > instance of right effort. I think that probably where we differ is > in the > status of right effort. I see it as specific conventional mental > activity, > whereas I *think* you see it as something else. From my > perspective, the > following excerpts taken from ATI show right effort to be quite > conventional > and to be something that one really has to *work* at with diligence > and > considerable expenditure of energy led by rigorous application of > concentration and mindfulness. [I do think, however, that the > *habits* of > mindfulness, wise attention, and right effort can be cultivated so > that, > after a while they become more and more automatic, requiring less > and less > reminding of oneself and less and less "girding for battle"]. > My apologies to all for this being a lengthy post. I didn't > wish to > cut out any of Jon's post, I did want to make the above remarks, > and the > excerpts to follow are a small part of a large article, which I > thought > better to directly include rather than giving the url for the > entire article. > The excepts follow at the end of this post. > > With metta, > Howard > ****************************** 18778 From: Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 5:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi Tal, Looking for the object of brahmavihara (lovingkindness, compassion, joy, equanimity) I found the following, all from Visuddhimagga and snipped for concision: IX 52: The mind-deliverance of lovingkindness is [practiced] with directional pervasion in these ten ways:...May all persons in the eastern direction...May all who have personality in the eastern direction... IX 54: ..."Persons" (puggala: 'pum' is what hell is called; they fall (galanti) into that is the meaning. "Personality" (attabhava) is what the physical body is called; or it is just the pentad of aggregates. (7 (7: ...see also ch. VIII, n. 11 VIII 39: Life, person, pleasure pain--just these alone join in one consciousness moment that flicks by. Ceased aggregates of those dead or alive are all alike, gone never to return. No [world is] born if [consciousness is] not produced; when that is present, then it lives; when consciousness dissolves, the world is dead: the highest sense this concept will allow. (Nd1 42) (11 (11: "Person (attabhava)" is the states other than the already-mentioned life, feeling and consciousness. The words "just these alone" mean that it is unmixed with self (atta) or permanence. Attabhava as used in the Suttas and in this work is more or less a synonym for sakkaya in the sense of person (body and mind) or personality, or individual form. ... "When consciousness dissolves, the world is dead": just as in the case of the death-consciousness, this world is also called "dead" in the highest (ultimate) sense with the arrival of any consciousness whatever at its dissolution, since its cessation has no rebirth-linking (is "cessation never to return"). Nevertheless though this is so, "the highest sense this concept will allow (pa~n~natti paramatthiyaa) --the ultimate sense will allow this concept of continuity, which is what the expression of common usage "Tissa lives, Phussa lives" refers to, and which is based on consciousness [momentarily] existing along with a physical support; this belongs to the ultimate sense here, since, as they say "It is not the name and surname that lives."... Larry 18779 From: Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 5:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing Hi Nina, Thanks for your notes. My reasoning is that the following shows a shift from the body of the breath to the whole body (course body) and the rest of this section makes more sense to me if "body" refers to this course body, i.e., the whole body: Supported by what is respiration? Supported by the basis [vatthunissita]. The basis is the coarse body [karajja kaya]. Larry 18780 From: Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/14/03 6:52:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > Thanks for these comments. I think we understand each other's > position a little better. > > Before commenting on the rest of your post (and the sutta quoes), I'd > just like to clarify a point that I think is key to this whole area. > > You say: > < effort. I see it as specific conventional mental activity, whereas I > *think* you see it as something else. From my perspective, the > following excerpts taken from ATI show right effort to be quite > conventional and to be something that one really has to *work* at > with diligence and considerable expenditure of energy led by rigorous > application of concentration and mindfulness.>> > > Surely 'right effort' is a form of kusala. But if we are talking > about the thinking that is designed to arouse kusala where there is > none (i.e., where there is only akusala) then we must be talking > about thinking that is akusala, even if you would see it as leading > to/resulting in the arising of kusala. > > Or have I misunderstood what you are saying? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Geez, Jon - I dunno! ;-) I think it is an instance of right effort to attempt to be mindful, to not get "lost" in thought, to not permit oneself to be "taken over" by fantasies, etc, etc. I think these are good and useful things to do, and recommended by the Buddha. That's about all I can say. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18781 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 11:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? Hi Herman & All, Herman wrote: “Anyway, I am assuming that by "concentrate" "dwelling in jhana" is meant. The jhanas are the highest, greatest kusala. If you are able, why do anything else? To sit cross legged with a next to empty mind, is there a better example to follow?” ..... Sarah: “If you are able, why do anything else?” is a good question. Side-stepping what is the ‘greatest kusala’ for now and what is the ‘better example’, I think it’s correct to say that when it comes to the jhanas and highly developed samatha, that certain conditions are essential as elaborated in the Visuddhimagga and elsewhere. There is also no doubt at all about the value of the bhikkhu’s lifestyle and contentment with little as shown by the Buddha and the great arahants such as MahaKassapa. In the commentary to the Samannaphala Sutta (Discourse on the Fruits of Recluseship, B.Bodhi transl,p138f) under ‘Contentment’(which follows the sections on ‘Restraint of the Sense Faculties’ and ‘Mindfulness and Clear Comprehension’, we read: ..... “He goes taking all his minimal eight requisites, carrying them on his body. He has no attachment or bondage to “my monastery, my cell, my attendant.” He is like an arrow released from the bow or like an elephant in rut which has left the herd. Using whatever dwelling he likes - a jungle thicket, the foot of a tree, a wooded slope -- he stands alone and sits alone; in all postures, he is alone, without a companion. Thus he conducts himself in a manner similar to that of the rhinoceros, as explained (in the Rhinoceros Sutta): At home in the four quarters of the world, harbouring no aversion in one’s heart, content with anything one gets, bearing all hardships undismayed - one should walk alone like the rhinoceros. (Sn v 42)” ***** In the sutta itself in this section under contentment, it says: “Just as a bird, wherever it goes, flies with its wings as its only burden, in the same way a bhikkhu is content with robes to protect his body and almsfood to sustain his belly; wherever he goes he sets out taking only (his requisites) along with him. In this way, great king, the bhikkhu is content”. ..... Such passages are very inspiring. There have been discussions recently on whether such passages are descriptive or prescriptive. If we were to shed all belongings like a bird and set out for the jungle thickets, would it be helpful for the development of jhana and vipassana? I don’t think so, because the necessary ‘requisites’ are not in place. What we read here and in the earlier suttas that others gave is a description of the natural way of living for those with highly developed wholesome qualities already. There is already ‘restraint of the sense faculties’, highly developed sila and sati sampajanna, even if the vipassana nanas have not yet been realized. In the Samannaphala sutta, after the section on contentment, we read the section under the ‘Abandoning of the Hindrances’(niivara.nappahaana)just before the section on the jhanas. We read: “Endowed with this noble aggregate of moral discipline, this noble restraint over the sense faculties, this noble mindfulness and clear comprehension, and this noble contentment, he resorts to a secluded dwelling - a forest, the foot of a tree.........crosses his legs....mindfulness before him”. In the commentary to the first part of this passage, we read: ..... “What does the Buddha show by this? He shows the achievment of the requisites for living in the forest. For one who lacks these four requisites does not succeed in his forest life. He would fall under the same category as animals or forest wanderers. The deities residing in the forest would think, “what is the use of living in the forest for such and evil bhikkhu?” They would make frightful sounds, strike him on the head with their hands, and make him flee. A bad reputation would also spread about concerning him; “Such and such a bhikkhu, having entered the forest, did this and that evil deed.” But one who has achieved these four requisties succeeds in his forest life. Reviewing his own moral discipline, he does not see any stain or blemish, and he arouses rapture.......” ***************** So how many can "succeed in forest life?" As I mentioned, these are just a few details from the section prior to the one about the jhanas, starting with access concentration. The passage here about the necessary requisites for forest life is similar to the one I quoted from the Sammohavinodani. We also read in the commentary to the ‘Metta’ discourse about how disturbed the bhikkhus were before having developed the appropriate ‘protections’ of sense restraint and highly developed samatha with metta as object. Back to the discussions on kusala and akusala, we can also see, I think, how essential it is to ‘see any stain or blemish’ in the development of samatha or vipassana, even though the understanding and role of the hindrances are different. I look forward to further comments. Sarah ====== 18782 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 0:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Larry, You wrote to me (probably forgotten by now;-)): “Of current interest, I am a little puzzled by how satipatthana is treated in the Visuddhimagga. It seems to be discussed mostly as a preliminary to jhana. However, there is also incidental mention of two vehicles, pure insight and jhana. I haven't made a thorough search yet, but so far I haven't found a description of what a pure insight vehicle is and I haven't seen "pure insight vehicle" equated with satipatthana. So, where is the insight in satipatthana in Visuddhimagga?” ..... I’m not sure that I understand your questions and I forget what I wrote that prompted this too;-)Nina may also have answered. The last section under “Understanding” in the Vism is about the development of insight or satipatthana. It’s all about panna, the field of panna and the stages of insight. This is the development of satipatthana, even if this particular term is not used here. Regardless of whether jhanas are attained,there has to be the development of satipatthana, the insights, stage by stage, in order for defilements to be eradicated and insights of anatta and so on. Do you understand differently? Let me know if I misunderstood. Sarah ===== 18783 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 0:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi Tal, (KKT and all), You’ve come into the discussions with some very helpful questions. I understand your point. I like Howard’s response and agree (even for an arahant) the object of the brahma viharas is always ‘a person’ or ‘a being’. Does this mean that there is any wrong view of a person existing ultimately at such times. No. If there were any wrong view at such moments, there couldn’t be the brahma viharas arising. Of course, they can be developed without any right understanding of ultimate realities and were before the Buddha. When beings or any other concepts are the object through the mind door (as Howard pointed out), it can be with wholesome or unwholesome cittas. These can be followed by right or wrong view. I liked all the quotes Larry gave from the Visuddhimagga very much. I’d like to just look at part of one of them as it relates to another thread I’m discussing with KKT and others: ..... “ "the highest sense this concept will allow (pa~n~natti paramatthiyaa) --the ultimate sense will allow this concept of continuity, which is what the expression of common usage "Tissa lives, Phussa lives" refers to, and which is based on consciousness [momentarily] existing along with a physical support; this belongs to the ultimate sense here, since, as they say "It is not the name and surname that lives."...” .... Whenever we use any concepts such as Tissa or Phussa, they do not exist in an ultimate sense but are based on namas and rupas which do exist in the sense that they have characteristics that can be known. Does this mean that two truths are being taught? In a sense yes, there are ultimate and conventional truths. When we use (or the Buddha uses) conventional truths, they are mere representations as "It is not the name and surname that lives." So regardless of whether it is Tissa, a butter-jar or ‘control your mind’ that is being referred to, in reality there is no Tissa, no butter-jar and no self to do anything. In this sense, there is only one set of truths - the ultimate ones. This is true regardless of whether there is any knowledge developed or not. So it is not the thinking about Tissa or the butter-jar, the telling of children to behave or the metta for beings that changes; it is the understanding whilst reflecting on concepts that knows at such times that these are merely conventional truths. Tal, you’ve obviously considered the Teachings in depth. I look forward to more of your contributions. Welcome to DSG and if you’d care to share any details about your interest in dhamma, where you live and so on, we’d all be delighted to hear these as well. Best wishes, Sarah ===== 18784 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 1:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi KKT, KC and Victor, I’m not sure how this is going to work, but I’d like to try applying what I understand from the Abhidhamma commentary quote below (which I’m discussing with KKT) to the first of Victor’s quotes from the Dhammapada: ..... >>KKT: So it seems that the Abhidhamma supports the theory that the Buddha taught two levels of understanding, does it not?<< ..... Quote from commentary to Katthavatthu with my comments interspersed: "The Buddhas have two kinds of discourse, the popular and the philosophical. Those relating to a being, a person, a deva, a brahma and so forth, are popular discourses, while those relating to impermanence, ill, soul-less, the aggregates, the elements, the senses, the application of mindfulness, the intent contemplation, and so forth, are discourses on highest meaning." ..... Victor: Dhp157. "If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. Thus the wise man will not be reproached." ..... S: so obviously, the Dhammapada verses come under ‘popular discourses’. ..... "Therein, in the popular discourse, when there is speech of a being, a person, a deva or a brahma, he who is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahan, HIM the Exalted One teaches, at the very outset, about a being, a person, a man, a deva or a brahma." ..... S: If we are able to understand the true meaning in the Dhp verse, we are being taught by the Buddha and able ‘to attain the victory..’. ..... "He who, on hearing differently in discourse on highest meaning about impermanence, or ill, or the like, is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahan, him (the Exalted One) teaches differently about impermanence, and so forth." ...... S: If we are able to understand the highest meaning in an Abhidhamma discourse, again we are being taught by the Buddha and able ‘to attain the victory’. ..... "Thus, he does not teach at first the highest-meaning discourse to anyone, even to one who understands him in popular discourse. Taking his stand on popular discourse he, on the other hand, teaches the highest-meaning discourse afterwards. He does not teach at first popular discourse to one who can understand him in highest-meaning discourse. On the other hand, having enlightened him in highest-meaning discourse, he teaches him popular discourse afterwards." ..... S: For some people it is more appropriate to teach ‘popular discourse’ first and then ‘highest-meaning discourse’ and for others the reverse. We all have different tendencies and propensities. Whichever we hear or read, however, it should be comprehended and understood according to the truth. ..... "Highest-aim discourse is, as a rule, too severe to begin with; therefore the buddhas teach at first by popular discourse, and then the highest-meaning discourse. But popular discourse they teach consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method selected. And highest-meaning discourse, too. `they teach consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method selected.'...." ..... S: For most of us, it is easier to read ‘popular discourse’. Whichever method is used, however, it should be in ‘conformity’ with the same truth and consistent in meaning. So even if it is a ‘popular’ Dhp verse as given above, it should be read in conformity with the truth of anatta, conditions and ultimate realities. ..... "There is another way of putting it. The teaching of the Exalted One is of two kinds, the highest-meaning teaching consisting of the aggregates, and so forth, and the popular teaching consisting of `butter-jar,' and so forth. The Exalted One does not, indeed, overrun consistency. Hence, on the mere expression "there is the person who," must not command adherence. The highest meaning has been declared by the Teacher, without transgressing the concept. So another wise man also should not, in explaining the highest meaning, overrun a concept." ..... S: So when we read about self, people and butter-jars, we should not think that even in the beginning that these should be taken as other than ‘mere expressions’. There is no inconsistency in the two kinds of discourse and just as it would be foolish not to look at the highest meaning behind the popular terms, so it would be foolish to avoid using popular terms when looking at the highest meanings. "If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. Thus the wise man will not be reproached." or, as I understand in very approximate abhidhamma language: "By understanding and developing kusala at all times, it will lead to good results and be the best protection." ..... >>KKT: So it seems that the Abhidhamma supports the theory that the Buddha taught two levels of understanding, does it not?<< ..... S: Back to your question. I understand the Buddha used different methods, but only taught that which leads to the eradication of an idea of self and all other kilesa regardless. ..... KC wrote in an earlier post "ultimately, the Buddha path is no control when one developed from citta to magga citta...." and that "there is no control over the khandhas but these are for pple who have achieved a certain level of development." I believe that the truths are the same regardless of any development and regardless of the method we read, study or consider them. This is why they are universal truths and could be applied to any of the other verses as well. I look forward to any comments from any of you. I'm not expecting an easy life;-) Sarah ====== 18785 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 5:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] No-control & Destiny KKT --- "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear Sarah, ... > KKT: So it seems that the Abhidhamma > supports the theory that the Buddha > taught two levels of understanding, does it not? I think it may be more correct to say that the Buddha taught the same thing by 2 different means (or levels) of instruction. Here is another passage expressing much the same as Sarah's passage, this one from the commentary to the Anangana Sutta [MN 5, 'Without Blemishes'] at n.69 of the Bh. Bodhi translation: "[The commentary] ... explains that the Buddha has a twofold teaching -- a conventional teaching (sammuti-desana) expressed in terms of persons, beings, women, and men, etc; and an ultimate teaching (paramattha-desana) expressed solely in terms that possess ultimate ontological validity, such as aggregates, elements, sense bases, impermanent, suffering, not self, etc. The Buddha expounds his teaching through whichever approach is best suited to enable the hearer to penetrate the meaning, dispel delusion, and achieve distinction." To my understanding, the truths about which the Buddha spoke were exactly the same, leading to exactly the same stages of understanding and final attainment, but were expressed differently, depending on what was suitable for the particular audience. Jon 18786 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Dear Victor, I join Herman in his remarks of appreciation. I like it that you express your own feelings and ideas here so sincerely. Nina. op 14-01-2003 10:39 schreef Egberdina op hhofman@t...: > > Thank you for sharing this. > > I think Dhammapada 12 is very rich in wisdom, and also the guidelines > are very difficult for a man like me to aspire to. > > Thank you again for your answer. > 18787 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing op 14-01-2003 05:31 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > "the four absorptions [cattari jhanani] arise in the respiration sign > [assasapassasanimitte uppajjanti]. > [Tika] In the respiration sign = In the reflex image [patibhaga > nimitta]. > > Does anyone know anything about nimita? These days anapanasati is taught > using the touch of the breath on the nostrils or the rise and fall of > the abdomen rather than the "body of the breath". Will a nimita (image) > arise from touch sensation? ------------------------------ Nina: Hi Larry. In the Visuddhimagga we find the description. But I do not speak about abdomen, I am just interested in what was taught in accordance with the scriptures based on Theravada. Breath touches again and again and becomes so subtle. One acquires a nimitta of it, see Vis VIII,214 etc. for details. There is first parikamma nimitta, learning sign, and then patibhaga nimitta. Different teachers of old had differentopinions of the sign, nimitta. Some: a light touch like corron wool. Others a star, etc. But he has to be sure about it and as soon as it appears the hindrances are suppressed. It shows what a delicate subject jhana is. There can also be miccha samadhi, wrong concentration and it can also have as effect certain extraordinary experiences. One has to be very sincere and honest and discern attachment when it arises. Only the person concerned can know this for himself. He has to know what the hindrances are, when they arise and also whether they are really subdued when the sign appears. One could mislead oneself. Nina. 18788 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: why me? Dear Herman, thank you for your kind and sympathetic words, they encourage me.See below. op 13-01-2003 23:09 schreef Egberdina op hhofman@t...: > I am very sorry to hear of your father's and Lodewijk's distress in > various situations. ---------------------------- N: Slowly he got somewhat better, and I think the music helped. I am glad you still pay with your sons. ---------------- H I feel very powerless when I become aware of the suffering of other > people. When I become aware of my own distress, discomfort or > suffering, I know I can find a place within myself where there is > calmness and an understanding that it is all just the rolling by of > the "weather" (Often I suffer so unnecessarily because I am just not > aware of it, just so caught up in whatever situation). >---------------------- N: Yes, that is it, so caught up in situations, I often feel like that, I think we all do. We have learnt dhamma but when something difficult happens that upsets us we are in a tangle. As I told Sarah, I need therapeutic litterature then. It can be in the form of an encouraging post or even something we write ourselves. The rolling by of the weather: a good image; yes, it will not remain, just passes like a strom, but we forget that it will pass. ------------------------------- H: But I find that I can do nothing for other people. I cannot tell them > how to find that place. I can just say words, or put an arm around a > shoulder, and hope that some of it makes sense. And if it does , it > is just pure luck. The strangest things can create a little bit of a > flicker of insight in people. ---------------------------------------- N: I can see that you know very well how to help others. It is your metta and karuna. Thank you again, Nina. 18789 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? Dear Herman and all, the thread on the concemtration of the Buddha. See below op 14-01-2003 10:59 schreef Egberdina op hhofman@t...: > > Anyway, I am assuming that by "concentrate" "dwelling in jhana" is > meant. The jhanas are the highest, greatest kusala. If you are able, > why do anything else? > > To sit cross legged with a next to empty mind, is there a better > example to follow? ------------------------------------------- N: I came across a text: in the Commentary: We read in the ³Mahå Prinibbåna Sutta²(³Dialogues of the Buddha): ³Now I am frail, Ånanda, old, aged, far gone in years. This is my eightieth year, and my life is spent. Even as an old cart, Ånanda, is held together with much difficulty, so the body of the Tthågatha is kept going only with supports. It is only, Ånanda, when the Tthågata, disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings, attains to and abides in the Signless Concentration of Mind, that his body is more comfortable. Therefore, Ånanda, be ye an island unto yourselves, a refuge unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Teachings as your island, the Teachings as your refuge, seeking no other refuge...² We then read that by the development of the four Applications of Mindfulness one is an island and refuge to oneself. To Signless concetration: animitta, The Commentary, the Sumaògala Vilåsiní, explains: phala samåpatti: fruition attainment. This has nibbåna as object. Nina. 18790 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 0:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No-control & Destiny Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > KKT: So it seems that the Abhidhamma > supports the theory that the Buddha > taught two levels of understanding, does it not? I think it may be more correct to say that the Buddha taught the same thing by 2 different means (or levels) of instruction. Here is another passage expressing much the same as Sarah's passage, this one from the commentary to the Anangana Sutta [MN 5, 'Without Blemishes'] at n.69 of the Bh. Bodhi translation: "[The commentary] ... explains that the Buddha has a twofold teaching -- a conventional teaching (sammuti-desana) expressed in terms of persons, beings, women, and men, etc; and an ultimate teaching (paramattha-desana) expressed solely in terms that possess ultimate ontological validity, such as aggregates, elements, sense bases, impermanent, suffering, not self, etc. The Buddha expounds his teaching through whichever approach is best suited to enable the hearer to penetrate the meaning, dispel delusion, and achieve distinction." To my understanding, the truths about which the Buddha spoke were exactly the same, leading to exactly the same stages of understanding and final attainment, but were expressed differently, depending on what was suitable for the particular audience. Jon KKT: Thanks for your sharing. According to the quote << the Buddha has a twofold teaching >> in order to be << best suited to enable the hearer to penetrate the meaning >> But it seems he didn't say that the two levels << leading to exactly the same stages of understanding and final attainment >> as you said? The reason of my question is that I think the two levels of instruction don't lead to the << same >> final attainment, but the first level leads to the second level (i.e. from the lower one arrives at the higher) What do you think? Metta, KKT 18791 From: Egberdina Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 2:46pm Subject: Control Dear All, This is a general footnote to the various discussions on no-control. I think much of the to and fro about control comes from an unspoken requirement for many, that control must mean absolute control. Many people also believe they know what they mean when they say or think "absolute", but I do not think this is possible. For the meaning of absolute is very similar to the meaning of nibbana. To be absolute means to have no object and no precondition. As an example of absolute I could use the Old Testament Jewish image of God. God is, and that's about all you can say, and it's best if even that is not said. But the idea of God runs into trouble the moment it is multiplied or divided. (In the Bible, first there is God, then there is God and Satan, and theology has since then also split God into three, Father, Son and Holy Ghost). Obviously there can only be one absolute, otherwise one absolute would be subject or object of the other absolute(s), or one part is subject or object of another part. Clearly, for the multitudes of those who live and have lived believing in their separate volitions and control, their volitions and control have always been strictly limited in time/space and effect. And for many, therefore, control is no control. Does control need to imply absolute control? There is not much to discuss about that, it is simply a matter of definition. If we decide that control does not need to be absolute, then we can fruitfully discuss which processes can be controlled, and to what extent, and under which conditions etc etc. And if we decide that control needs to be absolute in order to be called control, then we will need to drop the control topic, because clearly there is no absolute control. Wishing you all the best Herman 18792 From: Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 5:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing Hi Nina, Thanks for your reply to my question on nimita. I rummaged around in Visuddhimagga trying to get a sense of what a nimita is and found this: IV, 22, n.4: (snipped) "Apprehends the sign": he apprehends in that with knowledge connected with meditative development the sign of earth of the kind about to be described, as one does with the eye the sign of the face in a looking-glass... So, is a sign a concept signaled by a paramattha dhamma? If a particular touch sensation on the nostrils is perceived (sanna, recognized?) as "in-breath", for example, is that concept (in-breath) the nimita? It doesn't need to be an image, correct? If there _is_ an image, the nimita would be whatever concept that image evoked, as with "earth" in the earth kasina. Correct? VIII, 217: And here, the consciousness that has in-breath as its object is one, the consciousness that has out-breath as its object is another, and the consciousness that has the sign as its object is another. For the meditation subject reaches neither absorption nor even access in one who has not got these three things [clear]. But it reaches access and also absorption in one who has got these three things [clear]. L: Is in-breath and out-breath the two touch sensations and the concept (in-breath or out-breath) the sign (nimita)? Larry 18793 From: James Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 8:23pm Subject: Re: Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > Dear All, > > This is a general footnote to the various discussions on no- control. > > I think much of the to and fro about control comes from an unspoken > requirement for many, that control must mean absolute control. Many > people also believe they know what they mean when they say or > think "absolute", but I do not think this is possible. For the > meaning of absolute is very similar to the meaning of nibbana. To be > absolute means to have no object and no precondition. > > As an example of absolute I could use the Old Testament Jewish image > of God. God is, and that's about all you can say, and it's best if > even that is not said. But the idea of God runs into trouble the > moment it is multiplied or divided. (In the Bible, first there is > God, then there is God and Satan, and theology has since then also > split God into three, Father, Son and Holy Ghost). Obviously there > can only be one absolute, otherwise one absolute would be subject or > object of the other absolute(s), or one part is subject or object of > another part. > > Clearly, for the multitudes of those who live and have lived > believing in their separate volitions and control, their volitions > and control have always been strictly limited in time/space and > effect. And for many, therefore, control is no control. Does control > need to imply absolute control? There is not much to discuss about > that, it is simply a matter of definition. > > If we decide that control does not need to be absolute, then we can > fruitfully discuss which processes can be controlled, and to what > extent, and under which conditions etc etc. And if we decide that > control needs to be absolute in order to be called control, then we > will need to drop the control topic, because clearly there is no > absolute control. > > Wishing you all the best > > > > Herman Hi Herman, This is a very nice post. I like it because it doesn't contain a single Pali term! ;-) I want to reply. I do agree that it does depend on how one defines control to know the correct approach to the issue. And while I like your middle way approach to the control issue, I must disagree with your final conclusions. My understanding is that control must be absolute to reach the attainment of nibbana, and then control is a moot point. I am not sure why many people in this group keep going round and round this basic tenet of Buddhism. The Buddha explained it very simply and plainly: Dukkha is caused by thirst. Dukkha is caused by the thirst of ignorance. How do you quench the thirst of ignorance? You quench the thirst of ignorance with the truth. With truth you control that thirst…when you reach ultimate control, the thirst is eliminated forever…never to return. There is control of this thirst and there is ultimate control. Whereas, control of anything else, like gravity, plant growth, or taxes, is beyond the realm of Buddhism and a non-issue. Thirst is an all-pervasive phenomenon. Anyone who has experienced an extreme thirst knows that it is very strong in the mind. No matter what you do, see, hear, feel, taste, etc., the thirst will dominate the mind and color all experience until it is satiated. Thirst can become so strong that it can make the person a raving lunatic…unable to distinguish reality from fantasy. That is the state that we are all in presently. We are all blinded by thirst. But some are more blinded than others, some are thirstier than others; but we all have the ability to satisfy the thirst completely and ultimately. The Buddha gave the path to control this thirst, and reach ultimate control, with the eightfold path. By making specific choices in one's environment, thinking, and mindfulness… this thirst will lessen and lessen. The truth will stop this thirst...conventional truth at first....ultimate truth later. I think it is very easy to determine the difference between a wholesome and an unwholesome mental state. If the mental state is one of thirst, it is unwholesome; if the mental state is one of truth and satisfaction, it is wholesome. What is so difficult to determine about that? The difficult thing is no giving in to the thirsty mental state. If you find a mental state of thirst arising in your mind, don't feed it with more thoughts of thirst. Control that mental state, don't give in to it, and the thirst will subside. It is all about control. If we don't control the thirst, we become just another story in the newspaper: crack addict starves baby, disgruntled employee kills three and kills self, or GMC lessens health benefits for works despite climbing profits, etc. I hope I have made myself clear. If you don't agree, okay. Metta, James 18794 From: Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 8:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Sarah, Regarding pure insight vehicle, it seems that access concentration is a necessary preliminary. I am interpreting this as a very clear, intimate experience of the object. How do you see it? Larry 18795 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Good quote, Larry. The verse is my favorite and I had forgotten the further explanation. Useful to know about attbhava, I met this term yesterday, in co to Mahaarahulovaada sutta and did not know how to translate. Nina op 15-01-2003 02:13 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > VIII 39: Life, person, pleasure pain--just these alone join in one > consciousness moment that flicks by. Ceased aggregates of those dead or > alive are all alike, gone never to return. No [world is] born if > [consciousness is] not produced; when that is present, then it lives; > when consciousness dissolves, the world is dead: the highest sense this > concept will allow. (Nd1 42) (11 > > (11: "Person (attabhava)" is the states other than the already-mentioned > life, feeling and consciousness. 18796 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing, coarse body Hi Larry, I looked up karajakaya: kara is producing.karaja: born of kamma. karaja-kaaya: the body sprung from kamma, also used in the sense of impure body. Buddhadassa dict: the body which is born of impurity. The Co also says: (Way 37): ,The basis is the coarse body . The coarse body is composed of the Four Great Primaries and the derived rupas.> Thus, all rupas can be realized as they are when they appear one at a time. Also breath appears, tangible object: three of the four Great Elements. No matter where in the body rupa appears, at the nosetipe or anywhere else, it can be known as it is. But when thinking of conditions: without all the rupas of which the body consists, no respiration would be possible. Also citta conditions breath, it produces breath. Nina. op 15-01-2003 02:28 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Thanks for your notes. My reasoning is that the following shows a shift > from the body of the breath to the whole body (coarse body) and the rest > of this section makes more sense to me if "body" refers to this course > body, i.e., the whole body: > > Supported by what is respiration? Supported by the basis > [vatthunissita]. The basis is the coarse body [karaja kaya]. 18797 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:45am Subject: Dhamma Issues -abiding in bliss warning: lots of Pali and confused comments;-) Dear Nina & All, I have a few qustions about ‘fruition consciousness’ (phala samapatti), but will have to ‘think out loud’ as I try to articulate them. I have particularly appreciated your translations of the difficult points raised in the ‘Dhamma Issues’ series. I think it’s important that these points are clarified because so many people have an interest in nibbana and it’s very easy to misunderstand the texts and the translations, I find: 1. Phala samapatti: fruition attainment. We just read this in your translation from the Commentary to the Maha Parinibbana Sutta. “It is only, Ananda, when the Tathagata, disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings, attains to and abides in the Signless Concentration of Mind, that his body is more comfortable.” Signless concentration: animitta. Does this mean ‘signless concentration’ is the same as phala samapatti with nibbana as object? So here, does the ‘animitta’ refer to nibbana? Is it signless in the sense of unconditioned? In MN 43, animitta vimokkha (signless deliverance) and sunnata vimokkha (emptiness deliverance) are elaborated upon and compared under ‘Deliverance of Mind (ceto-vimutti). You also discussed ceto-vimutti (in Dhamma Issues) as it occurs in MN 44, explaining it refers to a ‘person who has developed insight and jhana’. The commentary notes that BB gives for MN43 answers my questions, I think: “MA: the “signless deliverance of mind” (animitta cetovimutti) is the attainment of fruition; the “signs” are objects such as forms, etc; the “signless element’ is Nibbana, in which all signs of conditioned things are absent.” “MA identifies this su~n~nataa cetovimutti with insight into the voidness of selfhood in persons and things.” “...the signless deliverance of mind is identified by MA with the attainment of fruition. Of the four deliverances of mind....this one alone is supramundane. The first three - the brahmaviharas , the third immaterial attainment , and insight into the voidness of formations - all pertain to the mundane level.” I think there are still some questions left about the triple deliverance (vimokkha) and animitta cetovimutti and phala samapatti, but I’ll leave it here for now. I probably need to read more. 2. In the MA translation here, BB uses ‘attainment of fruition’ for phala samapatti. I assume this refers to a repeat of phala cittas with nibbana as object. These are lokuttara and as discussed. can only be experienced by those who have attained jhanas as well as being enlightened. We read ‘attains to and abides in Signless concentration.....”. In Dhamma Issues 2, it was clarified that ‘abiding in bliss’ is translated from ‘sukhavihara’. Bliss is sukha. I also note that there are 3 kinds of abiding - sunnata vihara (void abiding), animitta vihara (signless abiding) and appanihita vihara (desireless abiding). The same terms used for the 3 liberations. Somewhere you mention in a footnote that these have different meanings in different contexts (not always related to fruition) but in this context sukhavihara ‘refers to the bliss of fruition attainment’. I also find the expression ‘enter fruition attainment’ difficult. Can we just say ‘experience’ or ‘attain’ or is there another Pali word specifically used with this meaning, I wonder? Before, in the context of Way, we discussed translations for viharati, I think.....is it possible just to use ‘experience’ or is this misleading. I notice that in MN 43, it refers to ‘persistence of’, ‘prior determination ‘(of its duration) and ‘emergence from’, so perhaps ‘abiding’ refers to experience for a duration and this is why it is used. 3. There was some discussion about the purpose of arahants ‘abiding in bliss’. InVism, XX111 8, we read: “Why do they attain it? For the purpose of abiding in bliss here and now. for just as a king experiences royal bliss and a deity experiences divine bliss, so too the noble ones think, ‘We shall experience the noble supramundane bliss’, and after deciding on the duration, they attain the attainment of fruition whenever they choose.”(i.e only when given predominance).The same conditions are given as in MN43. Under the next section on the ‘Attainment of Cessation’ (Nirodha samåpatti, we read: “Why do they attain it? Being wearied by the occurrence and dissolution of formations, they attain it thinking, “let us dwell in bliss by being without consciousness here and now and reaching the cessation that is nibbana.” comm to this: “..as though reaching nibbana without remainder of result of past clinging, “in bliss” means without suffering.” Obviously there is no mental suffering for the arahant anyway, so this applies to bodily suffering such as the back-ache. I had a few more questions and comments arising from the series (maybe later), but I’m sure I’ll have caused enough confusion for now, so I’ll stop here for now and will be glad to hear any answers or further comments from anyone. This post needs some serious editing, but if I spend any more time on it, it won’t get sent, so apologies for the disorganised points. Sarah ====== 18798 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Larry, Regarding the 'pure insight vehicle' or sukkha vipassika is concerned, I understand that though there is no jhana attainment and therefore no jhana factors are present, because nibbana is the object, the concentration is equivalent to access level and the tranquillity to first jhana level (as I just read in Nina's Dhamma Issues 2-7). It goes on to say that because there are no jhana factors present, the samadhi (concentration) "has not sufficient strength so that the citta with strong absorption in the object of nibbana could arise again after he attained enlightenment and became an ariyan". Does this answer it? Sarah ===== 18799 From: Egberdina Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:52am Subject: Re: Control Hi James, Good to "hear" from you, and may I say your post was certainly clear and precise. I agree with you about the important things, like the point about it being OK to disagree :-). I would like to take a bit of time and ruminate on the things you have written. I'll be back. All the best Herman > > Hi Herman, > > This is a very nice post. I like it because it doesn't contain a > single Pali term! ;-) I want to reply. I do agree that it does > depend on how one defines control to know the correct approach to > the issue. And while I like your middle way approach to the control > issue, I must disagree with your final conclusions. My > understanding is that control must be absolute to reach the > attainment of nibbana, and then control is a moot point. > snip > I hope I have made myself clear. If you don't agree, okay. > > Metta, James