22000 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 8, 2003 8:52pm Subject: Re: Long time, no see. Hi Peter, Welcome back. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "peterdac4298" wrote: > A couple of quotes which particularly interested me:- > > ...Some of these works suggest that early Christians not only > reached insights similar to those of the Eastern religions but also > had a sophisticated understanding of human consciousness in their > own right. Many were concerned with what they called gnosis, a word > that means "knowledge" in Greek. This is knowledge of a very > specific kind —direct, intuitive knowing that surpasses ordinary > reason and confers spiritual liberation. Gnosis strongly resembles > enlightenment as portrayed in Hinduism and Buddhism.... > > ...Knowledge that liberates consciousness is often described as > esoteric. The word "esoteric" is somewhat forbidding, usually > connoting something obscure, exotic, and irrelevant to daily life > — in short, something "far out." But etymologically the > word > means exactly the opposite: it comes from the Greek 'esotero', which > means "further in." You have to go "further in" > yourself to > understand what this knowledge is about. In this book I will use the > terms "inner Christianity" and "esoteric > Christianity" > interchangeably.'... > > What I got from this was two points: Firstly, that 'gnosis' seemed > to come very close to 'sati' knowing and remembering. And secondly > that what they endeavoured to know was God, which presumably would > include the Uncreated aspect of the Creator. > > Although this lacks the Buddhist discipline of stripping out all > notions of a self and all self view, I do feel a Buddhist's duty > should include pointing out these aspects of the theistic religions > to those who showed any such interest. While you were away, there were a few posts from "Jeff", who is a student of anthropology studying gnosis in early cultures. You might want to look at message 21250 for more details. Metta, Rob M :-) 22001 From: connie Date: Thu May 8, 2003 8:19pm Subject: factoid Hi, Rob M ~ Got a nice gift in response to another of my poorly thought out questions today (sometimes benefits to my lack of conversational skills) and thought I'd share it with you. Asankharikam (unprompted) and sankhara (creations, etc.) have the same verbal root 'kar' (to do, make) as kamma. Also, a definition for Nibbana from Ven. Weragoda Sarada Thera that I haven't seen elsewhere yet: The Pali word Nibbana (Sanskrit - Nirvana) is composed of 'N' and 'Vana'. N is a negative particle. Vana means motion. "It is called Nibbana in that it is the absence (Ni) of that compulsive urge to move, which is the reaction of an organism to stimulation which is called Vana." As long as one is impelled by urge, one accumulates fresh Kammic activities which must continue in one form or other the perpetual cycle of birth and death. When all forms of this urge are eradicated, reproductive kammic forces cease to operate, and one attains Nibbana, stopping the cycle of birth and death. The Buddhist conception of deliverance is stopping the ever-recurring cycle of life and death. peace, connie 22002 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 8, 2003 9:32pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear RobM, > Could you explain the difference between "not-self" and "non- self" . > RobertK I am aware of a position taken in the following articles: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself2.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself.html Metta, Rob M :-) 22003 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 8, 2003 9:39pm Subject: Re: factoid Hi Connie, Interesting.... Thanks for sharing. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Hi, Rob M ~ > > Got a nice gift in response to another of my poorly thought out > questions today (sometimes benefits to my lack of conversational skills) > and thought I'd share it with you. > > Asankharikam (unprompted) and sankhara (creations, etc.) have the same > verbal root 'kar' (to do, make) as kamma. > > Also, a definition for Nibbana from Ven. Weragoda Sarada Thera that I > haven't seen elsewhere yet: > > The Pali word Nibbana (Sanskrit - Nirvana) is composed of 'N' and > 'Vana'. N is a negative particle. Vana means motion. "It is called > Nibbana in that it is the absence (Ni) of that compulsive urge to move, > which is the reaction of an organism to stimulation which is called > Vana." As long as one is impelled by urge, one accumulates fresh Kammic > activities which must continue in one form or other the perpetual cycle > of birth and death. When all forms of this urge are eradicated, > reproductive kammic forces cease to operate, and one attains Nibbana, > stopping the cycle of birth and death. The Buddhist conception of > deliverance is stopping the ever-recurring cycle of life and death. > Metta, Rob M :-) 22004 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu May 8, 2003 9:58pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasa, Thank you for the reply. I don't see that there is anything wrong with seeing nama-rupa as they actually are with right discernment thus: "They are not mine. They I am not. They are not my self."* Your feedback is appreciated! Regards, Victor * http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html > Victor, > > I understand the point, I was merely stating the aspect of clinging > that creates the delusion of a self,that he would not like to let > go. But, one should just see the nama-rupa as they arise,and fall > away, without saying "that is not me, not myself". Because in saying > that too, there is a "seeing" of a self .....! > > with metta, > Yasa 22005 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 8, 2003 10:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Long time, no see. Hi Peter, --- peterdac4298 wrote: > Hello all, > > Have been off list awhile, but been lurking from time to time, > especially when in need of stability, inspiration and some cool > reflection. .... It’s always great to hear you and it’s encouraging for us all when lurkers tell us they are around and being ‘inspired’ from time to time. Thanks for posting this and your other reflections. I’ll look forward to hearing other comments. > This is just a thought and well outside of the dsg remit. But had > hoped it emphasised the role of sati, simply 'just knowing', in a > wider context, so won't be taking it any further. ..... I understand there to be a kind of sati with each moment of wholesomeness (e.g dana and sila as well as samatha and satipatthana). If you come across any references in the texts you’re reading to further express your understanding of sati as you see it here, perhaps you could share further. I appreciate your sharing of current interest and consideration, Peter. Pls don’t run away!! You've been missed by many of us. With metta, Sarah ======= _______________________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk 22006 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu May 8, 2003 11:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Victor, (Jon and KKT), Pardon my jumping in. Victor: > I would say that: > Both the so-called "paramattha dhammas" and "conventional objects" > are impermanent, dukkha, not self, and there is nothing special > about the so-called "paramattha dhammas". > Both the so-called "paramattha dhammas" and "conventional objects" > are to be seen as they actually are with right discernment > thus: "They are not mine. They I am not. They are not my self." > Seeing thus, one grows dispassionate towards them. The goal is > liberation, not some special direction experience with the so- > called "paramattha dhammas." Victor, correct me if I am wrong, but this is my understanding of your perspective. Because we take everything that we experience, realities and concepts, as permanent and self, you see the need not to discriminate between the two but only to correct our attitude by reminding ourselves that "They are not mine. They I am not. They are not my self." etc. I liked what Yasa said to you, which is similar to what I once stated about 'intellectual overlay' : "But, one should just see the nama-rupa as they arise,and fall away, without saying "that is not me, not myself". Because in saying that too, there is a "seeing" of a self .....!" While I appreciate what you and others here remind about the danger of creating 'self-view' out of any understanding of nama and rupa, I think it is necessary to understand the distinction between ultimate realities and concepts. Insight cannot arise from wholesale indiscriminate labeling of every experience as being anatta, anicca and dukkha. Because insight is not something that a "self" acquires. It is panna which is developed and it is panna which understands the trilakkhana. Panna doesn't have an attitude; it just penetrates the nature of reality as deep as it does according to the level of accumulation. Panna and not 'self' which makes the distinction between nama and rupa and it is panna again which sees the three characteristics. No "self" with whatever attitude can arrive at this understanding, no matter how it repeats the same formula of "this is not me, not myself etc. for no matter how long. Part of what I consider Right View is this acknowledgement of the existence of paramattha dhammas and the difference between this and concepts. That the trilakkhana can be observed only with reference to these ultimate realities and not of the latter. Doubt can only be eradicated by actual penetration of these realities, not by applying the formula "this is not me", etc. Victor, I think no matter how much we read the description of citta for example, we cannot imagine what it is trully like, this I feel is why one should be grateful to the commentaries for giving us the description from many, many angles. But even then we can only know it as it really is when vipassana nana is reached. Similarly, anatta, anicca and dukkha will remain only a vague idea in our minds until enlightenment is reached. And this happens only after knowing nama as nama and rupa as rupa. So do you think then, it would get us anywhere if we just repeat a formula with regard to all experience? Don't you think there is more danger of deluding ourselves, not knowing what the three marks trully mean and not knowing first what they are a characteristic of?! Hope I haven't misunderstood you. Await your feedback. Metta, Sukin. 22007 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 8, 2003 11:51pm Subject: Nyanatiloka's On-Line Buddhist Dictionary DSG, Just rediscovered Nyanatiloka's On-Line Buddhist Dictionary, thanks to Jon. If you aren't already familiar with it, it's at: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html A really great resource. Mike 22008 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri May 9, 2003 0:39am Subject: RE: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Hello All, I had an opportunity to discuss with Nina this particular section of the book on truthfulness and Nina suggested that I posted what I said to the group to get an opinion on my views, and perhaps to get further discussions about the values of truthfulness. So here it is. Nina mentioned that truthfulness might be hard to understand. ==== kom ==== I think this is an unfamiliar concept to Westerners, and to Buddhists: it is often misunderstood anyway. Very difficult idea to understand, especially if one doesn't see (or vaguely see) the benefits of truthfulness itself. ============ Some people may have doubts about the ³Assertion of Truth² referred to in the above quoted passage. Or, they may have heard that an Assertion of Truth can bring its result according to one¹s wish. However, when a person has to experience suffering and distress, he cannot, in order to overcome his suffering, utter an Assertion of Truth without knowing what truthfulness is and without understanding its high value. It is essential that one, before making an Assertion of Truth, sees the superiority and the benefit of truthfulness. Moreover, it is necessary to develop the perfection of truthfulness. ==== kom ==== For me, it suffices to say, that we shouldn't expect that we can do this (and have a similar results) in our daily life. This result, as mentioned in the story, is a result of one who knows the values of truthfulness. A. Sujin mentioned in one of the tapes I have, that, when one faces danger, what does one think of? Does one think of the values and the benefits of being truthful? ============= ==== kom ==== For me, the benefits of being truthful is not tied directly to the danger I currently face. Truthfulness is great from the standpoints of: 1) By being truthful to our resolution, it conditions more kusala to follow thru with the resolution. I may have a resolution in the past to have kusala, but when the conditions arise, I might be shaken by kilesa, but if I remember the value of truthfulness, it allows me to follow thru with what I intended. 2) By being truthful to our resolution, it conditions more patience to withstand both adverse and pleasant conditions. 3) By being truthful, one is not led by attachment or anger. When somebody tells me that I know more than others about the dhamma, I naturally like this, but if I am truthful, and know that I know the real dhamma so very little, then I am not persuaded by the attachment to the praise. When somebody tells me I do things I shouldn't do, but I am truthful in accordance to realities, when what is said that is not true I will ignore, and when it is true I will gladly take and keep in mind (for truth is hard to come by). If one is not truthful, one doesn't see the 4-truths, this is the ultimate benefits of truthfulness. 4) truth = straight; akusala = crooked! ================= kom 22009 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 9, 2003 0:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Grimm recipe Hi Andrew and Ken H, Your post is very interesting, Andrew, and you’ve raised good and difficult questions. Perhaps the person who wrote the preface to Grimm's book hadn't read the text as carefully as you have;-) One translation of King Milinda (if not more) is available on line. I tried (without success) just now to access it at: http://www.aimwell.org/assets/Debate%20of%20King%20Milinda.pdf In any case, the passage you refer to is in the chapter titled ‘the Distinguishing Marks’, 3rd Division <63>. It is exactly as you summarised. like the ingredients of the soup, Nagasena says: “Even so, sire, it is not posible, having again and again analysed these mental states the nature of which it is to arise together, to point to a difference between them, saying: ‘This is sensory impingement, this is feeling, this perception, this volition, this consciousness, this applied thught, this sustained thought, though (all) are present each with its own distinguishing mark.” This follows a detailed elaboration on the characteristics of these various mental factors and consciousness, similar to descriptions given in other texts and indeed suttas like MN 147, Cularahulavada Sutta give details of all namas and rupas to be known as well as you suggested. ..... Howard, I think your comments are very perceptive and I’m not sure I can add anything other than a little speculation: > My thoughts are: What is the metaphor? Does soup stand for the > experience of an object? Is Nagasena pointing out that the > conventional, thinking mind does not know the difference between the > sense object (rupa), and the mentality (nama), that experiences it? > > Or, does soup stand for citta and the ingredients for cetasikas? ..... I think the latter. See quote above. Perhaps citta (consciousness) is also one of the ingredients, in that the soup, like the chariot is only a collective term. ..... > Without knowing the context, I can only guess. Perhaps Nagasena is > making the observation that conventional wisdom does not know > dhammas any more than it knows the ingredients in soup. This obvious > fact is not always so obvious. I think we have all tried to force > dhammas out into the open (by concentrating and by trying to stop > thought). But only dhammas experience dhammas, the conventional mind > knows concepts (soup). ..... Even when satipatthana begins to arise and be aware of different characteristics, is it really possible for sati to be aware of say applied thought (vitakka) as opposed to sustained thought (vicara)? Only the very highly developed panna will know precisely that this is vitakka or vicara or cetana etc. (These distinctions in characteristics also have to be known by the panna in samatha development for developed samatha practice and jhana attainment). Also, I think that in the beginning, sati doesn’t arise often and doesn’t penetrate the characteristics deeply. It is followed by an idea of self, stories and many concepts as usual. The characteristics of namas and rupas are not clearly distinguished and there may be attachment to the basic knowledge and awareness too. Like you say, the forcing, watching, focussing, labelling or even 'matching' with lists as Sukin described, with an idea of self, can creep in very easily. This doesn’t mean that the moments of sati and panna are not extremely precious, leading to more, so that gradually the characteristics of various realities can be known. ..... > At a moment of seeing, the various cetasikas that experience visible > object, flavour the citta. There is no separate moment of experience > for each individual cetasika (ingredient). Perhaps this is the point? .... Good point anyway;-) ..... > However, a subsequent mind-door process can take an individual > cetasika as its object. The actual cetasika has just fallen away but > subsequent cittas can see it just as we can hear a reverberating gong > when it is no longer being struck. ..... Yes, well put. Of course, in this case, the reverberations are perfect duplications of the original and so to all intents and purposes have just the same characteristics. .... > So what was Nagasena's point? I think we both need to go back to our > ADL reading. ..... I think they are really good points that Andrew has raised. I’d be glad to hear any other comments. Sukin or NUM (the food expert;-)) may also like to raise the passages with Khun Sujin and report back. It also reminded me of these other passages on food ingredients at Vism 1V, 120ff and SN V, Mahavagga, 47 Satipatthanasamyutta, 8 (The Cook). Could be relevant? According to comy note to the sutta, satipattthana is treated here ‘as insight of the preliminary stage’. Not sure if I’ve added anything to Ken H’s fine comments. With metta, Sarah ======= _______________________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk Weight Age Gender Female Male 22010 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri May 9, 2003 1:06am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasa, I wanted to wait for your response to Sarah before replying, but right now I am 'too' free ;-), so I hope it is OK that I do it now. My comments are between yours. > I like the analysis of citta and specially those connected with the > bhavanga and patisandhi citta, santirana, votthapana, jhavana . > Various types of kamma, ahetuka and vipaka, kusala, akusala and the > roots, lobha, dosa, moha.. I have of course come across them and > understood them in Sutta, but to take them on their own as in > Abhidhamma is different. It is a wealth of information. If I may say Yasa, just to express my own attitude which will surely not be the same as others, that I personally don't view Abhidhamma as a 'wealth of information', at least not at this point of my development. I = feel quite uneasy about details and my head spins when I see more than a few pali words being used. So I am not really attracted to that part of the Abhidhamma, though I do see much value in it and hopefully one day in a future life, I will not feel too intimidated by them. To me the impersonal and straight to the point descriptions is what I find helpful. "Impersonal", because I do not have to cut through layers of 'self' to see what it is that is being referred to. "Straight to the poi= nt", because I can actually come to notice to some degree, these phenomena right away, without any suggestion of first having to do any formal practice, which to me, is nothing but a 'conventional activity'. > I also think that I perhaps understand why Buddha, did not teach > Abhidhamma to his disciples. He would rather teach it to, those who > had highly developed minds, having practiced meditation in the > past ,and with wholesome accumulations.. Buddha had made what may be > called "instructional" teachings to his disciples, and" analytical" > teachings to Devas. It is like the Manuals given to you when you by > a machine. One part contains the characteristics-the nuts and bolts, > and the other, instructions, as to how to make the machine work. In > the teachings of the Buddha, the Abhidhamma is just the "nuts and > bolts", of what a being is composed . It has its own interest > but what is more important for the disciples and the lay > followers, are the instructions, "which" are in the Sutta. If you > leave aside the Sutta instructions to Meditate, you are getting away > from the essential, to inessential. You might be interested to know that it has been suggested here on dsg, that the *whole* of the Tiipitaka is "descriptive", not "prescriptive". You= will have to look up the archives if you want to read those discussions... = My impression of why the Buddha taught in conventional terms most of the time, is opposite to yours, I think that he did precisely because those= people had the high panna to penetrate through conventional expressions to realize the ultimate meaning! It is us, who are less than optimal, who need details or for me especially, to not be distracted by concepts of 'beings', 'situations' and 'things to do'. With regard to what is essential and inessential, I think the only essential thing at this point is to grow in understanding of the distinctio= n between concept and reality, otherwise we might take 'concepts' such as of "meditation" as being essential and the study of realities and the the understanding of this very distinction as being inessential!! > How many of us see ourselves as mere "paramatta dhammas"- > pancakkhanda ? We cannot see that unless we develop our minds > through meditation to the level of a Sakadhagami, because in the > existence of a being in the samsara, he is not a mere > pancakkhandha, but he is a panca-upadankkhandha . He is blinded by > clinging, to a "self". Therefore, he does not see ultimate reality. I think it is a mistake to jump to the conclusion that because we do not have 'anatta sanna' yet, that we have to work from the standpoint of 'atta'. Thinking this way I believe, will not get us anywhere. There *is* a level of understanding which is "pariyatti", which must not be overlooked. It is the base upon which the next level of patipatti is built,= and there is *no self who decides to be practical*. If one ignores this important relationship, then as it seems to me, one will then 'try' to practice, and this is clearly "self" at work. I have seen people who primarily give importance to Abhidhamma, but who believe at the same time, about formal meditation and putting forth of 'effort'. They know such details about the Teachings that I often have to open the dictionary to refer. And their experience is of 10, 20 and 30 years. But these same people when they talk about their experience during and outside of formal practice, is such that it makes me feel quite = sad. "I practiced vedananupassana, I watched my breath, I suppressed my feelings, I saw cetana arise, I this, I that.." It seems to me that ther= e is so much self there. But maybe I am just projecting?!.... > Satipattahana –is mindful, and it is an essential part of > meditation. But it is not the meaning of the word "satipatthana" I > am speaking about, it is the Sutta-Maha Satipatthana, I refer to, > which gives instruction on how to meditate and it is the only > discourse of the Buddha where he makes a "challenge" , he says that, > if anyone would develop the four frames of reference the way it has > been explained in the Satipatthana Sutta ,for seven years or, six > years... five... four... three... two years... one year... seven > months... six months... five... four... three... two months... one > month... half a month, one of two fruits can be expected for him: > right here and now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging- > sustenance -- non-return. The Buddha gives that assurance, and gives > us the Key into our hand and we refuse to accept it. Budhha's, > teaching is not complicated, it is simple and straightforward, it is > we who make it difficult and complicated, without accepting it as it > is. Yes, it is we who complicate what we hear, but this is not unexpected since there is so much ignorance and wrong view accumulated. This is why we need wise friends and to discuss :-). But, I don't think the teachings are so straightforward for the same reason. It is deep and hard to see, the self is always making false interpretations, hence I would advice against taking our own impressions too seriously. My impression of your quote above, is that *yes*, the fruits can be attained if indeed there is constant mindfulness. But is there? And can there be, if a "self" is trying?! > Sarah, too has made very interesting comments on one of my posts. I > will make my comments on it, and perhaps, some of my comments on > that post may interest you as well. I look forward to it and your comments to this post of mine. Best wishes, Sukin. 22011 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri May 9, 2003 1:40am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! ------ In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: Sorry, I messed up. > > I am aware of the subtle difference between "not-self" and "non- > self". Somebody already contacted me off-list and pointed this out > as well. [And: ]I am aware of a position taken in the following articles: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself2.html > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself.html > > > ______________ Dear Rob. Thanks for these articles. Could you explain your view in more detail. You wrote last week: "According to the Visuddhi Magga (Path of Purification), "… So in many hundred Suttas there is only mentality-materiality which is illustrated, not a being, not a person. Therefore, just as when the component parts (of a chariot) such as axles, wheels, frame, poles… are arranged in a certain way, there comes to be the mere conventional term 'chariot', yet in the ultimate sense, when each part is examined, there is no chariot… so too, when there are the five khandhas of clinging there comes to be the mere conventional term 'a being', 'a person', yet in the ultimate sense, when each component is examined, there is no being as a basis for the assumption 'I am' or 'I'; in the ultimate sense there is only mentality-materiality. The vision of one who sees in this way is called correct vision."" Do you still think the Visuddhimagga is correct here? I think the articles you sent have a different viewpoint. RobertK 22012 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 2:02am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Thanks for these articles. Could you explain your view in more > detail. > > Do you still think the Visuddhimagga is correct here? I think the > articles you sent have a different viewpoint. Taking a view on this point is on my "to do" list. I read the articles a year ago and have been mulling them over in the back of my mind. So far, I haven't really applied myself to properly research this topic, so I am avoiding taking a position. Having just read the articles, do you have a view yet? Metta, Rob M :-) 22013 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 2:19am Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 39-40 for comment Consciousness (Citta) & Mental Factors (Cetasikas) Slide Contents ============== Unwholesome Cittas (Between 15 and 22 cetasikas) - Ethically Variable Cetasikas - Unwholesome Cetasikas Wholesome Cittas (Between 31 and 38 cetasikas) - Ethically Variable Cetasikas - Wholesome Cetasikas Rootless Cittas (Between 7 and 12 cetasikas) - Ethically Variable Cetasikas Speaker Notes ============= One of the definitions of citta mentioned earlier was, "the means by which the accompanying mental factors are aware of an object. The accompanying mental factors are the cetasikas; the second type of ultimate reality. Cittas never arise without cetasikas and cetasikas depend upon citta to get access to an object. Cittas are pure awareness; it is the accompanying cetasikas that determine if the citta is unwholesome, wholesome or neutral. The Abhidhamma lists three classes of cetasikas: - Ethically variable: can be unwholesome, wholesome or neutral - Unwholesome: always bad - Wholesome: always good Ethically Variable Cetasikas Slide Contents ============== In all cittas: - Contact / Sense Impression - Feeling / Sensation - Perception / Recognition - Volition / Intention / Will - One-pointedness / Concentration - Life Faculty / Vitality - Attention / Advertence / Reflection In some cittas: - Initial Application / Applied Thinking - Sustained Application / Discursive Thinking - Determination / Decision - Energy / Effort / Exertion - Enthusiasm / Zest / Rapture / Interest - Desire / Zeal / Wish Speaker Notes ============= This is the list of the 13 mental factors which are unwholesome when they arise in unwholesome cittas, wholesome when they arise in unwholesome cittas and neutral when they arise in a neutral citta. In the seeing-consciousness citta, each cetasika has a task to perform as follows: - Contact connects with the visible object - Feeling experiences the "taste" of the visible object - Perception marks and remembers the visible object - Volition coordinates the tasks of the accompanying mental factors - One-pointedness focuses on the visible object - Life faculty sustains the citta and accompanying mental factors until they fall away - Attention drives the citta and the accompanying mental factors towards the visible object 22014 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri May 9, 2003 3:08am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Rob K, > > > Taking a view on this point is on my "to do" list. I read the > articles a year ago and have been mulling them over in the back of > my mind. So far, I haven't really applied myself to properly > research this topic, so I am avoiding taking a position. > > Having just read the articles, do you have a view yet? __________ Dear Rob, I feel the Dhamma of the Buddha is something profound and wonderful. I believe it only comes to be taught rarely during samsara. It is natural that many misperceptions are about. Some Buddhists do not even respect the ancient monks who carefully preserved the Tipitaka, the same great monks who also preserved the ancient commentaries . In the future I am sure anatta will come to mean something different from not-self. This is because of the natural decline that the Buddha predicted. I have made it clear on many occasions that anatta does- according to my understanding - mean that there is no self anywhere. Never has been. There are only evanescent, conditioned mental and physical phenomena arising and passing. Khandha parinibbana is the ending of this continual becoming of dukkha. I believe this is the teaching of the Buddhas. TG wrote "We operate as if we are a self and all our perceptions are tied into that outlook. This is the difficulty of understanding the Buddha's teaching. The difficulty is in trying to develop insight powerful enough to see past the way the mind mis-perceives experiences. Once this insight is developed, then one can start down the Path of the Buddha's teaching. Until this insight arises, one cannot even see the Path."" This is, I believe, true. RobertK 22015 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri May 9, 2003 1:10am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Yasa > > You say: > "If someone says that meditation is not necessary to attain nibbana, > he is getting far away from the Buddha's teachings." > > Well, I can only say it depends on what you mean by 'meditation' > ;-)). I'd be interested to know what your understanding is of this > term (as far as I know, it's not a term used in the suttas). > > Jon > ______________________________________________________________________ Jon, Jon, Bhavana, means the cultivation of the mind. It is further defined as development of mind or culture of mind. Meditation is the English word, generally in use. Bhavana was the means to get the mind concentrated to attain `dyana' in Hiduism. It existed in India long before Buddhism. The meditation for concentration of the mind, used in Buddhism is the Samatha. When the mind is in samadhi, it is further developed to attain one pointed concentration, to absorp jhana. There are four stages of jhana ( used in Buddhist Meditation). That in it self, cannot be used to attain panna, as the sense doors are "temporarily" not functioning, when the mind is absorped into deep one pointed concentration . The Buddha used samatha meditation for one pointed concentration and attain jhana(dyana) absorptions, to have a highly developed mental state, from there to turn the mind to Vipassana (literally means seeing in different ways), to have insight into causes of suffering, and through panna, to see anicca, dukkha and anatma and attain enlightenment. Vipassana Meditation is the unique "discovery" of the Buddha, he learnt it of his own, without any bodies prompting ! Bhavana is the removal of unwholesome mental factors and develop wholesome mental factors, to build calmness and concentration to see the true nature of all phenomena. In the sutta, the word used is sati, translated as mindfulness. Please see the following extract from the Maha Satipatthana Sutta ( discourse on the four foundations of Mindfulness), taken from "accesstoinsight": "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? [1] "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, discerns that he is making a long turn, or when making a short turn discerns that he is making a short turn; in the same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short... He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication, and to breathe out calming bodily fabrications….." with metta, Yasa ______________________________________________________________________ _ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk 22016 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:13am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Sukin, Thanks for your reply! I appreciate it. I would say this again: Both the so-called "paramathha dhammas" and the so- called "conventional objects" are impermanent, dukkha, and not self. They are to be seen as they actually are with right discernment thus: "They are not mine. They I am not. They are not my self."* I would not say that seeing the so-called "paramathha dhammas" and the so-called "conventional objects" as they actually are is "intellectual overlay". I would say that if one does not see thus, one could just come up with self-views and hold them as the Buddha's teaching: that is not only delusion in one's own part, but also a misrepresentation of the Buddha's teaching to others. Thank you again for your reply. Your feedback is much appreciated. Regards, Victor * http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, (Jon and KKT), [snip] > Metta, > Sukin. 22017 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 1:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: factoid Hi, Rob & Connie - In a message dated 5/9/03 12:41:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Connie, > > Interesting.... > > Thanks for sharing. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" > wrote: > >Hi, Rob M ~ > > > >Got a nice gift in response to another of my poorly thought out > >questions today (sometimes benefits to my lack of conversational > skills) > >and thought I'd share it with you. > > > >Asankharikam (unprompted) and sankhara (creations, etc.) have the > same > >verbal root 'kar' (to do, make) as kamma. > > > >Also, a definition for Nibbana from Ven. Weragoda Sarada Thera > that I > >haven't seen elsewhere yet: > > > >The Pali word Nibbana (Sanskrit - Nirvana) is composed of 'N' and > >'Vana'. N is a negative particle. Vana means motion. "It is > called > >Nibbana in that it is the absence (Ni) of that compulsive urge to > move, > >which is the reaction of an organism to stimulation which is called > >Vana." As long as one is impelled by urge, one accumulates fresh > Kammic > >activities which must continue in one form or other the perpetual > cycle > >of birth and death. When all forms of this urge are eradicated, > >reproductive kammic forces cease to operate, and one attains > Nibbana, > >stopping the cycle of birth and death. The Buddhist conception of > >deliverance is stopping the ever-recurring cycle of life and death. > > > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > ============================= Yes, I found this very interesting as well, Connie. Though, when one thinks about it, this is a perfectly clear way of describing (at last an important aspect of) nibbana, it is also a rather fresh and interesting way of doing so. No urges, no desires, aversions, or contaminated "will" pulling one to one action or another, pushing one to "move" in a particular manner. And yet, of course, the Buddha acted with intention all the time, and excellently. This leads me to think about kiriya citta and its nature, the apparent way out of the conundrum of how nibbanic action occurs. I'd be interested in hearing a bit about that. 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) 22018 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Sukin (and Victor, Jon, and KKT) - Sukin, I agree with what you wrote here! I would also like for you to consider the matter of the usefulness of merely repeating the formulas 1) "Rupa is rupa, and nama is nama," 2) "(The referents of) concepts are not impermanent, due to not existing," and 3) "Concepts are not realities". The mere reciting of formulas, and even contemplating them and coming to intellectually understand the facts they represent is not enough. Your criticism of Victor's repetition of varying applications of "They are not mine. They I am not. They are not my self." in a variety of contexts has merit, I think. Does it not also have merit when applied to other facts that become empty mantras? Doesn't the Buddha present us with *training* to cultivate the mind so that is can come to directly see, with wisdom, these truths, most especially the truths that Victor mentions? If not, then why do we follow him? With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/9/03 2:34:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukin@k... writes: > > Hi Victor, (Jon and KKT), > > Pardon my jumping in. > > Victor: > >I would say that: > >Both the so-called "paramattha dhammas" and "conventional objects" > >are impermanent, dukkha, not self, and there is nothing special > >about the so-called "paramattha dhammas". > >Both the so-called "paramattha dhammas" and "conventional objects" > >are to be seen as they actually are with right discernment > >thus: "They are not mine. They I am not. They are not my self." > >Seeing thus, one grows dispassionate towards them. The goal is > >liberation, not some special direction experience with the so- > >called "paramattha dhammas." > > Victor, correct me if I am wrong, but this is my understanding of your > perspective. Because we take everything that we experience, realities > and concepts, as permanent and self, you see the need not to > discriminate between the two but only to correct our attitude by > reminding ourselves that "They are not mine. They I am not. They are > not my self." etc. > > I liked what Yasa said to you, which is similar to what I once stated > about 'intellectual overlay' : > > "But, one should just see the nama-rupa as they arise,and fall > away, without saying "that is not me, not myself". Because in saying > that too, there is a "seeing" of a self .....!" > > While I appreciate what you and others here remind about the danger of > creating 'self-view' out of any understanding of nama and rupa, I think it > is necessary to understand the distinction between ultimate realities and > concepts. > > Insight cannot arise from wholesale indiscriminate labeling of every > experience as being anatta, anicca and dukkha. Because insight is not > something that a "self" acquires. It is panna which is developed and it is > panna which understands the trilakkhana. Panna doesn't have an > attitude; it just penetrates the nature of reality as deep as it does > according to the level of accumulation. Panna and not 'self' which makes > the distinction between nama and rupa and it is panna again which sees > the three characteristics. No "self" with whatever attitude can arrive at > this understanding, no matter how it repeats the same formula of "this > is not me, not myself etc. for no matter how long. Part of what I > consider Right View is this acknowledgement of the existence of > paramattha dhammas and the difference between this and concepts. > That the trilakkhana can be observed only with reference to these > ultimate realities and not of the latter. > > Doubt can only be eradicated by actual penetration of these realities, not > by applying the formula "this is not me", etc. > > Victor, I think no matter how much we read the description of citta for > example, we cannot imagine what it is trully like, this I feel is why one > should be grateful to the commentaries for giving us the description > from many, many angles. But even then we can only know it as it really > is when vipassana nana is reached. Similarly, anatta, anicca and dukkha > will remain only a vague idea in our minds until enlightenment is > reached. And this happens only after knowing nama as nama and rupa > as rupa. > > So do you think then, it would get us anywhere if we just repeat a > formula with regard to all experience? Don't you think there is more > danger of deluding ourselves, not knowing what the three marks trully > mean and not knowing first what they are a characteristic of?! > > Hope I haven't misunderstood you. > Await your feedback. > > Metta, > Sukin. > /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) 22019 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:50am Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Sarah, Sarah, Thank you, for your reply to my post. I am happy to continue my observations. I have problems with panna, I am aware of the suttamaya, bhavanamaya panna. But these states are land marks of the path we are traversing. They are very high mental states, because it is panna that will ultimately give us insight into anicca, dukkha,anatma, and release the mind from Samsara. Therefore, we will have to clear our minds of the wrong views, with some thing lesser than panna. In the Buddhist Countries of Asia, the Buddhists have what is called Saddha ( it is translated as confidence or faith), it has taken root in the minds of these people, such that there isn't a modicum of doubt in their minds about the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. This is some thing that does not exist in the West, being more Cartesian , looking for reason and proof. This saddha guides these native Buddhists through the different stages of meditation sessions or "seeing things as they are" or whatever you may want to call. In addition to that, Satipatthana Sutta is a household word with them. In the four foundation of Mindfulness, the first is the Kayanupassana. In this they see the 32 parts of the body. They visualise the body parts in their meditation, and see that there is nothing permanent, satisfying or a self a soul. In meditation, we see the rising of citta in five stages- contact (passa), feelings(vedana),perception (sanna), consciousness (vinnana) and mental formations( sankhara). They understand the nama as the mind and the rupa as the body. They can understand the ear as impermanent, and the sound as impermanent, and therefore the ear consciousness is also impermanent. All these is to say that there is a way, and a preparation for meditation. But when in this forum, you say there is no sitting or a particular time for seeing things as they are, I begin to ask how do you do this "seeing things as they are" or "arising and falling away of citta." ? Arising and falling away of citta happens countless times. If you listen to a sound there are innumerable citta arising and falling away. If you are crossing the road, the number of cittas that arise and fall away are countless. Do you mean to say you see rising and falling away of these multitude of cittas …..every moment of the day, from the time you get up until you go to sleep in the night ? Sarah, you know, having had meditated for a long time, and now having a very good grasp of the Abhidhamma teaching, how citta arises and falls away, and how you could see that while meditating, and now keeping it up in the course of all your daily activity. But can you really see the arising of the citta and its final passing away ? At the moment your eyes come in contact with the object, citta moments begin to start, but the eye consciousness arises four or five citta moments after, and only then you see the object. The Actual arising of the citta you had not seen, but if you are mindful then it is possible the mind goes back to the moment of the rising of the citta, sees a "review" of it. It is the same with the falling away of the citta, after about 10 or so thought moments. This happens all the time and seeing the rising and falling away of citta every moment of the day, you see Sarah, is a very difficult exercise. But on the other hand if you are seated, on a cushion, with an appropriate posture, you will be able to see this phenomena of citta rising and falling away vividly, during the course of your sitting, and the mind settling into a calm serenity…..when you hear a sound just stop at hearing, without going further…........ Bhavana is nothing else other than being mindful, holding your mind onto an object, say the "in and out" breath, in your normal breathing. Your eyes are closed and that is a way of being within. First step is the Samatha, where you concentrate your mind to a state of samadhi-beginning of concentration, and get jhana (dyana in Sanskrit) absorptions, step by step to the fourth jhana, at a pre-decided time. Then you come down from the Jhana in the descending order, and begin Vipassana meditation. In Samatha you are completely absorbed in deep concentration, and the sense doors are not functioning. In Vipassana ( seeing in different ways- the literal meaning ), your mind is not concentrated to a one point(ekaggata), therefore, you are able to analyse the mental states, see the rising and falling away of dhamma, see anicca, dukkha, anatma, clearly and vividly. You will observe that in the Suttas , the discourses of the Buddha to his disciples, he uses terms appropriate to their minds deluded in self, the familiar conventional terms. That is because they are the instructions for meditation , where as the terms in the Abhidhamma are to describe characteristic of the panchakkhanda, a being, the Buddha did not want his disciples to get lost in the vastness of Abhidhamma. Perhaps a word of Abhidhamma, not critical, I dare not, because that too is the word of the Buddha. In Abhidhamma you see the working of the mind, its sense-door activities, accumulation of wholesome , unwholesome kamma. Different types of kamma, sahetuka, ahetuka, vipaka , kiriya. And the cittas, bahavanga citta, how it gets activated, vibrates and gives rise to particular citta and falls away gradually in javana and tadarammana. And then the most interesting to read for me were the final stages of life, the cuti- citt and the patisandhi citta. One's birth depends on the citta that conditions the cuti-citta- which "colors" the patisandhi citta and all the citta thereafter. But yet no one can say which karma conditioned the relevant cuti and patisandhi cittas. Which vipaka kamma caused a handicap in a person. Those things were said not to speculate on, but just to show the mechanism of paramatta dhamma. Your comments are very objective and it is interesting to discuss Dhamma with those who know what it is despite the controversies . Visuddhimagga as you know, contains the commentaries to the Sutta, translated by Venerable Buddhaghosa into Pali. And the most of it contains instructions on meditation and what happens in meditation. It would be interesting to read about the Vipassana-nanas, that arise as meditation develops and how panna arises in the mind to see through the anicca, dukkha and anatma. * * * Sri Lanka was a beautiful place in the 1970ies, now it has lost much of its natural beauty, with hotels and what not, coming up every where. That is the change of things, for good or for bad. I am really impressed by your sojourn in a monastic atmosphere in Sri Lanka, I am sure that helps to understand dhamma better. I have found the tapes of Khun Sujin, in the internet,speaking on a question and answer session. I found them very interesting. I have said most of the things, I know of the Dhamma here. But I will not hesitate to elaborate, if you have comments. I think Sukin has replied to one of my posts and I have to go back to see what more I could say. Every thing expressed here is in metta and goodwill and if any thing displeases you, please pardon me, because it was not my intention. With metta, Yasa 22020 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 2:41am Subject: Typo Correction Re: [dsg] Re: factoid In a message dated 5/9/03 9:19:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Though, when one > thinks about it, this is a perfectly clear way of describing (at last an > important aspect of) nibbana, it is also a rather fresh and interesting way > > of doing so. ========================= My phrase "at last" was meant to be "at least". Sorry. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22021 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 9, 2003 6:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > The five aggregates include whole range of the conditioned > phenomena/things/situations. Like you have mentioned earlier, > concept* is assembled by mind. It is conditioned, subject to > change, does not last, impermanent, disintegrates.** Clinging to > what is impermanent leads to dukkha. ... > * > 1 : something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION > 2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular > instances synonym see IDEA > http://www.webster.com/ > > ** > "The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at > the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect > disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on > contact at the intellect -- experienced as pleasure, pain or > neither-pleasure-nor-pain -- that too disintegrates." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-082.html I like the definition of 'concept' as 'something conceived in the mind'. I think this conveys nicely the un-conditioned nature of concept, as compared to, say, visible object or attachment, fundamental phenomena that occur because of their own conditions. You seem to find some significance in the fact that the word 'idea' appears in both the dictionary definition of concept and the ATI translation of 'dhammayatana'. I personally wouldn't draw any conclusion from this. As I understand it, 'dhammayatana' has a specific meaning that, according to the commentaries, excludes concept. Jon 22022 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Yasa --- yasalalaka wrote: ... > Jon, the following is an extract from the Chapter 14-Function of > Javana, in NINA's Book Abidhamma in Daily Life. > > "When we are not mindful of realities, we take the objects we > experience for self. When panna realizes the objects which are > experienced as nama and rupa, elements which do not last, there is > less opportunity for akusala javana-cittas. > > I think this speaks for itself on the very regular question about > the "Computer " as an object. Thanks for the quote from Nina's ADL. This is always a useful reminder. I would be interested to hear your further thoughts on this passage and the question about 'computer' as object, since I'm sure members feel they've heard quite enough from me on the subject! Thanks. Jon 22023 From: m. nease Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Dear Robert and TG, I know we're supposed to avoid 'me too' replies, but--hear, hear! Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: rjkjp1 To: Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 3:08 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! > TG wrote "We operate as if we are a self and all our perceptions are tied into that > outlook. This is the difficulty of understanding the Buddha's teaching. The difficulty > is in trying to develop insight powerful enough to see past the way the mind mis- > perceives experiences. Once this insight is developed, then one can start down the > Path of the Buddha's teaching. Until this insight arises, one cannot even see the > Path." > This is, I believe, true. 22024 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Conventional' and 'absolute' Swee Boon You said: > Seeing the present moment's ultimate dhamma is one thing. Realizing > the dispassion for it, the relinquishment of it, is another thing. > > Seeing the present moment's conventional dhamma is one thing. > Realizing the dispassion for it, the relinquishment of it, is > another thing. > > Whether it is ultimate dhamma or conventional dhamma doesn't > matter. It is a non-issue. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'conventional dhamma' in this context. But I would agree that seeing (panna) is wholesome and always to be developed, whether the object of the seeing/understanding is an ultimate dhamma or is other than an ultimate dhamma (what I would call a concept). On the other hand, I think it is necessary to get to know the distinction between panna that is of the level of insight and panna that is not of that level. Only panna of the level of insight/satipatthana develops the mundane path factors that lead towards enlightenment, and this level of panna should not be confused with other (lesser) levels of panna, even though they also are worthy of being developed. To this extent I suggest we shouldn't dismiss all differences in panna as a non-issue. Hoping there is some room for agreement here ;-)). Jon PS I've added a couple of comments below for clarification --- nidive wrote: > Jon > > > Again, I'm having difficulty getting your point. > > I too am bewildered as to why you would claim that the seven > perceptions apply only to the Sangha and not the individual. What's > a Sangha, except a collection of individuals? I don't think I made such a claim. You perhaps misunderstood my comment. But since it apparently wasn't relevant to what you were saying anyway, I suggest we just let it drop here. > I do not think that having the knowledge of Abhidhamma is the key > to liberation. The Chief Disciple Venerable Sariputta was fully > enlightened even before he received the Abhidhamma from the Buddha. > He had no prior knowledge of the Abhidhamma even at the time of his > full > enlightenment. Do all arahants know the Abhidhamma then? Certainly > not. Do all arahants know what is `ultimate realities` then? > Certainly not. I don't think I've ever said that having the knowledge of Abhidhamma is the key to liberation (although I think there is a sense in which that knowledge is indeed 'key'). As I understand it, all arahants would know a lot of what is in the Abhidhamma, but they wouldn't necessarily have acquired that knowledge through a study of the Abhidhamma. Let's not forget that much of what's in the Abhidhamma is in the suttas too. > Seeing the present moment's ultimate dhamma is one thing. Realizing > the dispassion for it, the relinquishment of it, is another thing. > > Seeing the present moment's conventional dhamma is one thing. > Realizing the dispassion for it, the relinquishment of it, is > another thing. > > Whether it is ultimate dhamma or conventional dhamma doesn't > matter. It is a non-issue. > > Swee Boon 22025 From: peterdac4298 Date: Fri May 9, 2003 8:12am Subject: Re: Long time, no see. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Welcome back. > > While you were away, there were a few posts from "Jeff", who is a > student of anthropology studying gnosis in early cultures. You might > want to look at message 21250 for more details. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Thanks Rob Most interesting. I was really thinking about how some of the meaning of the word 'sati' was to be found in theistic religions under the term 'gnosis'. It is only in very long term retrospect that I now realize I had my first encounter with the idea of a Koan when just five years old or so. The idea had gotten around "...if God created the Universe, then who created God?..." This variant on "...who was I before I was born...", back in the late 'forties, did not open our very young minds to the infinitude of the present moment, but merely closed it up for fear of shattering our embryonic 'faith'. I just thought that, in these more enlightened times, when engaged in interfaith dialogue with Theists, it might be of some value if this was brought up in any such discussion, together with 'not knowing' being responsible for the separation from the Unborn, Uncreated. If ever there was a bridge between Buddhism and the rest, this could form some part of it. However, let this line of enquiry continue off line, so as to not undermine the group focus. Cheers Peter 22026 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 4:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/9/03 9:53:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > I like the definition of 'concept' as 'something conceived in the > mind'. I think this conveys nicely the un-conditioned nature of > concept, as compared to, say, visible object or attachment, > fundamental phenomena that occur because of their own conditions. > > ================================ Why in the world would one think that 'something conceived in the mind' is unconditioned? If I conceive of a unicorn, the *unicorn* certainly doesn't exist, but the thought of it, which is what the concept is, *does* exist .. until it ceases. The unicorn-idea was created in the mind by means of mental activity. It is *not* unconditioned. It arises, due to conditions, and then ceases. Now, one may say that there actually is no unicorn-idea that arises in the mind, that what actually arise are several things including fuzzy mental "pictures" of horses with single horns, of associated vague thoughts of medieval times in England (if one is a Westerner), and of the label 'unicorn' associated with these. So, there isn't a single unicorn-idea that arises, but kind of a unicorn-idea package/khandha. Okay. But all the parts of this package, interrelated in various ways, are conditioned (and mutually conditioning). 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) 22027 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 9, 2003 9:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon, Thank you for your reply. I don't see the definition of concept convey the the un-conditioned nature of concept. On the contrary, I see that it does convey the conditioned nature of concept. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor [snip] > > I like the definition of 'concept' as 'something conceived in the > mind'. I think this conveys nicely the un-conditioned nature of > concept, as compared to, say, visible object or attachment, > fundamental phenomena that occur because of their own conditions. > > You seem to find some significance in the fact that the word 'idea' > appears in both the dictionary definition of concept and the ATI > translation of 'dhammayatana'. I personally wouldn't draw any > conclusion from this. As I understand it, 'dhammayatana' has a > specific meaning that, according to the commentaries, excludes > concept. > > Jon 22028 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 9, 2003 10:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Grimm recipe, not so grimm. Abhidhamma. Dear Andrew and Ken, This simile makes me think of The Questions of King Milinda, Book III, Ch 7, 87: "A man were to wade down to sea, and taking some water in the palm of his hand, were to taste it with his tongue. Would he distinguish whether it were water from the Ganges, or from the Jumna, or from the Aciravati, or from the Sarabhu, or from the Mahi?" "Impossible ,Sir." "More difficult than that, great king, is it to have distinguished between the mental conditions (concomitants) which follow on the exercise of any one of the organs of sense!" There is reference here to: contact, feeling, sanna, cetana and cittam. Thus, the Buddha did a difficult thing. However, he taught us their different characteristics and when they appear one at a time they can be discerned. See below. op 07-05-2003 06:36 schreef Andrew op athel60@t...: In that chapter, he uses a dialogue from the > 147th Dialogue of the Majjhima Nikaya and Milindapanha in which > Nagasena denies that one can identify phenomena and say "This is > contact, this is sensation, this is will, this is consciousness, this > is idea, this is discursive thinking." Nagasena likens the situation > to a cook preparing a soup for a prince using various ingredients. > Once the soup is made, the cook cannot separate the ingredients and > say "This is sour cream. This is salt. This is sweet. etc" They are > all lost in the unity of the soup. > Nina says that the purpose of classifying realities is to demonstrate > that what we take for self are only nama-rupa elements (ADL p 182). > Is Nagasena also saying this? N: Yes, all the time. See also his simile of the chariot. Thus, it is difficult to know different realities but it can be done thanks to the Buddha's teaching of dhamma. We cannot know all. I learnt from A. Sujin that in the development of insight we shall know the difference between citta and cetasikas. Citta merely knows an object. To me it is OK to use the word awareness for citta, this is also in the Co. So long as we explain that it is not sati. The cetasikas have each their own characteristic, function. This reminds me of another point that was brought up: bhavangacitta. Yes, in the course of the development of insight it can be known, a moment of: there is nothing impinging. We do not try to know it. Through insight all doubts will disappear: is bhavangacitta taught later on, a more modern teaching? No more doubts, it is reality. Andrew wrote: > As Abhidhamma students, we (intellectually) learn an ingredient list and a recipe. We experience dhammas.> An ingredient list? Again, there is more to the Abhidhamma. It is so understandable that people think of the Abhidhamma as only a list of classifications, ingredients. When we remember Book 2, Book of Analysis, where so many daily examples of good and bad qualities are given, we shall no longer think of an ingredient list or a dry classification. Yasa was inclined to think that the Suttanta is more for mental development and that the Abhidhamma is more like a backbone. I can really understand this, it is not strange that we could have this impression at first sight, when reading only the first Book of the Abhidhamma, the Dhammasangani which seems to consist of lists, although it is more than that, it helps to understand reality. But it is helpful to look at all the daily examples in this second book of the Abhidhamma, Book of Analysis, Small Items, on conceit. Or, just quoting what I see at first hand, § 903: And § 906: This is for the monk, but we also can see in how far we have a hostile attitude, persisit in antagonism, have lack of respect. There are also many similes, partly the same as those we find in the Suttas. The more I read the more I find that the three parts of the Tipitaka are in comformity with each other. A: When I read his words, I am tempted to > identify self with "the unity of the soup" that cannot be unscrambled. N: Take courage, it is panna that very gradually develops and then can unscramble the soup. A self could not do this, as you know. Sorry I cannot pursue this thread now, I shall be (hopefully) away on two weeks vacation, conditions permitting. Nina. 22029 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 0:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: factoid Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > And yet, of course, the Buddha acted with intention all the time, and > excellently. This leads me to think about kiriya citta and its nature, the > apparent way out of the conundrum of how nibbanic action occurs. I'd be > interested in hearing a bit about that. I am not sure what you are asking here, but let me take a stab at it. The kiriya cittas performing the role of javana in an Arahant do not create kamma, but they could contain the following cetasikas which might be misinterpreted as kamma-creating intention: - Centana: volition (playing a coordinating role only, not pushing to create kamma) - Adhimokkha: Decision - Viriya: Energy - Piti: Zest - Chanda: Desire Howard, is this what you were wondering? Metta, Rob M :-) 22030 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 1:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma -akusala citta, akusala kamma Hi Nina, I still need to reply to your message on doors / bases, but will do this one first (trying to do some spring cleaning on long- outstanding replies owing). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > back to my old dilemma: is every akusala citta akusala kamma? Did you find > something in Milinda? > I still wonder about Atthasalini: who gives the different requirements for > akusala to be akusala kamma patha. He is very definite here. Even when I > take up glass thoughtlessly: already akusala kamma? Looking out of the > window? I doubt about this, would this not give rise to undue fears and > scruples? My perspective is that every akusala citta creates akusala kamma. In the case of taking up a glass thoughlessly or looking out of the window, at these moments, there is not "seeing things as they truly are" (probably a moha-mula citta rooted in restlessness). There is no way that this could be completed kamma (akusala kamma patha), so the kamma created is not strong enough to send us to a woeful state at time of rebirth. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a very weak kammic potential (seed?) created. The arising of this moha-mula citta reinforces an accumulation of not seeing things as they truly are. To me, this is more worrisome than the kammic impact of being distracted... the accumulation to get distracted again in the future gives rise to the possibility of a more serious lobha-mula or dosa- mula citta to arise (as we know, lobha-mula and dosa-mula cittas both have moha). If I take the opposing view (i.e. not every akusala citta creates akusala kamma), I now have to have a rule to determine what qualifies an akusala citta as "kamma-creating". I recently had a discussion with Jon on this and I believe, at the end, we agreed that "completed kamma" relates to rebirth-potential only (at least that's what I remember). Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) 22031 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 2:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Sarah, Part II of my answers: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Brief comments on your other posts in a most jumbled, random order - > apologies to All for any confusion from the cryptic references: > > 1. post 21768, classifying cittas > > I'd remove the word `subconscious' which to many of us suggests an > undercurrent. You say "Resultant acts as "subconscious"" which isn't clear > to me. Later you use subconscious to refer to `what the mind is doing > when it is not doing anything else', i.e bhavanga cittas. Difficult to > translate I know. Either there are bhavanga or other kinds of cittas, so > nth subconscious to the way I understand the term. ===== I am using "subconscious" for bhavanaga. I can't think of a better word. Under Beautiful Cittas, I list two functions (I ignore kiriya): - Wholesome - Resultant My description of wholesome is: Wholesome creates good kamma My description of resultant is: Resultant acts as "subconscious" Perhaps the problem arose when I tried to reflect what was presented graphically on the slide in a text format. ===== > I also disagreed with your > comment that the Buddha attained `enlightenment without detailed knowledge > of the Abhidhamma'. Another topic in itself;-). ===== My understanding is that Buddha meditated on the Abhidhamma during the fourth week after enlightenment and it was at the point that the Buddha started into Conditional Relations that the six coloured rays started eminating from His body. Therefore, in the first three weeks after enlightenment, the Buddha had the capacity to explore the Abhidhamma in depth, He had "not yet got around to it". Remember our discussion as to whether the Buddha could have foretold 9/11. As I recal, the answer was, "If He had applied His mind to the subject, He could have." Metta, Rob M :-) 22032 From: connie Date: Fri May 9, 2003 2:01pm Subject: Re: factoid Hi, Howard and Rob M ~ I guess a difference in how we pay Attention (present perception formed by past habit) changes our Intention (volition/future focus)... goes back to developing right understanding as opposed to my own heterodox views again so there are fewer contaminants (push-pull motives) feeding the accumulation of clung-to kammic sankharas? My sanna not only recognizes, but tends to define everything as desirable or detestable, my feeling (vedana?) towards it, so I don't 'create' kiriya? This mess is stored/accumulated (sankhara) and my direction or (wrong) path is set up [anusaya = anu (follow) + saya (into dormant situation)]. Something else I read awhile ago said the original Sanskrit 'karma' meant 'ritual', which led to thoughts on 'clinging to rites and ritual' in terms of that being everything we do in our daily lives... even (especially?) how we breathe... "Sabbe dhamma vedana samosarana" - anything that arises in the mind starts flowing as a sensation on the body. Enough of my rambling. I'll be thinking about 'the intent of the Buddha' and would also like to see some thoughts on kiriya citta. With the previous posts following as per Christine's previous request. peace, connie Hi, Rob & Connie - In a message dated 5/9/03 12:41:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Connie, > > Interesting.... > > Thanks for sharing. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" > wrote: > >Hi, Rob M ~ > > > >Got a nice gift in response to another of my poorly thought out > >questions today (sometimes benefits to my lack of conversational > skills) > >and thought I'd share it with you. > > > >Asankharikam (unprompted) and sankhara (creations, etc.) have the > same > >verbal root 'kar' (to do, make) as kamma. > > > >Also, a definition for Nibbana from Ven. Weragoda Sarada Thera > that I > >haven't seen elsewhere yet: > > > >The Pali word Nibbana (Sanskrit - Nirvana) is composed of 'N' and > >'Vana'. N is a negative particle. Vana means motion. "It is > called > >Nibbana in that it is the absence (Ni) of that compulsive urge to > move, > >which is the reaction of an organism to stimulation which is called > >Vana." As long as one is impelled by urge, one accumulates fresh > Kammic > >activities which must continue in one form or other the perpetual > cycle > >of birth and death. When all forms of this urge are eradicated, > >reproductive kammic forces cease to operate, and one attains > Nibbana, > >stopping the cycle of birth and death. The Buddhist conception of > >deliverance is stopping the ever-recurring cycle of life and death. > > > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > ========== Yes, I found this very interesting as well, Connie. Though, when one thinks about it, this is a perfectly clear way of describing (at last an important aspect of) nibbana, it is also a rather fresh and interesting way of doing so. No urges, no desires, aversions, or contaminated "will" pulling one to one action or another, pushing one to "move" in a particular manner. And yet, of course, the Buddha acted with intention all the time, and excellently. This leads me to think about kiriya citta and its nature, the apparent way out of the conundrum of how nibbanic action occurs. I'd be interested in hearing a bit about that. With metta, Howard 22033 From: Peter Da Costa Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Long time, no see. Hi Sarah At 13:12 09/05/2003 +0800, you wrote: >I appreciate your sharing of current interest and consideration, Peter. Cheers >Pls don't run away!! You've been missed by many of us. If it were only that simple. >With metta, > >Sarah >======= Peter 22034 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 10:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: factoid Hi, Rob - In a message dated 5/9/03 3:42:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >And yet, of course, the Buddha acted with intention all the time, > and > >excellently. This leads me to think about kiriya citta and its > nature, the > >apparent way out of the conundrum of how nibbanic action occurs. > I'd be > >interested in hearing a bit about that. > > I am not sure what you are asking here, but let me take a stab at > it. > > The kiriya cittas performing the role of javana in an Arahant do not > create kamma, but they could contain the following cetasikas which > might be misinterpreted as kamma-creating intention: > - Centana: volition (playing a coordinating role only, not pushing > to create kamma) > - Adhimokkha: Decision > - Viriya: Energy > - Piti: Zest > - Chanda: Desire > > Howard, is this what you were wondering? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, excellent! Very helpful to my understanding! ----------------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22035 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 4:50pm Subject: no self/not self Hi the two Robs, The problem I have with rejecting "no self" is that by cognizing "this is not self" one leaves open the possibility something else is self, most likely the mind that cognizes "this is not self". I would think that the insight of a path moment would go beyond the characteristic of a particular arising dhamma. The real question is, what is a self? What does "Robert" mean, that is such a big problem? Larry 22036 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 4:51pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Larry (and Rob K), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Here are few contrarian ideas. It is true that most people think the > idea of free will assumes a self but this isn't necessarily the case. We > could examine this concept by looking at what is meant by "free". "Free" > doesn't mean all powerful, although there is that implication. "Free" > actually means "without" as in without bondage or without a master as in > the master/slave relationship. So "free will" actually means will > without a master or without fetters. This fits in rather nicely with the > concepts of no self and no control. > > A will without fetters could be clear comprehension and mindfulness > arising in a javana series or the 10 perfections arising in javana. This > freedom from fetters includes freedom from compulsive unwholesome > reactions to kamma result and freedom from creating new kamma for an > arahant. > > Theoretically, freedom from accumulations would necessitate the > cessation of the consciousness process. This would be the end of > accumulations, will, and freedom. However, "accumulations" is a highly > problematic concept for me. Why isn't it included as a formal part of > consciousness process? Is it a reality? If it is consciousness, what > kind? Is there an "accumulations process" whereby conflicting > accumulations battle it out to see which one influences javana? This is > a very murky subject with no textual clarification and reasoning without > direct experience would seem inadequate to the task, imo. So I don't see > that we could say very much about accumulations. > > However this may be, we can say "free will" _could_ mean will free from > the 10 fetters: personality belief, sceptical doubt, clinging to mere > rules and ritual, sensuous craving, ill-will, craving for fine- material > existence, craving for immaterial existence, conceit, restlessness, and > ignorance. In other words, a moment of satipatthana or the usual > experience of an arahant. ===== I agree 100% with you. However, if you were to ask 100 people (even 100 Buddhists) what was their definition of "freewill", I doubt that many would answer as you have. I considered including a definition of "freewill" in my paper, but decided against it. Those 100 people surveyed would all have slightly different definitions and I did not want to distract the reader by having them check if their personal definition matched up with my "somewhat arbitrary" choice of descriptive words. I decided to remain silent on the definition, confident that at least 99 of the 100 surveyed would have a personal definition of "freewill" that included a concept of "self". Larry, perhaps you fall into the 1% :-) The other danger that arises from including a definition of "freewill" is that I would also have to include a defintion of "self". Then things become extremely messy. Another topic that spun off from this paper involves this definition of self. See Thanissaro Bhikkhu's papers: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself2.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself.html It appears as though Rob K is of the view that Thanissaro Bhikkhu is incorrect in these essays. My first reaction is to agree with Rob K. However, we must now counter the arguments raised in these well- written articles to support our position. Again, my first reaction is to say that Thanissaro Bhikkhu is playing with semantics. If we define "self" to be a concept to describe a instantaneous combination of five aggregates, then with this definition of "self", "self" does exist. However, I now go back to my survey of 100 Buddhists mentioned above. How many of those surveyed would not include some sense of permenance in their definition of "self"? I need to review those papers again (I haven't read them in a while). Metta, Rob M :-) 22037 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Larry. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Theoretically, freedom from accumulations would necessitate the > cessation of the consciousness process. This would be the end of > accumulations, will, and freedom. However, "accumulations" is a highly > problematic concept for me. Why isn't it included as a formal part of > consciousness process? Is it a reality? If it is consciousness, what > kind? Is there an "accumulations process" whereby conflicting > accumulations battle it out to see which one influences javana? This is > a very murky subject with no textual clarification and reasoning without > direct experience would seem inadequate to the task, imo. So I don't see > that we could say very much about accumulations. Picasso had his "blue period" where most of his paintings were done using the blue pallet. He then had a "rose" period and then a "cubism" period. I am in my "accumulations" period, where I see "accumulations" as a critical issue. The fact that the ancient texts do not share my focus on "accumulations" is exciting to me. It tells me that there is an even bigger perspective to be had. It tells me that I have a lot more to learn. I love learning and I never learn anything from anybody who agrees with me! Please keep challenging me. Metta, Rob M :-) 22038 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:31pm Subject: Re: no self/not self Dear Larry, I think I see what you mean. The Dhamma of the Buddha is deep and not at all easily comprehended. When we first encounter it we are all steeped in self view so whatever we hear - no matter how it is explained is perceived through self and control. Some people hear about anatta and fear it or reject it. WHy? because there is the idea of self: "I used to have a self and now there is none!! or " If I develop insight my self will go!" A more subtle misunderstanding is that we may think or say "there is no self" but have the view - as I think you mention below , Larry, that "I" have no self or "I" am selfless. These are simply different versions of self view. http://www.vipassana.info/002-sabbasava-sutta-e1.htm 1.2 Sabbaasavasutta.m ""doubts arise about the self in the present : Am I, or am I not. What am I. How am I . From where did this being come, where will it go. To whoever thinking unwisely in this manner, one of these six views arises To him a view arises perfect and clear, I have a self. Or I have no self. Or with the self I know the self.. Or with the self I know the no-self. Or with no-self I know the no-self."" endqoute And so wrong practice and wrong path develops. As TG indicated the pre-steps- before beginining the right path- are to come to understand anatta, not-self, no-self, non-self, (but not with the idea of 'me' who is understanding it). The texts often talk about bhavana (sometimes translated as meditation) and there are different aspects of this. A basic aspect is ditthujukamma - straightening of view. It can be happening right now. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi the two Robs, > > The problem I have with rejecting "no self" is that by cognizing "this > is not self" one leaves open the possibility something else is self, > most likely the mind that cognizes "this is not self". I would think > that the insight of a path moment would go beyond the characteristic of > a particular arising dhamma. > > The real question is, what is a self? What does "Robert" mean, that is > such a big problem? > > Larry 22039 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Dave, I gave the editor a list of topics (including Dependent Origination for Beginners; the thread that we started but I never finished) and he picked "Freewill or Not?". Perhaps for the next article, he will ask for your topic (or perhaps Connie's topic of "Buddhism by the Numbers"). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Hi Rob & Sarah, > > I'm still very much a novice compared to so many of you on this list, > but I thought I might throw out my $0.02 for consideration or > deleting! ===== Sorry that I am so far behind on my replies, it doesn't mean that I don't value your comments; quite the contrary. For the past week or so, I have been beating myself up mentally thinking, "I gotta get reply to Nina, Sarah, Dave, Victor and Larry". ===== > For what it's worth, I've always thought of our actions and "free > will" as a ongoing process of probabilities. Something similiar to > predicting the weather. When I watch the news, I hear that, because > of this and that condition, there's a probability of rain or sun. > Sometimes they are right, but other times, other factors play out and > the weather goes the other way (as it did yesterday much to our > children's disappointment!). ===== I really like your view on freewill; you have managed to take the "self" out of freewill. You and Larry are both in the 1% of the survey group! (please see my recent reply to Larry). ===== > > I've noticed that people too can be predicted. We do like to have > this concept of self and free will, but yet, we mostly act according > to predictable criteria. And, as you pointed out in physics, the act > of observing a particle changes it, so does the act of observing a > self. It too becomes a variable in the calculation and throws the > probabilities all off! > > Perhaps it is the computer geek-ness in me, but as a big fan of > science, I think it can show us some underlying factors. This "me" > is, like it or not, tied to this phycial body, complete with > hormones, neurological traits, etc. I think that we can learn a lot > from the scientific study of meditation. I don't think we'll ever > get to an "Enlightenment Pill" because the complexities are too ... > well... complex. Just like we will never be able to predict the > weather with 100% accuracy, let alone control it. > > The physical properties of the brain and our consciousness are > clearly entertwined. As such, I think we can learn a lot from the > scientific study of the workings of the brain. I like to think of > this type of research as helping in the understanding of the > impermanence or "no-self." > > All that said, I also think the Buddha was quite appropriate in > including the prohibition of intoxicants (which I would consider > consciousness altering chemicals to be a part) in his 5 Precepts. > While, perhaps we could chemically alter the brain to reproduce that > of those monks Rob mentioned, the person under this drug would not > have the patterns set up to deal with the condition in the right way > and therfore, the probabilities are that they would not become > Enlightened, but, perhaps psychotic! There are too many variables to > control, again, kind of like the weather. > > Anyway, I don't know if any of this is helpful or not. But, here it > is none the less! ===== Earlier, when I was in my "phenomenology" phase, I used to think that the Buddha's teaching perspective on science was purely phenomenological. Now I realize that this concept of phenomenology is a modern definition and the Buddha said it best when he said that he only discussed [science] that was related to leading the holy life or conducive to release from samsara. Dave, please send me an email at rob.moult@j... . I am going to the Vihara (temple) tomorrow, where they sell statues. I will take along my digital camera and reply to your email with images and costs. Metta, Rob M :-) Weight Age Gender Female Male 22040 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:45pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > A comment I would make is that the existence or non-existence of > self and freewill is irrelevant to the Buddha's teaching. I would > say that each one of us can choose between skillful/wholesome action > and unskillful/unwholesome action, and each action that one chooses > has a consequence. You wrote, "... each one of us can choose between... ". When I read this, I see both "self-view" and "freewill" represented. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Please help me to understand your perspective. Metta, Rob M :-) 22041 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:47pm Subject: Accumulations: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Larry. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Theoretically, freedom from accumulations would necessitate the > > cessation of the consciousness process. This would be the end of > > accumulations, will, and freedom. However, "accumulations" is a > highly > > problematic concept for me. Why isn't it included as a formal part > of > > consciousness process? Is it a reality? If it is consciousness, > what > > kind? _________ Dear Larry, Ayuhanam (accumulation) in paticcasamuppada (dependent origination) is sankhara (volitional formations), specifically cetana. I wrote a little about this before: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/14917 The Mahavagga tika (subcommentary) to the Digha nikaya explains Aayuuhana.m sampi.n.dana.m, sampayuttadhammaana.m attano kiccaanuruupataaya raasiikara.nanti attho. Accumulating (aayuuhana.m) is the adding together or heaping up of its associated phenomena in accordance with its own function. sampi.n.dana.m -adding together rasi - heap kicca -function Here is a section from the Mahanidana sutta commentary, where aayuhana (accumulate) occurs in complex phrases. (from bodhi The great discourse on causationp65)about Paticcasamupadda: Deep is the meaning of volitional formations as volitionally forming, ACCUMULATING, lustfulness, and lustlessness. gambhiiro, sa"nkhaaraana.m abhisa"nkhara.nAAYUUHANAsaraagaviraaga.t.tho and [the meaning] of existence as ACCUMULATING, volitionally forming, and throwing beings into the different modes of origin bhavassa aayuuhanaabhisa"nkhara.nayo nigati.thitinivaasesu khipana.t.tho, . It is an important aspect of Dhamma that is mentioned quite often in the texts. We shouldn't expect it to be easy to understand: ""Deep is the meaning of volitional formations as volitionally forming, ACCUMULATING, "" _Robertk 22042 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > I've gone back to look again. You wrote: > > R:"Non-self (anatta¯) is central to Buddhism. The Visuddhi Magga (XVI, 90) > says, "For there is suffering, but none who suffers; doing exists although > there is no doer; extinction (death) is but no extinguished person; > although there is a path, there is no goer." > > Paraphrasing the Visuddhi Magga, "There is choice, but there is no > chooser". If there is no chooser (self), how can there be freewill? The > concept of freewill assumes a supervisory self that monitors the mind's > activities chooses a response." > ..... > S:Perhaps we use the word `paraphrasing' a little differently. I undrstood > you to be suggesting that "There is choice, but there is no chooser" could > be used to replace the Vism lines with the same meaning, but maybe it's > just the `template' or `core value' you are referring to. In other words, > I couldn't see how `there is choice' could be a paraphrase of `there is > suffering'. I agree that "Paraphrasing" is the wrong word as it implies replacing. I have changed the text to: ...although there is a path, there is no goer." Expanding on this concept from the Visuddhi Magga, "There is choice, but there is no chooser"... Metta, Rob M :-) 22043 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 6:39pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > R: >At some point, I will have > > to leave words and concepts behind me. For now, I use them to > > develop my practice. The Buddha said (Mn22) that we have to be > > prepared to leave the good states behind at some point. > ..... > S: I don't understand there being any suggestion that the `words and > concepts' need to be left behind. Rather the grasping and attachment to > those words or the Dhamma. In the Simile of the Snake, we are urged to > carefully examine the meaning of the words and the purpose of studying. > "Examining the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, they gain a > reflective acceptance of them." ===== You are correct, it is the grasping to words and concepts that needs to be left behind. ===== > > R: > As I see it, the paragraph that I quoted is not "typical Bhikkhu > > Bodhi". BB normally writes with an objective "academic" style (I > > love his stuff). In this specific paragraph, BB seems to be exorting > > the reader to improve their practice. BB resorts to conventional > > subjective language in an effort to create conditions supporting > > kusala energy in the mind of the reader. > ..... > S: I don't think it is a question of language or style, but some > difference of understanding. ===== I see two distinct styles in the Suttas. When the Buddha was explaining something, He would use often use technical language, sometimes verging on an Abhidhamma style. When the Buddha was exorting (as He often did), He used "conventional language" that could easily be misinterpreted as implying that there was a self that could make an effort. Consier the following exortations (these two are famous, but almost every Sutta has similar exortations): - Do good, avoid evil, purify the mind - Strive on with dilligence Metta, Rob M :-) 22044 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 6:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob, It occured to me that maybe accumulations are sanna memories and arise with the determining citta. It seems likely they are some form of cetasika. Larry 22045 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 6:46pm Subject: Re: Accumulations: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > It is an important aspect of Dhamma that is mentioned quite often in > the texts. We shouldn't expect it to be easy to understand: ""Deep > is the meaning of volitional formations as volitionally > forming, ACCUMULATING, "" Does this mean that I don't have to give up my "accumulations" period? It would be boring not to develop :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 22046 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 6:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Accumulations: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Robery K, Re. accumulations, Nina once mentioned that accumulations condition the javana series. I understood this to mean accumulations mediate between determining citta and javana. Are accumulations accumulations of old javana? Is that what is meant by accumulations are cetana (volition)? Larry 22047 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 6:51pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Larry, I'm not sure. You might of missed my views on sanna: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/19983 Interested in your feedback. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Rob, > > It occured to me that maybe accumulations are sanna memories and arise > with the determining citta. It seems likely they are some form of > cetasika. > > Larry 22048 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob M, I think of sanna as recognition and "marking" for recognition, but it is a little difficult to distinguish this from registration citta. Since sanna accompanies all cittas, I'm assuming everything is remembered. Larry 22049 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Accumulations: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Larry, All cittas arise because of conditions. The falling away of the previous citta is one of the factors that condition the arising of the subsequent citta. The cetasika attention (manasikara) is called the "controller of the object"; when it arises in the adverting citta, it controls the flow of the citta process. When manasikara arises in the determining citta (the adverting citta of a mind-door process), it controls the flow of the javana cittas (kusala or akusala). The javana cittas then arise naturally, conditioned by either wise attention (yoniso manasikara) in the case of kusala and unwise attention (ayoniso manasikara) in the case of akusala. So what conditions the arising of either wise attention or unwise attention in the determining citta? Latent accumulations. At least that is how I see it. Perhaps Rob K can help more (sorry for butting in). Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Robery K, > > Re. accumulations, Nina once mentioned that accumulations condition the > javana series. I understood this to mean accumulations mediate between > determining citta and javana. Are accumulations accumulations of old > javana? Is that what is meant by accumulations are cetana (volition)? > > Larry 22050 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:21pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Larry, Every sense door process with a registration citta is followed by some bhavanga cittas then multiple mind door processes. The registration citta marks the object to ensure continuity. I would not consider this to be "memory" according to the conventional definition. For example, I just sat down in this chair. Before this happened, there was a brief instant of noting where the chair was. The "memory" of where the chair is really only stayed in my mind for a very brief time. I would not group this with the conventional definition for "memory". Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Rob M, > > I think of sanna as recognition and "marking" for recognition, but it is > a little difficult to distinguish this from registration citta. Since > sanna accompanies all cittas, I'm assuming everything is remembered. > > Larry 22051 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob M, You could well be right that registration citta is just a momentary mediator. I thought it was more potent, in the sense of deliberately fixing something in your mind. Larry 22052 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 8:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Accumulations: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Larry (and Rob K), Below, you also asked about the origin of accumulations. I am going to requote one of my favourite Bhikkhu Bodhi passages from "Questions on Kamma" (sorry, Sarah, I know you don't like this one): "When a willed action is performed it leaves a track in the mind, an imprint which can mark the beginning of a new mental tendency. It has a tendency to repeat itself, to reproduce itself, somewhat like a protozoan, like an amoeba. As these actions multiply, they form our character. Our personality is nothing but a sum of all our willed actions, a cross-section of all our accumulated kamma. So by yielding first in simple ways to the unwholesome impulses of the mind, we build up little by little a greedy character, a hostile character, an aggressive character or a deluded character. On the other hand, by resisting these unwholesome desires we replace them with their opposites, the wholesome qualities. Then we develop a generous character, a loving and a compassionate personality, or we can become wise and enlightened beings. As we change our habits gradually, we change our character, and as we change our character we change our total being, our whole world. That is why the Buddha emphasizes, so strongly the need to be mindful of every action, of every choice. For every choice of ours has a tremendous potential for the future." Robert, if we define kamma as including "accumulations", as this passage might suggest is possible, then "accumulations" become one of the central tenents of the Buddha's teaching! What do you think? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Larry, > > All cittas arise because of conditions. The falling away of the > previous citta is one of the factors that condition the arising of > the subsequent citta. > > The cetasika attention (manasikara) is called the "controller of the > object"; when it arises in the adverting citta, it controls the flow > of the citta process. When manasikara arises in the determining > citta (the adverting citta of a mind-door process), it controls the > flow of the javana cittas (kusala or akusala). The javana cittas > then arise naturally, conditioned by either wise attention (yoniso > manasikara) in the case of kusala and unwise attention (ayoniso > manasikara) in the case of akusala. > > So what conditions the arising of either wise attention or unwise > attention in the determining citta? Latent accumulations. > > At least that is how I see it. > > Perhaps Rob K can help more (sorry for butting in). > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Hi Robery K, > > > > Re. accumulations, Nina once mentioned that accumulations > condition the > > javana series. I understood this to mean accumulations mediate > between > > determining citta and javana. Are accumulations accumulations of > old > > javana? Is that what is meant by accumulations are cetana > (volition)? > > > > Larry 22053 From: Andrew Date: Fri May 9, 2003 8:54pm Subject: A Grimm recipe Dear Nina, Sarah, Ken and Yassa Thank you so much for your lucid comments on my query. I certainly see myself as the cook, unable to discern the ingredients in the soup as it is tasted in the present moment. But I always considered that an arahant would be able to do such a thing. I think my query was essentially whether Nagasena was denying it could be done by any level of being, including an arahant. It seems there is agreement that the Buddha was able to do this - as Nina says - very very difficult thing. Thank you again Nina for reminding me of the practical nature of Abhidhamma studies, to which I will return. Sarah, I just want to point out that the [anti-Abhidhamma] preface to Grimm's book was written by Grimm himself! I postulate that early European studies may not have been aware of the extent to which the Tipitaka interweaves. I don't wish to spark another round of emails on this topic as I think most people have made their positions clear and their input has been much appreciated by this humble reader. Metta to all Andrew 22054 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri May 9, 2003 9:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Victor, > I would say this again: > Both the so-called "paramathha dhammas" and the so- > called "conventional objects" are impermanent, dukkha, and not > self. They are to be seen as they actually are with right > discernment thus: "They are not mine. They I am not. They are not > my self."* This is where I have a problem Victor, is that you group paramattha dhammas and conventional objects together and ascribe the trilakkhana to both these with the same conviction. I do not believe that conventional objects have the characteristic of impermanence that a paramattha dhamma has. But one can superimpose an *idea* of impermanence to both of them, which is what I think you are doing. But of course on the other hand, you have also talked about ‘seeing’ the different phenomena ‘as they truly are with right discernment’. Here I believe you are being sincere. So your own experience might be the actual perception of say ‘visible object’ and this might follow with the understanding that it is anatta, anicca and dukkha in the sense of these being what the Buddha advised us to take all experiences as. It seems to me, that you see understanding all phenomena as having the three characteristic as the goal and aim of the Buddha’s teachings, so you do not care to make any distinction between them. So I am repeating what I said in the last letter :-/. Anyway, since I do not believe that concepts of people and things *have* the characteristic of impermanence and dukkha other than by deduction (but anatta can be quite safely attributed, I think), it would be misleading to think that they do in the same way as ultimate realities. On the other hand if you acknowledge the two different meanings, then why not state that they are different!? I see us unenlightened folks as more inclined to take the path of increasing wrong understanding if not held in check by wise consideration. I think part of what I consider wise consideration would be to clearly distinguish between concept and reality, if not, then taking what is unreal to be real would influence even our present understanding of what realities are. I know that ultimately wisdom is in seeing the trilakkhana, and I believe that just the distinguishing between concept and reality (intellectually) will not give rise to such wisdom. But it is based on this knowledge of concept and reality which the wisdom that sees the trilakkhana can arise. Do you agree with this? If yes, I am relieved. ;-). If not, then I request you Victor, to please be more elaborate in you explanation. You may see what you see, but I don’t, so please lead me gently to your understandings. I know you have been patient, but maybe what you need is a bit more empathy. :-) > I would not say that seeing the so-called "paramathha dhammas" and > the so-called "conventional objects" as they actually are > is "intellectual overlay". I would say that if one does not see > thus, one could just come up with self-views and hold them as the > Buddha's teaching: that is not only delusion in one's own part, but > also a misrepresentation of the Buddha's teaching to others. I think the danger of coming up with self-view is much and I appreciate your reminders. Though I am sure I often do not notice them even after the reminders. ;-) > Thank you again for your reply. Your feedback is much appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor Thanks for yours. Best wishes, Sukin 22055 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri May 9, 2003 9:51pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Howard and Victor, > Sukin, I agree with what you wrote here! I would also like for you to > consider the matter of the usefulness of merely repeating the formulas 1) > "Rupa is rupa, and nama is nama," 2) "(The referents of) concepts are not > impermanent, due to not existing," and 3) "Concepts are not realities". Thinking nama/ rupa, “concepts are not realitiesâ€? etc. not as a moment of wise consideration or knowing that it is just thinking, would I believe if repeated regularly, be a case of development of more ignorance rather than understanding. > The mere reciting of formulas, and even contemplating them and coming > to intellectually understand the facts they represent is not enough. Your > criticism of Victor's repetition of varying applications of "They are not > mine. They I am not. They are not my self." in a variety of contexts has > merit, I think. Does it not also have merit when applied to other facts that > become empty mantras? The process involves the relationship between pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. I don’t know what conditions are involved in the process, but allow me to relate my own understandings, which for sure is based on little subjective experience and made objective by inference according to the very limited panna that has been accumulated. But perhaps it might show that it does not necessarily involve what most otherwise consider the relationship between theory and practice. When one reads or hears the ‘dhamma’, there is either understanding or not depending on whether it confirms with what has been understood before, from whenever. Depending on the level of this understanding and the chanda it arouses, there may be noticing of these at that very moment or later on in daily life. All this is up to conditions, and if one thinks about *applying* the teachings, meaning one makes a deliberate effort to pinpoint and notice, this I think would be motivated by ignorance and craving, and will not condition the correct results. What can happen though, is one is reminded at any time of the day about satipatthana and the knowledge with regard to what are the objects of sati at this level, then whatever is the aramana at that time, that can be known. For example, the object might be a ‘person’, you know immediately, that it is a concept, and because of the knowledge that the eye only sees visible object, the accumulated panna may subsequently condition a not being drawn by the nimita and the anuvyanjana, and for a millisecond, there may be some sati of the level of satipatthana. And surely with so much ignorance accumulated, this is going to be followed by the different akusala cittas. And again, depending on accumulations, even this can be known, which will then be followed by ignorance and gang again. But even if there is never any sati, even this can be know ï?Š. In anycase, one must not be drawn then to try to ‘focus’ on one’s experience. One must see the value of detachment, the danger of wanting results and the appreciation that the development of satipatthana *must* take time. So there is ‘no one’ trying to arouse sati, but as you can see above, sati can arise and this would not have been possible without prior knowledge of the teachings. And like Sarah says, these moments are very precious. And to me, they have altogether a different quality to those moments when I deliberately sit down to watch by breath etc. In this case there is some degree of detachment I think, while in the other to me, it is mostly moha and a desire to get results which are conditioned. And of course one may judge one’s result in this regard and fall into the trap of desire and ignorance again, but even this can be known.:-) So Howard, this is the kind of experience which causes me to conclude that it *must* be natural and daily life. Otherwise there is a self which is going to determine what the result will be. I had something else in mind, which I thought would interest you to know, but I can’t remember, my children have been interrupting me every five minutes or less.:-( > Doesn't the Buddha present us with *training* to > cultivate the mind so that is can come to directly see, with wisdom, these > truths, most especially the truths that Victor mentions? If not, then why do > we follow him? To my present level of understanding, the process I believe involves more or less what I described above, but maybe my understanding will change in the future, I don’t know. And yes, I do believe that the truths which Victor mentions is the goal of our practice whatever that be. As to what the Buddha said and whether or not we follow him, I think his words are the only ones that can lead us out of samsara. But what are his words if we do not understand them, just words. And what is understanding, if not in this moment? I think we ‘follow’ every time there is a moment of satipatthana, if we think that we have to do certain things first, then there is a danger of not bridging the gap between theory and practice. And I think, pariyatti is part of the practice in this regard. Look forward to your thoughts on this. Metta, Sukin. 22056 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 10:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Grimm recipe Hi all, There are various ways of discovering that what is grasped is anatta. One is to analyze a whole into its parts. So what if we can't do that. Even if we could distinguish every single element in the citta, cetasika, arammana triad we would still have to find the parts of a single citta. One way to remedy this is to look for a greater whole. Another way is through objectivity; an object can't be a subject. The reason most relied upon by the Buddha is impermanence and dukkha. Larry 22057 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 9, 2003 10:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 39-40 for comment Dear Rob M, I appreciate your series. Here is just a typo: wholesome when they arise in > unwholesome cittas, unwholesome should be chnaged to wholesome. You may have noticed it too. Nina. op 09-05-2003 11:19 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > This is the list of the 13 mental factors which are unwholesome when > they arise in unwholesome cittas, wholesome when they arise in > unwholesome cittas and neutral when they arise in a neutral citta. 22058 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat May 10, 2003 1:01am Subject: Re: Computer as arising and falling away Jon, I think in studying Abhidhamma, one has to contemplate on what is stated to get the meaning, once the essense of it is understood, " seeing things as they are", becomes meaningful. "When we are not mindful of realities, we take the objects we experience for self. When panna realizes the objects which are experienced as nama and rupa, elements which do not last, there is less opportunity for akusala javana-cittas. (Chapter 14-Functions of Javana-Abhidhamma in Daily Life by Nina Van Gorkom) I like Nina's simple statement of facts. There are no intellectual assertions or excessive verbal chatter. It helps the reader to understand the dhamma through contemplation. We are in the non- conceptual thought processes. There is the seer and the seen, the observer and the observed. Neither one nor the other is lasting. At the moment of seeing there is only the seeing, there is the mindful- awareness of seeing. Therefore, the kilesas do not arise. If the mindfulness has slackened, the bhavanga citta awakened by the impingement of the external object on the sense door begins to run its course and on the fifth thought moment –chakkudvaravajjana citta sees the object. Due to the slackening of the mindfulness, citta moments do not stop at seeing, but continues its course and when it reaches the eighth moment of determination of the object, likes or dislikes to the object arise and thus the clining and aversion and akusal citta is produced. In "seeing things as they are",as in all other sense door activities, the purpose is to see the nature of paramatta dhamma and be aware of the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and no-self. But in getting involved or reacting to what is seen,( heard, smelled,felt etc) the whole purpose of "seeing as they are" is lost. In seeing mindfully, you do not investigate the external object, its color, its size, its make. You just see it that's it. Malukya Putta was an Old Bikkhu, he went to the Buddha and asked him to give instructions for him to meditate, and the Buddha made the discourse, which is called the Malukyaputta Sutta, (http://www.budsas.org/ebud/mahasi-malukya/mahasi-malukya-01.htm) "Malukyaputta, if when you see, you see it; if when you hear, you just hear it; if when you think, you just think it; when you know, you just know it, then you will realize that the sense objects you perceive have nothing to do with you." When we experience a sense door object, there are three" elements". For instance when we see, there is the (1) eye, the(2) object and the (3) eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, and so is the object and so is the eye-consciousness. They are therefore all impermanent paramatta dhammas. That is the insight to the moment of seeing. With metta, Yasa 22059 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 10, 2003 2:54am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob M, Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. I would say that you have misunderstood what you read. This misunderstanding is a misunderstanding of what self-view is. A self-view (or personality view) is delineation of what self is (a delineation of what I am or what you are.) An example of self-view is "self is form"/"I am form"/"one is form". Again, thank you for your reply. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > A comment I would make is that the existence or non-existence of > > self and freewill is irrelevant to the Buddha's teaching. I would > > say that each one of us can choose between skillful/wholesome > action > > and unskillful/unwholesome action, and each action that one > chooses > > has a consequence. > > You wrote, "... each one of us can choose between... ". When I read > this, I see both "self-view" and "freewill" represented. Perhaps I > have misunderstood. Please help me to understand your perspective. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 22060 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 10, 2003 2:54am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob M, Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. I would say that you have misunderstood what you read. This misunderstanding is a misunderstanding of what self-view is. A self-view (or personality view) is delineation of what self is (a delineation of what I am or what you are.) An example of self-view is "self is form"/"I am form"/"one is form". Again, thank you for your reply. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > A comment I would make is that the existence or non-existence of > > self and freewill is irrelevant to the Buddha's teaching. I would > > say that each one of us can choose between skillful/wholesome > action > > and unskillful/unwholesome action, and each action that one > chooses > > has a consequence. > > You wrote, "... each one of us can choose between... ". When I read > this, I see both "self-view" and "freewill" represented. Perhaps I > have misunderstood. Please help me to understand your perspective. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 22061 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 10, 2003 3:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing only sees. Hi Nina, Hi Nina, If I understand your points, you are saying: - All cittas in the eye-door citta-process experience the visible object, not a mental image - All cittas in the mind-door process immediately following the eye- door process also experience the visible object, not a mental image I have read these points before and the first point makes sense to allow "synchronization" between the sense-door citta process and the rupa that is its object. Nevertheless, I still have a problem in understanding this. Consider a eye-consciousness citta. The object is visible object and the base is eye-base. I envision this citta arising at the back of the retina. At this moment, the visible object is impinging on the eye-base and I believe that this is the reason that vitakka and vicara are not required in this citta. Now let us consider the next citta in the eye-door citta process, the receiving citta. At this moment, the visible object is still impinging on the eye-base, but this citta arises at some other place than the eye-base (the heart base). If I understand correctly, this citta (and all other cittas, except sense-consciousness cittas and higer-level jhana cittas) accesses its object through the heart base and this is why it needs vitakka and vicara. This is where I am confused. Can you give me an analogy to explain how these other cittas can access an object that exists somewhere else (i.e. eye- base rather than heart base). Metta, Rob M :-) PS: Thanks for catching the typo on my slide --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob M, > Thank you very much. > I just have one point that puzzles me somewhat:as I understand it, the other > cittas in the eye-door process also experience visible object, not a mental > image. I remember I had a conversation about this or something similar with > Howard. It is just the term mental image. > Also in the subsequent mind-door process the object is visible object, not a > mental image. There was some discussion about this before in view of > vipassana nana: it is visible object that is realized by insight knowledge > through the mind-door, in a mind-door process. It knows through the > mind-door nama as nama and rupa as rupa, not a mental image of rupa. > It helps to differentiate the functions of physical base, vatthu and > doorway, dvara. I see it more this way: cittas know on object through a > doorway, I would not stress: they access it through a base, since this is > only the place of origin of the citta, although it is the same rupa in the > case of seeing, namely the eyesense. I would not use the word mindbase for > the physical base of cittas, since this is also the word used for > manaayaatana. If you like to avoid the word heart base, you could say, the > rupa which is the base for those cittas. > After seeing has seen visible object it is succeeded by other cittas which > also experience visible object since this has not fallen away, it lasts as > long as seventeen moments of citta, comparing the duration of rupa with the > duration of citta. Thus, it is still experienced, it is not a mental image. > Perhaps Dhamma Issues no. 1 on ayatanas could be of interest here, quoting > only a part : > > eye-sense (cakkhu pasåda rúpa) etc. is åyatana at each moment of citta in > the eye-door process, not only at the moment seeing (cakkhuviññåna) arises. > > The reason for this conclusion is given by the ³Dispeller of Delusion², > Classification of the Bases (åyatanas), and the Visuddhimagga (XV, 10). We > read in the ³Visuddhimagga²: ³For only the åyatana of the eye-base is the > door of arising, and only the åyatana of visible object is the object of the > consciousness group (viññåna kåya) comprised in a cognitive series > containing eye-consciousness.² > This shows that the rúpa of eyesense (cakkhuppasåda rúpa) is the eye-door > and the åyatana of the eye (cakkhåyatana) at each moment of citta in the > eye-door process and that evenso visible object is the åyatana of visible > object (rúpåyatana) at each moment of citta in the eye-door process. The > reason is that both the eye-sense and the visible object are realities which > have not fallen away yet and that they are ³associating² at each moment of > citta of the eye-door process.> > > Nina. > > op 29-04-2003 06:25 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > > > The seeing consciousness citta is the only citta in the > > sense door citta process that "directly" touches the rupa (visible > > object); the subsequent cittas in the same sense door citta process > > only access a mental image (through the mind-base). > > - In the case of the remaining 16 cittas, the object must be > > accessed through the mind-base. For these cittas, the object is a > > mental image. This is a "less direct" connection than occurs with > > the seeing consciousness, so there is a need for the cetasiaka > > vitakka "to provide an introduction to the object" and there is a > > need for the cetasika vicara to "sustain connection with the object". 22062 From: Date: Sat May 10, 2003 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 5/10/03 12:49:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukin@k... writes: > I do not believe > that conventional objects have the characteristic of impermanence > that a paramattha dhamma has. ============================ Were you to say that there ultimately *are* no conventional objects to have any characteristics whatsoever, it would make sense (and I would agree), and if you were to add that these only-apparently-existing objects appear to arise and cease due to the arising and ceasing of the actual experiences that are the basis upon which our minds project them, it would make sense (and I would agree). But in that sense, a derivative, conventional sense, they can be correctly talked about as existing and as being impermanent. The Buddha certainly includes such impermanence as part of his teaching, as he also includes the dukkha and anatta of conventional objects, due in part measure to their (derivative) impermanence. And he does so, because the first step that turns one in the direction of pursuing the Dhamma, in walking the path towards freedom, is recognizing the tilakkhana as they apply to the "conventional world" in which the worldling finds his/herself. This is where we begin! Seeing the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, insubstantiality, dependency, and impersonality of everyday conventional objects is *critical* to release. The first unsophisticated glimmerings of this in worldlings is what turns worldlings into seekers. When these seekers come upon the Buddha's Dhamma and follow it, their understanding of the tilakkhana grows, and the detailed application of the Buddha's teaching eventually enables them to see through the conventional objects to the direct experiences that are the basis of their construction - that is, the conventional objects are "seen through", and, moreover, it is then seen that the directly experienced phenomena themselves have the tilkakkhana as characteristics, that there is nothing whatsoever to hold onto, that there is no ground at all under one's feet - no self to be found within, and no self to be found without, there is nowhere to take a stand, and seeing this, at last, there is a complete and final letting go. Now, to return to the small issue at hand, to say that conventional objects lack impermanence is already to treat "conventional objects" as things, but, worse, as things that the Buddha wouldn't admit to, namely things that arise but do not cease. (I speak conventionally now.) The sprouting plant I see in the corner of my garden was not there during the winter. It arose after the winter. The Buddha said that whatever is of the character to arise is also of the character to cease. That plant is impermanent - it will not last. 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) 22063 From: Date: Sat May 10, 2003 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi, Victor (and Rob) - In a message dated 5/10/03 5:54:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Rob M, > > Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. > > I would say that you have misunderstood what you read. This > misunderstanding is a misunderstanding of what self-view is. > > A self-view (or personality view) is delineation of what self is (a > delineation of what I am or what you are.) > An example of self-view is "self is form"/"I am form"/"one is form". > > Again, thank you for your reply. Your feedback is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor > > =========================== I agree that a self view or personality view is exactly such a delineation. The problem with all of these is that they presume that there is a self, and then attempt to specify which observed things *are* that self. The thing is, that wherever we look, nothing is ever come across that can rightfully be thought of as self. But to see this *in such terms*, we have to know what we mean by the TERM 'self'. To observe that there is no elephant in my kitchen, I need to know what I mean by 'elephant'. To use a term, think about it, and to define it, does not imply the presumption that there is anything that it is a name for. We can define 'unicorn' without there being any unicorns. My point here, specifically, is that to understand the meaning of "sabbe dhamma anatta," we must understand the meaning of the term 'anatta'. We cannot understand a statement communicated to us unless we know the intended meanings of the terms involved. Definitions of no-self and of self are different from "delineations" of self. The definitions are a means to understand the TERM 'self. To *define* the term is not the taking of a self view. It is merely a means to enable people to converse using terms in the same way. If when person A says "rhinoceros," person B understands 'unicorn', no meaningful communication can be carried out. By a 'self' in anything, I mean a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing. In any namarupic flux, such a core or essence would be what some people call "the soul", some call "personal identity", and some call "the I or ego". Using my definition of 'self' one can then look at all the aspects of one's namrupic flow to see if if there is to be found anywhere a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence, and formulate the conclusion in terms of whether or not anything has been found that is a self. Now, of course, even without a definition of the term 'self', one can still look and never find such a core or essence, and full enlightenment can arise. We do not need the definition for enlightenment! We only need it for communication. My point in the foregoing is simply that defining the term 'self' is different from a delineation of self, and, certainly different from the presumption of the existence of self. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22064 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Sat May 10, 2003 7:53am Subject: trip to Burma Dear Dhamma friends, The Dhamma Study and Support Foundation, where Tan Achaan Sujin teaches, is organizing a trip to Burma in January, to include Rangoon, Mandalay and Pagan, among others. The exact dates are yet to be announced. We hope that by that time the SARS threat will have abated somewhat to allow any of you who might wish to join us to do so. I have a preliminary itinerary and an estimated cost of Bt 28,000 (US$650), from Bangkok and return. If you would be interested in joining us, please e-mail me at the address below and I will send you a translation of the itinerary. metta, Betty _______________________ Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 e-mail: beyugala@k... 22065 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 10, 2003 8:08am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Sukin, Thank you for your reply. I would say that the goal of Buddha's teaching is liberation, the cessation of dukkha. Seeing every conditioned phenomenon being impermanent, dukkha, not self as it actually is, one grows disenchanted with it. Disenchanted, one becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, one is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' One discerns that 'Birth is depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' I would say that that making a distinction between the so- called "paramathha dhammas" and the so-called "conventional objects" based on the idea that the so-called "paramathha dhammas" have the three characteristics whereas the so-called "conventional objects" don't is erroneous. It is erroneous because the idea that the so- called "conventional objects" don't have the three characteristics is false. I would not say that the so-called "conventional objects" are permanent, not dukkha, self. Rather, I would say that the so- called "conventional objects" are impermanent, dukkha, not self. I would not say "wisdom sees the three characteristics of conditioned phenomenon." Rather, I would say that "one sees the three characterics of conditioned phenomenon with wisdom." Why? Because wisdom is not self. Thank you again for your reply. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > I would say this again: > > Both the so-called "paramathha dhammas" and the so- > > called "conventional objects" are impermanent, dukkha, and not > > self. They are to be seen as they actually are with right > > discernment thus: "They are not mine. They I am not. They are > not > > my self."* > > This is where I have a problem Victor, is that you group paramattha > dhammas and conventional objects together and ascribe the > trilakkhana to both these with the same conviction. I do not believe > that conventional objects have the characteristic of impermanence > that a paramattha dhamma has. But one can superimpose an *idea* of > impermanence to both of them, which is what I think you are doing. > But of course on the other hand, you have also talked about ‘seeing’ > the different phenomena ‘as they truly are with right discernment’. > Here I believe you are being sincere. So your own experience might > be the actual perception of say ‘visible object’ and this might > follow with the understanding that it is anatta, anicca and dukkha > in the sense of these being what the Buddha advised us to take all > experiences as. > It seems to me, that you see understanding all phenomena as having > the three characteristic as the goal and aim of the Buddha’s > teachings, so you do not care to make any distinction between them. > So I am repeating what I said in the last letter :-/. Anyway, since > I do not believe that concepts of people and things *have* the > characteristic of impermanence and dukkha other than by deduction > (but anatta can be quite safely attributed, I think), it would be > misleading to think that they do in the same way as ultimate > realities. On the other hand if you acknowledge the two different > meanings, then why not state that they are different!? > I see us unenlightened folks as more inclined to take the path of > increasing wrong understanding if not held in check by wise > consideration. I think part of what I consider wise consideration > would be to clearly distinguish between concept and reality, if not, > then taking what is unreal to be real would influence even our > present understanding of what realities are. > > I know that ultimately wisdom is in seeing the trilakkhana, and I > believe that just the distinguishing between concept and reality > (intellectually) will not give rise to such wisdom. But it is based > on this knowledge of concept and reality which the wisdom that sees > the trilakkhana can arise. Do you agree with this? If yes, I am > relieved. ;-). If not, then I request you Victor, to please be more > elaborate in you explanation. You may see what you see, but I don’t, > so please lead me gently to your understandings. I know you have > been patient, but maybe what you need is a bit more empathy. :-) > > > I would not say that seeing the so-called "paramathha dhammas" and > > the so-called "conventional objects" as they actually are > > is "intellectual overlay". I would say that if one does not see > > thus, one could just come up with self-views and hold them as the > > Buddha's teaching: that is not only delusion in one's own part, > but > > also a misrepresentation of the Buddha's teaching to others. > > I think the danger of coming up with self-view is much and I > appreciate your reminders. Though I am sure I often do not notice > them even after the reminders. ;-) > > > Thank you again for your reply. Your feedback is much appreciated. > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > Thanks for yours. > > Best wishes, > Sukin 22066 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 10, 2003 8:08am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Sukin, Thank you again for your reply. Since you mentioned about effort, I would like to point to the passages on right effort with the link http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vayamo.html Your comment on the passages on right effort is appreciated. Regards, Victor > Hi Howard and Victor, [snip] > and if one thinks about *applying* the teachings, > meaning one makes a deliberate effort to pinpoint and notice, this I > think would be motivated by ignorance and craving, and will not > condition the correct results. [snip] > > Look forward to your thoughts on this. > > Metta, > Sukin. 22067 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 10, 2003 8:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Howard, Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate it. I would say that the idea "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing" is an assumption. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor (and Rob) - > [snip] > By a 'self' in anything, I mean a substantial, independent, unchanging > core or essence in that thing. In any namarupic flux, such a core or essence > would be what some people call "the soul", some call "personal identity", and > some call "the I or ego". Using my definition of 'self' one can then look at > all the aspects of one's namrupic flow to see if if there is to be found > anywhere a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence, and > formulate the conclusion in terms of whether or not anything has been found > that is a self. Now, of course, even without a definition of the term 'self', > one can still look and never find such a core or essence, and full > enlightenment can arise. We do not need the definition for enlightenment! We > only need it for communication. My point in the foregoing is simply that > defining the term 'self' is different from a delineation of self, and, > certainly different from the presumption of the existence of self. > > With metta, > Howard > 22068 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat May 10, 2003 8:48am Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Dear Victor and Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi Howard, Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate it. I would say that the idea "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing" is an assumption. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor KKT: How could the idea << "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing" >> be anything other than an assumption? Such thing does not exist. It exists only as an definition for the convenience of philosophical discussions. Regards, KKT 22069 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 10, 2003 8:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi KKT (and Howard), Thank you for your input. I would say that the Buddha's teaching is not based on the assumption "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing". I would also say that self is not to be assumed as a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing in the first place. Again, thank you for your input. Your further feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor and Howard, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > Hi Howard, > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate it. > > I would say that the idea "self is a substantial, independent, > unchanging core or essence in that thing" is an assumption. > > Your feedback is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > KKT: How could the idea > << "self is a substantial, independent, > unchanging core or essence in that thing" >> > be anything other than an assumption? > > Such thing does not exist. > It exists only as an definition > for the convenience of > philosophical discussions. > > > Regards, > > > KKT 22070 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat May 10, 2003 9:21am Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT (and Howard), Thank you for your input. I would say that the Buddha's teaching is not based on the assumption "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing". I would also say that self is not to be assumed as a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing in the first place. Again, thank you for your input. Your further feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor KKT: Exactly, Victor. The Buddha's teaching is not based on the assumption "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing" Such assumption is of brahmanes and wandering ascetics of His time and in His teachings the Buddha refutes such erroneous views. Regards, KKT 22071 From: Date: Sat May 10, 2003 3:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/10/03 11:25:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate it. > > I would say that the idea "self is a substantial, independent, > unchanging core or essence in that thing" is an assumption. > > Your feedback is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== It's not an assumption, Victor - it is a definition; it is a statement of what I mean by a certain term. If I were to say that a strange vegetative growth I'm seeing for the first time is a kind of tree, that would be an assumption, but if I were to say that by a "wiffo" I mean an extremely light yo-yo, that would not be an assumption, but rather a definition of a term. Do you get the difference I'm trying to put forward? It is not an assumption, for example, to say that a bus is a ground vehicle used for transporting several people from place to place - it is a definition of the term 'bus'. But once it is agreed upon what 'bus' means, then it is an assumption to say that busses are the most comfortable vehicles. 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) 22072 From: Date: Sat May 10, 2003 3:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi, KKT - In a message dated 5/10/03 11:49:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > > KKT: How could the idea > <<"self is a substantial, independent, > unchanging core or essence in that thing" >> > be anything other than an assumption? > > Such thing does not exist. > It exists only as an definition > for the convenience of > philosophical discussions. > > > Regards, > > > KKT > > ================================= Defining a term does NOT imply that it has an actual reference. A standard definition, for example, is "A unicorn is an animal that is in every respect a horse except for having a single hornin the center of its forehead". To state such a definition is not to make an assumption of any sort. 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) 22073 From: Date: Sat May 10, 2003 3:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi, KKT (and Victor) - In a message dated 5/10/03 12:48:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > > > Hi KKT (and Howard), > > Thank you for your input. > > I would say that the Buddha's teaching is not based on the > assumption "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or > essence in that thing". I would also say that self is not to be > assumed as a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in > that thing in the first place. > > Again, thank you for your input. Your further feedback is > appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > KKT: Exactly, Victor. > > The Buddha's teaching is not > based on the assumption > "self is a substantial, independent, > unchanging core or essence in that thing" > > Such assumption is of brahmanes > and wandering ascetics of His time > and in His teachings the Buddha > refutes such erroneous views. > > > Regards, > > > KKT > > ================================ Absolutely wrong. The notion of self at the time of the Buddha was as I stated. The Brahmans and others assumed the existence of such, but the Buddha did not. It is the question of existence that was the matter of assumption. 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) 22074 From: lokuttaracitta Date: Sun May 11, 2003 0:34am Subject: question! Dear menbers here. I am a buddhist,just a beginner of Abhidhammas in Theravarda traditon . Could you please let me know if arahats and other 3 types of the noble ones are having direct experience of Nibbana during before/post lokuttara-jhanas? As a matter of facts, I even do not know there is such states like before/post lokuttara-jhanas in the 4 type of noble ones. And Do you know any sutta reffering to before/post-lokuttara-jhana states ? It would be grateful if you could give me your reply. from kk 22075 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun May 11, 2003 0:51am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Howard, This morning I wanted to see what deep dhamma subject is under discussion and saw,that the more than ten posts are on "the free will or not". Trying to define "self". "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing." or again on definitions " Unicorn is an animal with a sigle horn in the centre of the fore head" "bus is a vehicle carrying passengers" Some such discussion. I just thought to myself, that however, one defines "self", all those definitions are concepts, and "self" is also a concept, and the unicorn and the bus as well. with metta, Yasa 22076 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun May 11, 2003 1:13am Subject: Re: question! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "lokuttaracitta" wrote: > Dear menbers here. > > I am a buddhist,just a beginner of Abhidhammas in Theravarda traditon . > > Could you please let me know if arahats and other 3 types of the noble ones > are having direct experience of Nibbana during before/post lokuttara-jhanas? > > As a matter of facts, I even do not know there is such states like before/post > lokuttara-jhanas in the 4 type of noble ones. > > And Do you know any sutta reffering to before/post-lokuttara-jhana states ? > > It would be grateful if you could give me your reply. > > > from kk Please pardon my intrusion,to answer, when I am myself learning the elements of Abhidhamma. Abhidhamma is the most profound of the teachings of the Buddha. Understanding it from the begining: what is a citta ? What are its contents ? How many difeerent types of citta are ther ? Why do we have citta ? What is its importance ? Can we stop them and how ?, would allow us to understand, why other people are different that they also have citta, and then to know the Buddhas, Paccheka Buddhas and the four Ariya Puggala, have citta, and also to understand concepts and whether there are things beyond concepts. Is Nibbana a concept or a non concept ? The question you ask , will be answered as you go deeper into Abhidhamma. I recommend you read " Abhidhamma in Daily life" by Nina Van Gorkom- see the website: http://www.vipassana.info with metta, Yasa 22077 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sun May 11, 2003 1:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Howard, You said: > Were you to say that there ultimately *are* no conventional objects to > have any characteristics whatsoever, it would make sense (and I would agree), Yes. > and if you were to add that these only-apparently-existing objects appear to > arise and cease due to the arising and ceasing of the actual experiences that > are the basis upon which our minds project them, it would make sense (and I > would agree). Yes, but that would not be the whole story. During samadhi meditation for example, the object will appear to last for a long time, when in actual fact the cittas rise an fall as usual. Ultimately when the conditions maintaining this object are no more, then yes it would be true that in this sense, the apparently-existing objects would have appeared to fall because of the falling of conditions. So the relationship is not direct as in saying that the citta falls, then the concept would have to appear to fall as well. But I am sure you realize this already ;-). > But in that sense, a derivative, conventional sense, they can > be correctly talked about as existing and as being impermanent. > The Buddha certainly includes such impermanence as part of his > teaching, as he also includes the dukkha and anatta of conventional objects, > due in part measure to their (derivative) impermanence. And he does so, > because the first step that turns one in the direction of pursuing the > Dhamma, in walking the path towards freedom, is recognizing the tilakkhana as > they apply to the "conventional world" in which the worldling finds > his/herself. This is where we begin! Seeing the impermanence, > unsatisfactoriness, insubstantiality, dependency, and impersonality of > everyday conventional objects is *critical* to release. The first > unsophisticated glimmerings of this in worldlings is what turns worldlings > into seekers. When these seekers come upon the Buddha's Dhamma and follow it, > their understanding of the tilakkhana grows, and the detailed application of > the Buddha's teaching eventually enables them to see through the conventional > objects to the direct experiences that are the basis of their construction - > that is, the conventional objects are "seen through", and, moreover, it is > then seen that the directly experienced phenomena themselves have the > tilkakkhana as characteristics, that there is nothing whatsoever to hold > onto, that there is no ground at all under one's feet - no self to be found > within, and no self to be found without, there is nowhere to take a stand, > and seeing this, at last, there is a complete and final letting go. I don't think this is necessarily the case, not because conditions might change and a person might even be attracted to other religions and philosophies, but because I don't think there is a direct relationship between the two, except in thinking that it is so. Removing the tag of Buddhism, let us consider what conventional impermanence means, compared to the ultimate meaning. In the first case, there is a 'self' relying on memory to compare the past images with present ones and projecting a future image. This may give an idea that things out there, or one's own physical body does not last, so one sees that it is not worth clinging to. But this would still be relying on images and ideas. But what about knowing one's own citta, whether or not that is kusala? Whether this moment there is 'clinging' and that *this* is the cause of dukhha, and not the 'idea' of permanence!? That it is this that is impermanent and not-self? I think there will always remain this gap between conventional and ultimate understanding if there is no acknowledgement of momentary nature of experience. The conventional understanding is of a different nature to latter. Even other religions have to some degree this conventional knowledge, but as you know, in their case it conditions more miccha ditthi. Sammaditthi would require this acknowledgment of paramattha dhammas, I think. When the Buddha used conventional examples, I am sure he was aware that his audience knew about the ultimate meaning as well. I can look back at my own case and see that I was drawn to Buddhism through conventional understandings. But I arrived here today only becasue I heard about ultimate meaning and was attracted to it, my former understandings did not somehow materialize into paramattha understanding, and I would have gotten more deep into conventional interpretation, even with meditation practice, because it would have been without the knowledge of what anicca, dukkha and anatta as applied to ultimate realities really means. In your own case Howard, can you say that your understanding of the tilakkhana 'grew' out of conventional understanding, or was it because you were introduced to Abhidhamma?! I don't think there can be a "seeing through" of conventional constructs, what can take place is simply understanding them to be 'conventional' and this would only have been because we were 'informed' about the difference between this and ultimate realities... I think the way the Dhamma influences our understanding, is that it tells us what is actually out there and in here, so that we might not be drawn by our own projections and instead come to know what to expect. On our own with minimal knowledge and panna, I think we will keep on creating ideas about reality. Ignorance and craving are so influential that it will not allow us to 'see through' anything. ;-) > Now, to return to the small issue at hand, to say that conventional > objects lack impermanence is already to treat "conventional objects" as > things, but, worse, as things that the Buddha wouldn't admit to, namely > things that arise but do not cease. (I speak conventionally now.) So lets just say that they do not exist! So why say that they arise? Or that we can learn the nature of rise and fall from them?! > The sprouting plant I see in the corner of my garden was not there > during the winter. It arose after the winter. The Buddha said that > whatever is of the character to arise is also of the character to cease. > That plant is impermanent - it will not last. This relation as I said above is based on thinking about past, present and future. If our memory was all of a sudden lost, we wouldn't be able to tell if indeed your sprout was growing or shrinking! But in either case, what could be said for certain is that the perception of it arose and fell.... :-) I hope I have not misunderstood the point of your post. Await your response. Metta, Sukin. 22078 From: Star Kid Date: Sun May 11, 2003 4:13am Subject: Thankyou. Dear Yasalalaka, Thankyou for the lovely sites that you've given me. The sites has given me alot of information. I think the most interesting part was about 'Prince Siddharta'. There was a news article in Hong Kong about a baby. When this baby was born, the baby could speak. This baby was born on the Buddha's birthday, which we celebrated on Thursday in Hong Kong. The baby said that if you want to cure SARS, then you'll have to eat three spoons of green peas boiled with water, but no sugar added. After the baby had said it, the baby just died. But maybe it could be a rumor. I don't really know lot's of things about it. I heard the Buddha could speak when he was born. What do you think about it? Metta, Sandy P.S. Please tell me if I made any mistakes, because I'm only eleven. ______________________________________________________ 22079 From: Star Kid Date: Sun May 11, 2003 4:15am Subject: SANdy!! Dear Sandy: How are you? It's so nice to hear from you. How are you doing at school? I was so suprised that you had learnt many things about Buddha! Well, I learnt something by reading the books about Buddha and reading the letters. Actually, I didn't learn as much as you did but I know a lot about human nature!! Some people are really nice, but some are really terrible! Finally, what do you think about Buddha? Take care Kiana 22080 From: Star Kid Date: Sun May 11, 2003 4:18am Subject: Kiana Dear Kiana, I am Kimmy, I 'm mainly writing to answer the 'questions' in your letter. First, I am quite interested in Buddhism, just only part of it, I am interested in the stories. Second, I do not wholely believe in Buddhism, since I am studying in a Christian college, I believe more in Christianity. How about you? Do you believe in Buddhism or are you interested in it? Lastly, I have a question to ask you. Do you know the exact meaning of ADIDAS?? The answer is 'All Days I Dream About Sports'. Kimmy 22081 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 11, 2003 5:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional right view vs. Noble right view Smallchap --- smallchap wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > > PS A follow-up question for you, Smallchap. In this thread > > we have > > been talking about the sense in which it can be said that a > > computer > > is conditioned. Would you say that the knowledge that a > > computer is > > built from parts and did not spontaneously come into existence > > as an > > assembled whole, or knowledge of the need for parts, skill and > > effort > > as a condition for the coming into existence of a computer, is > > conventional right view? (Not a trick question, I promise > > ;-)) > > S: Since it has not been included in MN 117 as right view, we > need not speculate on whether it is conventional right view, > else we risk falling into false views as described by the Buddha > in MN 72. This is perhaps a similar answer to the one I had in mind, namely that such a thought could arise either with or without right view, and only the person in whom the thought arose could know which was the case in a given instance, and even then, only if there was a level of awareness in relation to that mindstate. > Here is a small section copied from Vism. Ch XX 73. It descibes > how one should discern with reagrds to inanimate things. I am > sure you will find it interesting (and please don't throw away > your copy of Visudhimagga ;-)). Thanks for the interesting passage from Visuddhi-Magga that follows. I think you're drawing my attention to the fact that, on the face of it, the passage seems to be advocating the choosing of a conventional object as an object of 'practice', and then 'applying' awareness to it (I see what you mean about throwing my copy of Visuddhi-Magga away!). This passage is by no means unique in its style of presentation. In fact, a large part of the Visuddhi-Magga, including the rest of Ch XX, reads superficially in the manner of a 'do this next' manual. In my view, however, it is clear from many detailed references in the Visuddhi-Magga itself that no such literal interpretation is intended. Ch XX of Visuddhi-Magga deals with 'knowledge and vision of what is and what is not the path'. To be capable of this level of understanding, a person must have already developed the understanding that knows nama as nama and rupa as rupa (nama-rupa-pariccheda nana, the first of the 16 stages of 'vipassana-nana' (insight) leading to the first stage of enlightenment), and that discerns the conditions of nama and rupa (paccaya-pariggha nana, the second of the 16 stages). For such a person awareness arises frequently and has become habitual; there would be the firm realisation based on direct experience that awareness arises from its own conditions and not because of any intention for there to be awareness of a particular kind in relation to a particular object. Jon > "Having attributed the three characterics to that arising from > nutriment, etc., he again attributes the three characteristics > to natural materiality. Natural materiality is a name for > external materiality that is bound up with faculties and arises > along with the aeon of world expansion, for example, iron, > copper, tin, lead, gold, silver, pearl, gem, beryl, conch, > shell, marble, coral, ruby, opal, soil, stone, rock, grass, > tree, creeper, and so on (see Vbh.83). That becomes evident to > him by means of an asoka-tree shoot. For that to begin with is > pale pink; then in two or three days it becomes dense red; again > in two or three days it becomes dull red, next [brown,] the > colour of a tender [mango] shoot; next, the colour of arowing > shoot; next, the colour of pale leaves; next, the colour of dard > green leaves. After it has become the colour of dark green > leaves, as it follows out the successive stages of such material > continuity, it eventually becomes withered foliage, and at the > end of the year it breaks loose from its stem and falls off. > > "Discerning that, he attributes the three characterics to it > thus: The materiality occuring when it is pale pink ceases there > without reaching the time when it is dense red; the materiality > occuring when it is dense red ceases there without reaching the > time when it is dull red; the materiality occuring when it is > dull red ceases there without reaching the time when it is the > colour of a tender [mango] shoot; the materiality occuring when > it is the colour of a tender [mango] shoot ceases there without > reaching the time when it is the colour of a growing shoot; the > materiality occuring when it is the colour of a growing shoot > ceases there without reaching the time when it is the colour of > pale green leaves; the materiality occuring when it is the > colour of pale green leaves ceases there without reaching the > time when it is the colour of dark green leaves; the materiality > occuring when it is the colour of dark green leaves ceases there > without reaching the time when it is withered foliage; the > materiality occuring when it is withered foliage ceases there > without reaching the time when it breaks loose from its stem and > falls off; therefore it is impernanent, painful, not self. > > "He comprehends all natural materiality in this way. 22082 From: Nantawat Sitdhiraksa Date: Sun May 11, 2003 4:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Grimm recipe Dear Andrew, Nina, Sarah, Ken, Yassa, Larry, and everyon. Sukin brought the question of the soup up in our afternoon discussion yesterday. Let me put the debate up first. ___________________________________ King Milinda and Ven. Nagasena were discussing about characteristics of cittas and cetasikas. The king , “ was it possible to separate the citta and its associated dhamma, cetasikas: phassa, vedana, sanna, cetana, vitakka, vicara.” Ven. “No, great king, this cannot be done. Like, a cook was to prepare a soup containing curds, slat, ginger, cumin seeds, and pepper (sounds like he is making a curry, not a soup for me J ). Then the king asked the chef to separate all the flavors to present him one at a time. Can it be done?” The king, “ No, yet each flavor would be distinctively presented by its characteristic sign.” Ven. “ Then it’s the same, to separate the dhammas out is impossible to do, but each dhamma would be distinctively presented by its own characteristic sign.” _________________________________ A.Sujin pointed this out as the debate regarding association condition (sampayutta paccaya). When rupas blended together, it’s very difficult to separate them out. It’s even much harder to separate out the namadhamma (cetasika from citta, or one cetasika from other cetasikas). We still can appreciate each flavor of the soup, even all the ingredients are blended together. Citta and its accompanied cetasikas can have only one object at a time. So when there is a moment of satipatthana, one can be aware of one dhamma at a time. The chef cannot separate all the ingredients out, but the taste of each ingredient can be distinctively experienced. The Buddha can know all dhammas, one by one, by his sabbannyuttanana. We can know only what we can know. I agree with Nina that dhamma is not a list of ingredients. To me, this debate is about satipatthana practice. It’s a function of sati to be aware of an object. Milindapanha borrows a lot from the tipitaka. Yes, all 3 pitakas were mentioned in Milindapanha. We then discussed about level of panna; sutamayapanna, cintamayapanna, and bhavanamayapanna. Panna of an arahant is definitely different from a lay person (puthuijana). Even among the arahants, their degrees of panna are varied. Without seeing dhammas as the way they are, anattaness is still a conceptual story. The thread also reminded me of a current controversy in Thailand. Actually, this controversy is not brand new, even in the Kathavatthu(the Point of Controversy) mentioned the same kind of debate. It’s about the idea of self. Some monks point out that the word “self” is used so many times in the tipitaka, so there is self. For example there is a famous saying “attahi attano natho” (one should refuge in oneself), so they say there is self. How come we say there is no self? To me, if we read or listen to only some parts of the teaching, we might have an inclination to jump to a conclusion too quickly. Best wishes, A quiet dsg member. Num <<<>>> 22083 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 11, 2003 5:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Yasa --- yasalalaka wrote: ... > Bhavana, means the cultivation of the mind. It is further defined > as development of mind or culture of mind. Meditation is the > English > word, generally in use. Bhavana was the means to get the mind > concentrated to attain `dyana' in Hiduism. It existed in India > long before Buddhism. This clarifies a lot already. I would happily agree with the statement that: "If someone says that bhavana is not necessary to attain nibbana, he is getting far away from the Buddha's teachings." I believe this is a preferable way of putting it, given that 'meditation' means all sorts of different things to different people, and is not a term found in the texts. In particular, I would consider incorrect the statement that: "If someone says that a formal meditation practice is not necessary to attain nibbana, he is getting far away from the Buddha's teachings." To my understanding, there are 2 kinds of bhavana mentioned in the texts, namely, samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. Samatha bhavana is the development of tranquility (accompanied by panna) that can lead to the absorptions (jhana). Vipassana bhavana is the development of insight into the true nature of dhammas (again, a level of panna) that leads to the attainment of enlightenment. Both kinds of bhavana involve the development of panna, but the level of panna is different. I am not aware of anything in the texts that says a formal sitting practice is a necessary prerequisite for either. ... > The Buddha used samatha meditation for one pointed concentration > and attain jhana(dyana) absorptions, to have a highly developed > mental state, from there to turn the mind to Vipassana (literally > means seeing in different ways), to have insight into causes of > suffering, and through panna, to see anicca, dukkha and anatma and > attain enlightenment. Vipassana Meditation is the unique > "discovery" > of the Buddha, he learnt it of his own, without any bodies > prompting ! It is true that in the Buddha's own case the final development of insight that issued in enlightenment was preceded by the jhanas. However, the issue for us is not what happened in the Buddha's own case, but what he taught afterwards as being the path by which insight is to be developed. For this we need to look beyond the Buddha's own life-story, and study his words as recorded in the suttas and elaborated in the commentaries. > Bhavana is the removal of unwholesome mental factors and develop > wholesome mental factors, to build calmness and concentration to > see > the true nature of all phenomena. In the sutta, the word used is > sati, translated as mindfulness. At moments of samatha the unwholesome mental factors are temporarily suppressed. However, only the development of vipassana bhavana leads to the permanent eradication of these unwholesome mental factors. > Please see the following extract from the Maha Satipatthana Sutta > ( discourse on the four foundations of Mindfulness), taken > from "accesstoinsight": I am aware that many people read this passage as advocating a formal sitting 'practice' of some kind for the development of mindfulness. In my view, if one considers the wording carefully, it's clear that no such meaning is intended. In any event, even such an interpretation would still leave the rest of the section on Mindfulness of the Body, and the whole of the sections on Mindfulness of Feelings, Perception and Mind, as referring to the development of mindfulness other than by means of a formal sitting 'practice'. Jon > "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? > > [1] "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the > wilderness, > to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down > folding > his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness > to > the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes > > in; mindful he breathes out. > "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or > breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or > breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or > breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. He > > trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body and to > breathe out sensitive to the entire body. He trains himself to > breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming > bodily fabrication. Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, > when > making a long turn, discerns that he is making a long turn, or when > making a short turn discerns that he is making a short turn; in the > same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns that he is > breathing in long; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is > breathing out short... He trains himself to breathe in calming > bodily > fabrication, and to breathe out calming bodily fabrications….." > > > with metta, > Yasa 22084 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 11, 2003 5:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - H: Why in the world would one think that 'something conceived in the mind' is unconditioned? If I conceive of a unicorn, the *unicorn* certainly doesn't exist, but the thought of it, which is what the concept is, *does* exist .. until it ceases. The unicorn-idea was created in the mind by means of mental activity. It is *not* unconditioned. It arises, due to conditions, and then ceases. J: I will try to explain (without having any confidence that I will be able to ;-)). Let's compare your example of conceiving of a unicorn with an example of experiencing a dhamma, one of the fundamental phenomena. I take as an example experiencing the visible object that we take for computer (which conventionally we call 'seeing a computer'). Now, in the case of conceiving of a unicorn, if that conceiving were to stop, there would no longer be any conception of unicorn. The conceiving is purely a product of the consciousness of that moment. In contrast, in the case of seeing the computer, if the experiencing of that visible object were to stop, the dhammas of visible object that are taken for computer would (other things being equal) continue to arise in this plane, the only difference being that they would now be doing so without being the object of consciousness at that moment. The explanation given for this is that visible object, as one of the fundamental phenomena having 'individual essence', has its own conditions for arising in this plane of existence, and those conditions do not include there being at that very moment a consciousness that experiences the visible object. A concept, on the other hand, has no 'existence' outside its moment of being object of the consciousness of that moment by which it is conceived, and hence no individual essence. You may see this as 'reciting empty formulas' ;-)), but I don't believe it is. It is basic Theravadin teaching, as found in a number of standard textual sources that have been cited here from time to time. Jon 22085 From: Date: Sun May 11, 2003 2:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi, Yasa - In a message dated 5/11/03 3:53:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, charlesperera@h... writes: > > Howard, > > This morning I wanted to see what deep dhamma subject is under > discussion and saw,that the more than ten posts are on "the free > will or not". Trying to define "self". > > "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or > essence in that thing." or again on definitions > > " Unicorn is an animal with a sigle horn in the centre of the fore > head" > > "bus is a vehicle carrying passengers" > > Some such discussion. I just thought to myself, that however, one > defines "self", all those definitions are concepts, and "self" is > also a concept, and the unicorn and the bus as well. > > with metta, > > Yasa > ========================== Well, of course thet are! It is only concepts that we define. I agree completely. 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) 22086 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 11, 2003 6:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Yasa --- yasalalaka wrote: > > Jon, ... > When we experience a sense door object, there are three" elements". > For instance when we see, there is the (1) eye, the(2) object and > the > (3) eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, and so is the object > and so is the eye-consciousness. They are therefore all > impermanent paramatta dhammas. That is the insight to the moment > of seeing. Thanks for this neat summary on the question of seeing the arising and falling away of an object such as a computer. I think the key thing here is, what is the 'object' at (2) of your paragraph above in the case of the computer? Is it a 'computer', or is it something called 'visible object'? To my understanding, it is the latter only. Jon 22087 From: Lee Dillion Date: Sun May 11, 2003 6:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon (and Howard): The usage of the phrase "individual essence" to refer to the visible object seems odd to me, but that may be my relative inexperience with the lanuage of the abhidhamma. I prefer the explanation of the distinction you (Jon) appear to be discussing given by Karunadasa in The Dhamma Theory as follows: ----- Further, pannattis differ from dhammas in that only the latter are delimited by rise and fall; only of the dhammas and not of the pannattis can it be said, "They come into being having not been (ahutva sambhonti); and, after having been, they cease (hutva pativenti)." 119 Pannattis have no own-nature to be manifested in the three instants of arising, presence, and dissolution. Since they have no existence marked by these three phases, such temporal distinctions as past, present, and future do not apply to them. Consequently they have no reference to time (kalavimutta).120 For this self-same reason, they have no place in the traditional analysis of empirical existence into the five khandhas, for what is included in the khandhas should have the characteristics of empirical reality and be subject to temporal divisions.121 Another noteworthy characteristic of pannattis is that they cannot be described either as conditioned (sankhata) or as unconditioned (asankhata), for they do not possess their own-nature (sabhava) to be so described.122 Since the two categories of the conditioned and the unconditioned comprise all realities, the description of pannattis as exempt from these two categories is another way of underscoring their unreality. What the foregoing observations amount to is that while a dhamma is a truly existent thing (sabhavasiddha), a pannatti is a thing merely conceptualized (parikappasiddha).123 The former is an existent verifiable by its own distinctive intrinsic characteristic,124 but the latter, being a product of the mind's synthetic function, exists only by virtue of thought. It is a mental construct superimposed on things and hence possesses no objective counterpart. It is the imposition of oneness on what actually is a complex (samuhekaggahana) that gives rise to pannattis.125 " See http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm ------ Note that when Karunadasa talks of a dhamma as sabhava in the above passage, he uses that term in a very precise way such that "although the term sabhava is used as a synonym for dhamma, it is interpreted in such a way that it means the very absence of sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of being." A fuller explanation is given in the cited article. --- Lee Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > H: Why in the world would one think that 'something conceived > in the mind' is unconditioned? If I conceive of a unicorn, the > *unicorn* certainly doesn't exist, but the thought of it, which is > what the concept is, *does* exist .. until it ceases. The > unicorn-idea was created in the mind by means of mental activity. It > is *not* unconditioned. It arises, due to conditions, and then > ceases. > > J: I will try to explain (without having any confidence that I will > be able to ;-)). > > Let's compare your example of conceiving of a unicorn with an example > of experiencing a dhamma, one of the fundamental phenomena. I take > as an example experiencing the visible object that we take for > computer (which conventionally we call 'seeing a computer'). > > Now, in the case of conceiving of a unicorn, if that conceiving were > to stop, there would no longer be any conception of unicorn. The > conceiving is purely a product of the consciousness of that moment. > In contrast, in the case of seeing the computer, if the experiencing > of that visible object were to stop, the dhammas of visible object > that are taken for computer would (other things being equal) continue > to arise in this plane, the only difference being that they would now > be doing so without being the object of consciousness at that moment. > > The explanation given for this is that visible object, as one of the > fundamental phenomena having 'individual essence', has its own > conditions for arising in this plane of existence, and those > conditions do not include there being at that very moment a > consciousness that experiences the visible object. A concept, on the > other hand, has no 'existence' outside its moment of being object of > the consciousness of that moment by which it is conceived, and hence > no individual essence. > > You may see this as 'reciting empty formulas' ;-)), but I don't > believe it is. It is basic Theravadin teaching, as found in a number > of standard textual sources that have been cited here from time to > time. > > Jon 22088 From: robmoult Date: Sun May 11, 2003 7:23am Subject: Re: question! Hi KK, Welcome to DSG! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "lokuttaracitta" wrote: > I am a buddhist,just a beginner of Abhidhammas in Theravarda traditon . ===== I teach a class on Abhidhamma for beginners. ===== > > Could you please let me know if arahats and other 3 types of the noble ones > are having direct experience of Nibbana during before/post lokuttara-jhanas? ===== "Lokuttara" is a name given to two groups of cittas (mind moments): - The "path" (magga) citta arises once and never again (it does not even arise again in subsequent rebirths). There is a different "path" citta for each of the four stages of enlightenment. Think of it as "being initiated"; once you have been initiated as an sotapanna, you will never have to be initiated again. The function of the "path" citta is to uproot certain defilements so that they can never arise again. This is why it only needs to happen once, after a defilement has been uprooted, it never has to be uprooted again because it doesn't come back. The specific defilements to be uprooted depend on the level of sainthood being attained. The object of the "path" citta is Nibbana. - The "fruit" (phala) citta arises immediately after the "path" citta subsides and can occur whenever the saint practices vipassana meditation. It can occur many times and for extended periods. The object of "fruit" citta is also Nibanna. In the traditional way of counting cittas, there are 89 cittas, 8 of which are lokuttara (4 path; one for each stage of sainthood, 4 fruit; one for each stage of sainthood). In the extended way of counting cittas, there are 121 cittas, 40 of which are lokuttara. In this case, each of the 4 path cittas and the 4 fruit cittas are subdivided according to the jhana state attained by the saint. Jhanas are the mental levels reached through samattha meditation (different from vipassana meditation). ===== > > As a matter of facts, I even do not know there is such states like before/post > lokuttara-jhanas in the 4 type of noble ones. > > And Do you know any sutta reffering to before/post-lokuttara-jhana states ? ===== If you are really keen, you can read the Mahacattarisaka Sutta (Mn117) and if you are really a glutton for punishment, you can attempt the Vishuddhi Magga, Chapter XXIII. A simple explanation can be found in Bhikkhu Bodhi's Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, p66. I am curious why this question would arise at the beginning of your study. This is a pretty theoretical area with virtually no bearing on daily life. The order should be: study --> practice --> realization In other words, the purpose of the study should be to enhance the practice. I would be pleased to answer any other questions you might have on the Abhidhamma. However, you might find the study more enjoyable if you first focus on the practical aspects. Metta, Rob M :-) 22089 From: Date: Sun May 11, 2003 3:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Sukin - You are misreading me at several points. I will try to clarify. In a message dated 5/11/03 4:25:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukin@k... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > You said: > > Were you to say that there ultimately *are* no conventional > objects to > >have any characteristics whatsoever, it would make sense (and I > would agree), > > Yes. > > >and if you were to add that these only-apparently-existing objects > appear to > >arise and cease due to the arising and ceasing of the actual > experiences that > >are the basis upon which our minds project them, it would make > sense (and I > >would agree). > > Yes, but that would not be the whole story. During samadhi meditation > for example, the object will appear to last for a long time, when in > actual fact the cittas rise an fall as usual. Ultimately when the > conditions > maintaining this object are no more, then yes it would be true that in > this sense, the apparently-existing objects would have appeared to fall > because of the falling of conditions. So the relationship is not direct as > in > saying that the citta falls, then the concept would have to appear to fall > as well. But I am sure you realize this already ;-). > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: We're still "in sync". --------------------------------------------------------- > > >But in that sense, a derivative, conventional sense, they can > >be correctly talked about as existing and as being impermanent. > > The Buddha certainly includes such impermanence as part of his > >teaching, as he also includes the dukkha and anatta of conventional > objects, > >due in part measure to their (derivative) impermanence. And he does > so, > >because the first step that turns one in the direction of pursuing the > >Dhamma, in walking the path towards freedom, is recognizing the > tilakkhana as > >they apply to the "conventional world" in which the worldling finds > >his/herself. This is where we begin! Seeing the impermanence, > >unsatisfactoriness, insubstantiality, dependency, and impersonality of > >everyday conventional objects is *critical* to release. > The first > >unsophisticated glimmerings of this in worldlings is what turns > worldlings > >into seekers. When these seekers come upon the Buddha's Dhamma > and follow it, > >their understanding of the tilakkhana grows, and the detailed > application of > >the Buddha's teaching eventually enables them to see through the > conventional > >objects to the direct experiences that are the basis of their > construction - > >that is, the conventional objects are "seen through", and, moreover, it > is > >then seen that the directly experienced phenomena themselves have > the > >tilkakkhana as characteristics, that there is nothing whatsoever to hold > >onto, that there is no ground at all under one's feet - no self to be > found > >within, and no self to be found without, there is nowhere to take a > stand, > >and seeing this, at last, there is a complete and final letting go. > > I don't think this is necessarily the case, not because conditions might > change and a person might even be attracted to other religions and > philosophies, but because I don't think there is a direct relationship > between the two, except in thinking that it is so. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Sukin, please reread more carefully what I wrote. I said the following: >The detailed application of >the Buddha's teaching eventually enables them to see through the conventional >objects to the direct experiences that are the basis of their construction - >that is, the conventional objects are "seen through", and, moreover, it is >then seen that the directly experienced phenomena themselves have the >tilkakkhana as characteristics, that there is nothing whatsoever to hold >onto, that there is no ground at all under one's feet - no self to be found >within, and no self to be found without, there is nowhere to take a stand, >and seeing this, at last, there is a complete and final letting go. The first three words of what I wrote are "The detailed application". Only by *carrying out* the Buddha's instructions in a precise and detailed way, cultivating liberating wisdom which *sees* (not thinks about) things as they actually are, does one "see through" conventional objects. I am among the first to say that we can read about and think over the Dhamma for twenty billion kappas, and if that is all we do, we will still be worldlings! ------------------------------------------------------------- > Removing the tag of Buddhism, let us consider what conventional > impermanence means, compared to the ultimate meaning. In the first > case, there is a 'self' relying on memory to compare the past images > with present ones and projecting a future image. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is memory that is active, and there are comparisons made, and concepts formed. Moreover, there is conviction that what have been constructed are separate realities, because the mental construction is not seen, and the "construction material" is largely missed. The sense of personal self, however, is not the primary factor here. Rather, it is a central one of the constructs that is made, rebuilt again and again. But it is still absolutely true, as I see it, that seeing the impermanence and insubstantiality of the only-apparently-existing conventional objects is the necessary first step. We begin from within the midst of illusion! Without the realization that "something is wrong here", that there is a fundamental unsatisfactoriness with our "world", that getting what we want is often thwarted, that getting what we don't want is common, and that loss of what is loved is unavoidable, and the frequent extremity of all this, is what turns people towards religion. If seeing conventional impermanence etc in conventional objects were missed, if there were no glimmering of things being "off kilter" (dukkha), then we would be doomed. Such a glimmering is a necessary first step. The Buddha didn't become a seeker, so the story goes, until he realized the three signs. ----------------------------------------------------------- This may give an idea > > that things out there, or one's own physical body does not last, so one > sees that it is not worth clinging to. But this would still be relying on > images and ideas. But what about knowing one's own citta, whether or > not that is kusala? Whether this moment there is 'clinging' and that > *this* is the cause of dukhha, and not the 'idea' of permanence!? That it > is this that is impermanent and not-self? > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sukin, I'm not questioning at what level liberating insight occurs. I'm going back to way before that, to the barest beginnings of the process. It is lovely to think about all the concepts of Abhidhamma, about "ultimate realities" and detailed citta processes. At certain stages of practice, such information will be very supportive. At the earliest stages, not so at all. There can be the illusion of wisdom in place of the reality. It does one no good to read about 17 cittas going by for one rupa if that person doesn't *truly* and *fully* deep-down realize that all the people he/she so dearly loves will die. There must be the means of developing an initial sense of *urgency*! This will not come by list memorization and learning ancient languages. -------------------------------------------------- > I think there will always remain this gap between conventional and > ultimate understanding if there is no acknowledgement of momentary > nature of experience. The conventional understanding is of a different > nature to latter. Even other religions have to some degree this > conventional knowledge, but as you know, in their case it conditions > more miccha ditthi. Sammaditthi would require this acknowledgment of > paramattha dhammas, I think. > > When the Buddha used conventional examples, I am sure he was aware > that his audience knew about the ultimate meaning as well. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Really! Well, I'm not so sure. I'm sure that some did, but most did not. ----------------------------------------------------- > I can look back at my own case and see that I was drawn to Buddhism > through conventional understandings. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mm, hmm. -------------------------------------------------- But I arrived here today only > > becasue I heard about ultimate meaning and was attracted to it, my > former understandings did not somehow materialize into paramattha > understanding, and I would have gotten more deep into conventional > interpretation, even with meditation practice, because it would have > been without the knowledge of what anicca, dukkha and anatta as > applied to ultimate realities really means. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Without knowledge of Abhidhamma (at the time), I've had "fall out" from meditation that has enabled me to see somewhat beyond conventional objects, to see impermanence at "the ultimate level", to experience absence of personal self, and to experience the foam-like nature of the world. All this, of course, at a low level. I'm not claiming anything along the lines of "enlightenment" - just some bits of insight. I didn't need to start out having heard of paramattha dhammas etc. The practice, itself, leads to some insights, and that is the point I'm making. --------------------------------------------------- > In your own case Howard, can you say that your understanding of the > tilakkhana 'grew' out of conventional understanding, or was it because > you were introduced to Abhidhamma?! > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: My understanding of the tilakkhana began at the level of conventional understanding, without a question. It grew further as the result of reading the suttas. It went beyond mere "knowledge about" (to a limited extent) as the result of meditation, begun informally as a quite young child, and done more seriously as an adult. The bit of Abhidhamma study I've done in recent years, all from secondary sources, has only contributed at the conceptual level, not the level of direct knowing. --------------------------------------------------- > I don't think there can be a "seeing through" of conventional constructs, > what can take place is simply understanding them to be 'conventional' > and this would only have been because we were 'informed' about the > difference between this and ultimate realities... -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think so either. It is not at *all* what I said. --------------------------------------------------- > I think the way the Dhamma influences our understanding, is that it tells > us what is actually out there and in here, so that we might not be drawn > by our own projections and instead come to know what to expect. On > our own with minimal knowledge and panna, I think we will keep on > creating ideas about reality. Ignorance and craving are so influential that > > it will not allow us to 'see through' anything. ;-) > > > Now, to return to the small issue at hand, to say that > conventional > >objects lack impermanence is already to treat "conventional objects" > as > >things, but, worse, as things that the Buddha wouldn't admit to, > namely > >things that arise but do not cease. (I speak conventionally now.) > > So lets just say that they do not exist! So why say that they arise? Or > that we can learn the nature of rise and fall from them?! > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: In a derivative sense, they arise and cease. What actually arise and cease are the phenomena from which we mentally construct the conventional objects. But to say that a tree is permanant, being a concept, is an absurdity. It is misleading, and far worse than the notion that a tree is an actual thing in the world that doesn't remain. ------------------------------------------------ > > >The sprouting plant I see in the corner of my garden was not there > >during the winter. It arose after the winter. The Buddha said that > >whatever is of the character to arise is also of the character to cease. > >That plant is impermanent - it will not last. > > This relation as I said above is based on thinking about past, present > and future. If our memory was all of a sudden lost, we wouldn't be able > to tell if indeed your sprout was growing or shrinking! But in either case, > > what could be said for certain is that the perception of it arose and > fell.... :-) > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: With stop-motion photography, the changing could be seen. This conventional impermanence of conventional objects is conventional truth. Seeing this is a necessary first step. Without this, well, I'd say one is fooling oneself. I would be willing to bet that if the Buddha were to hear it said that trees are not impermanent, he would laugh! (Or, at least, give the slight smile allowable to arahants according to Abhidhamma.) The Buddha did NOT go around speaking in the sort of technical, paramatthic terms we so glibly express here - no one would have listened to him had he done so. Note: I'm not dismissing Abhidhamma here, not by a long shot. I think there is enormously valuable material to be found there, and I look forward to the time that I can get to directly peruse parts of the Abhidhamma Pitaka in English. What Iam dismissing is study of the dry word as substitute for Buddhist practice that leads to direct knowing, the only knowing worth of its name. ---------------------------------------------------- > > I hope I have not misunderstood the point of your post. > Await your response. > > Metta, > Sukin. > > ============================ 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) 22090 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun May 11, 2003 9:22am Subject: Re: Computer as arising and falling away --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Yasa > > --- yasalalaka wrote: > > > Jon, > ... > > When we experience a sense door object, there are three" elements". > > For instance when we see, there is the (1) eye, the(2) object and > > the > > (3) eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, and so is the object > > and so is the eye-consciousness. They are therefore all > > impermanent paramatta dhammas. That is the insight to the moment > > of seeing. > > Thanks for this neat summary on the question of seeing the arising > and falling away of an object such as a computer. > > I think the key thing here is, what is the 'object' at (2) of your > paragraph above in the case of the computer? Is it a 'computer', or > is it something called 'visible object'? To my understanding, it is > the latter only. > > Jon > > Yes Jon, it is just "seeing", nothing else. with metta, Yasa > 22091 From: Date: Sun May 11, 2003 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/11/03 8:35:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > > H: Why in the world would one think that 'something conceived > in the mind' is unconditioned? If I conceive of a unicorn, the > *unicorn* certainly doesn't exist, but the thought of it, which is > what the concept is, *does* exist .. until it ceases. The > unicorn-idea was created in the mind by means of mental activity. It > is *not* unconditioned. It arises, due to conditions, and then > ceases. > > J: I will try to explain (without having any confidence that I will > be able to ;-)). > > Let's compare your example of conceiving of a unicorn with an example > of experiencing a dhamma, one of the fundamental phenomena. I take > as an example experiencing the visible object that we take for > computer (which conventionally we call 'seeing a computer'). > > Now, in the case of conceiving of a unicorn, if that conceiving were > to stop, there would no longer be any conception of unicorn. The > conceiving is purely a product of the consciousness of that moment. > In contrast, in the case of seeing the computer, if the experiencing > of that visible object were to stop, the dhammas of visible object > that are taken for computer would (other things being equal) continue > to arise in this plane, the only difference being that they would now > be doing so without being the object of consciousness at that moment. > > The explanation given for this is that visible object, as one of the > fundamental phenomena having 'individual essence', has its own > conditions for arising in this plane of existence, and those > conditions do not include there being at that very moment a > consciousness that experiences the visible object. A concept, on the > other hand, has no 'existence' outside its moment of being object of > the consciousness of that moment by which it is conceived, and hence > no individual essence. > > You may see this as 'reciting empty formulas' ;-)), but I don't > believe it is. It is basic Theravadin teaching, as found in a number > of standard textual sources that have been cited here from time to > time. > > Jon > ========================== Sorry, but I don't accept the distinction. The concept lasts so long as the conditions needed for it last. This is no different. 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) 22092 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun May 11, 2003 1:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Yasa > > --- yasalalaka wrote: > ... > > Bhavana, means the cultivation of the mind. It is further defined > > as development of mind or culture of mind. Meditation is the > > English > > word, generally in use. Bhavana was the means to get the mind > > concentrated to attain `dyana' in Hiduism. It existed in India > > long before Buddhism. > > This clarifies a lot already. I would happily agree with the > statement that: > "If someone says that bhavana is not necessary to attain nibbana, he > is getting far away from the Buddha's teachings." > > I believe this is a preferable way of putting it, given that > 'meditation' means all sorts of different things to different people, > and is not a term found in the texts. > > In particular, I would consider incorrect the statement that: > "If someone says that a formal meditation practice is not necessary > to attain nibbana, he is getting far away from the Buddha's > teachings." > > To my understanding, there are 2 kinds of bhavana mentioned in the > texts, namely, samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. Samatha > bhavana is the development of tranquility (accompanied by panna) that > can lead to the absorptions (jhana). Vipassana bhavana is the > development of insight into the true nature of dhammas (again, a > level of panna) that leads to the attainment of enlightenment. > > Both kinds of bhavana involve the development of panna, but the level > of panna is different. > > I am not aware of anything in the texts that says a formal sitting > practice is a necessary prerequisite for either. > > ... > > The Buddha used samatha meditation for one pointed concentration > > and attain jhana(dyana) absorptions, to have a highly developed > > mental state, from there to turn the mind to Vipassana (literally > > means seeing in different ways), to have insight into causes of > > suffering, and through panna, to see anicca, dukkha and anatma and > > attain enlightenment. Vipassana Meditation is the unique > > "discovery" > > of the Buddha, he learnt it of his own, without any bodies > > prompting ! > > It is true that in the Buddha's own case the final development of > insight that issued in enlightenment was preceded by the jhanas. > However, the issue for us is not what happened in the Buddha's own > case, but what he taught afterwards as being the path by which > insight is to be developed. For this we need to look beyond the > Buddha's own life-story, and study his words as recorded in the > suttas and elaborated in the commentaries. > > > Bhavana is the removal of unwholesome mental factors and develop > > wholesome mental factors, to build calmness and concentration to > > see > > the true nature of all phenomena. In the sutta, the word used is > > sati, translated as mindfulness. > > At moments of samatha the unwholesome mental factors are temporarily > suppressed. However, only the development of vipassana bhavana leads > to the permanent eradication of these unwholesome mental factors. > > > Please see the following extract from the Maha Satipatthana Sutta > > ( discourse on the four foundations of Mindfulness), taken > > from "accesstoinsight": > > I am aware that many people read this passage as advocating a formal > sitting 'practice' of some kind for the development of mindfulness. > > In my view, if one considers the wording carefully, it's clear that > no such meaning is intended. > > In any event, even such an interpretation would still leave the rest > of the section on Mindfulness of the Body, and the whole of the > sections on Mindfulness of Feelings, Perception and Mind, as > referring to the development of mindfulness other than by means of a > formal sitting 'practice'. > > Jon _____________________Yasa comments___________________________________ Jon, This is what you say: To my understanding, there are 2 kinds of bhavana mentioned in the texts, namely, samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. Samatha bhavana is the development of tranquility (accompanied by panna) that can lead to the absorptions (jhana). Vipassana bhavana is the development of insight into the true nature of dhammas (again, a level of panna) that leads to the attainment of enlightenment. This what Yasa says: What you have understood is not incorrect, except for Samatha leading to Panna. If you would read the Suttas and what I explained about Samatha, you will see that , it is an ancient Meditation system ( call it what ever-contemplation- sitting and concentrating the mind, being here and now seeing the "moment", if the word meditation is what you cannot accept) practiced more than 3000 years ago in ancient India,by the Irshis, Hindu ascetics. ______________________________________________________________________ _____ This is what you say: Both kinds of bhavana involve the development of panna, but the level of panna is different. This is what Yasa says: Samatha is different from Vipassana. Samatha is a Bhavana to calm the mind by concentrating into one point (ekaggata). In that state, mind is unable to see any thing else. The mind becomes extremely calm and bright. It is empty of citta . But that is NOT PANNA. Buddha, used that highly concentrated mind to see through the veil of ignorance, through PNNA, to understand the cause of dukkha, and had recollection of his past births, then insight of the death of beings and their rebirth according to the accumulations of their past lives, and finally , had clear comprehension of Dukkha, its cause, way out of it and its cessation. ______________________________________________________________________ _____ This is what you say: It is true that in the Buddha's own case the final development of insight that issued in enlightenment was preceded by the jhanas. However, the issue for us is not what happened in the Buddha's own case, but what he taught afterwards as being the path by which insight is to be developed. For this we need to look beyond the Buddha's own life-story, and study his words as recorded in the suttas and elaborated in the commentaries. Yasa says: It is not true that the Buddha's enlightenment was the issue of his Jhanas. After attaining Jhana, and purifying his mind he began analysis of his mental make up to see the paramatta dhamma and understand the causes that lead to the suffering of the beings: This is called VIPASSANA ( means seeing in different ways) (NOT JHANA). Issue for us is what really happened in the Buddha's enlightenment. We cannot understand it, unless we can ourselves get enlightened. Our enlightenment would not be the same as that of a Buddha. There is only one Buddha in a whole world period. Therefore our experiences cannot be equated to his. Our experience will be different, but according to the path shown by the Buddha. But we will attain the same Nibbana he attained. ______________________________________________________________________ You say "For this we need to look beyond the Buddha's own life-story, and study his words as recorded in the suttas and elaborated in the commentaries." Yasa says: We cannot look for any thing beyond the Buddha's life story, but the Buddha showed us the path and said in Satipatthana Sutta, in no uncertain terms, what we have to do to attain Nibbana in this very life. What we have to do is to follow it, not to get lost in concepts. The Concepts arise through thinking, and reality through Bhavana. ______________________________________________________________________ You say: I am aware that many people read this passage as advocating a formal sitting 'practice' of some kind for the development of mindfulness. Yasa says: And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? [1] "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore Jon, what is the image you have, when you read the above four lines I have copied from Maha Satipatthana Sutta. Is it a person seated and trying to do an exercise of concentration or ……what ? ______________________________________________________________________ You say: In my view, if one considers the wording carefully, it's clear that no such meaning is intended. Yasa says: The Buddha's words, which were not clear to ordinary people were, explained by Arahats, in commentaries. Visuddhimagga, you often refer to, is a collection of these commentaries translated by Venerable Buddhaghosa, into Pali. Visuddhimagga, contains instructions to meditate and what happens in meditation. We are too much involved in concepts, conceit, and ignorance. We are, therefore, unable to see the reality, because we are not trying to follow the path, without putting "self" in front of us. Therefore, what we see is not the Dhamma, but "ourselves", our attachments to our ideas, and what we think is the right understanding, it is clinging to self through (avijja) ______________________________________________________________________ This is what you say: In any event, even such an interpretation would still leave the rest of the section on Mindfulness of the Body, and the whole of the sections on Mindfulness of Feelings, Perception and Mind, as referring to the development of mindfulness other than by means of a formal sitting 'practice'. Yasa says: Despite the Suttas, and the Visuddhimagga, you refer to, has the Buddha said in Abhidhamma how to practice to see anicca, dukkha,anatma, and understand the four noble truths, clear avijja and attain Nibbana ? Yasa makes this REQUEST: Please TELL how you PRACTICE Buddhism, clearly and precisely. With metta, Yasa 22093 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun May 11, 2003 2:01pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Dear Yasa, Jon and All, I am enjoying your posts and learning much from the threads you are involved in, for which I thank you. Your last question to Jon is very interesting (and I look forward very much to Jon's reply :-)). Would it be fair to say that your question implies that there IS a 'self' who has 'control' and can make specified mental states arise by performing particular actions in a particular posture? If there is no-self - 'who' is it that does these things? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > Yasa says: > > Despite the Suttas, and the Visuddhimagga, you refer to, has the > Buddha said in Abhidhamma how to practice to see anicca, > dukkha,anatma, and understand the four noble truths, clear avijja and > attain Nibbana ? > > Yasa makes this REQUEST: > > Please TELL how you PRACTICE Buddhism, clearly and precisely. > > With metta, > Yasa 22094 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun May 11, 2003 2:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Howard, Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. I would say that the very definition that "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing" is an assumption, a delineation what self is. I would also say that this assumption is to be abandoned in the first place: the Buddha's teaching is not based on that assumption. As for the definition of the term "self", I would refer to a standard dictionary such as the one in http://www.webster.com/home.htm I don't see myself as a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing. Nor do I see myself as some insubstantial, dependent, changing thing. Thank you again for your reply. Your further feedback is welcome. Regards, Victor [snip] > It's not an assumption, Victor - it is a definition; it is a statement > of what I mean by a certain term. If I were to say that a strange vegetative > growth I'm seeing for the first time is a kind of tree, that would be an > assumption, but if I were to say that by a "wiffo" I mean an extremely light > yo-yo, that would not be an assumption, but rather a definition of a term. Do > you get the difference I'm trying to put forward? It is not an assumption, > for example, to say that a bus is a ground vehicle used for transporting > several people from place to place - it is a definition of the term 'bus'. > But once it is agreed upon what 'bus' means, then it is an assumption to say > that busses are the most comfortable vehicles. > > With metta, > Howard 22095 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun May 11, 2003 3:31pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Yasa, Jon and All, > > I am enjoying your posts and learning much from the threads you are > involved in, for which I thank you. Your last question to Jon is > very interesting (and I look forward very much to Jon's reply :-)). > > Would it be fair to say that your question implies that there IS > a 'self' who has 'control' and can make specified mental states arise > by performing particular actions in a particular posture? If there > is no-self - 'who' is it that does these things? > > metta, > Christine > > ___________________________Yasa Comments________________________ Christine, We are living in the society. Conventionally we exist. We cannot go behind that fact. There is a small story in one of Joseph Goldstein's, books. Two meditators were walking slowly and mindfully down a road, and an elephant was walking in the opposite direction, if they were to see the elephant and tell them-selves that it does not exist and continue to walk, the elephant will not pay attention to the mindfulness of the two men, and will walk over them……… Therefore, we have to accept the "reality" of conventional existence. We have to look at ourselves, and understand our attachments, aversions, and delusions. We think we have security, we are healthy and we will live long. We are educated, we have good positions in society as doctors, lawyers, administrators or what not. People respect us, we are rich, we are English, German or American. We have everything we want .We are happy. Every thing around is for our enjoyment. Then when calamities occur we begin to think, every thing is not so secure, joy and happiness can turn to sorrow and sadness, we will be afflicted by illness and suffer. It is then that we begin to question, and it is these questions that make us doubt, and begin to think of impermanence, unsatisfactory of life, and the absence of a controlling "self", in a conventional manner. Then your turn to spiritual help to find out who "you" are ? How can you understand these illusive facts of existence ( it is still conventional "me"that is thinking) ? You read and think you are not "self", according to ultimate reality you cannot exist. But, when some one insults you, you get hurt. When someone, irritates you, you get angry. You think, if you were non-existent, why should you get angry, why should you get hurt. If your son were to leave you to fight in a war, why do you feel sad and feel like crying. But thinking will not give you the answers…………What will help you to find the reality of the existence of a self, and how to set about doing that ….? With metta, Yasa 22096 From: azita gill Date: Sun May 11, 2003 4:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism dear Yasa, > > Yasa makes this REQUEST: > > > > Please TELL how you PRACTICE Buddhism, clearly and > precisely. > > > > With metta, > > Yasa > > With some theoretical knowledge of the Abhidhamma, I believe I can 'practise' Buddhism. The Abhidhamma has shown me that all of the things I take for 'me, myself', are arising and falling away phenomena, useless to be grasped at because what I'm grasping at has fallen away already. this knowledge, I think, is what is classed as Pariyatti - theoretical knowledge, but I do believe in the beginning one has to have this knowledge before one begins to 'practise'. Actual practice, Patipatti, is also momentary. It can be a moment of awareness, sati, of a presently arising phenomena e.g. seeing, OR what is seen, never the two together. Even our intention to practise is momentary, intention/volition/will- Cetana - which is one of the 7 mental factors inseparably bound up wiht all cittas. Likewise, with awareness, Sati, it is a mental factor which arises with a wholesome citta, to be aware of an object, any object, not one 'I' choose to be aware of, and then it falls away. The next step is "Pativedha, penetration, which signifies the realization of the truth of the Dhamma, as distinguished from the mere acquisition of its wording [pariyatti] or the practice [patipatti] of it, in other words, realization as distinguished from theory and practice." - Buddhist dictionary. Nyanatiloka. > Pativedha is that highly developed knowledge that can know the truth. And I understand it is also impermanent, arises and falls away. For me, this is a loooooong way away! But maybe just maybe, there may be short moments of weak awareness which arise in a day, moments that I don't try to create, just brief moments that occasionally show me that 'I' have no control at all. Is this what the Buddha taught? To be honest, I don't know, I wasn't there [at least I don't remember], but the only way it can be proven, is to develop that wisdom, Panna, that knows the truth as it really is. We all need lots of patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 22097 From: Date: Sun May 11, 2003 4:27pm Subject: Way 87, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Five Hindrances 2. Anger Indeed, wrong reflection on an object of resentment produces anger. In this connection anger itself as well as the object which causes anger is called the resentment-object, or the sign of resentment. Wrong reflection has just the same character everywhere, and when it occurs much in the resentment-object or the resentment-sign, anger arises. Therefore the Blessed One said that intense wrong reflection on an object of resentment is the cause of fresh anger and of the increase and expansion of anger already existing. By right reflection of the liberating thought of love, the thought of love that frees the heart indeed, anger gets cast out. The term "love" here is applicable both to partial concentration (upacara samadhi) and full concentration (appana samadhi). Heart-liberating love is only full concentration. Right reflection has the same character throughout. When it occurs strong in the thought of love, anger is removed from the heart. Therefore the Master said: "There is, o bhikkhus, the liberation of the mind through love. Intense right reflection on love is the condition for keeping out new anger and for throwing out anger that is already in the heart." And it is said that these six things help to cast anger out: Taking up the practice of the love subject of meditation; applying oneself to the development of jhana on the thought of love; reflection on one's action as one's own property, abundance of wise consideration; sympathetic and helpful companionship of the good; and stimulating talk that assists the development of the thought of love and the overthrow of anger. In explanation the commentator said: Anger will be put down in one who takes up the love subject of meditation by way of spreading it particularly or separately. Or if one takes up the love subject of meditation by way of spreading it generally, without particularization or directional restriction in space, then too anger will be put down, in one. Anger vanishes also through the development of jhana by spreading love restrictedly with differentiation on seven or twenty-eight ways or by spreading it unrestrictedly without differentiation in five or twenty ways or by spreading it directionally towards the ten points in space. Anger vanishes in one who reflects thus too: "What will you do to him by becoming angry?" "Will you be able to destroy things like his virtue?" "Have you not been born here just by your own actions and will you not also by your own actions get reborn hereafter?" "Getting angry with another is comparable to the state of him who wishes to strike another with glowing coals, red-hot crowbar, excreta and such other damaging things after taking them up in his bare hands." "And what can another who is angry with you do to you?" "Can he destroy your virtue or any other similar thing of yours?" "He, too, has been born here as a result of his actions and will be reborn hereafter just according to his actions." "Like a present not accepted is that anger of his and like a handful of dust thrown against the wind, that anger of his alights on his own head." In this way one reflects on one's own action as one's own property and also another person's action as that person's own, and puts out anger. To one remaining in an abundance of wise consideration after reflecting on action as one's or another's own property, anger vanishes. And it vanishes in him who is in the company of a sympathetic friend who delights in developing the jhana of the thought of love like the Elder Assagutta and through stimulating talk on the thought of love when in any one of the four postures. Therefore it is said: Six things are conducive to the casting out of anger. The anger cast out by these six things, however, is finally destroyed by the attainment of the state of the Anagami, the Never-returner. 22098 From: Date: Sun May 11, 2003 0:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/11/03 5:49:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > I don't see myself as a substantial, independent, unchanging core or > essence in that thing. Nor do I see myself as some insubstantial, > dependent, changing thing. > ============================== Neither do I! How about that? ;-)) I think that what you write here, and with which I quite agree "says" something quite deep, quite important, very much the middle way. Here I think we are getting beyond the words to the reality, and, amazingly, we seem to agree. 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) 22099 From: Date: Sun May 11, 2003 5:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi all, Maybe someone would like to explain why we care about distinguishing between asabhava and anatta. On the surface, they look like the same thing, i.e., "not it". Also, does anyone know if this is explicitly spelled out as a practice in the tipitaka or by Buddhaghosa? Larry 22100 From: robmoult Date: Sun May 11, 2003 9:53pm Subject: Freewill or Not? - "Final" Our ancestors did not understand the world around them. Because they did not understand, they created external "Gods" that controlled the weather. These "Gods" could control the weather according to their whims and fancies. Today, we look back and smile at the naïveté of our ancestors. Today, we understand that the weather operates according to impersonal laws of nature. Modern man does not understand the world within himself. Because we do not understand, we create an internal "God" called the "self" that controls the flow of our thoughts. We believe that this self can control the flow of our thoughts according to its whim and fancy. Perhaps some day, our descendants will look back and smile at our naïveté because they understand that the internal world, the world of the mind, also operates according to impersonal laws of nature . The concept of self is deeply rooted within us. A recent book, "Why God Won't Go Away" by Dr. Andrew Newberg and Dr. Eugene Aquili, reported research on how the brain functions. According to this book, information from the senses is routed to a portion of the brain called the "Orientation Association Area" (OAA). The function of the OAA is to put the incoming sensory data into context by overlaying an artificial sense of self. Brain scans show that the OAA is normally a very active part of the brain; there is lots of blood flow in this area of the brain. Experiments were done with Franciscan nuns and Buddhist meditators of the Tibetan tradition. When the subjects reached deep stages of concentration, the blood flow to this portion of the brain was dramatically reduced. When interviewed later, the subjects indicated that at the times that the blood flow to the OAA was dramatically reduced, they were experiencing a "higher reality". The illusion of self may be hardwired, but we can overcome this hardwiring through correct practice. Belief in freewill is a belief in self ====================================== The doctrine of non-self (anattā) is central to Buddhism. The Visuddhi Magga (XVI, 90) says, "For there is suffering, but none who suffers; doing exists although there is no doer; extinction (death) is but no extinguished person; although there is a path, there is no goer." Expanding on this concept from the Visuddhi Magga, "There is choice, but there is no chooser". If there is no chooser (self), how can there be freewill? The concept of freewill assumes a supervisory self that monitors the mind's activities chooses a response. Why freewill does not make sense ================================ Think of the last time that you were confused about something (reading this article, perhaps?). Does it make sense that there was a "choice born of freewill" to be confused at that moment? What about the last time you were restless… was there a "choice born of freewill" working at that moment? We all know that anger is one letter away from danger. Knowing that anger is bad and dangerous, does it make sense that there was a "choice born of freewill" every time anger arises? Does it make sense that "choice born of freewill" only operates when there is a choice to do something good, but "freewill takes a vacation" whenever there is a choice to do something bad? How does choice work without freewill? ====================================== According to Buddhism, all things except Nibbāna are conditioned. This means that our actions arise because of conditions (not because of a self or freewill). What are the factors that direct choices? There are two: our current situation and our habits (our accumulations or mental tendencies). An idea or a sensory input arises in our mind and our mind reacts naturally according to it's habits. A mind that has a habit of mettā will naturally react to situations with loving kindness. A mind that has a habit of greed will naturally react to situations with craving and clinging. What does this mean in daily life? ================================== The flow of our thoughts is directed by our habits; not by a supervisory self. If we can develop and nurture "good habits" in our daily life, our thoughts will be directed accordingly. Habits are developed and nurtured through concentrated repetition. Another word for "concentrated repetition" is "practice". In his article, "Questions on Kamma", Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote about the psychological effect of kamma, "When a willed action is performed it leaves a track in the mind, an imprint which can mark the beginning of a new mental tendency. It has a tendency to repeat itself, to reproduce itself, somewhat like a protozoan, like an amoeba. As these actions multiply, they form our character. Our personality is nothing but a sum of all our willed actions, a cross-section of all our accumulated kamma. So by yielding first in simple ways to the unwholesome impulses of the mind, we build up little by little a greedy character, a hostile character, an aggressive character or a deluded character. On the other hand, by resisting these unwholesome desires we replace them with their opposites, the wholesome qualities. Then we develop a generous character, a loving and a compassionate personality, or we can become wise and enlightened beings. As we change our habits gradually, we change our character, and as we change our character we change our total being, our whole world. That is why the Buddha emphasizes, so strongly the need to be mindful of every action, of every choice. For every choice of ours has a tremendous potential for the future." Formal meditation is one form of "concentrated repetition". Sitting each morning and radiating mettā, develops a habit of mettā in th= e mind. When a mind that has a habit of mettā encounters a difficult situation, the habit of mettā directs the mind to a positive response. Vipasannā meditation develops a habit of seeing things as they truly are; impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self. Vipassanā meditation develops the habit or perspective of right view, the first step on the Noble Eightfold Path. Imagine that you are driving along and somebody cuts you off. You start to get angry, but then you remember the Dhamma and calm your mind. Was this freewill at work? No. Your past experience of studying the Dhamma created a mental tendency or habit in your mind. When the situation arose, your mental tendency caused the memory of the Dhamma to arise and this calmed your mind. Everything occurred because of an impersonal law of nature, without the need for a self and without the need for freewill. Does the denial of freewill mean that Buddhism is fatalistic or deterministic? ============== In 1927, Werner Heisenberg wrote, "The `path' comes into existence only when we observe it." Heisenberg was one of the founders of modern physics and he was referring to the path of atomic particles such as electrons. Heisenberg was making the point that the classical view of an "objective observer" was wrong. We can say that the `path of our life' does not exist until it is observed. The concepts of "fatalism" or "determinism" are rooted in the self-view that there is an objective observer. If our "subjective observer" perspective makes it impossible for us to determine the future, how can we say that the future is predetermined? Conclusion ========== Belief in freewill is a belief in a self. The doctrine of anattā is incompatible with freewill. Understanding that choices arise naturally because of our habits is an important lesson. The Buddha stressed in the Bhūmija Sutta (Mn126) that results are obtained through proper practice, not through aspiration. Strong aspiration without proper practice will never yield results. Proper practice, with or without strong aspiration, will always yield results. 22101 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon May 12, 2003 0:05am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Howard, Since I misunderstood you and you had to write what I think is one of the longest posts by you, let me explain the situation. I had earlier that day, to go to my son's kindergarten for some `parents meet teachers day' thing. I didn't know that we had to pay the school fees so I was not prepared. I had then to go to my workplace to get the money because the school opens today. On the way I was thinking about your and Victor's post and how to reply to them. When I reached my shop at around 1 pm, I was so hungry because I hadn't had breakfast in the morning that I got lunch and overate. Now there was drowsiness, and I even thought that I should take a nap before replying to you, but there was no place to lie down. By the time I started to write, the response to your and Victor's posts were so mixed up, that I even wrote two long paragraphs which I had to delete after realizing that they were meant for Victor.:-) When I finished writing, and read through the post, I did not bother to read over your statements, but only my own response to them. But as soon as I was about to click the `send' button, I realized that I may have misunderstood what you were saying and instead of choosing to read your letter over again, I opted for, "I hope I have not misunderstood the point of your post." Obviously I am quite attached to my writing since it takes me longer than most to type. But also I may have what is conventionally called, "attention deficit",(in ultimate sense it must surely mean, lots and lots of kilesas, though I do not know precisely what they are) this makes it difficult for me to not only read anything, but also properly pay attention to anyone, (my walkman's rewind button is going to conk out soon as a result ;-)). So to avoid any chance of misunderstanding some more of what you have written, in this post I will mostly be simply stating my understandings without reference to your post, and we'll see what proceeds from there. But let me admit first of all, that I think I overstated about the role of conventional understanding, I agree with you that it must start with conventional understanding initially, even if this be about the subject of Abhidhamma, with exceptions of course, like Sariputta?! ;-). But I do have a reason to not give any special importance to this level of understanding, which I hope I will be able to show in this post of mine. Let us consider, what the Teachings really mean in terms of momentary experience. I think you will agree that it must be kusala accompanied by a level of panna. And since the unique teaching of the Buddha and the "one and only way" is that of Satipatthana, don't you think that the goal would be the panna that at least sees the importance of understanding this moment? And since either conventional examples or paramattha expression is used for the purpose of conditioning this level of panna, we must consider if indeed it does, shouldn't we? So what is it about conventional expression that would lead the mind to see this? I think on its own, without reference to the importance of satipatthana, it can at best condition samattha. From here which direction the understanding gets developed depends on whether the importance of satipatthana is seen or not. And what is understanding the importance of Satipatthana if not seeing that it can be developed `now' and at any time? Would the idea of `special time and place' or `application' or `utility' be any real understanding of what `satipatthana' really means, if by this it conditions the idea that certain other dhammas and situations are not the appropriate object? What if the next moment is cutti citta? I think we get confused and falsely inspired when we think the teachings of the Buddha in terms of stories involving doing certain things to reach a certain goal, or even with certain mental attitude, see that the teachings is about developing each limb of the eightfold path or viewing the 37 bodhipakaya dhammas with a mind of `how to'. I see the views that Abhidhamma is just a list of descriptions which have no practical value and the view that they "have", in the sense of *using the knowledge* for one's practice, as being in some ways equally wrong. In this sense, Abhidhamma is *not* out there to be accepted or rejected, it is as Nina has often pointed out, about "NOW". The criticism made against Abhidhamma is usually from the stand point of not seeing this. At this moment is a reality arising which *can* be known, thinking, visible object, aversion, hearing, anything at all, can be the object of awareness. *BUT* there is no one who can make this happen! Pariyatti conditions patipatti, but no one can make pariyatti happen, less patipatti to occur. Panna can condition chanda to cause us to look the text for more understanding, but whether this takes place at all, is not up to `us'. But if we view Abhidhamma as a `resource of knowledge' out there to mine whenever we choose, then this is wrong understanding. And I think this is what many outsiders disagree to, or even agree wrongly to.;-) But let me now try to describe what I think is the position of those outsiders! The very thing they accuse Abhidhamma of, being influenced by descriptions, is what I think they are doing. 1. "Ideas about formal meditation practice"!! 2. "Ideas about making the distinction about `the word and the experience'", this leads them to consciously reject the former and `chase after' the latter. But as I have expressed before, we *don't* choose to accept or reject anything, one only *sees* descriptions as such, and raw experience as such. One does not for any reason then to *try to consciously* choose the latter. Only panna can make the distinction, and panna is not-self. 3. Anatta is not properly understood, since they keep on ignoring the `self' which drives them to pursue different forms of practice and interpreting the Buddha's teachings as being certain "to do" things. I don't think one needs to wait for the English translation of the Abhidhamma Pittaka, I think if one is watching it from the `outside', then even after reading the whole of the Abhidhmma one may not come to know what it actually is!! Is the objection really a matter of whether it was the actual words of the Buddha, or is it an attempt to maintain our present perspective?! But of course, even the Abhidhammika may be indulging in self justification?! :-( Hope I haven't been too direct Howard!?....And sorry again for misunderstanding your other post. Look forward to your response. Best wishes, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sukin - > > You are misreading me at several points. I will try to clarify. > 22102 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 12, 2003 1:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Grimm recipe Hi Num, Andrew & All cooks!, --- Nantawat Sitdhiraksa wrote: > > A.Sujin pointed this out as the debate regarding association condition > (sampayutta paccaya). When rupas blended together, it’s very difficult > to separate them out. It’s even much harder to separate out the > namadhamma (cetasika from citta, or one cetasika from other cetasikas). > We still can appreciate each flavor of the soup, even all the > ingredients are blended together. Citta and its accompanied cetasikas > can have only one object at a time. So when there is a moment of > satipatthana, one can be aware of one dhamma at a time. The chef cannot > separate all the ingredients out, but the taste of each ingredient can > be distinctively experienced. ..... Many thx Sukin & Num for raising the King Milinda passage and for reporting back so promptly. I also appreciated Nina’s comments and the other points from your discussion. Perhaps Sukin can raise other passages being discussed here at your meetings so that we get to hear more from you, Num;-) Andrew, thx also for clarifying that it was Grimm’s own preface. As you say, I think that many people tend to see the Abhidhamma as something separate and don’t realize ‘the extent to which the timpitaka interweaves’. We see it again and again in suttas being quoted here like those to Rahula and so on. The Qu of King Milinda draws on all parts of the Tipitaka as someone said. Hope you can find more good questions to draw Num out of the woodwork;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 22103 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 12, 2003 2:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: question! Hi KK & Rob M, --- robmoult wrote: > Hi KK, > > Welcome to DSG! ..... Welcome from me too. Like Rob says, it’s an unusual first questions, but then we all get used to unusual questions here and that’s half the fun. .... R: > - The "fruit" (phala) citta arises immediately after the "path" > citta subsides and can occur whenever the saint practices vipassana > meditation. It can occur many times and for extended periods. The > object of "fruit" citta is also Nibanna. ..... I agreed with all your other helpful comments and explanations but I think this one has to be modified to stress that it only applies to those whose lokutara cittas were accompanied by jhana factors, Rob. It’s a difficult area that I understand little about and you were probably wishing to keep it relatively simple. Anyway, you may both wish to look at a series Nina translated on ‘Fruition Attainment’. This is a link for the last post in the series: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m14529.html Some of the others can be found under ‘Fruition’ at this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Here is an extract from the post linked above: “Dhamma Issues 2, Fruition Attainment, no 7 There are three kinds of attainments, samåpatti: jhåna-attainment, fruition-attainment and cessation-attainment (nirodha samåpatti [15) which are progressively more subtle and refined. The ordinary person is able to attain at his own level mundane jhåna. The ariyan who has attained enlightenment with lokuttara cittas accompanied by factors of different stages of jhåna is able to enter fruition-attainment with the phalacitta (fruition-consciousness) accompanied by the jhånafactors in conformity with the stage of jhåna he has attained. With regard to the non-returner and arahat, only those with the eight attainments (of rúpa-jhåna and arúpa-jhåna), can enter cessation-attainment. Therefore, only those who are able to attain jhåna can enter these different attainments, depending on the individual?s accumulations.” ***** More details are given in the post with Vism refs. KK, can we persuade you to introduce anything further about your interest in Abhidhamma and about where you live/study? Hope you find it helpful on DSG. With metta, Sarah p.s RobM, I plan to get back to your other post(s) to me perhaps tomorrow....it’s my turn to run through posts due in my head, but we should never give ourselves a hard time over it;-) ==================================================== 22104 From: yasalalaka Date: Mon May 12, 2003 4:14am Subject: Re: Thankyou. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear Yasalalaka, > > Thankyou for the lovely sites that you've given me. > The sites has given me alot of information. > I think the most interesting part was about 'Prince > Siddharta'. > > There was a news article in Hong Kong about a baby. > When this baby was born, the baby could speak. > This baby was born on the Buddha's birthday, which we > celebrated on Thursday in Hong Kong. > The baby said that if you want to cure SARS, then > you'll have to eat three spoons of green peas boiled > with water, but no sugar added. > After the baby had said it, the baby just died. But > maybe it could be a rumor. I don't really know lot's > of things about it. > I heard the Buddha could speak when he was born. > What do you think about it? > > Metta, > Sandy > > P.S. Please tell me if I made any mistakes, because > I'm only eleven. > ___________________________Yasa Replies________________________ Dear Sandy, I am happy you wrote back to say that you liked those websites. It gave me great pleasure, doing those two sites. I have still to finish the second one SAMBODHI. You had written your post excellently well. A book that I would recommend you to read is " The Buddha and His Teachings by Narada Thero". This book is available for FREE distribution by Amitabha Buddhist Society of U.S.A. 650 S. Bernardo Avenue, Sunnyvale,CA 94087,USA or The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation, 11F, 55 Hang Chow South Road Sec. Taipei,Taiwan, ROC. About the child, who could speak at its birth, I tend to believe in those things,though on the face of it, it sounds irrational, one cannot deny these rare occurrences. It is sad the child died. He was a sort of a messenger, wasn't he ? He delivered his message and passed away. In the case of Buddha, it is said that he walked seven steps and at each step he took , a lotus flower blossomed to receive his tiny foot. At the seventh step he said " this is my last birth, and their would be no births hereafter" There is no historical writing about the birth of the Buddha, and one may attribute these stories to legend. The Buddha is an exceedingly great sage. There is only one Buddha born in one world period. To become a Buddha he had to fulfil 10 paramitas, and for nearly 500 life spans he dedicated himself for the wellbeing of others. He was born with a great mental power, therefore any thing is possible for such a great man. What is more important are not the stories about him, but what he taught . He once said, that he who sees his teachings (dhamma) sees him. The following website has very interesting stories about the Buddha http://www.goldsummitmonastery.org/resources/nowords.shtml May you be happy, dear Sandy with metta, Yasa 22105 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon May 12, 2003 4:21am Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Hi Azita, This is really inspiring for me.:-) I find myself used to giving long explanations and right or wrong they can give an illusion of 'knowing'. Plus they do become objects of attachment. I really like the way you don't care to identify nor attach labels. Please do write more often! Also your reminder about patience, courage and good cheer is inspiring as always. :-) Best wishes, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, azita gill wrote: > dear Yasa, > > > > Yasa makes this REQUEST: > > > > > > Please TELL how you PRACTICE Buddhism, clearly and > > precisely. > > > > > > With metta, > > > Yasa > > > > With some theoretical knowledge of the Abhidhamma, > I believe I can 'practise' Buddhism. > The Abhidhamma has shown me that all of the things > I take for 'me, myself', are arising and falling away > phenomena, useless to be grasped at because what I'm > grasping at has fallen away already. > this knowledge, I think, is what is classed as 22106 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 12, 2003 5:42am Subject: Kusa grass (was: Mana and other akusala Hi Ken H, --- kenhowardau wrote: > Sukin (and Sarah), KH: > ........... We are told that even jhana can > only suppress -- it can't eradicate. I suspect we have > seen the answers to this on dsg but I, at least, have not > fully absorbed them. For instance, RobK once wrote about > how the word 'kusala' was derived from 'kusa grass' -- > because it cuts both ways. He explained it twice for me > but I have forgotten; does it mean kusala kamma > eradicates akusala kamma in some way? ..... One of RobK’s posts on ‘kusa grass’ can be found here: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m13595.html (If you want to find it again, I just put ‘kusa grass’ in the escribe search). “The quote: "Kusa grass cuts a part of the hand with both edges. Even so kusala cuts off both sections of passions - those that have arisen and those that have not arisen" (abhidhammathasangaha)” ..... KH:> On another occasion, I was having a non-cyberspace > conversation with Sundara about the benefits of kusala. I > couldn't see what was so good about it if it wasn't > accompanied by right view. If it leads to continued > existence in samsara, what's the ultimate use of it? Jon > briefly commented, "Because, if it's not kusala, it's > akusala." ..... S: Perhaps we can say that at any moment of kusala, there is a ‘cutting’ of akusala (in other words no chance for it to arise) and the tendency or accumulation for kusala is increased. As RobK mentions in the post linked above, the most important kind of kusala is the development of right view. Gradually the adze handle is worn down and eventually all wrong views are eradicated or cut off (those that have arisen and not yet arisen). Gradually the same applies to all kinds of kilesa. All kinds of kusala can be a support condition. but I think that at moments of dana or metta or other kinds of kusala, the wholesome nature of these cittas can only be known by panna (wisdom). ..... S: In another post (to Yasa) you said: KH: “There is no need to become a wonderful person, no need for wonderful experiences, just understand the realities that exist in this, present, moment.” S: I think this is very well put and any growth in detachment indicates a lessening of the stranglehold of the strong attachment to self and is therefore liberating. In another post (to Chris) you added a few comments about jhanas: KH:“So how can there be any question as to which way we should go? I think it's a matter of samvega (sense of urgency). Do we have the time to learn jhana? We could die tomorrow, who knows when we will have another opportunity to hear the Dhamma?” .... S: I just wished to comment that I don’t think it’s a question of ‘deciding’ which way to go or ‘learning’ jhana...Again it’s a question of conditions, anatta and panna of respective levels and kinds, I think. ..... KH: “Had we the accumulations for jhana, our opportunity would be less tenuous. (I can't quote any sources for this, by the way.) In our preliminary practice, we would have developed, for example, the ability to remember past lives. So we would have the luxury of time. In such a case, it would be quite appropriate that we emulate the Buddha more closely and that we develop psychic powers. In so doing, we could both pay more respect and be better able to pass on the teaching.” ..... S: I believe that any ‘preliminary practice’ lies in the understanding (again at the present moment) the nature of kusala and akusala cittas very precisely and the understanding of how particular objects of samatha can condition calm. Again, it is not by wishing and attachment, but by understanding the value of these wholesome moments when they arise. Talking about jhanas and remembering past lives/psychic powers etc without understanding the nature of moments of samatha (calm)that may arise now in daily life is like talking about nibbana and arahantship without understanding namas and rupas in daily life, I think. ..... I think it's safe to say that you and I are not such highly developed beings -- but are any of us? .... S:No self, no beings - developed or otherwise;-) ..... KH: “If, twenty-six centuries ago, a person had the accumulations for jhana, wouldn't he/she have followed the Eight-fold Path to Parinibana by now? (The obvious exception would be a Bodhisattha, of course.)” ..... S: Actually, not necessarily at all, I think. Remember those lifespans in brahma planes that last an eternity. Too ‘blissed out’ to understand anything about suffering and because of the long lifespan, unable to appreciate the teachings on impermanence even if heard;-) ..... KH: “Since that time, would anyone have *acquired* accumulations for jhana? -- in preference to developing vipassana? I don't see why. So I wonder, today, in this human realm, is the real jhana taught or practised by anyone?(!)” ..... S: (!) Of course it would depend on many conditions. Both the development of vipassana and samatha depend on clear and precise understanding of their respective objects and differentiation of kusala and akusala. Even though we read and consider a lot, how much insight is there at this moment into whether the mental state is one of metta or attachment and so on. We can see how difficult even the preliminary practice is, especially when there is any desire for results or short-cuts. KenH, you always raise interesting points. Briefly in another post you mentioned about how a lay arahant would have to ‘conceptualise’ himself as ordained and any such akusala would be beyond him (very rough paraphrase). I don’t know that it would quite be like that. I think that simply, without any kilesa or remaining attachment, there just wouldn’t be the conditions to continue a lay life, just as there wouldn’t be any conditions for a sotapanna to break the precepts and so on. With metta and appreciation for all your comments and look forward to many more. Sarah ======== 22107 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 12, 2003 6:54am Subject: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi All, The Buddha was an expert teacher, who often explained the Dhamma using analogies that were familiar to the listener. If the Buddha were alive today, He would likely use today's technology in His analogies. Here is an imaginary Sutta using a modern technology as an analogy. Thus have I heard. On one occasion, Rob the Engineer was sitting in a cyber-café surfing the net and the thought arose, "I do not understand the concepts of mind (nama), matter (rupa) and non-self (anatta). I shall go and ask the Buddha to explain." Rob the Engineer went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to Him, he sat down at one side and said: "Venerable sir, please explain to me the concepts of mind (nama), matter (rupa) and non-self (anatta)." "I will explain this to you, Engineer Rob, using the Internet as an example. Before you came to me, what were you doing?" "I was typing at a computer, Venerable Sir." "What are the things that make up a computer, and what are their functions?" "A computer has both hardware and software. The function of the hardware is to provide a base of support for the software and the function of the software is to receive and process the information that is input." "Does the software operate according to fixed rules, according to its nature, or is there a being or force controlling and directing the software?" "The software operates according to fixed rules, according to its nature." "Engineer Rob, you should understand the senses as you understand the computer. The senses have both nama and rupa. Eye sensitivity, the physical eye, is rupa. Eye consciousness is nama. The function of rupa is to provide a base of support for nama. The function of nama is to receive and process the information from the visible object. Nama operates according to its nature and there is no self controlling it. There is seeing, but there is no seer. This is the view of non-self." "So in this analogy, nama corresponds to the software while rupa corresponds to the hardware. Is this correct, Venerable Sir?" "It is so. Did the computer on which you were typing work in isolation?" "No Venerable Sir, the computer was connected to the Internet." "You should understand that the senses do not operate in isolation from the mind. How would you describe the `Internet', Engineer Rob?" "The Internet is an uncountable number of computers, all running software, working in unison. Venerable Sir, does this mean that the mind is also nama and rupa?" "Yes, Engineer Rob, the mind is a combination of nama and rupa. Now, is there any force controlling and directing the Internet?" "No, Venerable Sir, the Internet is a very complex combination of hardware and software but there is no single thing in control of the Internet." "You should understand that though the mind is a very complex combination of nama and rupa, there is no self in control of the mind. Engineer Rob, is there a single thing that you can point to and say, `This is the Internet'?" "No Venerable Sir, it is an ever-changing grouping of hardware and software that we label as `Internet'. The `Internet' is a concept; the `Internet' is not a single piece of hardware or software." "This is how you should understand a person, Engineer Rob, as an ever-changing grouping of nama and rupa; a concept, not an ultimate reality. This is the view of non-self." "This analogy is most interesting to me, Venerable Sir." "Engineer Rob, what makes the Internet work?" "In addition to being governed by the laws of physics (signal degradation, etc.), the foundation of the Internet is a set of rules that define how software interacts (TCP/IP, HTTP, etc.). The Internet is almost never at rest as there are almost always inputs arriving from one of the clients." "Even so, In addition to being governed by the laws of utu-niyama (we all must age), the foundation of a being is a set of rules that define how nama interacts (citta-niyama, kamma-niyama). A being is almost never at rest as there are almost always external objects being apprehended by the five senses." "Please continue, Venerable Sir." "Engineer Rob, imagine that your student wished to have a better understanding of the Internet. Would you advise that student to focus their attention on the hardware or the software?" "Venerable Sir, Though hardware is necessary for the Internet to exist, it is best to treat hardware as a platform for software and focus on how hardware impacts the software (speed, capacity, etc.) rather than the technical details of the hardware (processors, etc.). What makes the Internet interesting and powerful is the interaction between software. One can never truly understand the internet looking at the macro-level (appearance of web pages, etc.). To truly understand the Internet, one must understand how the underlying hardware, software and rules work." "Exactly, Engineer Rob. Though rupa is necessary for a person to exist, it is best to treat rupa as a platform for nama and focus on how nama experiences rupa (solidity, cohesion, temperature, motion) rather than the technical details of rupa (protons, neutrons, electrons). What makes a person interesting and powerful is the interaction of nama. One can never truly understand a person looking at the macro-level (personality, etc.). To truly understand a person, one must understand how the underlying rupa, nama and niyama work." Engineer Rob was satisfied and delighted with what he had heard from the Blessed One. Metta, Rob M :-) 22108 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 12, 2003 6:56am Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 41-43 for comment Ethically Variable Cetasikas in Daily Life Slide Contents ============== Citta + Eye + Form -> Contact Contact -> Feeling Feeling -> Perception (Naming) Perception (Naming) -> Thinks About (Memory) Thanks About (Memory) -> Mental Proliferation Small circle (nucleus) = Ultimate Reality Big Circle (surrounding small circle) = What we think is real Area between small circle and big circle = Mental Proliferation Quotation from Honeyball Sutta (Mn18) Naturally arising phenomena --------------------------- Dependent on the eye and forms, eye consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a condition there is feeling. One's reaction to naturally arising phenomena --------------------------------------------- What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. Impact of one's reaction ------------------------ With what one has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past, future and present forms cognizable though the eye. Speaker Notes ============= The list of mental factors used in the Abhidhamma were taken from the Suttas. Here is an example from the Honeyball Sutta (Mn18), which gives some insight into how the mind works. The first part of this extract lists the purely objective natural reaction occurring as part of the seeing process. The next part of this extract shows how, based on feeling, one reacts to the natural process of seeing. We can see that the Sutta uses many of the terms found in the Abhidhamma. The final part of this extract gives the impact of our reaction. What this Sutta tells us is that what we think is real is in fact 99% added by our own selves. Seeing things as they truly are means to understand what is an ultimate reality and what has been added onto it by our own habits and accumulations. To draw an analogy, seeing things as they truly are means to see a TV screen as coloured dots and not to be deluded by "images" on the screen. 22109 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 12, 2003 7:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Hi Jon (and Howard): > > The usage of the phrase "individual essence" to refer to the > visible > object seems odd to me, but that may be my relative inexperience > with > the lanuage of the abhidhamma. I prefer the explanation of the > distinction you (Jon) appear to be discussing given by Karunadasa > in The Dhamma Theory as follows: > > ----- > Further, pannattis differ from dhammas in that only the latter are > delimited by rise and fall; only of the dhammas and not of the ... > oneness on what actually is a complex (samuhekaggahana) that gives > rise to pannattis.125 " > See http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm > ------ Thanks for this passage with its very clear and detailed explanation of the distinction between paramattha dhamma and concept, as found in the Theravadin commentarial literature. I would like to think that my own explanation was not in any way in contradiction with it ;-)) (but I would agree that this passage says it much better). I think the gist of the passage can be seen in the following extract taken from toward the end: "While a dhamma is a truly existent thing (sabhavasiddha), a pannatti is a thing merely conceptualized (parikappasiddha). The former is an existent verifiable by its own distinctive intrinsic characteristic... The latter, being a product of the mind's synthetic function, exists only by virtue of thought." To which could be added that the significance of this distinction lies in the question of what may and may not be the object of insight development. As the Visuddhi-Magga explains at the beginning of the section dealing with Understanding (panna) (Ch XIV): 'What are is characteristic, function etc? Understanding has the characteristic of penetrating the individual essences [sabhava] of states [dhammas]. Its function is to abolish the darkness of delusion, which conceals the individual essences of states.' XIV, 7 'How is it developed? Now the things classed as aggregates [khandhas], bases [ayatanas], elements [dhatus], faculties [indriyas], truths [sacca], dependent origination [paticca-samuppada], etc., are the soil of this understanding...' XIV, 32 The various classes mentioned here are simply different ways of classifying paramattha dhammas. (On the question of my usage of the phrase "individual essence" to refer to the visible object, this is the translation of 'sabhava' used by Nanamoli, Bodhi and others. In other words, it has the same meaning as the expressions 'own-nature' and 'distinctive intrinsic characteristic' in Karunadasa's passage. It applies to visible object as to any other paramattha dhamma.) > Note that when Karunadasa talks of a dhamma as sabhava in the above > passage, he uses that term in a very precise way such that > "although the > term sabhava is used as a synonym for dhamma, it is interpreted in > such > a way that it means the very absence of sabhava in any sense that > implies a substantial mode of being." A fuller explanation is > given in the cited article. Yes, this is important to note. I think for some people the discussion on 'sabhava' is difficult to consider because they associate it with the idea of having an enduring nature or substance of some kind. Thanks. Jon 22110 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 12, 2003 7:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Yasa --- yasalalaka wrote: ... > Yes Jon, it is just "seeing", nothing else. Yes, the whole 'event' is "seeing". And as you correctly pointed out in your earlier post (relevant part copied below), that event is constituted of (at least) 3 separate paramattha dhammas. The second of these, the object, is the paramattha dhamma known as visible object, visible form or visible data (ruparammana). My question was directed to the nature of this particular paramattha dhamma. To my understanding, ruparammana is not the conventional object (computer, person, sky) that we interpret as being the object of our seeing at that moment, but is actually the mere 'visible data' that is experienced by seeing consciousness before anything is known about 'what it is' that is being/has been seen. I don't know if this makes any sense? Jon --------------- When we experience a sense door object, there are three" elements". For instance when we see, there is the (1) eye, the (2) object and the (3) eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, and so is the object and so is the eye-consciousness. They are therefore all impermanent paramatta dhammas. That is the insight to the moment of seeing. --------------- 22111 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 12, 2003 7:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > ========================== > Sorry, but I don't accept the distinction. The concept lasts > so long > as the conditions needed for it last. This is no different. I don't think it need be a question of accepting or not accepting the distinction, but simply of acknowledging that such a distinction is made in the Theravadin literature. Whether we chose to 'accept' or 'not accept', that would not be a choice based on direct experience (panna), but a view tainted with our own particular wrong view and ignorance. As you correctly point out from time to time, we have to start from where we are, and that is more ignorance and wrong view than panna, I believe. Jon 22112 From: Date: Mon May 12, 2003 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Sukin - I'll put in just a few brief comments below, in context. In a message dated 5/12/03 3:07:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukin@k... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Since I misunderstood you and you had to write what I think is one of > the longest posts by you, let me explain the situation. I had earlier that > day, to go to my son's kindergarten for some `parents meet teachers > day' thing. I didn't know that we had to pay the school fees so I was not > prepared. I had then to go to my workplace to get the money because > the school opens today. On the way I was thinking about your and > Victor's post and how to reply to them. When I reached my shop at > around 1 pm, I was so hungry because I hadn't had breakfast in the > morning that I got lunch and overate. Now there was drowsiness, and I > even thought that I should take a nap before replying to you, but there > was no place to lie down. By the time I started to write, the response to > your and Victor's posts were so mixed up, that I even wrote two long > paragraphs which I had to delete after realizing that they were meant > for Victor.:-) When I finished writing, and read through the post, I did > not bother to read over your statements, but only my own response to > them. But as soon as I was about to click the `send' button, I realized > that I may have misunderstood what you were saying and instead of > choosing to read your letter over again, I opted for, "I hope I have not > misunderstood the point of your post." Obviously I am quite attached to > my writing since it takes me longer than most to type. But also I may > have what is conventionally called, "attention deficit",(in ultimate sense > it > must surely mean, lots and lots of kilesas, though I do not know > precisely what they are) this makes it difficult for me to not only read > anything, but also properly pay attention to anyone, (my walkman's > rewind button is going to conk out soon as a result ;-)). > So to avoid any chance of misunderstanding some more of what you > have written, in this post I will mostly be simply stating my > understandings without reference to your post, and we'll see what > proceeds from there. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's fine. BTW, whatever misunderstanding there may have been is no problem. I think there may have been some. I still think points of difference do remain. That's fine too. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > But let me admit first of all, that I think I overstated about the role of > conventional understanding, I agree with you that it must start with > conventional understanding initially, even if this be about the subject of > Abhidhamma, with exceptions of course, like Sariputta?! ;-). > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't say much more than this. Conventional understanding is the merest beginning. It constitutes, as I see it, the lowest level of (quite compromised) wisdom. But that initial conventional understanding [and 'initial' doesn't mean only occurring at the very beginning, time-wise] is necessary. There is no proceeding onwards to more without that. ------------------------------------------------------- But I do > > have a reason to not give any special importance to this level of > understanding, which I hope I will be able to show in this post of mine. > > Let us consider, what the Teachings really mean in terms of momentary > experience. I think you will agree that it must be kusala accompanied by > a level of panna. And since the unique teaching of the Buddha and > the "one and only way" is that of Satipatthana, don't you think that the > goal would be the panna that at least sees the importance of > understanding this moment? > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. BTW, there is some debate over the meaning of 'ekayana'. Some think it should be rendered in English as "the straight path" or "the one-way path" or "the direct path", which have slightly different senses from each other, and all of which differ in meaning from "the only way". --------------------------------------------------------- And since either conventional examples or > > paramattha expression is used for the purpose of conditioning this level > of panna, we must consider if indeed it does, shouldn't we? So what is it > about conventional expression that would lead the mind to see this? I > think on its own, without reference to the importance of satipatthana, it > can at best condition samattha. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: It conditions the realization that "something is wrong". Seeing the impermanence of conventional objects, especially of beloved objects - seeing it clearly, without averting one's eyes and mind, places one face to face with the deep unsatisfactoriness of life as we experience it, and leads us to look for a way to "solve the problem". This is the origin of spiritual search. If the prisoner gets used to his jail cell, if he comes to accept it as "the way things are and must be," if he even comes to consider the jail his "home", then even though the cell door be wide open he will not walk through. --------------------------------------------- From here which direction the > > understanding gets developed depends on whether the importance of > satipatthana is seen or not. And what is understanding the importance > of Satipatthana if not seeing that it can be developed `now' and at any > time? Would the idea of `special time and place' or `application' or > `utility' > be any real understanding of what `satipatthana' really means, if by this > it conditions the idea that certain other dhammas and situations are not > the appropriate object? What if the next moment is cutti citta? > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No doubt, paying close attention 24 hours a day, seven days a week is best. In fact, following the entire 8-fold path all the time, without deviation is best. We should always practice sila, and always attend to whatever arises carefully and energetically. We should consistently guard the senses and observe mindfully. And, when there is time and opportunity, one should take special steps to train the mind to be attentive and concentrated by various techniques that the Buddha encouraged. One should do all that one can do as often as one can do it. [Note on conventional language: Ultimately, there is no "one" to be doing any of this. But there can be the doing, directed by cetana and chanda.] ------------------------------------------------- > I think we get confused and falsely inspired when we think the teachings > of the Buddha in terms of stories involving doing certain things to reach > a certain goal, or even with certain mental attitude, see that the > teachings is about developing each limb of the eightfold path or viewing > the 37 bodhipakaya dhammas with a mind of `how to'. I see the views > that Abhidhamma is just a list of descriptions which have no practical > value and the view that they "have", in the sense of *using the > knowledge* for one's practice, as being in some ways equally wrong. In > this sense, Abhidhamma is *not* out there to be accepted or rejected, > it is as Nina has often pointed out, about "NOW". > The criticism made against Abhidhamma is usually from the stand point > of not seeing this. > At this moment is a reality arising which *can* be known, thinking, > visible object, aversion, hearing, anything at all, can be the object of > awareness. *BUT* there is no one who can make this happen! > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Correct (as I see it). But it can be made to happen, eventually, by setting up of appropriate conditions. If the opportunity to set up useful conditions is in place, but due to the accepting that there is no "one" to do anything, the required cetana, chanda, and viriya do not arise, then a valuable opportunity has been squandered. A mere intellectual commitment to the notion of no-self, when grasped wrongly, is a poisonous snake that paralyzes us. ------------------------------------------------------- Pariyatti > > conditions patipatti, but no one can make pariyatti happen, less patipatti > to occur. Panna can condition chanda to cause us to look the text for > more understanding, but whether this takes place at all, is not up to `us'. > > But if we view Abhidhamma as a `resource of knowledge' out there to > mine whenever we choose, then this is wrong understanding. And I > think this is what many outsiders disagree to, or even agree wrongly > to.;-) > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The "spiritual path" is actually a spiral. One begins where one is. There is always *some* wisp of wisdom, else we would be totally lost. That wisp of wisdom is the beginning point. [Interestingly (perhaps ;-), in Kabbalah, the Jewish mystical tradition, the beginning point is Chochma, which is wisdom.] -------------------------------------------------------- > But let me now try to describe what I think is the position of those > outsiders! > The very thing they accuse Abhidhamma of, being influenced by > descriptions, is what I think they are doing. > 1. "Ideas about formal meditation practice"!! > 2. "Ideas about making the distinction about `the word and the > experience'", this leads them to consciously reject the former and `chase > after' the latter. But as I have expressed before, we *don't* choose to > accept or reject anything, one only *sees* descriptions as such, and > raw experience as such. One does not for any reason then to *try to > consciously* choose the latter. Only panna can make the distinction, and > panna is not-self. > 3. Anatta is not properly understood, since they keep on ignoring > the `self' which drives them to pursue different forms of practice and > interpreting the Buddha's teachings as being certain "to do" things. > > I don't think one needs to wait for the English translation of the > Abhidhamma Pittaka, I think if one is watching it from the `outside', then > even after reading the whole of the Abhidhmma one may not come to > know what it actually is!! Is the objection really a matter of whether it > was the actual words of the Buddha, or is it an attempt to maintain our > present perspective?! But of course, even the Abhidhammika may be > indulging in self justification?! :-( > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I consider Abhidhamma to be a conceptual system that is descriptive of what can be known directly. I see it as a map. A map is very useful when one is on the road, but less so when one is not going anywhere. ---------------------------------------------------- > Hope I haven't been too direct Howard!?....And sorry again for > misunderstanding your other post. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Directness is just fine! And misunderstanding, to the extent that it occurs, is just something that happens. ---------------------------------------------------- > > Look forward to your response. > > Best wishes, > Sukin. > ============================= 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) 22113 From: Date: Mon May 12, 2003 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/12/03 10:23:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > >========================== > > Sorry, but I don't accept the distinction. The concept lasts > >so long > >as the conditions needed for it last. This is no different. > > I don't think it need be a question of accepting or not accepting the > distinction, but simply of acknowledging that such a distinction is > made in the Theravadin literature. > > Whether we chose to 'accept' or 'not accept', that would not be a > choice based on direct experience (panna), but a view tainted with > our own particular wrong view and ignorance. As you correctly point > out from time to time, we have to start from where we are, and that > is more ignorance and wrong view than panna, I believe. > > Jon > =========================== I understand 'concept' to mean a thought, or at least a species of thought. It is a mind-door object. It arises.Wwhatever arises ceases, or so the Buddha said. It is a conditioned dhamma, for only nibbana is unconditioned. If you take 'concept' to mean something else, then we are simply using language differently. 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) 22114 From: Date: Mon May 12, 2003 3:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi, Rob - You put a big grin on my face with this! Why, it is as if some some monitors and hard drives that had been overturned were now set upright! ;-)) 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) 22115 From: lokuttaracitta Date: Mon May 12, 2003 8:16am Subject: Re: question! Dear Rob and Yasa Thank you for your great kindness. Sorry for my poor information on my background. I was born and brought up under Japanese education and culture here in Japan. I have been studying and practising Maha-yanas (including Vajra-yana ) Tradition before I met teachings of Theravada tradition last year and "discoverd "the greatness of theravadin. In most cases in maha-yana traditions , The teachings of theravada has been mistreated as almost the same as those of Sarvastivardin while I notice that some sayadaw mistake Maha-yana's views and practices for just the same as those of Hindu. Of course there are many similarities between maha-yanas and Hinduism in superficial ways , but their basic views and goals are far different. In my view , Both of the reasons are just lack of knowledge and experience. However , I have no intention at all to be involved in any argument on the differences between theravada and other traditions. I just want to understand cleary what pali canons say , without any confusion and mixture with other traditions. I know that there are many terms whose meanings are different between them. So I need to be very careful when reading writings on Abhidhamma in order to avoid misunderstandings. As a preliminary training, I started to read Suttas and writings by Theravardin monks and to attend Dhamma takls and meditation sessions led by several Sayadaws . Then I have just begun studying Abhidhamma. I 've read only about 80% of Abhidhammattasangaha in Japanese version with help of ebooks writtend by Pa-auk sayadaw and Nina Van Gorkom etc. Having said above that I do not want to mix theravadin with other traditions, it is natural for me at this stage that my questions come mainly from my own background, especially from my knowledge and experinece gained by my having learned Maha-yaha tradition. So please fogive me if there is any nonsense in my questions to you . I do not have Vishuddhi Magga and Bhikkhu Bodhi's Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma now ,but I do want to read them as your suggestions soon. Can I get them on the net? It would be appreciated if you would give me your reply to my futher questions. With metta kk 22116 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 12, 2003 8:35am Subject: Re: question! Hi KK-san (and Rob K), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "lokuttaracitta" wrote: > So please fogive me if there is any nonsense in my questions to you . ===== The questions were valid; I was surprised to hear them asked by somebody who had just started to study Abhidhamma. ===== > > I do not have Vishuddhi Magga and Bhikkhu Bodhi's Comprehensive Manual of > Abhidhamma now ,but I do want to read them as your suggestions soon. Can I > get them on the net? ===== Sorry, neither one of these are available on the net. Rob K (a regular contributor) works in Japan, perhaps he knows where Japanese versions might be available. ===== > > It would be appreciated if you would give me your reply to my futher > questions. ===== I look forward to you further questions! Metta, Rob M :-) 22117 From: Date: Mon May 12, 2003 4:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi again, Jon - In a message dated 5/12/03 10:49:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/12/03 10:23:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > jonoabb@y... writes: > > >Howard > > > >--- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > >>========================== > >> Sorry, but I don't accept the distinction. The concept lasts > >>so long > >>as the conditions needed for it last. This is no different. > > > >I don't think it need be a question of accepting or not accepting the > >distinction, but simply of acknowledging that such a distinction is > >made in the Theravadin literature. > > > >Whether we chose to 'accept' or 'not accept', that would not be a > >choice based on direct experience (panna), but a view tainted with > >our own particular wrong view and ignorance. As you correctly point > >out from time to time, we have to start from where we are, and that > >is more ignorance and wrong view than panna, I believe. > > > >Jon > > > =========================== > I understand 'concept' to mean a thought, or at least a species of > thought. It is a mind-door object. It arises.Wwhatever arises ceases, or so > > the Buddha said. It is a conditioned dhamma, for only nibbana is > unconditioned. If you take 'concept' to mean something else, then we are > simply using language differently. > > With metta, > Howard > ============================== I may not be making myself clear, but I would like to. To speak precisely, the tree I seem to see right now as I look through the den window does not exist, nor does the "I" nor does the den nor does the window. From that ultimate perspective, it is nonsense to ascribe any characteristics to any of these supposed things because they do not exist. To say they are fictions is already just a manner of speaking, because that language suggests that they exist, but have fictional status. But there are no such things at all - except in a manner of speaking. When we say that these "things" are concept-only, that suggests that they exist and are concepts. That is false. THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS! There *are*, however, *concepts* of such things, and we associate these concepts (i.e.thoughts) with specific trains of experience, superimposing them, and fool ourselves into thinking we are looking at trees etc. But the concepts, themselves, are merely thoughts that arise in the mind. They arise due to causes and conditions, and they cease as all conditioned dhammas cease. Their alleged referents, the tree, the den, the window: they neither arise nor cease in actuality, because *they do not exist* - ever. To speak of them is either to speak under the sway of illusion, or to consciously be simply using language in a conventional way, without being fooled, as was the case with the Buddha. This is how I understand the matter. I am not ascribing existence to so-called conventional objects, but to *thoughts* of such. I hope you understand the distinction I am making. 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) 22118 From: connie Date: Mon May 12, 2003 9:45am Subject: Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi, Rob M ~ With all due respect, it's pretty obvious even without your mentioning it, at least today, that this is an imaginary Sutta but even so, I object to this use of the word Sutta, which I think should be reserved for Canon. It seems acceptable in some Mahayana schools to call something a sutra when it is written by some other teacher, but I think it's another of those peg in the drum things... no matter how precisely your words might agree with Buddha's. peace, connie 22119 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon May 12, 2003 11:20am Subject: Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi Rob M, Interesting piece of writing. I would be very careful not to "put words in the Buddha's mouth" and not to fabricate what the Buddha would say. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi All, > > The Buddha was an expert teacher, who often explained the Dhamma > using analogies that were familiar to the listener. If the Buddha > were alive today, He would likely use today's technology in His > analogies. Here is an imaginary Sutta using a modern technology as > an analogy. [snip] > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 22120 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 12, 2003 0:35pm Subject: Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi Connie and Victor, I am not going to use the word Sutta. I will replace it with "sutra"; hopefully, using the Sanskrit instead of Pali, putting quotation marks around the word and not capitalizing the word will make the text seem less "blasphemous". Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Hi, Rob M ~ > > With all due respect, it's pretty obvious even without your mentioning > it, at least today, that this is an imaginary Sutta but even so, I > object to this use of the word Sutta, which I think should be reserved > for Canon. It seems acceptable in some Mahayana schools to call > something a sutra when it is written by some other teacher, but I think > it's another of those peg in the drum things... no matter how precisely > your words might agree with Buddha's. > > peace, > connie 22121 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon May 12, 2003 1:11pm Subject: 'Hymm for Vaishakha' by Francis Story Dear Group, A Vesak poem. metta, Christine "Hymn For Vaishakha By Francis Story (Anagarika Priyadarshi Sugatananda) Francis Story was born in London in 1910. He became a Buddhist by reading and independent thinking during his teens and married at 23. His wife died six years later. For several years he lived in India as voluntary worker for the Maha Bodhi Society. He became an Anagarika at Bodh Gaya, in 1948 and took the religious name of Priyadarshi Sugatananda. He began researching on rebirth while in Burma and this was to be a life-long interest until his death at the age of 61. This is a poem written on the occasion of Vesak. In the midst of the world's tumult we seek Thy Peace from clamour of many voices and the clash of conflict. Thou alone are the Silence where all things cease where suffering entereth not, and the pain of being findeth no sustenance. Here in the dark ocean of time strange currents bear us, bewildering and unseeing - only through Thee we know of the Further Shore, the unchanging clime. Long have we known the scant mercies of night and day: burned in the self-created fire and restless longing of the uneasy heart, the season's play has cooled with brief winds our fever, fleeting joy beckoned our wayward steps and wrapped us round with flowery snares of passion - make us pain's toy even to the last tear helpless and bound. Upon this day let us remember Thee; call up the still abiding mercy Thou has left us who came with compassionate eyes to view man's bondage and see beyond the proud glitter of Thy earthly state. No stranger Thou, but one who all things had shared, a fellow-wanderer encompassed by love and hate even as we - no human fear unknown, no sorrow spared. Upon this day let us remember Thy Birth, when the heavens poured forth their music and the world of gods stood hushed. The broad firmament throughout its girth quickened in wonder, for a Prince was come, a Chakravartin, a Master of gods and men, a righteous Charioteer of the rich-teeming sum of nations, and a Seer beyond human ken. Let us remember Thine Illumination - the keen sword of the Kshatriya's will that cut the bonds of Mara: Thy pitying heart that lifted man's degradation. Thou wert he who stood alone against the hosts, vanquished the phanton ranks, cleaving a way for lesser men. Baleful and beautiful, the ghosts of lust and passion melted in Thy holy Ray. Upon this day let us remember Thy Passing: Name and Form to the last vestige cast aside never to be renewed, the multitudinous worlds outclassing, Thou from the transient to the Eternal leapt. No more the swing of the stars nor the cycle of craving, no more the tongue that spoke nor the eyes that wept - only the Peace beyond thought, and Thy Law for our saving. In the midst of the world's tumult we seek Thy Way: the world is weary yet drugged with the madness of getting, and sick with the frenzy of things that cannot stay. But in the darkness still we behold Thy Light, and as a dreamer walking throws off the tangle of fear, so man beholds his refuge, measures the thread of night, and in the dawning feels his release is near.' 22122 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon May 12, 2003 1:24pm Subject: Re: question! --- Dear KK, I like your approach to study. Many people bring in ideas they got from other religions and sciences and this makes it hard to see what Theravada really is. As RobM said I work in Japan. My students are translating one of Nina van Gorkoms books and hopefully we will publish it when I return. The first section of the Visuddhimagga is available on my website: http://www.abhidhamma.org/visuddhimagga-1.htm It is translated into Japanese and since you read English it would be good to buy bothe English and Japanese versions. You can do a search and find the Abhidhammasangaha on the web. Use "Narada manuals of Abhidhamma" RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "lokuttaracitta" wrote: > Dear Rob and Yasa > > . I just want to understand > cleary what pali canons say , without any confusion and mixture with other > traditions. I know that there are many terms whose meanings are different > between them. So I need to be very careful when reading writings on > Abhidhamma in order to avoid misunderstandings. > > 22123 From: vital Date: Mon May 12, 2003 2:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Long time, no see. Hallo, Hello, Het tweede hoofdstuk van mijn levensfilosie is in voorlopige versie geplaatst op de site: http://www.vitalmoors.nl op de pagina levensfilosofie 2. Als je even tijd hebt, kan je het eens doornemen en me je reacties mailen. Kijk ook even bij de reacties 1 en reacties 2 misschien staat er ook jouw reactie geanonimiseerd tussen. The second chapter of my philosophy is ready. You can find it on my webside: http://www.vitalmoors.nl , if you have the time please take a look at let me know your reaction Groetjes, Greetings, Mr. Vital E.H. Moors Mr. Vital E.H. Moors homepage: http://www.vitalmoors.nl ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Da Costa" To: Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Long time, no see. > Hi Sarah > > At 13:12 09/05/2003 +0800, you wrote: > > >I appreciate your sharing of current interest and consideration, Peter. > > Cheers > > >Pls don't run away!! You've been missed by many of us. > > If it were only that simple. > > > >With metta, > > > >Sarah > >======= > > Peter 22124 From: Lee Dillion Date: Mon May 12, 2003 3:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Lee > > --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Hi Jon (and Howard): > >> The usage of the phrase "individual essence" to refer to the >> visible object seems odd to me, but that may be my relative >> inexperience with the lanuage of the abhidhamma. I prefer the >> explanation of the distinction you (Jon) appear to be discussing >> given by Karunadasa in The Dhamma Theory as follows: >> >> ----- Further, pannattis differ from dhammas in that only the >> latter are delimited by rise and fall; only of the dhammas and not >> of the oneness on what actually is a complex (samuhekaggahana) >> that gives rise to pannattis.125 " See >> http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm >> ------ > > > Thanks for this passage with its very clear and detailed explanation > of the distinction between paramattha dhamma and concept, as found in > the Theravadin commentarial literature. I would like to think that > my own explanation was not in any way in contradiction with it ;-)) > (but I would agree that this passage says it much better). > > I think the gist of the passage can be seen in the following extract > taken from toward the end: "While a dhamma is a truly existent thing > (sabhavasiddha), a pannatti is a thing merely conceptualized > (parikappasiddha). The former is an existent verifiable by its own > distinctive intrinsic characteristic... The latter, being a product > of the mind's synthetic function, exists only by virtue of thought." > > To which could be added that the significance of this distinction > lies in the question of what may and may not be the object of insight > development. As the Visuddhi-Magga explains at the beginning of the > section dealing with Understanding (panna) (Ch XIV): 'What are is > characteristic, function etc? Understanding has the characteristic of > penetrating the individual essences [sabhava] of states [dhammas]. > Its function is to abolish the darkness of delusion, which conceals > the individual essences of states.' XIV, 7 I think this may be interpreted (even if not so intended) as suggesting that concepts are not objects of knowledge. >> Note that when Karunadasa talks of a dhamma as sabhava in the above >> passage, he uses that term in a very precise way such that >> "although the term sabhava is used as a synonym for dhamma, it is >> interpreted in such a way that it means the very absence of >> sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of being." A >> fuller explanation is given in the cited article. > > > Yes, this is important to note. I think for some people the > discussion on 'sabhava' is difficult to consider because they > associate it with the idea of having an enduring nature or substance > of some kind. Thanks. To my mind, there are a number of possible difficulties with the term sabhava, including the following: 1. sabhava is a term that has a very different and very substantialist meaning when used by the Sarvastivadins. 2. As the article by Karunadasa notes, "the definition of dhamma as that which bears its own nature [Sabhava] has to be understood. Clearly, this is a definition according to agency (kattu-sadhana), and hence its validity is provisional." 3. Karunadasa further notes that "the commentarial definition of dhamma as sabhava poses an important problem, for it seems to go against an earlier Theravada tradition recorded in the Patisambhidamagga. This canonical text specifically states that the five aggregates are devoid of own-nature (sabhavena-sunnat).46 Since the dhammas are the elementary constituents of the five aggregates, this should mean that the dhammas, too, are devoid of own-nature. What is more, does not the very use of the term sabhava, despite all the qualifications under which it is used, give the impression that a given dhamma exists in its own right? And does this not amount to the admission that a dhamma is some kind of substance? Karunadasa goes on to answer this third objection with the following: "The commentators were not unaware of these implications and they therefore took the necessary steps to forestall such a conclusion. This they sought to do by supplementing the former definition with another which actually nullifies the conclusion that the dhammas might be quasi-substances. This additional definition states that a dhamma is not that which bears its own-nature, but that which is borne by its own conditions (paccayehi dhariyanti ti dhamma).47 Whereas the earlier definition is agent-denotation (kattusadhana) because it attributes an active role to the dhamma, elevating it to the position of an agent, the new definition is object-denotation (kamma-sadhana) because it attributes a passive role to the dhamma and thereby downgrades it to the position of an object. What is radical about this new definition is that it reverses the whole process which otherwise might culminate in the conception of dhammas as substances or bearers of their own-nature. What it seeks to show is that, far from being a bearer, a dhamma is being borne by its own conditions." In the end, I am left wondering why all the need to go through the verbal and mental gymnastics if all we wished to say was that "far from being a bearer, a dhamma is being borne by its own conditions"? 22125 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 12, 2003 4:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Why, it is as if some some > monitors and hard drives that had been overturned were now set upright! ;-)) Love your ending... I had considered using something like this, but felt that the reference might be a bit obscure. Metta, Rob M :-) 22126 From: lokuttaracitta Date: Mon May 12, 2003 5:37pm Subject: Re: question! Dear Rob K and Rob M Thank you very much for your response and information I will do my best to get right view on What Pali canons transmit to us. I am looking forward to hearing the news on publications of Japanense versions of any valuable articles on Abhidhamma ,especially those which can introduce us the whole right scope of Abhidhamma without partiality if any. With metta kk 22127 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 12, 2003 5:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi Howard, FYI - I also considered an alternate ending where Engineer Rob gets enlightened, but I wasn't "mana" enough to do it :-) ! Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Why, it is as if some some > > monitors and hard drives that had been overturned were now set > upright! ;-)) > > Love your ending... I had considered using something like this, but > felt that the reference might be a bit obscure. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 22128 From: Date: Mon May 12, 2003 3:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Internet Sutta - Please comment ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/12/03 8:51:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > FYI - I also considered an alternate ending where Engineer Rob gets > enlightened, but I wasn't "mana" enough to do it :-) ! > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22129 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon May 12, 2003 8:11pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Hi Yasa, Yesterday was a special day for me. By comparison, It started after I read Azita's post late in the afternoon. It may be ordinary for some of the more experienced folks here in dsg or it may even count as a 'low' day for some others. But for me it was more than any other day. There were many moments in which akusala conditioned kusala. And these were brief as Azita said, " patipatti is also one moment which arises and falls away". But they were enough to show me how development has to be. As you may have figured out, that normally in a day, in my case it is almost always akusala citta arising. This being so, I have no expectations that the path will be easy and show noticable results. And I am not surprised and feel unnecessarily concerned if these moments are very brief and imediately followed by lots and lots of akusala. I see that this is the way that it *must* be. The fire burning on our heads should not drive us to be frantic and find a quick solution. In fact the realization of the fire must be a moment of kusala and not condition craving and wrong view with regard to practice. One can simply see the danger of all akusala and the value of kusala, particularly right view. And one will not be driven to go beyond the understanding of this present reality. And even if by habit one is drawn to the meditation cushion, one can see what it has been motivated by. Is this wrong effort motivated by ignorance and wrong view? Yasa, I think one needs to examine one's motive, and I think if this can be seen, one may then find value in not 'going anywhere'. One may notice how movements towards any practice may be a case of "self" at work. And once you start to see the fact that sati can arise at anytime, you may start to notice the difference between 'induced sati' and one that arises naturally. The former may give an illusion of profoundness if the latter is not appreciated. The latter on the other hand, will not appear any special at all, but once you appreciate it, you will see that it is in fact more in line with the "truth" than the former. I know that were it not for your firm belief that the Buddha did teach formal meditation, you will have no objection to what Sarah, Jon and others have been saying. And since, you are in the process of establishing with Jon, what meditation really means, why don't you in the mean time suspend this particular belief and see what happens?! If anything you might come to realize the attachment you may have to the practice itself, no? :-) I hope you can begin to see this. Metta, Sukin --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear Yasa, Jon and All, > > > > I am enjoying your posts and learning much from the threads you are > > involved in, for which I thank you. Your last question to Jon is 22130 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon May 12, 2003 8:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Victor, Sorry for taking time to reply. My comments are between yours. > I would say that the goal of Buddha's teaching is liberation, the > cessation of dukkha. Seeing every conditioned phenomenon being > impermanent, dukkha, not self as it actually is, one grows > disenchanted with it. Disenchanted, one becomes dispassionate. > Through dispassion, one is fully released. With full release, there > is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' One discerns that 'Birth is > depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing > further for this world.' I believe that the goal of the Buddha's teaching must be as you say, liberation, the cessation of dukkha. But sight of the goal, I believe must not push me to overreach and be driven by concepts which have deeper meaning than it at first sight appears. I can only understand what I can understand. What I do understand now is that I am motivated most of the day by lobha, dosa and moha. That these arise and color my perception in every direction, including my understanding of the Buddha's words. The concepts of liberation, dukkha, anicca, anatta, all these are only very superficially understood. But I do know that there is experience and that which is experienced. I know that there is anger, attachment, conceit, pride etc. Even these experiences are only vaguely noticable, and I cannot even say that I 'know' them. But I trust that they can be slowly understood more and more. I know by theory and deduction that they arise and fall. It makes sense to me however, that to see rise and fall I must first know what it is that arises and falls. My mind must be sharp enough to notice the just arisen dhamma. So I do not stress too much the concept of anicca except as an object of wise consideration, as in the case of experiencing any object, one is reminded that it does not stay. Certainly I do not presume to be actually experiencing it and so speak about it as if I have. Or that because I understand the concept, I should use it to label all experiences. In a day, many realities appear and each can have different intensities in terms of either conditioning more akusala or sati. Sati and panna can arise to be aware what ever reality, one must not be driven to use the idea of anicca for example, as it were the way to attain liberation. Otherwise one may not come to understand conditions. And anatta is not a matter of attitude towards an experience, but the actual characteristic of a dhamma. Likewise dukkha, is a characteristic of all realities which may not be understood if we simply label all experience as dukkha... I think. > I would say that that making a distinction between the so- > called "paramathha dhammas" and the so-called "conventional objects" > based on the idea that the so-called "paramathha dhammas" have the > three characteristics whereas the so-called "conventional objects" > don't is erroneous. It is erroneous because the idea that the so- > called "conventional objects" don't have the three characteristics > is false. I agree that making such a distinction should not be based on this idea alone, this is not enough reason. It must be based on what Satipatthana is all about, and what it is that the object of sati of this level can be. But conventional objects *do not* have the lakkhana of anicca and dukkha, thats for sure. What does have these characteristics are the different realities experienced through the different doorways, from which the idea of these conventional objects have arisen. And what also has these charateristic is the consciousness which experiences these conventional objects. And *these* are the potential objects of satipatthana. So it is important first to know theoretically the difference between concept and reality, knowing that it is only the latter which is experienced through the five sense doors. This is in order that one does not then in practice, believe what is not real to be real, and what does not arise and fall to do so. > I would not say that the so-called "conventional objects" > are permanent, not dukkha, self. Rather, I would say that the so- > called "conventional objects" are impermanent, dukkha, not self. I think you can safely say that conventional objects are impermanent, if you make the distinction between this idea and what anicca really means. Dukkha, you may refer to your own citta, when these objects fail you. Not-self, is what they obviously are! ;-) I think... > I would not say "wisdom sees the three characteristics of > conditioned phenomenon." Rather, I would say that "one sees the > three characterics of conditioned phenomenon with wisdom." Why? > Because wisdom is not self. .....??!!..... Mai khow jai, in Thai means, "don't understand". :-) Metta, Sukin. 22131 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon May 12, 2003 8:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Victor, > Since you mentioned about effort, I would like to point to the > passages on right effort with the link > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vayamo.html I am sure you know by now, what the general dsg interpretation of this would be. ;-) That it is conventional language used to express ultimate realities. My own understanding is that it refers to the effort which accompanies a moment of satipatthana. No one making any special effort, but sati and panna accompanied by right effort and all the other mental factors. Victor, have you any experience of being able to develop kusala or stop akusala without sati and panna? If not, why can't you see that it is because of these that this could have been? And that the 'effort' is just 'right' because it is part of the same citta?! Look forward to your response. Metta, Sukin. 22132 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon May 12, 2003 10:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Howard, I hope you don't get tired of me...;-) My response is between yours. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > That's fine. BTW, whatever misunderstanding there may have been is no > problem. I think there may have been some. I still think points of difference > do remain. That's fine too. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: I think so too. And maybe we will have to end up agreeing to disagree. But in the meantime we may discover more grounds to agree upon. After all, I don't have a clear perspective of my own views, less so of another. And I also find that I often reject another's view not after considering it, but quite indiscriminately based on disagreement on other aspects of the Teachings. :-/ > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes. BTW, there is some debate over the meaning of 'ekayana'. Some > think it should be rendered in English as "the straight path" or "the one-way > path" or "the direct path", which have slightly different senses from each > other, and all of which differ in meaning from "the only way". > --------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: I think it is "the only way", what do you think? My conviction is not solely because the Buddha says so, but from understanding the nature of experience and what is it that we are all "ignorant" of. What as a logical consequence, would one be 'enlightened' into. Knowing how in ignorance the mind spins 'stories' of freedom and release, all the while not knowing that one is caught in the clutches of lobha and dosa resulting from the kilesas being conditioned to arise. Satipatthana is the only one that makes sense in this regard as being the way to come to really see the truth. And in the process I have come to know, at least in principle, that the "Truth" is not as postulated by other philosophies and religions, but this experience of mind and matter now!(and of course nibbana). > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It conditions the realization that "something is wrong". Seeing the > impermanence of conventional objects, especially of beloved objects - seeing > it clearly, without averting one's eyes and mind, places one face to face > with the deep unsatisfactoriness of life as we experience it, and leads us to > look for a way to "solve the problem". This is the origin of spiritual > search. > If the prisoner gets used to his jail cell, if he comes to accept it > as "the way things are and must be," if he even comes to consider the jail > his "home", then even though the cell door be wide open he will not walk > through. > --------------------------------------------- Sukin: I have to agree that the realization that "something is wrong" must have been there initially. And this can be kusala or akusala and can lead to any direction, or remain in the cell. But I think you will agree that all this doesn't matter now... > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No doubt, paying close attention 24 hours a day, seven days a week is > best. In fact, following the entire 8-fold path all the time, without > deviation is best. We should always practice sila, and always attend to > whatever arises carefully and energetically. We should consistently guard the > senses and observe mindfully. > ------------------------------------------------- Sukin: I don't aim at having sati for 24 hrs or even one hour or less, I don't view the practice with expectation or goal, less with any ambition. Similarly I have no view of following the 8-fold path at anytime or to keep sila, whether energetically or not. I have no such thoughts. When I read about sila, I may see its value, at other times I may see the harm in not keeping the precepts. But I don't consider it necessarily kusala to keep the precepts, for example I have refrained from taking alcohol for the last three years, but I do notice a struggle with it from time to time, and at other times there may be some kusala moments. And certainly sila is just the moment of refraining from akusala, no "I" who has it all the time! So "I" keeping the precept is not important as the moment of seeing kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. I think you may agree with this. But what I definitely don't agree with you on is the following: Howard: > And, when there is time and opportunity, one > should take special steps to train the mind to be attentive and concentrated > by various techniques that the Buddha encouraged. One should do all that one > can do as often as one can do it. [Note on conventional language: Ultimately, > there is no "one" to be doing any of this. But there can be the doing, > directed by cetana and chanda.] ---------------------------------------------- Sukin: I don't believe in `doing' since I don't believe that having noble ideals is necessarily conditioned by kusala cetana and chanda. I do encourage kusala in whatever form, but that does not mean it will be so whenever I want to develop it. It certainly will not be conditioned by some ritualistic practice no matter how I view it, as a duty to perform or whatever. Only sati and panna can tell, and that too, only about that particular moment. ------------------------------------------------------- > > At this moment is a reality arising which *can* be known, thinking, > > visible object, aversion, hearing, anything at all, can be the object of > > awareness. *BUT* there is no one who can make this happen! > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Correct (as I see it). But it can be made to happen, eventually, by > setting up of appropriate conditions. If the opportunity to set up useful > conditions is in place, but due to the accepting that there is no "one" to do > anything, the required cetana, chanda, and viriya do not arise, then a > valuable opportunity has been squandered. A mere intellectual commitment to > the notion of no-self, when grasped wrongly, is a poisonous snake that > paralyzes us. > ------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: I agree that as much as I reject formal practice based on my insistence on anatta, I may unknowingly become lax ignoring any opportunity for developing kusala, but even this is not-self and in a way OK (as long as I am in the company of wise friends who will remind me about this every now and then ;-)) , I think. ------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I consider Abhidhamma to be a conceptual system that is descriptive of > what can be known directly. I see it as a map. A map is very useful when one > is on the road, but less so when one is not going anywhere. > ---------------------------------------------------- Sukin: :-) ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Directness is just fine! And misunderstanding, to the extent that it > occurs, is just something that happens. Sukin: And I have a feeling today, that we are not as far as I previously thought we were. :-) Metta, Sukin. 22133 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 13, 2003 0:32am Subject: RE: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Hi Kom, --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Hello All, > > I had an opportunity to discuss with Nina this particular > section of the book on truthfulness and Nina suggested that > I posted what I said to the group to get an opinion on my > views, and perhaps to get further discussions about the > values of truthfulness. ..... Thx for sharing your useful comments - pls keep sharing;-) ..... > Nina mentioned that truthfulness might be hard to > understand. > > ==== kom ==== > I think this is an unfamiliar concept to Westerners, and to > Buddhists: it is often misunderstood anyway. Very difficult > idea to understand, especially if one doesn't see (or > vaguely see) the benefits of truthfulness itself. > ============ > > Some people may have doubts about the ‘Assertion of Truth’ > referred to in > the above quoted passage. Or, they may have heard that an > Assertion of Truth > can bring its result according to one1s wish. ..... I don’t think truthfulness as in the precept (as we understand it) is difficult for anyone to understand. However, the deeper and wider meaning of sacca (truth) as discussed in the section on sacca parami is not so simple. In particular, I found the sections on the ‘Assertion of Truth’ (post 21483) difficult to really comprehend even with the extra helpful clarifications Nina gave. The Jataka story (no 444, Kanhadipayana Jataka) is very interesting. When I read it, I just accept that the Act of Truth (the verse Dipayana, the Bodhisatta, uttered) was the condition for the child who’d been poisoned by the snake to recover. The question in the section Nina translated was very interesting about why the Bodhisatta was dissatisfied during this life as an ascetic in spite of inclinations to renunciation over so many existences. K.Sujin’s answer was that it was ‘because of the instability that is characteristic of non-enlightened people’. Even more interesting. ..... >However, when > a person has to > experience suffering and distress, he cannot, in order to > overcome his > suffering, utter an Assertion of Truth without knowing what > truthfulness is > and without understanding its high value. It is essential > that one, before > making an Assertion of Truth, sees the superiority and the > benefit of > truthfulness. Moreover, it is necessary to develop the > perfection of > truthfulness. > > ==== kom ==== > For me, it suffices to say, that we shouldn't expect that we > can do this (and have a similar results) in our daily life. ..... A few more Acts of Truth are given in these Jatakas: 463, 491,499 They are all very different. The last one is the famous Jataka about the giving of his eyes. After uttering an Assertion of Truth his sight is restored by Sakka. Definitely don’t try this at home!! ..... Thanks for your other good comments too, Kom. I’ll add another passage from one of the extracts on Sacca parami from the series after signing off as I found it particularly helpful with regard to the deeper meaning of sacca - "Sacca is truthfulness with regard to the development of paññå with the aim to realize the four noble Truths"- and caga (relinquishment). Look forward to more of your reflections. With metta, Sarah ...... QUOTE from ‘The Perfections’: “We read in the ‘Paramatthadípaní’, the Commentary to the ‘Itivuttaka’, ‘As it was said’, Khuddaka Nikåya, the Commentary to The Ones, Ch 1, §1, Lobha Sutta, an elaboration of the words ‘arahat’ and ‘bhagavå’. We read about four aditthåna dhammas, dhammas which are firm foundations connected with the ten perfections. We read that the aditthåna dhammas are: truthfulness, sacca, relinquisment, cåga, calm or peace, upasama, and paññå [3]. Sacca is truthfulness with regard to the development of paññå with the aim to realize the four noble Truths. We read in the Commentary to the Lobha Sutta: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 5 The word araham means that there should be truthfulness, sacca, with regard to the development of kusala ... As regards the word ‘bhagavå’, the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the aditthåna dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and cåga, relinquisment. Thus, if truthfulness and relinquishment are not firmly established, the four noble Truths cannot be realized. We read: By the word bhagavå the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the aditthåna dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and cåga, relinquishment, by explaining the Blessed One's truthfulness of his vow, patiññå, his truthfulness of speech and the truthfulness of his paññå; and by explaining the relinquishment of sense objects which are considered important in the world, such as gain, honour and praise, and the complete relinquisment of the abhisankhåras (accumulations leading to rebirth), namely, the defilements. Relinquishment, cåga, does not only refer to the giving up of possessions, but it also means the giving up of clinging to sense objects, such as visible object and tangible object. Apart from this it also refers to the giving up of what is considered important in the world: gain, honour and praise. Moreover, it refers to the relinquishment of all defilements. True relinquishment is the relinquishment of everything, even of all defilements. One needs from the beginning also sacca, truthfulness, as a firm foundation, so that defilements can be eradicated. We listen to the Dhamma, we understand it and we know that we still have a great deal of defilements. Therefore, we need to further develop and accumulate all the perfections in order to realize the noble Truths and to attain true relinquishment.” ******** 22134 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 13, 2003 2:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Larry Briefly, 'anatta' is a characteristic of dhammas that are 'sabhava'. That characteristic can become known to panna of the level of insight (panna that directly experiences the true nature of those dhammas). As I understand it, 'asabhava' refers to the absence of 'sabhava'. At a moment of consciousness conceiving of an idea, there is no mental object having 'sabhava' (only the consciousness itself), so there are no characteristics of that mental object the knowledge of which will help to break the bonds of samsara. Jon --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > Maybe someone would like to explain why we care about > distinguishing > between asabhava and anatta. On the surface, they look like the > same thing, i.e., "not it". > > Also, does anyone know if this is explicitly spelled out as a > practice in the tipitaka or by Buddhaghosa? > > Larry 22135 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue May 13, 2003 2:54am Subject: Re: question! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "lokuttaracitta" wrote: > Dear Rob and Yasa > > Thank you for your great kindness. > > Sorry for my poor information on my background. > > I was born and brought up under Japanese education and culture here in Japan. > > I have been studying and practising Maha-yanas (including Vajra- yana ) > Tradition before I met teachings of Theravada tradition last year and > "discoverd "the greatness of theravadin. > > In most cases in maha-yana traditions , The teachings of theravada has been > mistreated as almost the same as those of Sarvastivardin while I notice that > some sayadaw mistake Maha-yana's views and practices for just the same as > those of Hindu. Of course there are many similarities between maha- yanas and > Hinduism in superficial ways , but their basic views and goals are far > different. > > In my view , Both of the reasons are just lack of knowledge and experience. > > However , I have no intention at all to be involved in any argument on the > differences between theravada and other traditions. I just want to understand > cleary what pali canons say , without any confusion and mixture with other > traditions. I know that there are many terms whose meanings are different > between them. So I need to be very careful when reading writings on > Abhidhamma in order to avoid misunderstandings. > > As a preliminary training, I started to read Suttas and writings by > Theravardin monks and to attend Dhamma takls and meditation sessions led by > several Sayadaws . Then I have just begun studying Abhidhamma. I 've read > only about 80% of Abhidhammattasangaha in Japanese version with help of > ebooks writtend by Pa-auk sayadaw and Nina Van Gorkom etc. > > Having said above that I do not want to mix theravadin with other traditions, > it is natural for me at this stage that my questions come mainly from my > own background, especially from my knowledge and experinece gained by my > having learned Maha-yaha tradition. > > So please fogive me if there is any nonsense in my questions to you . > > > I do not have Vishuddhi Magga and Bhikkhu Bodhi's Comprehensive Manual of > Abhidhamma now ,but I do want to read them as your suggestions soon. Can I > get them on the net? > > It would be appreciated if you would give me your reply to my futher > questions. > > With metta > > kk _______________________________Yasa Replies________________________ KK You were referring to Mahayana, Vajrayana and Theravada traditions. All these traditions have the Basic teachings of Buddha such as the four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and the Causal Genesis (paticcasamupada). The difference is in the traditional beliefs that got mixed into the teachings, specially ,with regard to ceremonies and certain beliefs. Mahayana was defined as a separate Buddhist tradition, in the second century A.D . Vajrayana still later, some where in the 8th century A.D.. Therefore in Vajrayana there may be Hindu beliefs. Theravada (means dialogues of the thera, elders or senior Bikkhus). The Buddha used Pali, the language of the common people in ancient India for his discourses. It was not a written language and most of the discourses of the Buddha were learnt by "word of mouth"- in the Oral tradition. The discourses so retained in memory were recited in groups, and each group verified the discourses with the other groups , thus correcting any errors. Three months after the death of Buddha all the Arahants the senior Bikkhus, the elders( thera), met in Council and recited all the discourses of the Buddha- Sutta Pitaka by Venerable Ananda and the Vinaya Pitaka by Venerable Upali. As these teachings were passed from teacher to pupil following the Oral tradition, it came to be called the Theravada. In the 3rd century B.C, Theravada was introduced to Sri Lanka. Abhidhamma was not included in the chapters, at the first and the second councils, but at the third Council. It is the higher dhamma, which explains the paramatta dhamma, the ultimate reality. A sort of a catalogue of what a being ( pancakkhanda) is composed of. It was not a teaching made to his disciples or lay followers, let alone to be followed as instructions for contemplation. For his disciples and the lay followers, the Buddha made the discourses (sutta) in which he explained the four noble truths, (dukkha, samudaya, nirodha and nibbana), and the path to follow to attain Nibbana- the eight fold path, which consist of: right understanding (samma ditthi), right thought( s.sankappa),right speech (s.vaca), right action(s.kammanata), right livelihood (s.ajiva), right effort (s.vayama), right mindfulness (s.sati) and right concentration (s.samadhi). The first two, is the Wisdom Group( panna), second three, the virtue group(sila), and the third three the concentration ( samadhi) group. According to the Maha Parinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, the Buddha says to follow the virtue(sila) group first, concentration (samadhi) group second and arrive at wisdom (panna) group. Here is an extract from the Maha Parinibbana Sutta, where the Buddha tells Subhadda about his teaching: "…… and the Blessed One said, "In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non- returner, or Arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of Arahants." Visuddhimagga is available in the web, but only parts of it. Just type "Visuddhimagga" on you browser window and then" click" search. Reading Abhidhamma in the Mannuals is rather boring. I am reading Nina Van Gorkom's Abhidhamma in Daily Life and it is much more interesting . Later on you may go back to the Manuals if you want to make further search and study. Study of Abhidhamma is very interesting for itself, but you should not give up reading the Suttas, which are important to follow the path the Buddha showed us. With metta, Yasa 22136 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue May 13, 2003 4:29am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Yasa, > > Yesterday was a special day for me. By comparison, It started after > I read Azita's post late in the afternoon. It may be ordinary for > some of the more experienced folks here in dsg or it may even count > as a 'low' day for some others. But for me it was more than any > other day. > There were many moments in which akusala conditioned kusala. And > these were brief as Azita said, " patipatti is also one moment which > arises and falls away". But they were enough to show me how > development has to be. > As you may have figured out, that normally in a day, in my case it > is almost always akusala citta arising. This being so, I have no > expectations that the path will be easy and show noticable results. > And I am not surprised and feel unnecessarily concerned if these > moments are very brief and imediately followed by lots and lots of > akusala. I see that this is the way that it *must* be. > The fire burning on our heads should not drive us to be frantic and > find a quick solution. In fact the realization of the fire must be a > moment of kusala and not condition craving and wrong view with > regard to practice. One can simply see the danger of all akusala and > the value of kusala, particularly right view. And one will not be > driven to go beyond the understanding of this present reality. And > even if by habit one is drawn to the meditation cushion, one can see > what it has been motivated by. Is this wrong effort motivated by > ignorance and wrong view? > Yasa, I think one needs to examine one's motive, and I think if this > can be seen, one may then find value in not 'going anywhere'. One > may notice how movements towards any practice may be a case > of "self" at work. And once you start to see the fact that sati can > arise at anytime, you may start to notice the difference > between 'induced sati' and one that arises naturally. The former may > give an illusion of profoundness if the latter is not appreciated. > The latter on the other hand, will not appear any special at all, > but once you appreciate it, you will see that it is in fact more in > line with the "truth" than the former. > I know that were it not for your firm belief that the Buddha did > teach formal meditation, you will have no objection to what Sarah, > Jon and others have been saying. And since, you are in the process > of establishing with Jon, what meditation really means, why don't > you in the mean time suspend this particular belief and see what > happens?! If anything you might come to realize the attachment you > may have to the practice itself, no? :-) > > I hope you can begin to see this. > > Metta, > Sukin > > _______________________________Yasa says_______________________ Sukin, Your post is not much different from those of others. I am awaitin to hear from Jon, Sarah, Christine to prepare a reply to Azita, which will help me to include my thoughts in one post for all: In your post you speak of kusala and akusala citta: but it is a vain attempt, to find out which is the akusala and which is the kusala cittah. See what Nina says in the 14th Chapter - Functions of Javana Citta in the ADL: "We may not know that both in a sense-door process and in a mind-door process there are akusala cittas or kusala cittas arising. Because of our accumulated ignorance we do not clearly know our akusala cittas and kusala cittas and we do not recognize our more subtle defilements. " with metta, Yasa 22137 From: Date: Tue May 13, 2003 1:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 5/13/03 1:35:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukin@k... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I hope you don't get tired of me...;-) > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Certainly not! ----------------------------------------------------- > My response is between yours. > > >--------------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > That's fine. BTW, whatever misunderstanding there may have > been is no > >problem. I think there may have been some. I still think points of > difference > >do remain. That's fine too. > > >----------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > I think so too. And maybe we will have to end up agreeing to disagree. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I've read ahead, and, yes, some disagreement, but only some and in retreicted areas. --------------------------------------------------------------- > > But in the meantime we may discover more grounds to agree upon. > After all, I don't have a clear perspective of my own views, less so of > another. And I also find that I often reject another's view not after > considering it, but quite indiscriminately based on disagreement on other > aspects of the Teachings. :-/ > >------------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Yes. BTW, there is some debate over the meaning of 'ekayana'. > Some > >think it should be rendered in English as "the straight path" or "the > one-way > >path" or "the direct path", which have slightly different senses from > each > >other, and all of which differ in meaning from "the only way". > >--------------------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > I think it is "the only way", what do you think? My conviction is not > solely > because the Buddha says so, but from understanding the nature of > experience and what is it that we are all "ignorant" of. What as a logical > consequence, would one be 'enlightened' into. Knowing how in > ignorance the mind spins 'stories' of freedom and release, all the while > not knowing that one is caught in the clutches of lobha and dosa > resulting from the kilesas being conditioned to arise. Satipatthana is the > only one that makes sense in this regard as being the way to come to > really see the truth. And in the process I have come to know, at least in > principle, that the "Truth" is not as postulated by other philosophies and > religions, but this experience of mind and matter now!(and of course > nibbana). > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I also agree that the practice taught by the Buddha is the only way. (Of course, elements of it may be found elsewhere as well, and truth is truth wherever it is found.) --------------------------------------------------------- > >-------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > It conditions the realization that "something is wrong". Seeing the > >impermanence of conventional objects, especially of beloved objects - > seeing > >it clearly, without averting one's eyes and mind, places one face to > face > >with the deep unsatisfactoriness of life as we experience it, and leads > us to > >look for a way to "solve the problem". This is the origin of spiritual > >search. > > If the prisoner gets used to his jail cell, if he comes to accept it > >as "the way things are and must be," if he even comes to consider the > jail > >his "home", then even though the cell door be wide open he will not > walk > >through. > >--------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > I have to agree that the realization that "something is wrong" must have > been there initially. And this can be kusala or akusala and can lead to > any direction, or remain in the cell. But I think you will agree that all > this > doesn't matter now... > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: No, I don't agree with that. So long as we are worldlings or even beyond, ignorance and self-deluding remain in force, and we constantly need the realization that "something is wrong". That is what spurs the search and creates the sense of urgency (samvega). --------------------------------------------------------- > > >------------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > No doubt, paying close attention 24 hours a day, seven days a > week is > >best. In fact, following the entire 8-fold path all the time, without > >deviation is best. We should always practice sila, and always attend to > >whatever arises carefully and energetically. We should consistently > guard the > >senses and observe mindfully. > >------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > I don't aim at having sati for 24 hrs or even one hour or less, I don't > view the practice with expectation or goal, less with any ambition. > Similarly I have no view of following the 8-fold path at anytime or to > keep sila, whether energetically or not. I have no such thoughts. When I > read about sila, I may see its value, at other times I may see the harm > in not keeping the precepts. But I don't consider it necessarily kusala to > keep the precepts, for example I have refrained from taking alcohol for > the last three years, but I do notice a struggle with it from time to time, > > and at other times there may be some kusala moments. And certainly > sila is just the moment of refraining from akusala, no "I" who has it all > the time! So "I" keeping the precept is not important as the moment of > seeing kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. I think you may agree > with this. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that we need to keep the intention of attentiveness with us as best we can. It is needed for seeing the way things are and for guarding the sentences. I thinbk that there is the definite need for effort to maintain vigilance. It is *very* easy to slip in this, due to our inclinations. ----------------------------------------------------------- But what I definitely don't agree with you on is the following:> > Howard: > >And, when there is time and opportunity, one > >should take special steps to train the mind to be attentive and > concentrated > >by various techniques that the Buddha encouraged. One should do all > that one > >can do as often as one can do it. [Note on conventional language: > Ultimately, > >there is no "one" to be doing any of this. But there can be the doing, > >directed by cetana and chanda.] > ---------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > I don't believe in `doing' since I don't believe that having noble ideals > is > necessarily conditioned by kusala cetana and chanda. I do encourage > kusala in whatever form, but that does not mean it will be so whenever I > want to develop it. It certainly will not be conditioned by some > ritualistic > practice no matter how I view it, as a duty to perform or whatever. Only > sati and panna can tell, and that too, only about that particular moment. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I know this is a point of clear disagreement - between you and me, between others here and me. So be it. -------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------------- > >>At this moment is a reality arising which *can* be known, thinking, > >>visible object, aversion, hearing, anything at all, can be the object > of > >>awareness. *BUT* there is no one who can make this happen! > >> > >--------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Correct (as I see it). But it can be made to happen, eventually, by > >setting up of appropriate conditions. If the opportunity to set up useful > >conditions is in place, but due to the accepting that there is no "one" > to do > >anything, the required cetana, chanda, and viriya do not arise, then a > >valuable opportunity has been squandered. A mere intellectual > commitment to > >the notion of no-self, when grasped wrongly, is a poisonous snake > that > >paralyzes us. > >------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > I agree that as much as I reject formal practice based on my insistence > on anatta, I may unknowingly become lax ignoring any opportunity for > developing kusala, but even this is not-self and in a way OK (as long as > I am in the company of wise friends who will remind me about this > every now and then ;-)) , I think. > ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Uh, oh! We're getting a bit closer here! ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > I consider Abhidhamma to be a conceptual system that is > descriptive of > >what can be known directly. I see it as a map. A map is very useful > when one > >is on the road, but less so when one is not going anywhere. > >---------------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > :-) > ---------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Directness is just fine! And misunderstanding, to the extent that it > >occurs, is just something that happens. > Sukin: > And I have a feeling today, that we are not as far as I previously thought > we were. :-) > ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Likewise! -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > > Sukin. > > ============================== 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) 22138 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 13, 2003 5:28am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Dear Yasa, and all, Sorry for the delay in replying (- I seem to be spending most of my time at the veterinarian this last week.) I understand anatta (a little) - though I mostly think in conventional terms about 'I' and 'myself', and though *I* am still subject to the desire for this *self* to 'do something' to progress quickly. -------------------------------- You say: "But thinking will not give you the answers…………What will help you to find the reality of the existence of a self, and how to set about doing that ….?" -------------------------------- CJF: Much of the time I remember the four factors of stream entry - i.e. association with superior persons, hearing the true Dhamma, careful attention, and practice in accordance with the Dhamma. So I find reading and discussing the Teachings, and mindfulness, to be a great help. This has given me a growing understanding of the conditionality and impermanence of all physical and psychical phenomena. I have come to realise, with regard to my ignorance and defilements, the need for patience, and the truth of the Nava sutta "Just as when a carpenter or carpenter's apprentice sees the marks of his fingers or thumb on the handle of his adze but does not know, 'Today my adze handle wore down this much, or yesterday it wore down that much, or the day before yesterday it wore down this much,' still he knows it is worn through when it is worn through. In the same way, when a monk dwells devoting himself to development, he does not know, 'Today my effluents wore down this much, or yesterday they wore down that much, or the day before yesterday they wore down this much,' still he knows they are worn through when they are worn through." metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: 22139 From: Date: Tue May 13, 2003 1:31am Subject: Freudian Typo Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi again, Sukin - In a message dated 5/13/03 8:07:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Howard: > I think that we need to keep the intention of attentiveness with us as > best we can. It is needed for seeing the way things are and for guarding > the > sentences. I thinbk that there is the definite need for effort to maintain > vigilance. It is *very* easy to slip in this, due to our inclinations. > ========================== I guess I need to exercise more vigilance in "guarding the sentences"! ;-)) 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) 22141 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 13, 2003 5:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Hi Yasa, --- yasalalaka wrote: > --- In > ...................... I am awaitin > to hear from Jon, Sarah, Christine to prepare a reply to Azita, > which will help me to include my thoughts in one post for all: ..... I appreciated your long and beautifully written post to me very much. It was very clear and informative. I've been too rushed these few days to do it justice - hopefully tomorrow as well as some others I have in mind. Greatly appreciating all your contributions meanwhile. Metta, Sarah ===== 22142 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 13, 2003 6:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Sukin, Great to see you in such good form too;-) You asked me to let you know if there's anything I disagreed with in your posts, so here's one.... --- Sukinderpal Singh Narula wrote: > I am sure you know by now, what the general dsg interpretation of > this would be. ;-) ..... Objection! I don't consider there's such a thing as a 'general dsg interpretation'. There are around 300 members and I'm sure that what you express below (which I happen to agree with) is a minority understanding here. Most members will be supporting Victor and wishing to encourage him and others to elaborate further on their views;-) Indeed it is the diversity of interpretations that makes the list what it is! Metta, Sarah ======= That it is conventional language used to express > ultimate realities. > My own understanding is that it refers to the effort which > accompanies a moment of satipatthana. No one making any special > effort, but sati and panna accompanied by right effort and all the > other mental factors. 22143 From: m. nease Date: Tue May 13, 2003 6:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Dear Sarah and Kom, Thanks for the good material re. truth. A question below: ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 12:32 AM Subject: RE: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions > QUOTE from 'The Perfections': > ... > By the word bhagavå the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the > aditthåna dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and cåga, relinquishment, by > explaining the Blessed One's truthfulness of his vow, patiññå, his > truthfulness of speech and the truthfulness of his paññå; and by > explaining the relinquishment of sense objects which are considered > important in the world, such as gain, honour and praise, and the complete > relinquisment of the abhisankhåras (accumulations leading to rebirth), > namely, the defilements. My understanding of the abhisankhaaras is that they include not only the defilements but all kamma, good, bad and imperturbable (of the immaterial sphere). This wording could suggest that 'one' (rather than pa~n~naa) could relinquish (gain, honour and praise, or anything else); and that only the defilements, rather than all kamma, lead to rebirth. Both of these potential readings seem misleading to me. Better to cling to gain, honour and praise, and to understand, after the fact, that the clinging (and conceit etc.) is akusala, than to consciously relinquish them, imagine 'I have relinquished them' and to mistake the attending conceit etc. as a kind of purity (the latter is fairly commonplace, I believe--it feels great, by the way...!). Even if they are truly relinquished for the moment, the accumulated latent tendency to grasp at them again remains unabated. In the verse, "Gain/loss, status/disgrace, censure/praise, pleasure/pain: these conditions among human beings are inconstant, impermanent, subject to change. Knowing this, the wise person, mindful, ponders these changing conditions. Desirable things don't charm the mind, undesirable ones bring no resistance. His welcoming & rebelling are scattered, gone to their end, do not exist. Knowing the dustless, sorrowless state, he discerns rightly, has gone, beyond becoming, to the Further Shore.", http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an8-6.html the 'wise person's (the arahant's, in this case) "...welcoming & rebelling are scattered, gone to their end, do not exist." They don't exist at all, even as latent tendencies. Until some stage of enlightenment (I forget!), they continue to exist if only latently, and continue to condition rebirth and all kinds of akusala. It can be quite dangerous, I think, to mistake this kind of conscious relinquishing as the accomplishment of some kind of right effort. Sorry if I'm belaboring the obvious... Mike 22144 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 13, 2003 7:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Yasa --- yasalalaka wrote: ... > Yasa makes this REQUEST: > > Please TELL how you PRACTICE Buddhism, clearly and precisely. I think the Buddha taught the development of satipatthana/vipassana (panna) as the way leading to enlightenment and escape from the endless round of samsara. Each moment of satipatthana/vipassana is thus the 'practice' of the dhamma. As regards the arising of a moment of satipatthana/vipassana, I don't think there's any 'how to' given in the teachings, for the very good reason that there is no simple 'how to'. But the Buddha spent a lot of time talking about the essential prerequisite conditions for the development of insight, and these include hearing the teachings from one who can explain it clearly to us, reflecting on what has been heard, and applying what has been thus understood to the present moment. I do not find in the suttas any references to 'practice(s)' in the sense of 'things to be done in order to generate awareness or understanding'. As I read the Satipatthana Sutta as a whole, I think it indicates very clearly that every waking moment is a moment at which satipatthana potentially may arise, so we need not think in terms of having to look for/wait for a more opportune moment than the present one. But there's no 'practice' to be 'undertaken' in order to 'have satipatthana arise'. You refer to the passage from the Satipatthana Sutta that begins: "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? [1] "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore " and you ask whether it describes a person who is seated and is trying to do an exercise of concentration. I think this passage describes a person who is already adept at samatha bhavana -- specifically samatha bhavana with breath as object (this from the wording that follows the extract above) -- and also at the development of mindfulness (this from the reference to 'setting mindfulness to the fore'). I see the passage not so much as prescribing the development of samatha bhavana with breath as object as necessary for all, but as instancing a person in whom this has been accomplished already (this from the wording 'There is the case where ...'). In other words, what is to follow applies most directly to a person such as is described here. A further point that I think is relevant here is that the answer to the question posed at the beginning of the passage ('How does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself?') comes much later in the passage; it is not to be found in the words about sitting down cross-legged. Yasa, you made many other interesting comments, but I've probably said quite enough for one post, so I'll close off here. I'm well aware that what I've just said goes against many people's deeply held views on things, and I've learnt by now not to be surprised at whatever reaction comes ;-)). Looking forward to your further comments. Jon 22145 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 13, 2003 7:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Victor Thanks for your analysis of SN V. 10, much of which I agree with (although I'm unclear about one or two of your comments). It is always best to consider the whole context of a particular passage. However, you haven't expressed a view on my earlier paraphrase of Vajira's reference to 'living being', which I suggested should be read to mean that: "When all five aggregates exist, we call it a 'living being' (i.e., a 'person', 'animal' etc)" or, to put it in the terminology of the translation that you have used here: "When the 5 aggregates are present, this is conventionally called 'a being' (i.e., a 'person', 'animal' etc)". If our discussion is to proceed, I think you'll need to say whether you agree with that as an accurate restatement of the particular passage and, if not, then in what respect you find it not correct. Thanks again. Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > I read the discourse and found that what you quoted is a response > to Mara's questions. > > "By whom has this being been created? > Where is the maker of the being? > Where has the being arisen? > Where does the being cease?" > > As I understand it, Mara's questions are based on the > assumption "what being is"/"what self is". > > I will try to comment Vajira's reply as I understand it in context: > > > "Why now do you assume 'a being'? > Mara, have you grasped a view? > > I note that first Vajira replied Mara's questions with two counter- > questions, indicating that the questions sprang out of assumption. > > > This is a heap of sheer constructions: > Here no being is found. > > Since this heap of sheer construction is not self, no being can be > found there. Note that Vajira did not claim/assert that there is > no being. > > > Just as, with an assemblage of parts, > The word 'chariot' is used, > > Note that Vajira did not assert that chariot is an assemblage of > parts, nor did she assert that the word 'chariot' refers to an > assemblage of parts, nor did she claim that there is no chariot. > > > So, when the aggregates are present, > There's the convention 'a being.' > > Likewise, Vajira did not assert that a being is a > compositition/assemblage of the five aggregates, nor did she assert > that the convention 'a being' refers to a compositition/assemblage > of the five aggregates, nor did she claim that there is no being. > > > It's only suffering that comes to be, > Suffering that stands and falls away. > Nothing but suffering comes to be, > Nothing but suffering ceases." > > This is a response to Mara's questions "Where has the being arisen? > Where does the being cease?" Mara's questions were in itself > wrongly phrased and stemmed from assumption. 22146 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue May 13, 2003 7:32am Subject: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries. Messengers. Dear Nina, Thanks for your mail directed to me and I have to say sorry that I was not in contact with the group for a while.I am delighted to read your explanation about eye-opener and messanger.I will soon take part in discussion and will post new topics for lively discussion. With much respect, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Htoo, > I am so glad you are back, I missed you. I apppreciate your sincerity and > your kusala citta. I like it that at the end of a message you always have a > good wish, it is like a Buddhist prayer. > Now see below. > op 14-04-2003 20:44 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > > > > What is eye openers? > N: The Abhidhamma is an eye opener, it helps us to see what we did not see > before. We were in the dark without the Tipitaka, The Vinaya, the Suttanta, > and the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma helps us to see cause and effect, what is > kusala, what is akusala. It helps us to see also our more subtle > defilements, our hidden motives. It helps us to understand conditions, to > see that whatever arises is conditioned. This can have a great influence on > us, beginning to understand that there is no self. But we have to apply > Abhidhamma in our life, as you like to stress. When we study the Vinaya we > can also be reminded of the many degrees of akusala and kusala. We can see > that the three parts of the Tipitaka are in comformity with each other. All > three of them are very essential. > > H:And who is messenger in your post? > > N: In the olden days in Greece they would kill messengers who brought bad > tidings. But at least they would listen first to get the message. It is > worse when you see a messenger and you will not even listen, but start to > kill him off immmediately. > We can learn from this simile that it is important to listen to each other. > We may not agree with the opponents of Abhidhamma, but do they perhaps have > a point? What is the cause of misunderstandings which in the end may prove > to be quite unnecessary? Can we perhaps take another approach to explain the > Abhidhamma, to overcome misunderstandings? And for those who do not agree, > it may be helpful to listen without aversion. When there is aversion, we > cannot even listen. We can always learn from listening. > > May we all be openminded and learn to listen to each other, > Nina. > P.S. I hope you will write again, if time permits. 22147 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue May 13, 2003 11:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Hi Jon, Thank you for your reply. I would say that your paraphrase "When all five aggregates exist, we call it a 'living being'" or "When the 5 aggregates are present, this is conventionally called 'a being'" distorts the original passage So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' I would say that your paraphrase is an inaccurate restatement of the original passage above. Why? Your paraphrase begs the question: What is conventionally called 'a being'? Or, what is it that we call a 'living being'? whereas in the original passage Sister Vajira simply stated that there's the convention 'a being'. She did not claim that the five aggregates are conventionally called 'a being'. I would be very careful not to distort the original passage with the paraphrase that you mentioned. And I would not assume that the five aggregates are a being. Thank you again for your reply. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > Thanks for your analysis of SN V. 10, much of which I agree with > (although I'm unclear about one or two of your comments). It is > always best to consider the whole context of a particular passage. > > However, you haven't expressed a view on my earlier paraphrase of > Vajira's reference to 'living being', which I suggested should be > read to mean that: > "When all five aggregates exist, we call it a 'living being' (i.e., a > 'person', 'animal' etc)" > > or, to put it in the terminology of the translation that you have > used here: > "When the 5 aggregates are present, this is conventionally called 'a > being' (i.e., a 'person', 'animal' etc)". > > If our discussion is to proceed, I think you'll need to say whether > you agree with that as an accurate restatement of the particular > passage and, if not, then in what respect you find it not correct. > > Thanks again. > > Jon 22148 From: Vital Moors Date: Tue May 13, 2003 11:22am Subject: I try again I'm a dutch lawyer, 40 years. I've studied also western philosophy, catolic theology and marketing, but I like Asia and Buddhism. I try to know more about Buddhism by reading, studying and practissing it. Since the first time I was in a Thailand I felt as if I came home after a long searching. Afterm that I also was in Viet Nam, Singapore and Malysia. Maybe I lived in Asia in a previous life or it is my karma to settle me in Asia. I like to work and live in Asia to help people, to manage projects with and for people (AIDS-patients, homeless children, poor people, people with problems,...) or to become a novice or helper in a temple. So I can learn much more about the culture. But in first instance my purpose in to study and praktize of Buddhism. I hope someone can give me some advice. Or if you know other people who can giv eme the golden tip, give them my emailadress. My email is: vitalmoors@h... If you like to have more information about me, please look at my homepage: http://www.vitalmoors.nl I hope to hear from you very soon Mr. Vital E.H. Moors 22149 From: connie Date: Tue May 13, 2003 0:18pm Subject: Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi, Rob M ~ I wouldn't say 'blasphemous', but do apologize for my lack of humour. I'm not sure I'd even call your sutra 'slanderous' and in fact, rather enjoyed it. I hope you do add Howard's ending to it... or both. Maybe changing it from sutta to sutra might make some future yahoo excavator trying to repair the damaged files of the Enlightenment Patriarch Engineer Rob wonder why it reads more like a sutta? (I'm making reference to Bodhidharma's 'Platform Sutra', my first clue that 'sutra' didn't necessarily mean 'said by The Buddha'). By way of further apology, begging your understanding, if not forgiveness, here is a part of a recent letter to another friend who thinks I'm a bit of a heretic and lost cause because I waste time reading (and actually believe) anything but the Lotus Sutra, the self-proclaimed 'highest teaching of the Buddhas' and/or Nichiren's gosho (honourable writings). "I suppose I've mentioned being told that the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra hasn't been translated into English so I still haven't been able to find any of Nichiren's quotes from it. I'm afraid, though, that remembering things like "In the case of the last of the teachings, the Nirvana Sutra, I again do not know in what form it may exist in India or in the dragon king's palace, but in our country it exists in a forty-volume version, a thirty-six-volume version, a six-volume version, and a two-volume version" [WND149, p1041] and "In the third and ninth volumes of the Nirvana Sutra, we find the Buddha predicting that when his teachings are transmitted from India to other countries many errors will be introduced into them, and the chances for people to gain enlightenment through them will be reduced" [WND-066, p555] just leads me to the conclusion that the best place to go is to the Pali canon. My misfortune that I only read English, and that not terribly well. Or rather, the reading is well, shallow and the retention terrible. The two quotes I am most interested in finding are "Though the Thus Come One does not speak untruths, if I knew that by speaking falsely [I could help living beings gain the benefits of the Law, then for their sake I would go along with what is best and speak such words as an expedient means]" [WND012, p97] and "All living beings alike possess the Buddha nature" [WND106, p848]." What!? By 'expedient means', is one to imagine 'speaking falsely' means 'use conventional speech' or that Buddha would break the first precept? Anyway, my problem is just that... that both sutta and sutra have that authoritative air and people like me tend to believe what they read and attribute to things. Nothing really to do with you and certainly no question that your intentions are good... or that I liked your 'suttra' better than some I've read. peace, connie 22150 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue May 13, 2003 1:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Sukin, Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. I would think that it is good that you believe that the goal of the Buddha's teaching must be liberation, the cessation of dukkha. That is indeed the goal, not some special insight to see things rise and fall. I would say it is not enough to just understand that you are motivated most of the day by greed, aversion, and delusion. Knowing so is not enough. I would say it is more beneficial that one generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts one's intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.* In response to most part of your reply, I would say that the dichotomy of the "conventional"/"ultimate" and the dichotomy of "concept"/"reality" is unnecessary and complicating. I see it as an instance of papañca/complication/proliferation. Regarding the statement "wisdom sees the three characteristics of conditioned phenomenon", I would say that person with discernment, not wisdom itself, sees the three characteristics of conditioned phenomenon. To say that "wisdom sees", one confuses wisdom with the person who sees. Thank you again for your reply. Your further feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor * http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vayamo.html --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] > > I believe that the goal of the Buddha's teaching must be as you say, > liberation, the cessation of dukkha. But sight of the goal, I > believe must not push me to overreach and be driven by concepts > which have deeper meaning than it at first sight appears. I can only > understand what I can understand. What I do understand now is that I > am motivated most of the day by lobha, dosa and moha. That these > arise and color my perception in every direction, including my > understanding of the Buddha's words. The concepts of liberation, > dukkha, anicca, anatta, all these are only very superficially > understood. But I do know that there is experience and that which is > experienced. I know that there is anger, attachment, conceit, pride > etc. Even these experiences are only vaguely noticable, and I cannot > even say that I 'know' them. But I trust that they can be slowly > understood more and more. I know by theory and deduction that they > arise and fall. > It makes sense to me however, that to see rise and fall I must first > know what it is that arises and falls. My mind must be sharp enough > to notice the just arisen dhamma. So I do not stress too much the > concept of anicca except as an object of wise consideration, as in > the case of experiencing any object, one is reminded that it does > not stay. Certainly I do not presume to be actually experiencing it > and so speak about it as if I have. Or that because I understand the > concept, I should use it to label all experiences. > In a day, many realities appear and each can have different > intensities in terms of either conditioning more akusala or sati. > Sati and panna can arise to be aware what ever reality, one must not > be driven to use the idea of anicca for example, as it were the way > to attain liberation. Otherwise one may not come to understand > conditions. And anatta is not a matter of attitude towards an > experience, but the actual characteristic of a dhamma. Likewise > dukkha, is a characteristic of all realities which may not be > understood if we simply label all experience as dukkha... I think. > [snip] > I agree that making such a distinction should not be based on this > idea alone, this is not enough reason. It must be based on what > Satipatthana is all about, and what it is that the object of sati of > this level can be. But conventional objects *do not* have the > lakkhana of anicca and dukkha, thats for sure. What does have these > characteristics are the different realities experienced through the > different doorways, from which the idea of these conventional > objects have arisen. And what also has these charateristic is the > consciousness which experiences these conventional objects. And > *these* are the potential objects of satipatthana. > > So it is important first to know theoretically the difference > between concept and reality, knowing that it is only the latter > which is experienced through the five sense doors. This is in order > that one does not then in practice, believe what is not real to be > real, and what does not arise and fall to do so. > > > I would not say that the so-called "conventional objects" > > are permanent, not dukkha, self. Rather, I would say that the so- > > called "conventional objects" are impermanent, dukkha, not self. > > I think you can safely say that conventional objects are > impermanent, if you make the distinction between this idea and what > anicca really means. Dukkha, you may refer to your own citta, when > these objects fail you. Not-self, is what they obviously are! ;-) I > think... > [snip] > > .....??!!..... Mai khow jai, in Thai means, "don't understand". :-) > > Metta, > Sukin. 22151 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue May 13, 2003 1:20pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Dear Sarah & Mike, > -----Original Message----- > From: m. nease [mailto:mlnease@z...] > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 6:26 AM > > > By the word bhagavå the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the > > aditthåna dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and cåga, relinquishment, by > > explaining the Blessed One's truthfulness of his vow, patiññå, his > > truthfulness of speech and the truthfulness of his paññå; and by > > explaining the relinquishment of sense objects which are considered > > important in the world, such as gain, honour and praise, and > the complete > > relinquisment of the abhisankhåras (accumulations leading to rebirth), > > namely, the defilements. > > My understanding of the abhisankhaaras is that they include not only the > defilements but all kamma, good, bad and imperturbable (of the immaterial > sphere). This wording could suggest that 'one' (rather than > pa~n~naa) could > relinquish (gain, honour and praise, or anything else); and that only the > defilements, rather than all kamma, lead to rebirth. Both of these > potential readings seem misleading to me. I think this is why it is so important to have the understanding that there is really nothing beyond the 4 paramatha dhammas. Once we understand this, then there is no question about who is doing what, regardless of what we read, as there is no who to be spoken of, only cittas and cetasikas. We make the decisions to do something all the time, but who is making the decisions? If we don't see that it is not us, then we still have not yet directly understood the basic teaching of the dhamma, and we need to keep continuing developing panna to get there... My undererstanding of the relinquishment of defilement is that when they are abandoned, the kusala states are also abandoned. This makes sense from the Paticha-samutpadha stand point, if ignorance is abandoned, both kusala and akusala are abandoned automatically. Hence, we would not hear (at least from me!) that we should stop doing good (kusala) so we can abandon it, because abandonment of kusala can only be done by panna, by abandoning akusala. I also think it is very important to understand how abandonment comes about. If we recognize akusala in ourselves, and work to have less of it (by recollecting things that are useful, by thinking about conditionalities / stories of dhammas). This is good, but this is not the abandonment that only the Buddha can teach. The two meditation teachers of the Buddha can also teach you this. What the Buddha teaches that nobody else teaches is that by knowing directly the characteristics of the dhamma, as non-self, as impermanence, and as suffering, the wisdom eventually reaches the level of abandonment (nibbita nanna, sankharupekkha nanna, etc. until magga). The Buddha teaches the abandonment of defilements (and kusala) via the direct knowledge of realities. > Better to cling to gain, honour and praise, and to understand, after the > fact, that the clinging (and conceit etc.) is akusala, than to consciously > relinquish them, imagine 'I have relinquished them' and to mistake the > attending conceit etc. as a kind of purity (the latter is fairly > commonplace, I believe--it feels great, by the way...!). Even if they are > truly relinquished for the moment, the accumulated latent > tendency to grasp > at them again remains unabated. If one understands what the path truly is, then it doesn't matter if one has the accumulation to abandon defilements thru samatha or not. However, I think one also needs to remember that it is good to develop all sorts of kusala! > > "...welcoming > & rebelling are scattered, > gone to their end, > do not exist." > > They don't exist at all, even as latent tendencies. Until some stage of > enlightenment (I forget!), they continue to exist if only latently, and > continue to condition rebirth and all kinds of akusala. It can be quite > dangerous, I think, to mistake this kind of conscious relinquishing as the > accomplishment of some kind of right effort. > When there is kusala, there is a right effort, but it may not be the right effort of the 8-fold (or the 5-fold) path. kom 22152 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 13, 2003 1:22pm Subject: Re: I try again Hello Vital, Welcome back. It is always nice to hear from someone again on the List. Sometimes new members make introductory posts and then go into lurking mode, leaving us wondering "Whatever happened to .... ." I'm sure we'd all love to hear how you fared with the suggestions by James, Sarah and Dan given in reply to your previous post, and if you have any queries on what you have studied so far? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/20357 metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Vital Moors" wrote: 22153 From: robmoult Date: Tue May 13, 2003 3:37pm Subject: Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi Connie (and all), Connie, your comment (and Victor's) prompted me to change Sutta to 'sutra'; in my heart, I am convinced that this is an improvement. I am thankful to both of you. All, I kind of "wimped-out" at the end and I would welcome any suggestions on how to change it. Setting upright a pot that was overturned may be a bit obscure for a general Buddhist audience and having Engineer Rob get enlightened could have others accuse me of claiming a false attainment. Any ideas on how to improve the ending? Does anybody have any ideas on other ways in which the metaphor can be further extended to bring out more points of the Dhamma? Metta (and peace), Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Anyway, my problem is just that... that both sutta and sutra have that > authoritative air and people like me tend to believe what they read and > attribute to things. Nothing really to do with you and certainly no > question that your intentions are good... or that I liked your 'suttra' > better than some I've read. 22154 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue May 13, 2003 3:41pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Yasa > > --- yasalalaka wrote: > ... > > Yasa makes this REQUEST: > > > > Please TELL how you PRACTICE Buddhism, clearly and precisely. > > I think the Buddha taught the development of satipatthana/vipassana > (panna) as the way leading to enlightenment and escape from the > endless round of samsara. Each moment of satipatthana/vipassana is > thus the 'practice' of the dhamma. > > As regards the arising of a moment of satipatthana/vipassana, I don't > think there's any 'how to' given in the teachings, for the very good > reason that there is no simple 'how to'. But the Buddha spent a lot > of time talking about the essential prerequisite conditions for the > development of insight, and these include hearing the teachings from > one who can explain it clearly to us, reflecting on what has been > heard, and applying what has been thus understood to the present > moment. > > I do not find in the suttas any references to 'practice(s)' in the > sense of 'things to be done in order to generate awareness or > understanding'. As I read the Satipatthana Sutta as a whole, I think > it indicates very clearly that every waking moment is a moment at > which satipatthana potentially may arise, so we need not think in > terms of having to look for/wait for a more opportune moment than the > present one. But there's no 'practice' to be 'undertaken' in order > to 'have satipatthana arise'. > > You refer to the passage from the Satipatthana Sutta that begins: > "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? > [1] "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, > > to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding > his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to > > the fore " > and you ask whether it describes a person who is seated and is trying > to do an exercise of concentration. > > I think this passage describes a person who is already adept at > samatha bhavana -- specifically samatha bhavana with breath as object > (this from the wording that follows the extract above) -- and also at > the development of mindfulness (this from the reference to 'setting > mindfulness to the fore'). I see the passage not so much as > prescribing the development of samatha bhavana with breath as object > as necessary for all, but as instancing a person in whom this has > been accomplished already (this from the wording 'There is the case > where ...'). In other words, what is to follow applies most directly > to a person such as is described here. > > A further point that I think is relevant here is that the answer to > the question posed at the beginning of the passage ('How does a monk > remain focused on the body in & of itself?') comes much later in the > passage; it is not to be found in the words about sitting down > cross-legged. > > Yasa, you made many other interesting comments, but I've probably > said quite enough for one post, so I'll close off here. I'm well > aware that what I've just said goes against many people's deeply held > views on things, and I've learnt by now not to be surprised at > whatever reaction comes ;-)). > > Looking forward to your further comments. > > Jon > > ___________________________Yasa Replies_____________________________ Jon, Thank you for your attempt to answer the question I posed. From both Azita's and your post I did not learn much of your "practice of Abhidhamma". Living the moment is very well, if there is some thing else to support it. I read a post by Sukin, where he tells about how he spent a whole morning. He attended a parent's day at his son's school. He had not taken money with him, and he had to go to his work place to collect the money and then went home very tired . He was very hungry having had not taken his morning meal. After that he wanted to sleep and couldn't find a place. He went to his computer and prepared a post and wanted to send it off . But just as he was going to press the button, he had forgotten to whom that post was meant and so on. There are some instances of remembering, and being aware, not as a "practice" but in a general way. This remembering is also "sati" or " being mindful". You speak of Satipatthana and Sati, as the same thing. Satipattana Sutta, should not be understood by separating the word "Satipattahana" from Sutta, taking it merely to mean " being mindful" as a synonym to "sati". Satipattahana Sutta, is a very important, if not the most important discourse of the Buddha. It is in fact called the Maha – Satipatthana Sutta. All the rest of the discourse in the Sutta Pitaka leads to this great discourse. It is the summum bonum of the Buddha's discourses, his teachings. It is the out come of five hundred life times of accumulartion, and the fulfilment of the paramis, to understand the cause of the suffering of the people and be a Buddha, the Sublime, the All Knowing one, to show the beings suffering in Samsara, the path to Nirvana, and the freedom from the cycle of death and birth. The path is now clear for those who have eyes to see. If we were to close our eyes and grope about thinking there is no light we will stumble and fall all over. We will only have to open our eyes , to see that there is light , and all that stumbling and falling was due to our own fault of having closed our eyes. For you "sati" is a sort of awakening, that dawns upon you by the merit of your " seeing the arising of the moment, the present moment". Sati according to the teachings, is being mindful of every moment, when you eat , you know you are eating, when you walk, you know you are walking, when you write, you know you are writing, when you are angry, you know you are angry, when you dress, you know you are dressing. These are all instances of "being aware"-"sati". We are made of , hair of the head ,hair of the body, skin, muscles, sinews, nerves ,bones, marrow of the bones etc. We are all this, but also decently dressed, men, and women, eating drinking, thinking, talking, walking etc. We have names, each one of us. We are not the same. We are white or black or yellow. No body will tell us that we are paramatta dhamma. When we have things to eat and drink and are cheerful and happy we know we enjoy our lives. But when things go wrong, when we lose our jobs, or lose some one dear to us, we become sad and lost. When we are ill, we cry in pain, asking why, we were born if we are to suffer this way. We will die and be born again to go through the same enjoyments and the same suffering. There seems to be no end to it. The Buddha was born , more than 2500 years ago and explained this suffering, told us how to stop this cycle of suffering. It is for us to contemplate,to know who we are after all. When we will learn to clear our mind from its clouded state, and see for ourselves what is the meaning of this seemingly inevitable suffering. And attempt to see the cause of it. Then we will see that the cause of it is our attachments to a name , " Mr.Smith", "Mrs.Simpson ", "me" , "myslf", and "you". It is the clinging to a self, and acquiring wholesome or unwholesome karma, through lobha, dosa and moha. Then we try to see who is this" self ". And it is only then we will be able to see that the self is a "being" composed of the five aggregates ( pancakkhandha) of form (rupakkhandha), feelings (vedanakkhandha), perceptions (sannanakkhandha) , consciousness (vinnakkhandha), and mental factors (sankhrakkhandha). That is how, we may see the ultimate reality, being in the conventional reality. The reality we understand is the conventional reality. The reality we do not understand is the ultimate reality. Therefore to reiterate what I have said, to understand the ultimate reality, we have to understand the conventional reality. With metta, Yasa 22155 From: vital Date: Tue May 13, 2003 1:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: I try again I have read a lot of books and not only reading them, I meditate I try to praktize it. But sometimes it is difficult to know if your are on the right way. And somitimes it is dificult to explain it in English. But I will try to do it tomorrow. Mr. Vital E.H. Moors homepage: http://www.vitalmoors.nl ----- Original Message ----- From: "christine_forsyth" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 10:22 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: I try again > Hello Vital, > > Welcome back. It is always nice to hear from someone again on the > List. Sometimes new members make introductory posts and then go > into lurking mode, leaving us wondering "Whatever happened > to .... ." I'm sure we'd all love to hear how you fared with the > suggestions by James, Sarah and Dan given in reply to your previous > post, and if you have any queries on what you have studied so far? > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/20357 > > metta, > Christine > 22156 From: Date: Tue May 13, 2003 4:14pm Subject: Way 88, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Five Hindrances 2. Anger continued, [the following is all subcommentary]: The thought of love [metta] is a sublime state of mind [brahmavihara]; it is one's own state of freedom from hatred. A detailed description of the way of developing love as a subject of meditation is given in the Path of Purity. The following summary of hints gathered from different comments and the Path of Purity will be helpful to a beginner: The love-thought of meditation is different from worldly attachment. It is based on wishing well to all beings. The idea of possession of the loved object is foreign to it. It is not a state of mind that encourages exclusiveness. The aim of the meditation is finally to include in the ambit of one's goodwill all beings equally, without distinction. "The liberation of the mind through love" refers only to full concentration. Without reaching full concentration there is no effective freedom from anger. The beginner who works at this subject of meditation is not to practice the thought of love at first: On a sensuously promising object of the opposite sex, as attachment towards it might arise in the yogi's mind. On a dead person, as the practice would be futile. On an enemy, as anger might arise. On an indifferent person, as the practice might prove wearisome. On one who is very dear as the arousing of friendly thoughts without attachment towards such a one would be tiring; and as mental agitation might occur should even some slight trouble overtake that one. Taking up the practice of the love subject of meditation is the generating, the bringing about of the characteristic, sign or mark, of the love thought of meditation of him who through loving-kindness gathers together all beings with goodwill. The reflection on the thought of love itself is the sign of the love thought of meditation, because the reflection arisen first is the reason of the later reflection. Spreading it particularly: Consecutively in the following order: to oneself, to a friend, an indifferent person, and an enemy. Spreading it generally: By breaking down all barriers, limits and reservations which separate oneself from all others, and extending the same kind of friendly thought to all. Directionally: Extending the thought of love towards one point of the compass, for instance, the east. These three kinds of spreading of the thought of love refer to the stage of meditation of "taking up the practice of the thought of love" which covers the training from the beginning to the attainment of partial concentration (upacara samadhi). In regard to this state of meditation the following is stated: Spreading the thought of love after particularizing the direction by way of a monastery, a street, village and so forth is one way and spreading the thought of love towards a direction in space generally by way of the eastern direction and so forth without specifying a monastery and so forth is another way of practice The development of the jhana on the thought of love is the practice again and again of the thought of love that has got partial concentration. The development is done in three ways: (1) The spreading of the love thought universally. This is done by wishing that all living beings (satta), all breathing things (pana), all beings born (bhuta), all persons (puggala), all who have reached a state of individuality (attabhavapariyapanna), be without hatred, disease, and grief, and be happy taking care of themselves (avera, abyapajjha, anigha hontu, suhki attanam pariharantu). (2) Spreading the thought of love by way of a restricted group of beings. This is done by wishing that all females, all males, all purified ones, all non-purified ones, all divine beings, all humans, all beings fallen to states of woe, be without hatred, disease and grief and happy taking care of themselves. (3) Spreading the thought of love directionally in space. This is done by restricting the thought of love towards each of the ten directions in space: the cardinal points, the intermediate points, and the zenith and nadir. And it is also done by wishing that the beings in each of the directions taken up, according to the divisions and groups given above, be without hatred and so forth according to the formula already mentioned. 22157 From: Date: Tue May 13, 2003 0:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Victor (and Sukin) - In a message dated 5/13/03 4:15:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Regarding the statement "wisdom sees the three characteristics of > conditioned phenomenon", I would say that person with discernment, > not wisdom itself, sees the three characteristics of conditioned > phenomenon. To say that "wisdom sees", one confuses wisdom with the > person who sees. > =========================== And just to be ornery (not really! ;-), I'd say that neither a person sees nor does wisdom see - there is just the seeing. May that come to pass! :-) 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) 22158 From: Date: Tue May 13, 2003 0:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi, Rob - In a message dated 5/13/03 6:39:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Does anybody have any ideas on other ways in which the metaphor can > be further extended to bring out more points of the Dhamma? > > =========================== Well, if you were to use a Mahayana allusion, the internet, an interconnection of nodes each reflecting what is at other nodes is reminiscent of Indra's net, which is usually used as a metaphor for the general sense of interdependent arising (and which I like to use as metaphor for my own personal intersubjective phenomenalism), but I don't think this will be very suitable for your purposes! ;-) 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) 22159 From: Date: Tue May 13, 2003 4:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon, Thanks for your succinct and pithy reply concerning the difference between anatta and asabhava. Do you know where this highly philosophical practice of distinguishing between concept and reality originated? What is your experience of anatta and how does it differ from your experience of asabhava? Is the one experience as effective as the other in inducing relinquishment? Larry 22160 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue May 13, 2003 9:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Howard, Thank you for sharing your thought. I appreciate it. I would not go to extreme and say there is no one who sees.* Thank you again. Your further comment is appreciated. Regards, Victor * http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-096.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-024.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp4- 04a.html [snip] > And just to be ornery (not really! ;-), I'd say that neither a person > sees nor does wisdom see - there is just the seeing. May that come to pass! > :-) > > With metta, > Howard 22161 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue May 13, 2003 11:26pm Subject: Re: Kusa grass (was: Mana and other akusala Hello Sarah, Thanks for finding that quote on how kusala was named after kusa grass -- because it cuts both ways (cuts the arisen and the non- arisen sections of passions). You added: --------------- > Perhaps we can say that at any moment of kusala, there is a `cutting' > of akusala (in other words no chance for it to arise) and the tendency or > accumulation for kusala is increased. --------------- And that increased tendency for kusala counteracts, to a degree, the existing (arisen), tendency for akusala. Thanks, I'll try to remember that (for the third time). On the subject of not needing to be a wonderful person, you said: ------------------- > any growth in detachment indicates a lessening of the stranglehold of > the strong attachment to self and is therefore liberating. ----------------- So again, even without right view, we can be liberated [to an extent] by all kinds of kusala. In my post to Christine, I did warn that there would be a lot of mere speculation. I think the only value in it, was that it revealed black holes in my own understanding (to which you have so helpfully pointed :-) ) You said: -------------- > I just wished to comment that I don't think it's a question of > `deciding' which way to go or `learning' jhana...Again it's a question of > conditions, anatta and panna of respective levels and kinds, I think. ---------------- So the panna of jhana, just like the panna of vipassana, cannot be developed in a mind-without-panna. I tend to forget that. ------------------ > Talking about jhanas and remembering past lives/psychic powers etc without > understanding the nature of moments of samatha (calm) that may arise now in > daily life is like talking about nibbana and arahantship without > understanding namas and rupas in daily life, I think. -------------------- True, very important and worth repeating. On my opinions as to whether Christine, myself or others were highly developed beings with little dust in our eyes, your comment was: -------------- > No self, no beings - developed or otherwise;-) -------------- Again, very true. And no need for me to add anything beginning with "Yes, but . . ." ------------------- > Briefly in another post you mentioned about how a lay arahant would > have to `conceptualise' himself as ordained and any such akusala would > be beyond him (very rough paraphrase). --------------------- Not so rough but the typing is a bit off; "ordained" should be "unordained" I think :-) I have spent several hours theorising on how a concept of one's own self can be the object of akusala citta only. (except for a concept of a self who is a bhikkhu.) I know it is a doomed theory, but at least it has made me aware of some things I need to learn. For example, you referred me to a post of Smallchap's in which he quoted conceptual thinking that was, apparently, recommended by the Buddha: I need to know more about the definition of pannatti. Take, for example, "Just as I fear pain and death, so too do others so I shouldn't hurt them;" could that be a single concept (cognized by a single citta), or is it necessarily a series of concepts, cognized by a series of cittas? Could it be described as a concept of others (possibly accompanied by metta)? Or is a concept of self -- or of both, or neither? Can I just say that I didn't think the quoted concepts entirely disproved my theory. I was able to interpret them, either as 'concepts of others' or as conventional descriptions of paramattha dhammas. I'm being stubborn, but I really can't see how the conception of one's own suffering and death, could be accompanied by wholesome mental states. We need to be aware that it is only namas and rupas that are anicca dukkha and anatta. Conventional thoughts of our own vulnerability and mortality, would seem to be fraught with fear -- or, at least, with selfishness. Thanks again for your helpful comments. Kind regards, KenH 22162 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 14, 2003 0:30am Subject: saddha Hi Yasa & All, S: As I said, I appreciated your post to me very much. You raise a number of important topics. Let me start with the first one of saddha (confidence, faith) which hasn’t been discussed very much here, so if you don’t mind, I’m going to use it as an opportunity to consider further here. I’ll be quoting from the chapter on saddha in Nina’s book, “Cetasikas” and also from one of the extracts from the series on the Perfections: http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas27.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/16335 --- yasalalaka wrote: Y: >In the > Buddhist Countries of Asia, the Buddhists have what is called Saddha > ( it is translated as confidence or faith), it has taken root in the > minds of these people, such that there isn't a modicum of doubt in > their minds about the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. > > This is some thing that does not exist in the West, being more > Cartesian , looking for reason and proof. This saddha guides these > native Buddhists through the different stages of meditation sessions > or "seeing things as they are" or whatever you may want to call. ..... S: I understand exactly what you are saying and indeed there are great benefits to being brought up in a Buddhist country, having access to the Tipitaka and being encouraged in all forms of kusala (wholesome states). On the other hand, as we know kilesa (defilements) -- and in particular wrong views -- are deeply embedded and have been accumulated over aeons of lifetimes in different realms and births and countries. Nina writes in ‘Cetasikas’: “ "An object worthy of faith" is a proximate cause of confidence. The Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha are objects worthy of confidence. This does not mean that someone who never heard of the Dhamma cannot have confidence. Confidence is an ultimate reality with its own characteristic, it is not specifically Buddhist. Each kusala citta is accompanied by confidence; kusala is kusala, no matter what nationality or race one is, no matter what faith one professes. Also those who never heard of the Dhamma can have confidence in ways of kusala such as generosity and true loving kindness. Also good deeds are objects worthy of confidence.” ..... S: In other words, saddha is a sobhana (beautiful) mental factor, accompanying all moments of kusala. At these moments there is confidence in dana (generosity), sila (morality) or bhavana (mental development). It is not blind faith and only at the stage of being a sotapanna is saddha firm ‘without a modicum of doubt....’. ..... In the ‘Perfections’, (being translated by Nina), A.Sujin writes: “When kusala citta arises it must be accompanied by saddhå cetasika,confidence or faith. There are many degrees of kusala citta. The faculty of saddhå, faith or confidence, is a leader with regard to its specific function. This will be clearer when we consider the four limbs or factors of streamwinning: unshakable confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha and the virtues (síla) which are agreeable to the ariyans. "Someone may study the Dhamma and have confidence in listening to the Dhamma, but his confidence may not be firm, it may be unstable, uncertain. If he has no right understanding of realities and if he does not know the right practice for the realization of the four noble Truths, he may easily become confused. Confidence which is unshakable and firm, without confusion, and a condition for not deviating from the right Path, is the confidence of the ariyan, confidence which is a factor of streamwinning. It is the unshakable confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha and the virtues of the ariyans.” ..... S: I understand just what you are saying about saddha as being a precursor to the development of panna and indeed we read in the Atthasalini <120>(as Nina quotes): “... So faith is the forerunner, the precursor to one who is giving gifts. Observing the precepts, performing the duties of uposatha and commencing bhavana. Hence it has been said: Faith has purifying and aspiring as its characteristic.” ..... Nina also adds: “The Atthasalini refers to a simile given in the Questions of King Milinda (35)...: a universal monarch crosses a small stream with his army. The water has been polluted by the army but his water-purifying gem purifies the water so that mud, sand and waterweeds subside and the water becomes clear and undisturbed. The water which is disturbed by pollution is like the mind which is disturbed by defilements. Faith purifies the mind so that it becomes clear, transparent and undisturbed.” ..... S: I don’t, however, see it as a matter of one person having saddha and not another or of having saddha and then panna. As we know from our studies, accumulations and inclinations are very complex and change all the time. A good Buddhist, following the precepts, has no saddha at moments of akusala (unwholesomeness) and someone who doesn’t claim to have taken any kind of refuge has saddha at moments of generosity or kindness. Again, Nina writes: “But so long as latent tendencies have not been eradicated defilements are bound to arise, time and again. The purity of confidence is in the ariyan of a higher degree than in the non-ariyan. The sotapanna does not cling to the concept of self, he has eradicated wrong view, and thus his good deeds are purer. His sila is more purified than the sila of the non-ariyan, he has no more conditions to transgress the five precepts.” ..... S: I believe that panna and saddha develop together and condition each other. Even as we discuss the teachings here, there has to be moments of panna and saddha from the very beginning in order to see the value of hearing and carefully reflecting. There have been many discussions about feeling discouraged or even depressed about slow progress, other understandings or confusions. At these times, I believe there is a lack of saddha in kusala, conditioned by our limited panna. Nina writes about this in the same chapter on saddha and I think it also helps us to understand why the eradication (or at least reduction) of the idea of self leads to higher sila and saddha: “There is no self who decides for kusala, it depends on conditions whether kusala citta arises or not. When there are conditions for aversion and discouragement, there is no resolution for kusala. We may have no energy for any kind of kusala when we feel annoyed because of our shortcomings, or when we are disappointed about other people, when we feel lonely and depressed, when we find life useless and frustrating. When we are depressed we are self-centred. We want pleasant objects for ourselves and when we do not get these we feel dissatisfied with life. If there would be less clinging to the self there would be less conditions for feelings of frustration. Right understanding can eventually eradicate the clinging to the self, but it can only develop very gradually. “If we are impatient because we do not notice any progress in the development of right understanding, we should remember the patience and determination of the Buddha in the lives when he was still a Bodhisatta. He was determined to develop right understanding life after life, without becoming discouraged, without coming to a halt halfway. Courage and patience are needed in order to develop understanding of the realities appearing in daily life. One has to have "aspiring confidence" like the hero who crosses the floods. It is useless to worry about the lack of mindfulness, or to think of ways to make it arise. When there is more understanding of what the object of mindfulness is, an ultimate reality, there are conditions for mindfulness now of whatever reality appears.” ..... S: We see that regardless of our country of origin or lifestyle, saddha can only become really firm with highly developed panna. I can’t resist quoting further from Nina’s book: “As we have seen, when the faculty of confidence has been more developed, it can become unshakeable and firm, it can become a "power" or "strength" (bala). So long as one has not attained enlightenment confidence can still be shaken. One may have doubt about the value of the development of right understanding, doubt about the eightfold Path. The confidence of the sotapanna cannot be shaken anymore; he has eradicated doubt. He has an unshakeable confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. At each stage of enlightenment the faculties and thus also confidence have become more developed. At the moment of the attainment of arahatship they have reached completion. “As we have seen, one of the proximate causes of confidence is an object worthy of confidence. The Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha are objects worthy of confidence. so long as we are not ariyans we do not really understand what enlightenment means; we have only theoretical understanding about it and thus our knowledge is very limited. We take our refuge in the Buddha, but our confidence in his virtues cannot be as strong as the sotapanna's confidence.” ..... S: Finally, let me also copy the quote Nina gives from MN (II, no. 70, Kitgiri sutta): “I, monks, do not say that the attainment of profound knowledge comes straightaway; nevertheless, monks, the attainment of profound knowledge comes by a gradual training, a gradual doing, a gradual course. And how. monks. does the attainment of profound knowledge came by means of a gradual training, a gradual doing, a gradual course? As to this, monks, one who has faith draws close; drawing close, he sits down near by; sitting down near by he lends ear; lending ear he hears dhamma; having heard dhamma he remembers it; he tests the meaning of the things he has borne in mind; while testing the meaning the things are approved of- there being approval of the things desire (1 kusalacchanda, "wish-to-do" which is kusala.) is born; with desire born he makes an effort; having made the effort he weighs it up; having weighed it up he strives; being self-resolute he realizes himself the highest truth itself and, penetrating it by means of wisdom, he sees...” ..... >Every thing expressed here is in metta and > goodwill and if any thing displeases you, please pardon me, because > it was not my intention. ..... S: Here is an example of saddha in kusala. Thank you for the example of goodwill and metta and of course there is nothing displeasing in what you write. With metta, Sarah ======= 22163 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 14, 2003 1:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasa, I’ll try not to repeat too much what Jon and Sukin have been saying, so and try to keep these comments brief: Y: > .................... I begin to ask how do you do > this "seeing things as they are" or "arising and falling away of > citta." ? .... S: No me or you to do anything;-) Y: >Arising and falling away of citta happens countless times. > If you listen to a sound there are innumerable citta arising and > falling away. If you are crossing the road, the number of cittas > that arise and fall away are countless. .... S: Agreed. ...... Y: >Do you mean to say you see > rising and falling away of these multitude of cittas …..every moment > of the day, from the time you get up until you go to sleep in the > night ? ..... S: No. ..... Y: > Sarah, you know, having had meditated for a long time, and now having > a very good grasp of the Abhidhamma teaching, how citta arises and > falls away, ..... S: I believe the only ‘knowing’ that counts is that of panna, not that of Abhidhamma theory or hours on a cushion as some put it (not that there were ever any cushions in my ‘meditation’ days;-)) ..... Y: >and how you could see that while meditating, and now > keeping it up in the course of all your daily activity. But can > you really see the arising of the citta and its final passing away ? ..... S: I’m not meaning to be ‘dificult’ but I don’t have any idea of ‘keeping it up’ or of trying to see any arising and passing away of citta. Even any wish or attempt to have mindfulness at this or any time would merely suggest a clinging to self and possibly an erroneous idea of being able to ‘keep it up’ to my way of thinking. ..... Y: > At the moment your eyes come in contact with the object, citta > moments begin to start, but the eye consciousness arises four or five > citta moments after, and only then you see the object. The Actual > arising of the citta you had not seen, but if you are mindful then > it is possible the mind goes back to the moment of the rising of the > citta, sees a "review" of it. .... S: That would be thinking. At the time of “review”, it’s gone already. ..... Y: >It is the same with the falling away > of the citta, after about 10 or so thought moments. This happens > all the time and seeing the rising and falling away of citta every > moment of the day, you see Sarah, is a very difficult exercise. ..... S: So we see that any exercise is not the way to develop mindfulness and knowledge. ..... Y: >But > on the other hand if you are seated, on a cushion, with an > appropriate posture, you will be able to see this phenomena of citta > rising and falling away vividly, during the course of your sitting, ..... S: Who is doing the seeing? ..... Y: > and the mind settling into a calm serenity…..when you hear a sound > just stop at hearing, without going further…........ ..... S: Who can start or stop cittas? You continue in your post to discuss details about jhanas and higher stages of vipassana. In Nina’s chapter on saddha she ended by saying that there should be ‘courageous determination’ ‘to realize what one has not yet realized’. It may seem that there is a clear understanding of namas and rupas and the arising and falling away of these, but is this really so? As you rightly point out, it’s not so simple as we may think. ..... Y: > You will observe that in the Suttas , the discourses of the Buddha to > his disciples, he uses terms appropriate to their minds deluded in > self, the familiar conventional terms. That is because they are the > instructions for meditation , where as the terms in the Abhidhamma > are to describe characteristic of the panchakkhanda, a being, the > Buddha did not want his disciples to get lost in the vastness of > Abhidhamma. ..... S: On the contrary, judging from the numbers who listened to the discourses and reached various stages of enlightenment, I believe (as Sukin has said) that those listening to the Buddha were able to hear the conventional terms without being deluded as to the deeper meaning of anatta. We also read a lot of Abhidhamma in these same suttas and I don’t draw a distinction. In a couple of other posts you’ve mentioned that according to your knowledge, the Abhidhamma was only taught at the 3rd Council. I’d be glad to hear where your information comes from because, apart from the detail in the Katthavatthu, this is different from what I read in the ancient commentaries for the main part. ..... Y: > Perhaps a word of Abhidhamma, not critical, I dare not, because that > too is the word of the Buddha. In Abhidhamma you see the working of > the mind, its sense-door activities, accumulation of wholesome , > unwholesome kamma. Different types of kamma, sahetuka, ahetuka, > vipaka , kiriya. And the cittas, bahavanga citta, how it gets > activated, vibrates and gives rise to particular citta and falls > away gradually in javana and tadarammana. And then the most > interesting to read for me were the final stages of life, the cuti- > citt and the patisandhi citta. One's birth depends on the citta that > conditions the cuti-citta- which "colors" the patisandhi citta and > all the citta thereafter. But yet no one can say which karma > conditioned the relevant cuti and patisandhi cittas. Which vipaka > kamma caused a handicap in a person. Those things were said not to > speculate on, but just to show the mechanism of paramatta dhamma. ..... S: ...the ‘mechanism of paramattha dhamma’ and even more to act as a condition for detachment from any idea of a self. ..... Y: > Your comments are very objective and it is interesting to discuss > Dhamma with those who know what it is despite the controversies . .... S: Hmmmm... ...... Y: > Visuddhimagga as you know, contains the commentaries to the Sutta, > translated by Venerable Buddhaghosa into Pali. And the most of it > contains instructions on meditation and what happens in meditation. > It would be interesting to read about the Vipassana-nanas, that arise > as meditation develops and how panna arises in the mind to see > through the anicca, dukkha and anatma. ..... S: I will agree that it is about bhavana and the development of all wholesome states, particularly vipassana (insight). The vipassana-nanas are discussed in detail under the section on Panna (understanding). I’d be delighted to discuss any sections further such as these. I apologise in advance for any delayed responses which are never for any reason other than a lack of time;-) .... * * * Y: > Sri Lanka was a beautiful place in the 1970ies, now it has lost much > of its natural beauty, with hotels and what not, coming up every > where. .... S: It’s still beautiful and I greatly appreciate the examples of saddha which continue to be so apparent in all kinds of kusala. I’ve certainly learnt a lot from the confidence in generosity, metta and respect for the Triple Gem and bhavana as shown in Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka. ..... Y: >That is the change of things, for good or for bad. I am > really impressed by your sojourn in a monastic atmosphere in Sri > Lanka, I am sure that helps to understand dhamma better. .... S: I believe that really only the moments of right view help us to understand dhamma better and that the real assistance lies in the very careful consideration and reflection of what one reads and hears wherever that might be. I don’t believe there should be a gap between what one reads in the Abhidhamma texts and one’s daily life in the temple or city. I’m not sure if that makes sense. Sukin wrote helpfully (imho;-)) to someone else “...if we think that we have to do certain things first, then there is a danger of not bridging the gap between theory and practice. And I think pariyatti is part of the practice in this regard.” ..... Y: >I have > found the tapes of Khun Sujin, in the internet,speaking on a > question and answer session. I found them very interesting. .... S: Pls let Sukin or me know (off-list) if you’d like others. You may also find it interesting to read the short books Nina wrote on our trips with K.Sujin to Sri Lanka in the 70s. Connie also mentioned the tapes on the Foundation website (which I can't access from my Mac computer). If there are any short extracts of particular interest, please let us know or give others here a link to the tapes. ..... Y: > I have said most of the things, I know of the Dhamma here. But I > will not hesitate to elaborate, if you have comments. ...... S: Thank you. I’m very interested to read any of your comments and greatly appreciate your keen interest and confidence in the Dhamma. You write beautifully and very clearly as well. .... Y: >I think Sukin > has replied to one of my posts and I have to go back to see what > more I could say. Every thing expressed here is in metta and > goodwill and if any thing displeases you, please pardon me, because > it was not my intention. .... S: I’ve been reading your discussion with him carefully and I’m sure everyone would like to encourage you both. The goodwill is very apparent in both your posts. Btw, I liked the story in your post to Christine about the meditators walking mindfully, reflecting on anatta and being trampled by the elephant ;-) Of course, that would be a completely wrong understanding of anatta - an idea that an understanding of realities leads to inaction or an inability to cope in daily life. It’s rather like the idea of not having any thoughts.Any development of wisdom should make life easier and simpler, not harder or more complicated;-) Look forward to reading more of your posts. With metta, Sarah p.s Rob M - note from the subject heading that Yasa and I are still on slide 1!! ===== 22164 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 14, 2003 4:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - (and sankhara) Hi Connie, Thanks for your additional information on this thread (some time back tp RobM and me;-)) A couple more comments: --- connie wrote: > The 50 cetasikas (patterned, habitualized) called mental formation > (sankhara) or volition (cetana - 'will', or not) [can we just pick one > of the 50 out like that?] would be the ethical or responsible component > as opposed to the vedana/sensation and sanna/perception cetasikas. .... All 50 cetasikas are implied, but as I understand, cetana is the coordinator or director and plays the key role in ‘accumulating’ or acting as kamma. .... > [Even though this falls apart when Sariputta tells Maha-kotthita that > "Sensation, recognition and consciousness, Friend, are united, not > separate, and it is not possible to distinguish any difference between > them, even after repeatedly sifting through them."] ..... I don’t have the full reference, but surely this means that like the oxen yoked together (is it that sutta about Kotthita??), the cetasikas such as vedana and sanna cannot be separated from citta but all arise together? They cannot arise on their own. Pls would you give the reference if there's anything further to discuss. ..... >This (kamma) > conditions psychic activity, ensuring constant motion and arising... our > intention to continue has been formed. > > constant motion? Clinging/Upadana (that by means of which an active > process is kept going... 'taking'... and what conditions becoming/bhava) > is the support. .... Sorry, I got lost. ..... > motion? Asava (that which flows, intoxicant, taint). Will is stuck in > the current (moha), whether it's toward (lobha) or away from (dosa) and > therefore there is not free will as long as there is (like it or not) > kilesa/defilement... from verb kilissati, to adhere. And once there is > no kilesa? No new kamma, but still the old stuff to get unstuck/play > out... still not free? Maybe the question is more along the lines of > are we still knotted to will rather than free will or not. ..... Still no ‘we’ to be free or not;-) Still only conditioned namas and rupas regardless of whether there are any kilesa ‘adhering’ or not. (Thx for kilissati). ..... > Sanna/Perception/Recognition/Naming: negative kamma labels things > negatively. Kammic vision as opposed to Stainless... so even 'good' > kamma is a stain? [Say it taint so... we live intent (willingly) until > we're truly homeless]. .... ;-) Taint so, but actually all sankhara khandhas are taints...dukkha! To taint or not..... Thx again for your reflections and wit, Connie. Btw, Betty, Ivan and Elle will be glad to know you’re checking out the www.buddhadhamma.com website and discussions there. If you have any difficulties, pls also let them know (off-list) and from time to time share any links or extracts here as I mentioned. While I’m talking, I’d like to quote back a comment you made in your Q & A which I thought was very good (about being a Buddhist): C; “Truth is truth wherever you find it and just because I call it Buddhism doesn’t mean only buddhists can know it. Anyone who walks the path Buddha pointed out would be Buddhist to my mind and my calling myself Buddhist doesn’t mean that I have it right. In fact, I think you could argue that on one is a true Buddhist until they have attained what we call ‘change of lineage’ or stream entry...” You were also asked about the dying process and bardo states or intermediate states before another rebirth. There isn’t any such concept in the Theravada teachings and I don’t believe it would make any sense. This issue is raised in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy) and I can quote some detail if you wish as it’s often raised by those familiar with other traditions. Apologies for this belated hotch-potch! Metta, Sarah ===== 22165 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 14, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi Rob M, I thought your internet ‘piece’ was very skilfully written;-) I understand that ‘sutta’ may cause difficulties and don’t think Connie should apologise for pointing out what others will be feeling or thinking too. Humour is always difficult. One possibility would be to ‘spell’ it out at the start by calling it something like ‘Rob’s imaginary encounter/dream encounter with the Buddha’ and avoid all suggestion of sutta/sutra. Back to one of our discussions: --- robmoult wrote: > I am using "subconscious" for bhavanaga. I can't think of a better > word. .... Nanamoli - life-continuum consciousness. I believe this is widely used nowadays, but I understand no term is ideal;-) .... > Under Beautiful Cittas, I list two functions (I ignore kiriya): > - Wholesome > - Resultant > > My description of wholesome is: Wholesome creates good kamma > My description of resultant is: Resultant acts as "subconscious" .... It doesn’t make sense to me. 1) it is now the same term as for bhavanga which is one kind of vipaka citta with wholesome roots in some planes only. 2) I don’t understand in what sense ‘resultant acts as “subconscious”?? ***** On the other point about whether the Buddha attained ‘enlightenment without detailed knowledge of the Abhidhamma’, you clarified further: > My understanding is that Buddha meditated on the Abhidhamma during > the fourth week after enlightenment and it was at the point that the > Buddha started into Conditional Relations that the six coloured rays > started eminating from His body. Therefore, in the first three weeks > after enlightenment, the Buddha had the capacity to explore the > Abhidhamma in depth, He had "not yet got around to it". ..... This is what I understood you to be implying. I think that to say that after his enlightenment he reflected at length on C.R.and formulated the way he would teach it is one thing. To say he attained enlightenment without a detailed knowledge of Abhidhamma is another. Surely omniscience means that the knowledge is already there and ‘complete’ at the time of enlighenment,having been fully perfected. Not that the penny drops afterwards;-) ..... >Remember our > discussion as to whether the Buddha could have foretold 9/11. As I > recal, the answer was, "If He had applied His mind to the subject, > He could have." ..... Yes, agreed and good point. However, it is not new knowledge or wisdom, just a question of what details the fully developed wisdom turns to at that time as I see it. ***** post 22108, slides 41-43 comments: “perception (naming)” Can I persuade you to use ‘marking’ instead of ‘naming’ which carries so much baggage? Towards the end of the extract, you mention ‘what we think is real is in fact 99% added by our own selves.’ Perhaps ‘our selves’ might be replaced here by thinking or proliferating...also perhaps the ‘one’ reacts. I’m not suggesting you cut out all conventional language, but certain phrases can be particularly misleading imho which brings me back to the comments you added in support of the BB passage we discussed. I agree with what you said and the Sutta exhortations. This is why we need to listen and read a lot to know what is really meant by the Buddha or any modern teacher/writer. As I see it, the emphasis on ‘change our character’ in order ‘to change our total being’ which is often encouraged by teachers is quite different from the Buddha’s exhorting us to ‘do good, avoid evil, purify the mind’ and ‘strive on with diligence’ as you quoted which as I see it, means ‘understand the value of kusala and the danger or akusala so that panna can develop to eradicate defilements’. No self, being or change involved. I suppose I’ve met a lot of Buddhists who really believe in ‘making a change’ to 'character' or 'being' and this seems to lead to more attachment and less detachment of what is conditioned, rather than the other way round. I’ll be glad to hear any further comments, but no hurry (I know you’ve got several threads on the go;-)). Maybe others have comments too. Metta, Sarah p.s Nina has gone on holiday for two weeks - you may wish to remind her of your post to her when she returns if no one else replies. I’ve misplaced it for now, otherwise I’d take another look. =========== 22166 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 14, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/12/03 10:49:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > upasaka@a... writes: H: I may not be making myself clear, but I would like to. To speak precisely, the tree I seem to see right now as I look through the den window does not exist, nor does the "I" nor does the den nor does the window. From that ultimate perspective, it is nonsense to ascribe any characteristics to any of these supposed things because they do not exist. J: But there are things (dhammas) that 'exist' at that particular moment. What are those things? Seeing consciousness, visible object, thinking, feeling etc. The Buddha explained in great detail what *does* exist at a given present moment, so that there can be the opportunity of developing a better understanding of the way things really are. H: To say they are fictions is already just a manner of speaking, because that language suggests that they exist, but have fictional status. But there are no such things at all - except in a manner of speaking. When we say that these "things" are concept-only, that suggests that they exist and are concepts. That is false. THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS! J: This is true, I believe, but more to the point is that what is really happening at that moment is that different dhammas are being experienced (not a 'thing' called a tree etc). This can be tested and verified for ourselves. H: There *are*, however, *concepts* of such things, and we associate these concepts (i.e. thoughts) with specific trains of experience, superimposing them, and fool ourselves into thinking we are looking at trees etc. J: Well, this rather begs the question ;-)). And it also seems to be making the same kind of assertion that you have just said should not be made in respect of conventional things. Could we not equally say, The mind conceives of such things, and by that conceiving we fool ourselves into thinking we are looking at trees etc. There's surely no need postulate the existence of something called concepts in order to explain how the world is (mis)perceived. H: But the concepts, themselves, are merely thoughts that arise in the mind. They arise due to causes and conditions, and they cease as all conditioned dhammas cease. Their alleged referents, the tree, the den, the window: they neither arise nor cease in actuality, because *they do not exist* - ever. To speak of them is either to speak under the sway of illusion, or to consciously be simply using language in a conventional way, without being fooled, as was the case with the Buddha. This is how I understand the matter. I am not ascribing existence to so-called conventional objects, but to *thoughts* of such. I hope you understand the distinction I am making. J: Yes, I understand the distinction, but as I see it you haven't said *why* you assert that concepts have an existence, you've only asserted that they *do* ;-)). Looking forward to hearing more from you. Jon 22167 From: m. nease Date: Wed May 14, 2003 6:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Hi Kom, ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit To: Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 1:20 PM Subject: RE: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions > > My understanding of the abhisankhaaras is that they include not only the > > defilements but all kamma, good, bad and imperturbable (of the immaterial > > sphere). This wording could suggest that 'one' (rather than > > pa~n~naa) could > > relinquish (gain, honour and praise, or anything else); and that only the > > defilements, rather than all kamma, lead to rebirth. Both of these > > potential readings seem misleading to me. > > I think this is why it is so important to have the understanding that there > is really nothing beyond the 4 paramatha dhammas. Once we understand this, > then there is no question about who is doing what, regardless of what we > read, as there is no who to be spoken of, only cittas and cetasikas. We > make the decisions to do something all the time, but who is making the > decisions? If we don't see that it is not us, then we still have not yet > directly understood the basic teaching of the dhamma, and we need to keep > continuing developing panna to get there... Agreed... > My understanding of the relinquishment of defilement is that when they are > abandoned, the kusala states are also abandoned. This makes sense from the > Paticha-samutpadha stand point, if ignorance is abandoned, both kusala and > akusala are abandoned automatically. Hence, we would not hear (at least > from me!) that we should stop doing good (kusala) so we can abandon it, > because abandonment of kusala can only be done by panna, by abandoning > akusala. also agreed... > I also think it is very important to understand how abandonment comes about. > If we recognize akusala in ourselves, and work to have less of it (by > recollecting things that are useful, by thinking about conditionalities / > stories of dhammas). This is good, but this is not the abandonment that > only the Buddha can teach. Yes, I think this is suppressing rather than abandoning. > The two meditation teachers of the Buddha can > also teach you this. What the Buddha teaches that nobody else teaches is > that by knowing directly the characteristics of the dhamma, as non-self, as > impermanence, and as suffering, the wisdom eventually reaches the level of > abandonment (nibbita nanna, sankharupekkha nanna, etc. until magga). The > Buddha teaches the abandonment of defilements (and kusala) via the direct > knowledge of realities. yes... > > Better to cling to gain, honour and praise, and to understand, after the > > fact, that the clinging (and conceit etc.) is akusala, than to consciously > > relinquish them, imagine 'I have relinquished them' and to mistake the > > attending conceit etc. as a kind of purity (the latter is fairly > > commonplace, I believe--it feels great, by the way...!). Even if they are > > truly relinquished for the moment, the accumulated latent > > tendency to grasp > > at them again remains unabated. > > If one understands what the path truly is, then it doesn't matter if one has > the accumulation to abandon defilements thru samatha or not. I'm inclined to agree, > However, I > think one also needs to remember that it is good to develop all sorts of > kusala! especially with this added caveat. > > "...welcoming > > & rebelling are scattered, > > gone to their end, > > do not exist." > > > > They don't exist at all, even as latent tendencies. Until some stage of > > enlightenment (I forget!), they continue to exist if only latently, and > > continue to condition rebirth and all kinds of akusala. It can be quite > > dangerous, I think, to mistake this kind of conscious relinquishing as the > > accomplishment of some kind of right effort. > > > > When there is kusala, there is a right effort, but it may not be the right > effort of the 8-fold (or the 5-fold) path. Yes, that's true and an important distinction--thanks for the reminder. Often difficult to know, though, whether it's kusala or akusala being developed. Mike 22168 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 14, 2003 6:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott wrote: ... > To which could be added that the significance of this distinction > lies in the question of what may and may not be the object of insight > development. As the Visuddhi-Magga explains at the beginning of the > section dealing with Understanding (panna) (Ch XIV): 'What are is > characteristic, function etc? Understanding has the characteristic of > penetrating the individual essences [sabhava] of states [dhammas]. > Its function is to abolish the darkness of delusion, which conceals > the individual essences of states.' XIV, 7 L: I think this may be interpreted (even if not so intended) as suggesting that concepts are not objects of knowledge. J: I think it is intended to be read as suggesting that concepts are not objects of knowledge of the level of insight. My understanding on this would be that there is nothing of samsara-busting significance to be known about a concept. I suspect this also implies that we don't mis-take concepts as being permanent and self, as least not in the same way that we do the underlying paramattha dhammas. (I'm not sure about this one, though ;-)). > Yes, this is important to note. I think for some people the > discussion on 'sabhava' is difficult to consider because they > associate it with the idea of having an enduring nature or substance > of some kind. Thanks. L: To my mind, there are a number of possible difficulties with the term sabhava, including the following: J: I can't comment on your first point (the substantialist meaning given to the term by the Sarvastivadins), but it seems to me it's not a problem that is inherent in the term itself. I have seen previously reference to the passage in the Patisambhidamagga in this context. I believe the generally accepted reading is other than mentioned by the author here. But one would have to check oneself to be sure. On the other point(s), I've not read the article by Karunadasa, but hope to do so when I have time (I would be interested to see the texts he gives as supporting his various arguments). However, from what you have extracted below, I take his main point to be the apparent contradiction between 2 different definitions for the term 'dhamma' found in the texts, namely dhamma as: - that which bears its own nature [sabhava] - that which is borne by its own conditions (paccayehi dhariyanti ti dhamma) I understand this to mean that a dhamma both: - has its own nature (the peculiar characteristic by which it can be distinguished from all other dhammas), and - is conditioned by its own set of conditions (rupas, for example, are conditioned by 1 or other of 4 conditions, namely, citta, kamma, nutrition and temperature). I see no problem here. Also conceptually, I don't see anything necessarily contradictory in defining something by reference to 2 different 'tests', even if one can characterise the thing as 'an agent/having active role' under 1 test and as 'an object/having passive role' under the other (although I suspect these characterisations are purely the author's and so may or may not correctly reflect the material contained in the texts). But I don't believe the author's view is the orthodox one, and so I would want to look at it carefully before placing too much weight on the views expressed. As a matter of interest, do you see this issue as having any bearing on the development of understanding? Jon ------------------------ 1. sabhava is a term that has a very different and very substantialist meaning when used by the Sarvastivadins. 2. As the article by Karunadasa notes, "the definition of dhamma as that which bears its own nature [Sabhava] has to be understood. Clearly, this is a definition according to agency (kattu-sadhana), and hence its validity is provisional." 3. Karunadasa further notes that "the commentarial definition of dhamma as sabhava poses an important problem, for it seems to go against an earlier Theravada tradition recorded in the Patisambhidamagga. ... 22169 From: Date: Wed May 14, 2003 3:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/14/03 12:42:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Thank you for sharing your thought. I appreciate it. > > I would not go to extreme and say there is no one who sees.* > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Neither would I (look, I said "I"!), except when speaking in an unconventional, extra-precise way to indicate that there are only events occurring rather than self-existent agents engaging in operations. Let me give some analogies (still including conventional, shorthand expression, but suggestive of my intention): As I've pointed out before, conventional talk of some "one who sees" is similar to a farmer saying that a seed has the power to sprout, but looking strangely at someone who asks him where in the seed the power is. [Here it is the "power" that is being linguistically refied.] It's similar to someone saying "It's windy today," and looking askance when asked what the "it" is. [Here it is an alleged "it" that is being reified.] It's similar to saying "The classroom is noisy today" as a shorthand for something such as "The students assembled together in this classroom today are talking loudly". [Here it is the "classroom" that is being linguistically treated as an agent.] In all three of these sentences, there is no problem with the terminology so long as one clearly understands the convention involved. (In fact, I'm speaking in this manner in the very last sentence!) Likewise when I say "There is some one who sees". --------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you again. Your further comment is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor > > =========================== 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) 22170 From: Date: Wed May 14, 2003 3:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/14/03 9:41:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi again, Jon - > > > >In a message dated 5/12/03 10:49:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >upasaka@a... writes: > > H: I may not be making myself clear, but I would like to. To > speak precisely, the tree I seem to see right now as I look through > the den window does not exist, nor does the "I" nor does the den nor > does the window. From that ultimate perspective, it is nonsense to > ascribe any characteristics to any of these supposed things because > they do not exist. > > J: But there are things (dhammas) that 'exist' at that particular > moment. What are those things? Seeing consciousness, visible > object, thinking, feeling etc. The Buddha explained in great detail > what *does* exist at a given present moment, so that there can be the > opportunity of developing a better understanding of the way things > really are. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Agreed. ------------------------------------------------ > > H: To say they are fictions is already just a manner of speaking, > because that language suggests that they exist, but have fictional > status. But there are no such things at all - except in a manner of > speaking. When we say that these "things" are concept-only, that > suggests that they exist and are concepts. That is false. THERE ARE > NO SUCH THINGS! > > J: This is true, I believe, but more to the point is that what is > really happening at that moment is that different dhammas are being > experienced (not a 'thing' called a tree etc). This can be tested > and verified for ourselves. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Agreed. -------------------------------------------------- > > H: There *are*, however, *concepts* of such things, and we associate > these concepts (i.e. thoughts) with specific trains of experience, > superimposing them, and fool ourselves into thinking we are looking > at trees etc. > > J: Well, this rather begs the question ;-)). And it also seems to > be making the same kind of assertion that you have just said should > not be made in respect of conventional things. Could we not equally > say, The mind conceives of such things, and by that conceiving we > fool ourselves into thinking we are looking at trees etc. There's > surely no need postulate the existence of something called concepts > in order to explain how the world is (mis)perceived. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Disagreed! ;-) Thoughts come and go just as images and sounds do. --------------------------------------------------- > > H: But the concepts, themselves, are merely thoughts that arise in > the mind. They arise due to causes and conditions, and they cease as > all conditioned dhammas cease. Their alleged referents, the tree, the > den, the window: they neither arise nor cease in actuality, because > *they do not exist* - ever. To speak of them is either to speak under > the sway of illusion, or to consciously be simply using language in a > conventional way, without being fooled, as was the case with the > Buddha. This is how I understand the matter. I am not ascribing > existence to so-called conventional objects, but to *thoughts* of > such. I hope you understand the distinction I am making. > > J: Yes, I understand the distinction, but as I see it you haven't > said *why* you assert that concepts have an existence, you've only > asserted that they *do* ;-)). > --------------------------------------------- Howard: I assert the (passing) existence of thoughts for the same reason as I assert the (passing) existence of sights and sounds - I directly experience them. --------------------------------------------- > > Looking forward to hearing more from you. > > 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) 22171 From: Htoo Naing Date: Wed May 14, 2003 8:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Dear Yasa, Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.We all well appreciate your post which contained extensive explanation regarding dhamma matter in detail.I would add something to your post. 1.Rupakkhandha Rupa + Khandha 18 Paramattha-Rupa( from 28, 10 are just ideas_1 space,2 Vinatti,3 Lahutadhi 4 Lakkhana) 2.Vedanakkhandha Vedana + Khandha (Somanassa,Sukha,Domanassa,Dukkha and Upekkha) 3.Sannakkhandha Sanna + Khandha (Sanna Cetasika or memory_which is brought along with each Citta through out Samsara) 4. Sankharakkhandha Sankhara + Khandha (all Cetasikas except Vedana and Sanna) 5. Vinnana + Khandha (89 Cittas) With much respect, Htoo Naing yasalalaka wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Yasa > > --- yasalalaka wrote: > ... > > Yasa makes this REQUEST: > > > > Please TELL how you PRACTICE Buddhism, clearly and precisely. > > I think the Buddha taught the development of satipatthana/vipassana > (panna) as the way leading to enlightenment and escape from the > endless round of samsara. Each moment of satipatthana/vipassana is > thus the 'practice' of the dhamma. > > As regards the arising of a moment of satipatthana/vipassana, I don't > think there's any 'how to' given in the teachings, for the very good > reason that there is no simple 'how to'. But the Buddha spent a lot > of time talking about the essential prerequisite conditions for the > development of insight, and these include hearing the teachings from > one who can explain it clearly to us, reflecting on what has been > heard, and applying what has been thus understood to the present > moment. > > I do not find in the suttas any references to 'practice(s)' in the > sense of 'things to be done in order to generate awareness or > understanding'. As I read the Satipatthana Sutta as a whole, I think > it indicates very clearly that every waking moment is a moment at > which satipatthana potentially may arise, so we need not think in > terms of having to look for/wait for a more opportune moment than the > present one. But there's no 'practice' to be 'undertaken' in order > to 'have satipatthana arise'. > > You refer to the passage from the Satipatthana Sutta that begins: > "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? > [1] "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, > > to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding > his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to > > the fore " > and you ask whether it describes a person who is seated and is trying > to do an exercise of concentration. > > I think this passage describes a person who is already adept at > samatha bhavana -- specifically samatha bhavana with breath as object > (this from the wording that follows the extract above) -- and also at > the development of mindfulness (this from the reference to 'setting > mindfulness to the fore'). I see the passage not so much as > prescribing the development of samatha bhavana with breath as object > as necessary for all, but as instancing a person in whom this has > been accomplished already (this from the wording 'There is the case > where ...'). In other words, what is to follow applies most directly > to a person such as is described here. > > A further point that I think is relevant here is that the answer to > the question posed at the beginning of the passage ('How does a monk > remain focused on the body in & of itself?') comes much later in the > passage; it is not to be found in the words about sitting down > cross-legged. > > Yasa, you made many other interesting comments, but I've probably > said quite enough for one post, so I'll close off here. I'm well > aware that what I've just said goes against many people's deeply held > views on things, and I've learnt by now not to be surprised at > whatever reaction comes ;-)). > > Looking forward to your further comments. > > Jon > > ___________________________Yasa Replies_____________________________ Jon, Thank you for your attempt to answer the question I posed. From both Azita's and your post I did not learn much of your "practice of Abhidhamma". Living the moment is very well, if there is some thing else to support it. I read a post by Sukin, where he tells about how he spent a whole morning. He attended a parent's day at his son's school. He had not taken money with him, and he had to go to his work place to collect the money and then went home very tired . He was very hungry having had not taken his morning meal. After that he wanted to sleep and couldn't find a place. He went to his computer and prepared a post and wanted to send it off . But just as he was going to press the button, he had forgotten to whom that post was meant and so on. There are some instances of remembering, and being aware, not as a "practice" but in a general way. This remembering is also "sati" or " being mindful". You speak of Satipatthana and Sati, as the same thing. Satipattana Sutta, should not be understood by separating the word "Satipattahana" from Sutta, taking it merely to mean " being mindful" as a synonym to "sati". Satipattahana Sutta, is a very important, if not the most important discourse of the Buddha. It is in fact called the Maha – Satipatthana Sutta. All the rest of the discourse in the Sutta Pitaka leads to this great discourse. It is the summum bonum of the Buddha's discourses, his teachings. It is the out come of five hundred life times of accumulartion, and the fulfilment of the paramis, to understand the cause of the suffering of the people and be a Buddha, the Sublime, the All Knowing one, to show the beings suffering in Samsara, the path to Nirvana, and the freedom from the cycle of death and birth. The path is now clear for those who have eyes to see. If we were to close our eyes and grope about thinking there is no light we will stumble and fall all over. We will only have to open our eyes , to see that there is light , and all that stumbling and falling was due to our own fault of having closed our eyes. For you "sati" is a sort of awakening, that dawns upon you by the merit of your " seeing the arising of the moment, the present moment". Sati according to the teachings, is being mindful of every moment, when you eat , you know you are eating, when you walk, you know you are walking, when you write, you know you are writing, when you are angry, you know you are angry, when you dress, you know you are dressing. These are all instances of "being aware"-"sati". We are made of , hair of the head ,hair of the body, skin, muscles, sinews, nerves ,bones, marrow of the bones etc. We are all this, but also decently dressed, men, and women, eating drinking, thinking, talking, walking etc. We have names, each one of us. We are not the same. We are white or black or yellow. No body will tell us that we are paramatta dhamma. When we have things to eat and drink and are cheerful and happy we know we enjoy our lives. But when things go wrong, when we lose our jobs, or lose some one dear to us, we become sad and lost. When we are ill, we cry in pain, asking why, we were born if we are to suffer this way. We will die and be born again to go through the same enjoyments and the same suffering. There seems to be no end to it. The Buddha was born , more than 2500 years ago and explained this suffering, told us how to stop this cycle of suffering. It is for us to contemplate,to know who we are after all. When we will learn to clear our mind from its clouded state, and see for ourselves what is the meaning of this seemingly inevitable suffering. And attempt to see the cause of it. Then we will see that the cause of it is our attachments to a name , " Mr.Smith", "Mrs.Simpson ", "me" , "myslf", and "you". It is the clinging to a self, and acquiring wholesome or unwholesome karma, through lobha, dosa and moha. Then we try to see who is this" self ". And it is only then we will be able to see that the self is a "being" composed of the five aggregates ( pancakkhandha) of form (rupakkhandha), feelings (vedanakkhandha), perceptions (sannanakkhandha) , consciousness (vinnakkhandha), and mental factors (sankhrakkhandha). That is how, we may see the ultimate reality, being in the conventional reality. The reality we understand is the conventional reality. The reality we do not understand is the ultimate reality. Therefore to reiterate what I have said, to understand the ultimate reality, we have to understand the conventional reality. With metta, Yasa 22172 From: Htoo Naing Date: Wed May 14, 2003 8:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects Dear Member, Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.Very nice piece of Metta-Bhavana. The Aramana of the Bhavana is just Pannatta.One needs to spread evenly over all possible being. Meditating mind is homing on the Hadaya Vatthu of the particular Satta who meditate Metta-Bhavana. When Citta is stick firmly to that Satta-Pannatta,one will become to be aware of the existance of mental factors which are parts of Jhanacitta. Before this five hinderances have to be eradicated.They are sensual thoughts,destructive anger-guided thoughts,spreading away of thoughts and attention from the Satta-Panatta for Metta & repentence of not doing good things and doing bad things,laziness sleepiness and suspicious thoughts on the practice. If these five are cleared up and five parts of Jhanacittas are working vividly then Jhanacitta is going to arise soon. With Great Metta, Htoo Naing LBIDD@w... wrote: Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Five Hindrances 2. Anger continued, [the following is all subcommentary]: The thought of love [metta] is a sublime state of mind [brahmavihara]; it is one's own state of freedom from hatred. A detailed description of the way of developing love as a subject of meditation is given in the Path of Purity. The following summary of hints gathered from different comments and the Path of Purity will be helpful to a beginner: The love-thought of meditation is different from worldly attachment. It is based on wishing well to all beings. The idea of possession of the loved object is foreign to it. It is not a state of mind that encourages exclusiveness. The aim of the meditation is finally to include in the ambit of one's goodwill all beings equally, without distinction. "The liberation of the mind through love" refers only to full concentration. Without reaching full concentration there is no effective freedom from anger. The beginner who works at this subject of meditation is not to practice the thought of love at first: On a sensuously promising object of the opposite sex, as attachment towards it might arise in the yogi's mind. On a dead person, as the practice would be futile. On an enemy, as anger might arise. On an indifferent person, as the practice might prove wearisome. On one who is very dear as the arousing of friendly thoughts without attachment towards such a one would be tiring; and as mental agitation might occur should even some slight trouble overtake that one. Taking up the practice of the love subject of meditation is the generating, the bringing about of the characteristic, sign or mark, of the love thought of meditation of him who through loving-kindness gathers together all beings with goodwill. The reflection on the thought of love itself is the sign of the love thought of meditation, because the reflection arisen first is the reason of the later reflection. Spreading it particularly: Consecutively in the following order: to oneself, to a friend, an indifferent person, and an enemy. Spreading it generally: By breaking down all barriers, limits and reservations which separate oneself from all others, and extending the same kind of friendly thought to all. Directionally: Extending the thought of love towards one point of the compass, for instance, the east. These three kinds of spreading of the thought of love refer to the stage of meditation of "taking up the practice of the thought of love" which covers the training from the beginning to the attainment of partial concentration (upacara samadhi). In regard to this state of meditation the following is stated: Spreading the thought of love after particularizing the direction by way of a monastery, a street, village and so forth is one way and spreading the thought of love towards a direction in space generally by way of the eastern direction and so forth without specifying a monastery and so forth is another way of practice The development of the jhana on the thought of love is the practice again and again of the thought of love that has got partial concentration. The development is done in three ways: (1) The spreading of the love thought universally. This is done by wishing that all living beings (satta), all breathing things (pana), all beings born (bhuta), all persons (puggala), all who have reached a state of individuality (attabhavapariyapanna), be without hatred, disease, and grief, and be happy taking care of themselves (avera, abyapajjha, anigha hontu, suhki attanam pariharantu). (2) Spreading the thought of love by way of a restricted group of beings. This is done by wishing that all females, all males, all purified ones, all non-purified ones, all divine beings, all humans, all beings fallen to states of woe, be without hatred, disease and grief and happy taking care of themselves. (3) Spreading the thought of love directionally in space. This is done by restricting the thought of love towards each of the ten directions in space: the cardinal points, the intermediate points, and the zenith and nadir. And it is also done by wishing that the beings in each of the directions taken up, according to the divisions and groups given above, be without hatred and so forth according to the formula already mentioned. 22173 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed May 14, 2003 8:51am Subject: RE: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Hi Mike, > -----Original Message----- > From: m. nease [mailto:mlnease@z...] > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 6:43 AM > > > > When there is kusala, there is a right effort, > but it may not be the right > > effort of the 8-fold (or the 5-fold) path. > > Yes, that's true and an important > distinction--thanks for the reminder. > Often difficult to know, though, whether it's > kusala or akusala being > developed. > I especially agree with you here. It's a good reminder for me when I am told that wisdom is the forerunner, with it the development of other kusala states are possible; otherwise, we will always be mistaken... kom 22174 From: Date: Wed May 14, 2003 4:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi again, Jon - With regard to our discussion of concepts, I have found the following within the PTS dictionary's article on 'dhamma': ****************************************** Applications and Meaning.--1. Psychologically; "mentality" as the constitutive element of cognition & of its substratum, the world of phenomena. It is that which is presented as "object" to the imagination & as such has an effect of its own:--a presentation (Vorstellung), or idea, idea, or purely mental phenomenon as distinguished from a psycho--physical phenomenon, or sensation (re--action of sense--organ to sensestimulus). The mind deals with ideas as the eye deals with forms: it is the abstraction formed by mano, or mind proper, from the objects of sense presented by the sense--organ when reacting to external objects. Thus cakkhu "faculty of sight" corresponds to rupa "relation of form" & mano "faculty of thought" (citta & ceto its organ or instrument or localisation) corresponds to dhamma "mentalized" object or "idea" (Mrs. Rh. D. "mental object in general," also "state of mind") **************************************** With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22175 From: Lee Dillion Date: Wed May 14, 2003 9:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Howard and Ron: I have followed your discussion with increasing interest because you are touching upon a subject that has interested me since reading Dreyfus' "Recognizing Reality." Although this book was from the perspective of the later Indian and Tibetan traditions, it outlines quite well the attempts of the various Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions to explain both their ontology (that is, what is real and unreal) and their epistemology (how we gain knowledge). The Abhidhamma tradition, from my understanding, was one of the earliest attempts by any Indian tradition to explore how we can "know" reality in a systematic way. The later Indian traditions were forced to defend and expand upon the Abhidhammic notions as they were pushed and debated by non-Buddhist traditions on a variety of questions that have occurred in both eastern and western philosophical traditions. Most relevant to your discussion is the question how concepts can be a normative source of knowledge if they are denied the reality ascribed to the paramatha dhammas. While I have read the debates on this point - with each tradition thinking they have solved the problem - I think Dreyfus sums up centuries of debate when he notes as follows: "Having understood Dharmakirti's system, which is based on the difference between a reality definable in terms of essence and a projected essenceless conceptual realm, the student is shown how this distinction leads to unsolvable difficulties. Those difficulties do not come from incidental limitations of the system but from its assumption that real things are defined by their essences. Demonstration of this insight occurs in numerous debates analyzing Dharmakirti's system on its own terms. In this way the crucial problems we have examined in this work, such as the relation between perception and thought and the difficulty of accounting for our experiences in terms of a reductionist typology of valid cognitions are exposed. This leads the student to the suspicion that what is wrong with Dharmakirti's system does not come from the intellectual limitations of its author but from his essentialist assumptions." --- Lee upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/14/03 9:41:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > jonoabb@y... writes: > > >>Howard >> >>--- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi again, Jon - >> >>>In a message dated 5/12/03 10:49:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >>>upasaka@a... writes: >> >>H: I may not be making myself clear, but I would like to. To >>speak precisely, the tree I seem to see right now as I look through >>the den window does not exist, nor does the "I" nor does the den nor >>does the window. From that ultimate perspective, it is nonsense to >>ascribe any characteristics to any of these supposed things because >>they do not exist. >> >>J: But there are things (dhammas) that 'exist' at that particular >>moment. What are those things? Seeing consciousness, visible >>object, thinking, feeling etc. The Buddha explained in great detail >>what *does* exist at a given present moment, so that there can be the >>opportunity of developing a better understanding of the way things >>really are. > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Agreed. > ------------------------------------------------ > > >>H: To say they are fictions is already just a manner of speaking, >>because that language suggests that they exist, but have fictional >>status. But there are no such things at all - except in a manner of >>speaking. When we say that these "things" are concept-only, that >>suggests that they exist and are concepts. That is false. THERE ARE >>NO SUCH THINGS! >> >>J: This is true, I believe, but more to the point is that what is >>really happening at that moment is that different dhammas are being >>experienced (not a 'thing' called a tree etc). This can be tested >>and verified for ourselves. >> > > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Agreed. > -------------------------------------------------- > > >>H: There *are*, however, *concepts* of such things, and we associate >>these concepts (i.e. thoughts) with specific trains of experience, >>superimposing them, and fool ourselves into thinking we are looking >>at trees etc. >> >>J: Well, this rather begs the question ;-)). And it also seems to >>be making the same kind of assertion that you have just said should >>not be made in respect of conventional things. Could we not equally >>say, The mind conceives of such things, and by that conceiving we >>fool ourselves into thinking we are looking at trees etc. There's >>surely no need postulate the existence of something called concepts >>in order to explain how the world is (mis)perceived. >> > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Disagreed! ;-) Thoughts come and go just as images and sounds do. > --------------------------------------------------- > > >>H: But the concepts, themselves, are merely thoughts that arise in >>the mind. They arise due to causes and conditions, and they cease as >>all conditioned dhammas cease. Their alleged referents, the tree, the >>den, the window: they neither arise nor cease in actuality, because >>*they do not exist* - ever. To speak of them is either to speak under >>the sway of illusion, or to consciously be simply using language in a >>conventional way, without being fooled, as was the case with the >>Buddha. This is how I understand the matter. I am not ascribing >>existence to so-called conventional objects, but to *thoughts* of >>such. I hope you understand the distinction I am making. >> >>J: Yes, I understand the distinction, but as I see it you haven't >>said *why* you assert that concepts have an existence, you've only >>asserted that they *do* ;-)). >> > > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I assert the (passing) existence of thoughts for the same reason as I > assert the (passing) existence of sights and sounds - I directly experience > them. > --------------------------------------------- > > >>Looking forward to hearing more from you. >> >>Jon >> >> > > ============================== > With metta, > Howard > 22176 From: Lee Dillion Date: Wed May 14, 2003 9:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Lee > > --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > ... > >>To which could be added that the significance of this distinction >>lies in the question of what may and may not be the object of insight >> development. As the Visuddhi-Magga explains at the beginning of the >> section dealing with Understanding (panna) (Ch XIV): 'What are is >>characteristic, function etc? Understanding has the characteristic of >> penetrating the individual essences [sabhava] of states [dhammas]. >>Its function is to abolish the darkness of delusion, which conceals >>the individual essences of states.' XIV, 7 > L: I think this may be interpreted (even if not so intended) as > suggesting that concepts are not objects of knowledge. > > J: I think it is intended to be read as suggesting that concepts are > not objects of knowledge of the level of insight. My understanding > on this would be that there is nothing of samsara-busting > significance to be known about a concept. I would guess you are correct that this is the significance of the distinction. The problem I have with this approach, however, is it makes it difficult to argue that concepts have any knowledge value, no matter how subordinate it may be to liberating knowledge, if we deny that concepts are real in the sense that the dhammas are real. For how can something that is unreal be true or the source of knowledge in any normative sense? >>Yes, this is important to note. I think for some people the >>discussion on 'sabhava' is difficult to consider because they >>associate it with the idea of having an enduring nature or substance >>of some kind. Thanks. > > > L: To my mind, there are a number of possible difficulties with the > term sabhava, including the following: > > J: I can't comment on your first point (the substantialist meaning > given to the term by the Sarvastivadins), but it seems to me it's not > a problem that is inherent in the term itself. > > I have seen previously reference to the passage in the > Patisambhidamagga in this context. I believe the generally accepted > reading is other than mentioned by the author here. But one would > have to check oneself to be sure. > > On the other point(s), I've not read the article by Karunadasa, but > hope to do so when I have time (I would be interested to see the > texts he gives as supporting his various arguments). However, from > what you have extracted below, I take his main point to be the > apparent contradiction between 2 different definitions for the term > 'dhamma' found in the texts, namely dhamma as: > - that which bears its own nature [sabhava] > - that which is borne by its own conditions (paccayehi dhariyanti ti > dhamma) > > I understand this to mean that a dhamma both: > - has its own nature (the peculiar characteristic by which it can be > distinguished from all other dhammas), and > - is conditioned by its own set of conditions (rupas, for example, > are conditioned by 1 or other of 4 conditions, namely, citta, kamma, > nutrition and temperature). > > I see no problem here. Also conceptually, I don't see anything > necessarily contradictory in defining something by reference to 2 > different 'tests', even if one can characterise the thing as 'an > agent/having active role' under 1 test and as 'an object/having > passive role' under the other (although I suspect these > characterisations are purely the author's and so may or may not > correctly reflect the material contained in the texts). > > But I don't believe the author's view is the orthodox one, and so I > would want to look at it carefully before placing too much weight on > the views expressed. > > As a matter of interest, do you see this issue as having any bearing > on the development of understanding? Yes, in the sense that the suggestion that direct perception of the dhammas is the only true source of liberating knowledge creates all sorts of epitemological problems with how we account for the knowledge value we ascribe to conceptual activity. And this is without even raising the argument that the supposed "obective" dhammas are, perhaps, just a conceptual construction that arises from our analytical cutting up of what appears to us through our senses. In other words, can we really use conceptual activity to go behind sensory input to describe reality as it is while at the same time denying reality to concepts? But don't see my words as suggesting you or the Abhidhammic approach are wrong in any sense. As I note in my other post today, you and Howard are simply touching upon a debate that has confounded philosophers east and west for centuries, and each time I try to orient myself in the debate, I come away with even less confidence that I understand the issues. So I throw out these somewhat ill-formed observations not to debate but to simply note my own confusion. 22177 From: nidive Date: Wed May 14, 2003 10:53am Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard, > I assert the (passing) existence of thoughts for the same reason > as I assert the (passing) existence of sights and sounds - I > directly experience them. You, I and the Buddha cannot be all wrong. :-) There's no need for such an assertion. "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-041.html Swee Boon 22178 From: robmoult Date: Wed May 14, 2003 11:08am Subject: Happy Wesak Just want to wish all DSGrs, especially our moderators, a very happy Wesak! Metta, Rob M :-) 22179 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed May 14, 2003 1:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Howard, Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. I don't think that saying "there is no one who sees" is extra- precise. And I don't think it is necessary and skillful to assume a self-existing agent engaging in operation then deny its existence. I would say that the assumption of a self-existing agent is not to come up in the first place. And I also don't think the analogy you use is adequate. I would say that the dichotomy of "conventional"/"unconventional" speech is unnecessary, a result of complication/proliferation in thought, as the assumption of a self- existing agent. I think that with the dichotomy of "conventional"/"unconventional" you have run into contradiction "there is someone who sees"/"there is no one who sees". I don't think this contradiction is helpful in clear communication. I think you might be interested in the essay "The Language Game" by Gary Goss. (If you are interested in the essay, please do a search with Google. I think the link is too long to fit in the message without truncation.) Thank you again for your reply. Your further feedback is welcome. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - [snip] > Neither would I (look, I said "I"!), except when speaking in an > unconventional, extra-precise way to indicate that there are only events > occurring rather than self-existent agents engaging in operations. Let me > give some analogies (still including conventional, shorthand expression, but > suggestive of my intention): As I've pointed out before, conventional talk of > some "one who sees" is similar to a farmer saying that a seed has the power > to sprout, but looking strangely at someone who asks him where in the seed > the power is. [Here it is the "power" that is being linguistically refied.] > It's similar to someone saying "It's windy today," and looking askance when > asked what the "it" is. [Here it is an alleged "it" that is being reified.] > It's similar to saying "The classroom is noisy today" as a shorthand for > something such as "The students assembled together in this classroom today > are talking loudly". [Here it is the "classroom" that is being linguistically > treated as an agent.] In all three of these sentences, there is no problem > with the terminology so long as one clearly understands the convention > involved. (In fact, I'm speaking in this manner in the very last sentence!) > Likewise when I say "There is some one who sees". [snip] > With metta, > Howard 22180 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 14, 2003 3:25pm Subject: Message to Bogor Group from Nina F/W message from Nina ----------------------- Dear Selamat and group, My best wishes to you all for Vesak. I am away on vacation, but you are in my thoughts. I would like very much to hear from you, it is so inspiring. What were your discussions like on Vesak day? With metta, Nina. 22181 From: connie Date: Wed May 14, 2003 9:39am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Hi, Htoo Naing ~ Could you please say something more about your added detail to Yasa where you wrote: 1.Rupakkhandha Rupa + Khandha 18 Paramattha-Rupa( from 28, 10 are just ideas_1 space,2 Vinatti,3 Lahutadhi 4 Lakkhana) Thank you, connie 22182 From: Date: Wed May 14, 2003 3:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/14/2003 3:03:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. > > I don't think that saying "there is no one who sees" is extra- > precise. And I don't think it is necessary and skillful to assume a > self-existing agent engaging in operation then deny its existence. I > would say that the assumption of a self-existing agent is not to come > up in the first place. And I also don't think the analogy you use is > adequate. I would say that the dichotomy > of "conventional"/"unconventional" speech is unnecessary, a result of > complication/proliferation in thought, as the assumption of a self- > existing agent. I think that with the dichotomy > of "conventional"/"unconventional" you have run into > contradiction "there is someone who sees"/"there is no one who > sees". I don't think this contradiction is helpful in clear > communication. > > I think you might be interested in the essay "The Language Game" by > Gary Goss. (If you are interested in the essay, please do a search > with Google. I think the link is too long to fit in the message > without truncation.) > > Thank you again for your reply. Your further feedback is > welcome. > > Regards, > Victor ========================== Thank you for "The Language Game" suggestion. I look forward to finding and reading it. I can tell that you are an intelligent man, but I have a great deal of trouble understanding you. I think it possible that should I be able to come to understand you I might well learn something important, and I hope this essay will help me in this. With metta, Howard 22183 From: connie Date: Wed May 14, 2003 1:47pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - (and sankhara) Hi, Sarah ~ > [Even though this falls apart when Sariputta tells Maha-kotthita that > "Sensation, recognition and consciousness, Friend, are united, not > separate, and it is not possible to distinguish any difference between > them, even after repeatedly sifting through them."] ..... S: I don't have the full reference, but surely this means that like the oxen yoked together (is it that sutta about Kotthita??), the cetasikas such as vedana and sanna cannot be separated from citta but all arise together? They cannot arise on their own. Pls would you give the reference if there's anything further to discuss. ..... c: Mi.293 is Patrick Kearney's (Freedom and Bondage) reference for it and I have yet to see if I can find it on-line, so probably shouldn't have quoted it, but will continue with the second half anyway: "What one senses, one recognises; what one recognises, one cognises. Hence these phenomena are united, not separate, and it is not possible to distinguish any difference between them, even after repeatedly sifting through them." As you say, about interdependance, and he uses it in his discussion on 'contact' as one of the 12 links. ---------- >This (kamma) > conditions psychic activity, ensuring constant motion and arising... our > intention to continue has been formed. > > constant motion? Clinging/Upadana (that by means of which an active > process is kept going... 'taking'... and what conditions becoming/bhava) > is the support. .... S: Sorry, I got lost. ..... c: (8 That happens when you follow someone else trying to find their way. I still can't untangle that whole line of 'thought' but it has something to do with Nibbana not arising (motionlessness as opposed to samsara) and someone (??) saying "the states of mind which realize nibbana are called liberations (vimokkha)". If we go anywhere with this, I'm not leading. But Kearney again (crediting PTS Pali-English dict): Upadana is one of a number of terms from the same root which contain a complex of related meanings. Upadana is "that ... by means of which an active process is kept alive or going". It comes from: upa, denoting nearness or close touch, with the idea of approach from below or rest on top; a, "towards (oneself)"; and da, "to give". It can mean "taking up"; or "that which is placed under, support". ------------ S: You were also asked about the dying process and bardo states or intermediate states before another rebirth. There isn't any such concept in the Theravada teachings and I don't believe it would make any sense. This issue is raised in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy) and I can quote some detail if you wish as it's often raised by those familiar with other traditions. ....... c: Yes, Please! That would be great. peace, connie 22184 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 14, 2003 10:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - (and sankhara) Hi Connie, Just briefly - --- connie wrote: > Hi, Sarah ~ > > > [Even though this falls apart when Sariputta tells Maha-kotthita that > > "Sensation, recognition and consciousness, Friend, are united, not > > separate, and it is not possible to distinguish any difference between > > them, even after repeatedly sifting through them."] .... > c: Mi.293 is Patrick Kearney's (Freedom and Bondage) reference for it > and I have yet to see if I can find it on-line, so probably shouldn't > have quoted it, but will continue with the second half anyway: "What one > senses, one recognises; what one recognises, one cognises. Hence these > phenomena are united, not separate, and it is not possible to > distinguish any difference between them, even after repeatedly sifting > through them." As you say, about interdependance, and he uses it in his > discussion on 'contact' as one of the 12 links. ..... Thanks and I’m glad you quoted as you did;-). Actually, I thought it was this one when I wrote yesterday but couldn’t find it quickly in MN. It’s from the Mahavedella Sutta, MN43 and I discussed this particular passage with Frank in this post: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m16856.html Here is part of the discussion with B.Bodhi’s transl also: ***** --- Frank Kuan wrote: > > I re-discovered a great passage in the M today: > > M43 mahavedalla (greater series of q & a) > > p. 389 b.bodhi version: > > "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend - > these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is > impossible to separate each of these states from the > others in order to describe the difference between > then. For what one feels, that one perceives; and what > one perceives, that one cognizes. That is why these > states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is > impossible to separate each of these states from the > others in order to describe the difference between > them." ..... There is a summary note from MA (the comy) at the back: "MA: Wisdom has been excluded from this exchange because the intention is to show only the states that are conjoined on every occasion of consciousness." ..... S:In other words, it doesn't mean the different characteristics cannot be known, but when they arise with a citta experiencing an object they are always 'conjoined', being universal cetasikas (mental factors accompanying all cittas). ..... ***** Like the passage Andrew quoted from K. Milinda, interdependence and co-arising don’t mean the characteristics cannot be known by panna. I’ll come back to the rest of your post and intermediate states later. Metta, Sarah ===== 22185 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 14, 2003 10:51pm Subject: Yasa - two websites Hi Yasa, When you first referred StarKid Sandy to the websites below, I had no idea that they were ones you had formed. I understand this from your subsequent reply to Sandy, but would be glad if you would confirm and tell us anything else by way of an introduction. As Sandy said, they are very informative. They're also quick and user-friendly (a big plus for me;-)). I also saw (on a rather quick look) that there was an article on saddha too;-) You may wish to quote from it when you reply to me. I couldn't, however, find a picture of you amongst those there. This reminds me, can we persuade you and any of the others who've delayed or only recently joined DSG to add a pic to the photo album to be found on the DSG homepage?? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup We'd all be grateful and Christine and Kom are happy to give any assistance needed/cope with any excuses for further delay. Best wishes and appreciation again. I hope I haven't got mixed up. Metta, Sarah ====== Yasa wrote: Please have a quick look at the following two websites: It will answer your first question and others. http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/ayubovan http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/SAMBODHI with metta, Yasalalaka 22186 From: yasalalaka Date: Thu May 15, 2003 0:17am Subject: Re: Yasa - two websites --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Yasa, > > When you first referred StarKid Sandy to the websites below, I had no idea > that they were ones you had formed. I understand this from your subsequent > reply to Sandy, but would be glad if you would confirm and tell us > anything else by way of an introduction. As Sandy said, they are very > informative. They're also quick and user-friendly (a big plus for me;-)). > I also saw (on a rather quick look) that there was an article on saddha > too;-) You may wish to quote from it when you reply to me. > > I couldn't, however, find a picture of you amongst those there. This > reminds me, can we persuade you and any of the others who've delayed or > only recently joined DSG to add a pic to the photo album to be found on > the DSG homepage?? > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup > We'd all be grateful and Christine and Kom are happy to give any > assistance needed/cope with any excuses for further delay. > > Best wishes and appreciation again. I hope I haven't got mixed up. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== > > Yasa wrote: > Please have a quick look at the following two websites: It will > answer your first question and others. > > http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/ayubovan > http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/SAMBODHI > > with metta, > Yasalalaka > > _______________________Yasa replies___________________________ Dear Sarah, Thank you for looking at my websites. I wanted to do a proper site including my activities and Buddhism, by way of keeping myself occupied in my retirement. I do some paintings, in pastel mostly so I did a website for that. It is rather a window to "myself " (conventional reality): http://perso.wanadoo.fr/charlesperera/ My server allows space for small websites of 8 pages. I utilised that for two websites on Buddhism. The first one "Buddha": http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/ayubovan , gives a short history of the ancient India when the Prince Siddhartha was born, up to his leaving the Palace to become an ascetic. I have included lots of Buddhist statues coming from almost all the Buddhist countries in Asia. I think, it is unique because you cannot get a whole collection of images of Buddha statues in one website, any where else in the web. The second one "Dhamma" http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/SAMBODHI, is about the Enlightenment . There I have included some facts about his teachings. I have written the articles myself and I still haven't got down to re-reading them to edit. This second site needs a few more articles; one will be on Meditation, and perhaps a small introduction to Abhidhamma, when I have finished reading Nina's book ADL. Reading takes a lot of time as I am taking notes on every chapter, so that when I write I need not go back to the book. I have also included a glossary mainly related to words in use in Meditation. I am devoted to Satipatthana Sutta; which is my favourite. And do lot of Meditation. Of the other Buddhist traditions, I have a great attraction to Zen (under the sixth patriarch). As far as photos are concerned I am an Abhidhammist and don't believe in a self - I am a paramatta dhamma !! These websites are not very intellectual works, but simple straight forward facts, about Buddhism. I did them for English speaking French web-surfers as an introduction to Buddhism, and to make myself familiar with the teachings, and as a quick reference. I was happy that little Sandy found them interesting. With metta, Yasa. 22187 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu May 15, 2003 1:32am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Hi Yasa, When you put forward your question to Jon about his `practice', I thought that it would be difficult for him to answer. I thought that it would be easy for someone who consciously sets a program of practice to describe, but for someone who does not view `himself' as following any particular formal `practice', the question puts him in a difficult position. But then I thought about the Visuddhimagga, "There is a Path, but no one who walks it", so why not "There is a practice, but no one practicing"?! But even with this idea, I think it is still not easy to talk about practice. Even though this may turn out to be "nothing new" I hope you don't mind me expressing myself. :-) I think conditions leading to the goal are very, very complex. When I read about the accumulations of parami for example, I appreciate that the Buddha showed us so many important details and their relations. It is inspiring to read that each of these perfections help and support each other, more inspiring is that it shows that it *can* be developed and because the Buddha showed us the Path, we don't have to feel hopeless and despondent. But it also shows that it is *not* easy, and that it is not a matter of simple wishing or making a resolve to follow a particular practice. As we have seen that only a set of accumulations ripe in terms of formerly developed panna and other kusala, can make a firm resolve and follow it through. Anything less than this would not lead to the correct results, ie. becoming a Sammasambuddha. How can you and I for example, resolve to be always truthful to the arising dhamma and not end up breaking our resolve over and over again? And what happens when we do this? We create more and more akusala kamma!! Can we then reach the goal?! I appreciate being reminded about all kinds of kusala, and I trust that if there is any wise reflection even for a moment, it accumulates. I do not feel compelled to try to seek opportunities to `do good'. I feel that carrying along with me the burden of a `self' doing something, will cause the defilements to take over and distort my perception of whatever I do. The self will be more concerned about apparent results and I may end up suppressing akusala tendencies, but I may not come to understand them. It makes sense to infer that precisely because we are so ignorant of our akusala, that it ultimately gets the upper hand. You took the example of my daily life activities to highlight how lack of firm resolve to practice results in a chaotic day to day existence (forgive me if I interpret your meaning wrongly). Well, I know how much worse it was before I studied Dhamma. Anyway, I am not so concerned about results in my daily life which I know the particular conditions to be quite difficult as compared to most people. What I give most importance to is when I study Dhamma, I must get it right. In other words, I am primarily concerned about "Right View". I will live thousands of lifetimes more as a human being, and each lifetime I will be reaping different kammic fruits, the `stories' will all be very different. I don't care about getting good grades as far as social behavior is concerned, even though I see value in say developing metta, mudita and karuna, what I see as more important not so much as a goal, but as a leader wherever I be, is `right view'. What is the use of being a `Mother Teresa' if it means endlessly spinning in samsara? I know that you do not stress this, but `mindfulness'. What you call mindfulness however, in your examples, is not satipatthana as I know it. Sati of this level only understands "realities", and this is not "a sort of awakening" as you think Jon implies. We DO see, smell, touch, taste, hear and correspondingly the objects of visible object, odour, etc do appear. Only all this is hidden by the mind-door process of `thinking', or in other words Avijja, (aviddya). And it is this very process that you seem to be encouraging in others when you suggest, being mindful of `eating', `walking', `writing' and knowing that `one is angry' etc. This is the development of more ignorance in my view, and there is a danger that it will lead to the kind of outlook which I pointed to in the above paragraph. You talk about the preciousness of the Buddhadhamma, and the sense of urgency one should feel having received this great gift. I think so too. But the whole of the Tipitaka can be and remain just "words" if we don't understand it correctly. Today we feel secure and confident because we have the teachings with us. And we have a sense, rightly or wrongly of being put on track by the Teachings. Tomorrow we may be born an animal or a human being when the Sasana has died out. At that time it would *still* possible to know that "I" am walking, eating, feeling anger etc, but no will be there to tell us that hardness, sound, seeing, anger, jealousy, thinking etc, are only elements which arise and fall due to conditions!! This is the important message of the Buddha, I think. Like I said in an earlier letter, just because we do not have anatta sanna yet, it does not mean that we *have to* work from the standpoint of conventional realities. There is danger in thinking that you must understand conventional realities before you understand ultimate realities and in the process deal with Mr. Smith and Mr. Yasa as if they were real. This is the kind of thing Mr. Mara would suggest, there is so much food for so many other illusions to build upon. The knowledge of Anatta, Anicca and Dukkha would in the end be as Mara would have us believe. The teachings of Paramattha Dhammas are part of the Pariyatti which are the necessary conditions for patipatti and pativedha. "I" sitting, standing, walking, eating is inimical to this ultimate knowledge, I think. Today is Visakha Bucha, and I wish you and everyone well. But more important than this, whatever the correct interpretation of the Buddha's teachings is, I hope we will all get it right one day! :-) Metta, Sukin. ------------------------------------------------------- > Jon, > Thank you for your attempt to answer the question I posed. From both > Azita's and your post I did not learn much of your "practice of > Abhidhamma". Living the moment is very well, if there is some > thing else to support it. > > I read a post by Sukin, where he tells about how he spent a whole > morning. He attended a parent's day at his son's school. He had not > taken money with him, and he had to go to his work place to collect > the money and then went home very tired . He was very hungry 22188 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 15, 2003 1:33am Subject: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Dear Friends, There have been many discussions on whether concepts (pannatti) can be the objects of consciousness and whether they can be known by knowledge or wisdom. Most of us rely on English translations and in any case have limited knowledge of the terms and ideas being referred to. Some of the differences in understanding are related to the widely held understanding that all objects (arammana) of consciousness are equivalent to the internal and external sense fields (ayatana) and that the latter therefore include concepts (pannatti). Many have referred to different suttas, but Swee Boon wrote a particularly clear post on this topic: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/messages/21647 From previous detailed discussions on ayatana, I believe the equating of ayatanas with arammana (as elaborated in Swee Boon’s post) is incorrect, though very widely held by Pali scholars. I hope I can present the differences simply and clearly here. ============================================================ Arammana (object) ******** 1. visible object 2. sound 3. odour 4. taste 5. body-impression 6. mind-object (dhammaaramma.na) ..... Note: Dhammarammana (mind-object) 1. nama, inc. nibbana 2. rupa 3. concept (pannatti) ..... Note: any arammana, including concepts can be the object (i.e experienced by) of consciousness (citta/mano/vi~n~nana) ==================== Ayatana (bases, sense fields) ******* a) 6 internal bases 1. eye-base/sense (cakkhu pasada rupa = cakkhayatana) 2. ear-base 3. nose-base 4. tongue-base 5. body-sense base 6. mind-base/consciousness (manaayatana) (refers to all cittas) ...... b) 6 external bases 1. visible object (rupayatana) 2. sound 3. odour 4. taste 5. tactile object - cohesion, temperature, solidity 6. mind-object (dhammayatana) ....... Note: Dhammayatana (mind-objects) 1. All cetasikas 2. subtle rupas (sukhuma rupas) 3. nibbana ....... Note: Ayatanas refer ONLY to ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) and NOT to concepts. ================================================= Confusions arise from translated terms of dhamma, dhammarammana, mano, manayatana, dhammayatana etc . Furthemore, sometimes, dhammarammana refers to dhammayatana and we have to look at the context and commentary notes. ..... Note: dhamma can refer to paramattha dhammas only or to dhammarammana inc pannatti and has to be understood in context. ..... A rough guide: B.Bodhi:- ayatana -base mano (manayatana)- mind, mental dhamma (dhammayatana), dhammarammana- mental phenomenon, mental object, mind object B.Thanissaro:- mano (manayatana) - intellect dhamma (dhammayatana) - ideas ..... Examples from Salyatanasamyutta(Connected Discourses on the Six Sense Bases), Samyutta Nikaya. As is apparent in the heading, ‘Salayatana’, it is the ayatanas being referred to. The first section furthermore refers to the internal and external bases (ayatanas) as listed above under ayatana. I can’t find a translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, but still under Salayatanasamyutta, we have looked at translations of the Sabba Sutta before. The Comy notes make it clear that the all (sabba) refers to everything knowable, the all of the sense bases (aayatanasabba), the 12 ayatana. ..... Note: intellect and ideas as used by Thanissaro Bhikkhu below, refer to manayatana and dhammayatana as classified above: i.e cittas, cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. I believe the notes he gives after the sutta (see link) are therefore incorrect. These are not easy aspects to comprehend, but I hope these notes may help clarify a little other discussions about sutta passages being discussed where there is some controversy about whether paramattha dhammas or pannatti are being referred to by translation terms, such as mind, mind objects, intellect or ideas. Of course any comments are welcome. For more details on ayatanas, see posts under ‘ayatana’ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Metta, Sarah ===== http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-023.html Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.23 Sabba Sutta The All Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 22189 From: yasalalaka Date: Thu May 15, 2003 3:03am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Yasa, > > When you put forward your question to Jon about his `practice', I > thought that it would be difficult for him to answer. I thought that it > would be easy for someone who consciously sets a program of practice > to describe, but for someone who does not view `himself' as following > any particular formal `practice', the question puts him in a difficult > position. But then I thought about the Visuddhimagga, "There is a Path, > but no one who walks it", so why not "There is a practice, but no one > practicing"?! But even with this idea, I think it is still not easy to talk > about practice. > Even though this may turn out to be "nothing new" I hope you don't mind > me expressing myself. :-) > I think conditions leading to the goal are very, very complex. When I > read about the accumulations of parami for example, I appreciate that > the Buddha showed us so many important details and their relations. It > is inspiring to read that each of these perfections help and support each > other, more inspiring is that it shows that it *can* be developed and > because the Buddha showed us the Path, we don't have to feel hopeless > and despondent. But it also shows that it is *not* easy, and that it is not > a matter of simple wishing or making a resolve to follow a particular > practice. > As we have seen that only a set of accumulations ripe in terms of > formerly developed panna and other kusala, can make a firm resolve > and follow it through. Anything less than this would not lead to the > correct results, ie. becoming a Sammasambuddha. How can you and I > for example, resolve to be always truthful to the arising dhamma and > not end up breaking our resolve over and over again? And what > happens when we do this? We create more and more akusala kamma!! > Can we then reach the goal?! > I appreciate being reminded about all kinds of kusala, and I trust that if > there is any wise reflection even for a moment, it accumulates. I do not > feel compelled to try to seek opportunities to `do good'. I feel that > carrying along with me the burden of a `self' doing something, will cause > the defilements to take over and distort my perception of whatever I do. > The self will be more concerned about apparent results and I may end > up suppressing akusala tendencies, but I may not come to understand > them. It makes sense to infer that precisely because we are so ignorant > of our akusala, that it ultimately gets the upper hand. > > You took the example of my daily life activities to highlight how lack of > firm resolve to practice results in a chaotic day to day existence (forgive > me if I interpret your meaning wrongly). Well, I know how much worse > it was before I studied Dhamma. Anyway, I am not so concerned about > results in my daily life which I know the particular conditions to be quite > difficult as compared to most people. What I give most importance to is > when I study Dhamma, I must get it right. In other words, I am primarily > concerned about "Right View". I will live thousands of lifetimes more as > a human being, and each lifetime I will be reaping different kammic > fruits, the `stories' will all be very different. I don't care about getting > good grades as far as social behavior is concerned, even though I see > value in say developing metta, mudita and karuna, what I see as more > important not so much as a goal, but as a leader wherever I be, is `right > view'. What is the use of being a `Mother Teresa' if it means endlessly > spinning in samsara? > I know that you do not stress this, but `mindfulness'. What you call > mindfulness however, in your examples, is not satipatthana as I know it. > Sati of this level only understands "realities", and this is not "a sort of > awakening" as you think Jon implies. We DO see, smell, touch, taste, > hear and correspondingly the objects of visible object, odour, etc do > appear. Only all this is hidden by the mind-door process of `thinking', or > in other words Avijja, (aviddya). And it is this very process that you > seem to be encouraging in others when you suggest, being mindful > of `eating', `walking', `writing' and knowing that `one is angry' etc. This > is the development of more ignorance in my view, and there is a danger > that it will lead to the kind of outlook which I pointed to in the above > paragraph. You talk about the preciousness of the Buddhadhamma, and > the sense of urgency one should feel having received this great gift. I > think so too. But the whole of the Tipitaka can be and remain > just "words" if we don't understand it correctly. Today we feel secure > and confident because we have the teachings with us. And we have a > sense, rightly or wrongly of being put on track by the Teachings. > Tomorrow we may be born an animal or a human being when the > Sasana has died out. At that time it would *still* possible to know > that "I" am walking, eating, feeling anger etc, but no will be there to tell > us that hardness, sound, seeing, anger, jealousy, thinking etc, are only > elements which arise and fall due to conditions!! This is the important > message of the Buddha, I think. > Like I said in an earlier letter, just because we do not have anatta sanna > yet, it does not mean that we *have to* work from the standpoint of > conventional realities. There is danger in thinking that you must > understand conventional realities before you understand ultimate > realities and in the process deal with Mr. Smith and Mr. Yasa as if they > were real. This is the kind of thing Mr. Mara would suggest, there is so > much food for so many other illusions to build upon. The knowledge of > Anatta, Anicca and Dukkha would in the end be as Mara would have us > believe. The teachings of Paramattha Dhammas are part of the Pariyatti > which are the necessary conditions for patipatti and pativedha. "I" > sitting, standing, walking, eating is inimical to this ultimate knowledge, I > think. > Today is Visakha Bucha, and I wish you and everyone well. But more > important than this, whatever the correct interpretation of the Buddha's > teachings is, I hope we will all get it right one day! :-) > > Metta, > Sukin. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Jon, > > Thank you for your attempt to answer the question I posed. From > both > > Azita's and your post I did not learn much of your "practice of > > Abhidhamma". Living the moment is very well, if there is some > > thing else to support it. > > > > I read a post by Sukin, where he tells about how he spent a whole > > morning. He attended a parent's day at his son's school. He had not > > taken money with him, and he had to go to his work place to collect > > the money and then went home very tired . He was very hungry ___________________________________yasa_________________________ Sukin, Thank you for your response. I can understand "non-conceptual" practice. "Neither the observer nor the observed" and so on "neither the practice nor the practitioner" with metta, Yasa 22190 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 15, 2003 3:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing only sees. Hi Rob M (Sukin & Num), Many thanks for your good wishes today and for Christine’s also. Writing about ayatanas reminded me of this post of yours to Nina which I hope she responds to on return. I also think, Sukin, that this one of Rob M’s (from 10th May, ‘Seeing only Sees’) and his other current one to Nina (22030) on kamma and seeds would be good to raise in your Sat discussion for Num to report back on in the meantime;-) Meanwhile, a few comments (hope it’s not just idle chatter, but could be): --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Nina, > > If I understand your points, you are saying: > - All cittas in the eye-door citta-process experience the visible > object, not a mental image > - All cittas in the mind-door process immediately following the eye- > door process also experience the visible object, not a mental image .... I understand the same. ..... > I have read these points before and the first point makes sense to > allow "synchronization" between the sense-door citta process and the > rupa that is its object. > > Nevertheless, I still have a problem in understanding this. > > Consider a eye-consciousness citta. The object is visible object and > the base is eye-base. I envision this citta arising at the back of > the retina. .... I’m not sure it’s helpful to envision in this way.... ..... >At this moment, the visible object is impinging on the > eye-base and I believe that this is the reason that vitakka and > vicara are not required in this citta. .... Can we say the eye-base (cakkhu pasada rupa) is the base and the door (dvara) at these moments - ie. the means by which the seeing experiences its object. It doesn’t need vitakka and vicara to experience the object because it ‘sees’, unlike the other cittas in the eye-door process. (note: I’m just repeating what I *think* I’ve heard/remembered.). ..... > Now let us consider the next citta in the eye-door citta process, > the receiving citta. At this moment, the visible object is still > impinging on the eye-base, ..... I’m not sure if we can put it like this. The cakkhu pasada rupa now only acts as the dvara through which the other cittas in the process experience the object. It is in not the physical base anymore.I have to say, though, that I still find it hard to understand what dvara really means and look forward to any further clarifications from others;-) ..... >but this citta arises at some other place > than the eye-base (the heart base). If I understand correctly, this > citta (and all other cittas, except sense-consciousness cittas and > higer-level jhana cittas) accesses its object through the heart base > and this is why it needs vitakka and vicara. ..... Right (I think)- I woudn’t say ‘through’ the heart base. The heart base (hadaya-vatthu) is now the physical base or place of origin. ADL ch17 adds more on bases and doors. ..... >This is where I am > confused. Can you give me an analogy to explain how these other > cittas can access an object that exists somewhere else (i.e. eye- > base rather than heart base). ..... via the eye-door (cakkhu dvara). I don’t think we can say the (visible) object ‘exists’ there, but is experienced through the cakkhu dvara. Rob, as you’ll have already gathered, I’m quite out of my depth and hope that Nina, K.Sujin & Num or anyone else can clarify further. As for analogies, could we use falling dominoes or ‘Chinese whispers’ whereby the first domino struck or the first person to listen to the tale represents seeing consciousness directly ‘seeing’ the object which impacts and able to perform its function with the 7 ‘universals’, and the following dominoes or Chinese whisperers represent the following cittas in the process, using the same ‘door’ or channel to experience the object, but having a different base or position?? If I was out of my depth with the abhidhamma details, I’m probably even further out when I try to find analogies, but I think I’ve clarified a little to myself in the process and thank you for that;-)Look forward to any comments now or after Num or Nina (or anyone else) writes more. Love your questions to Nina and all. With metta, Sarah ===== 22191 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 15, 2003 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries. Messengers. Dear Htoo, It's good to see you back again - you were missed! I'll look forward to your 'new topics for lively discussion'. Nina's on holiday and without internet access until about the 24th May, but I'll draw her attention to any posts addressed to her that have come in since she left or which come in for her before she returns. I hope you're well. With metta and Vesak Greetings to you and all. Sarah ====== --- htootintnaing wrote: > Dear Nina, > > Thanks for your mail directed to me and I have to say sorry that I > was not in contact with the group for a while.I am delighted to read > your explanation about eye-opener and messanger.I will soon take part > in discussion and will post new topics for lively discussion. 22192 From: nidive Date: Thu May 15, 2003 6:49am Subject: Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Sarah, > There have been many discussions on whether concepts (pannatti) > can be the objects of consciousness and whether they can be known > by knowledge or wisdom. > Some of the differences in understanding are related to the widely > held understanding that all objects (arammana) of consciousness are > equivalent to the internal and external sense fields (ayatana) and > that the latter therefore include concepts (pannatti). Thank you for your post on this topic. But I still think that "ideas" in Majjhima Nikaya 148, Chachakka Sutta, The Six Sextets includes concepts. When I think about the concept "my mother has cheated me", I feel angry. It is only being mindful of this feeling that anger simmers down more quickly and then disappears. I am not angry at rupas or namas or nibbana, but I am angry at the thought "my mother has cheated me". If "ideas" doesn't include concepts, there simply isn't any other way to put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now. "Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one does not relish it, welcome it, or remain fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, beat one's breast or become distraught, then one's resistance obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, & escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession doesn't get obsessed. That a person -- through abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, through abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, through uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, through abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing -- would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing is possible. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html Swee Boon 22193 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 3:25am Subject: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, all - I just reread the beautiful Parinibbana Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya. It can be found at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn06-015.html Two elements, in particular, struck me. One is that even at the Buddha's death, there is such great emphasis on the jhanas. The second is the final line, attributed to Ven. Anuruddha, the arahant, which is the following: > Like a flame's unbinding > was the liberation > of awareness. Note that this does not speak of the cessation, termination, annihilation, or final and complete destruction of awareness. It speaks of "the liberation of awareness." I would suppose we can, each of us, make of each of these points what we will. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22194 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 15, 2003 6:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects Dear Htoo Naing, Fascinating and most impressive. You seem to be speaking from direct experience of jhaanabhavana in terms understandable by way of abhidhamma. I believe I should follow your example, as a way of kusala bhavana and 'a peaceful abiding here and now'. I recognize the hindrances you say must be eradicated from the suttanta (as well as the vinaya and the abhidhamma, of course). Rather than 'eradicated' (since they must continue to exist latently until enlightenment), do you mean 'suppressed' by jhaana? Finally, do I understand correctly that the aaramma.na, 'satta pa.n.natta', is the idea of a living being (or living beings)? (Is 'pa.n.natta' a form of pa.n.natti'?) Saadhu, Mike p.s. Thanks also, Larry, for this reference. ----- Original Message ----- From: Htoo Naing To: Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects > Dear Member, > > Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.Very nice piece of Metta-Bhavana. > > The Aramana of the Bhavana is just Pannatta.One needs to spread evenly over all possible being. > > Meditating mind is homing on the Hadaya Vatthu of the particular Satta who meditate Metta-Bhavana. > > When Citta is stick firmly to that Satta-Pannatta,one will become to be aware of the existance of mental factors which are parts of Jhanacitta. > > Before this five hinderances have to be eradicated.They are sensual thoughts,destructive anger-guided thoughts,spreading away of thoughts and attention from the Satta-Panatta for Metta & repentence of not doing good things and doing bad things,laziness sleepiness and suspicious thoughts on the practice. > > If these five are cleared up and five parts of Jhanacittas are working vividly then Jhanacitta is going to arise soon. > > With Great Metta, > > Htoo Naing > > LBIDD@w... wrote: > Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & > ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), > Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html > > The Contemplation of Mental Objects > > The Five Hindrances > > 2. Anger continued, [the following is all subcommentary]: > > The thought of love [metta] is a sublime state of mind [brahmavihara]; > it is one's own state of freedom from hatred. A detailed description of > the way of developing love as a subject of meditation is given in the > Path of Purity. > > The following summary of hints gathered from different comments and the > Path of Purity will be helpful to a beginner: > > The love-thought of meditation is different from worldly attachment. It > is based on wishing well to all beings. The idea of possession of the > loved object is foreign to it. It is not a state of mind that encourages > exclusiveness. The aim of the meditation is finally to include in the > ambit of one's goodwill all beings equally, without distinction. "The > liberation of the mind through love" refers only to full concentration. > Without reaching full concentration there is no effective freedom from > anger. The beginner who works at this subject of meditation is not to > practice the thought of love at first: > > On a sensuously promising object of the opposite sex, as attachment > towards it might arise in the yogi's mind. > > On a dead person, as the practice would be futile. > > On an enemy, as anger might arise. > > On an indifferent person, as the practice might prove wearisome. > > On one who is very dear as the arousing of friendly thoughts without > attachment towards such a one would be tiring; and as mental agitation > might occur should even some slight trouble overtake that one. > > Taking up the practice of the love subject of meditation is the > generating, the bringing about of the characteristic, sign or mark, of > the love thought of meditation of him who through loving-kindness > gathers together all beings with goodwill. > > The reflection on the thought of love itself is the sign of the love > thought of meditation, because the reflection arisen first is the reason > of the later reflection. > > Spreading it particularly: Consecutively in the following order: to > oneself, to a friend, an indifferent person, and an enemy. Spreading it > generally: By breaking down all barriers, limits and reservations which > separate oneself from all others, and extending the same kind of > friendly thought to all. Directionally: Extending the thought of love > towards one point of the compass, for instance, the east. These three > kinds of spreading of the thought of love refer to the stage of > meditation of "taking up the practice of the thought of love" which > covers the training from the beginning to the attainment of partial > concentration (upacara samadhi). In regard to this state of meditation > the following is stated: Spreading the thought of love after > particularizing the direction by way of a monastery, a street, village > and so forth is one way and spreading the thought of love towards a > direction in space generally by way of the eastern direction and so > forth without specifying a monastery and so forth is another way of > practice > > The development of the jhana on the thought of love is the practice > again and again of the thought of love that has got partial > concentration. The development is done in three ways: (1) The spreading > of the love thought universally. This is done by wishing that all living > beings (satta), all breathing things (pana), all beings born (bhuta), > all persons (puggala), all who have reached a state of individuality > (attabhavapariyapanna), be without hatred, disease, and grief, and be > happy taking care of themselves (avera, abyapajjha, anigha hontu, suhki > attanam pariharantu). (2) Spreading the thought of love by way of a > restricted group of beings. This is done by wishing that all females, > all males, all purified ones, all non-purified ones, all divine beings, > all humans, all beings fallen to states of woe, be without hatred, > disease and grief and happy taking care of themselves. (3) Spreading the > thought of love directionally in space. This is done by restricting the > thought of love towards each of the ten directions in space: the > cardinal points, the intermediate points, and the zenith and nadir. And > it is also done by wishing that the beings in each of the directions > taken up, according to the divisions and groups given above, be without > hatred and so forth according to the formula already mentioned. > 22195 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu May 15, 2003 8:56am Subject: Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Dear Howard How are you? And joyous Vesak! You quoted the following. "Like a flame's unbinding was the liberation of awareness." Those verse lines are translation of the following Pali. "pajjotasseva nibbaanam, vimokkho cetaso ahuu"ti." Most people who read Pali do not translate the term "nibbaanam" as unbinding. The Pali phrase "pajjotasseva nibbaanam" should be translated as "Like a flame's extinguishment". To consult the meaning of nibbaanam in the Pali-English dictionary, please go to the following link, and type nibbana in the Search slot. http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/index.html Sorry to undermine the attachment to the non-existent consciousness / awareness after parinibbaana. With sympathy, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi, all - I just reread the beautiful Parinibbana Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya. It can be found at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn06-015.html Two elements, in particular, struck me. One is that even at the Buddha's death, there is such great emphasis on the jhanas. The second is the final line, attributed to Ven. Anuruddha, the arahant, which is the following: > Like a flame's unbinding > was the liberation > of awareness. Note that this does not speak of the cessation, termination, annihilation, or final and complete destruction of awareness. It speaks of "the liberation of awareness." I would suppose we can, each of us, make of each of these points what we will. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22196 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu May 15, 2003 9:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Dear NSB(Swee Boon), I am delighted to read this post and it clearly brings the message to me.Medium or shorter messages are more manageable rather than very very long message.Your message is good.Double or triple the size of this message will still be OK.I am longing for to read more of your posts. With Due Respect, Htoo Naing nidive wrote: Howard, > I assert the (passing) existence of thoughts for the same reason > as I assert the (passing) existence of sights and sounds - I > directly experience them. You, I and the Buddha cannot be all wrong. :-) There's no need for such an assertion. "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-041.html Swee Boon 22197 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu May 15, 2003 9:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Dear Connie, There is a Rupa called ''Pariccheda-rupa''.It is actually not a Paramattha Rupa.It is emptiness or space between or among Maha-Buta Rupas. Kaaya-Vinatti Rupa which lasts as long as its generating Citta exists.Its lifespan is one billionth of a blink.It appears along with Citta nad falls away at the same time with Citta.It is a live one and the moving pictures on film,movie,television,computer,internet and so on are not Vinatti. Vaci-Vinatti Rupa has nearly the same meaning as Kaaya-Vinatti Rupa.The difference is it is sound.Recorded sounds are not Vaci-Vinatti.Vaci-Vinatti is also Cittaja rupa and purely Cittaja one.Speech or sounds origionated from Sattas are Vaci-Vinatti.Both Vinatti are not real Rupa. There are three Lahutadhi-Rupa called Rupa-Lahuta(lightness or readiness or easiness of Rupas),Rupa-Muduta(tenderness or softness orwell-doing of Rupas) and Rupa-Kammannata(stability or unity or smartness of Rupas). Four Lakkhana Rupas are 1.Upacaya Rupa -initial formation of Rupa 2.Santati Rupa -developing Rupa to a mature one 3.Jarata Rupa -decaying or getting older or changing to bad state 4.Aniccata Rupa - Just disappearing or faint away or dying off of Rupas. Lakkhana Rupas are not real rupa and they are just marking of other Rupas or features of other Rupas. These matters were posted in my series ''(3)Rupa As A Ladder''.Type the heading including number in the search box and click search button.It will be brought to you.Any queries are welcome and thanks for your request. With Great Metta, Htoo Naing connie wrote: Hi, Htoo Naing ~ Could you please say something more about your added detail to Yasa where you wrote: 1.Rupakkhandha Rupa + Khandha 18 Paramattha-Rupa( from 28, 10 are just ideas_1 space,2 Vinatti,3 Lahutadhi 4 Lakkhana) Thank you, connie 22198 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu May 15, 2003 9:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Wesak Dear Moderators,Members and all Dhamma Friends, May I change this topic to ''Calm and Peace Wesak''. Today is the Birthday(also Enlightened Day and Parinibbana Day) of our great teacher The Buddha The Great.I myself have been keeping eight precepts. Worldly people would say ''Happy Birth Day..'' and so on.But Wesak should really be calm and peaceful. When we do meritorious deed there arise Kusala Cittas and along with Kusala Cittas,19 Sobana Cetasikas arise.These Cetasikas help calm and peaceful. May you all be calm and peaceful on Wesak Day. With Much Metta, Htoo Naing robmoult wrote: Just want to wish all DSGrs, especially our moderators, a very happy Wesak! Metta, Rob M :-) 22199 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 15, 2003 10:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Wesak Hello Htoo Naing, and all, Thank you for this suggestion, 'calm and peace' is a great way of considering Vesak. This weekend some of us from dsg will be meeting, as we do a few times a year, at Andrew's property at Cooran in South East Queensland. Azita is coming down from Cairns, KenH, and Steve (Bodhi 2500), will also be there, plus some others who aren't (yet?) dsg members. I know that we all will have our usual lovely weekend of calm and peace, laughter and camaraderie, as we study the Dhamma and discuss our understandings. (Perhaps we will have some questions for the List when we return). metta and peace, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: > Dear Moderators,Members and all Dhamma Friends, > > May I change this topic to ''Calm and Peace Wesak''. > > Today is the Birthday(also Enlightened Day and Parinibbana Day) of our great teacher The Buddha The Great.I myself have been keeping eight precepts. > > Worldly people would say ''Happy Birth Day..'' and so on.But Wesak should really be calm and peaceful. > > When we do meritorious deed there arise Kusala Cittas and along with Kusala Cittas,19 Sobana Cetasikas arise.These Cetasikas help calm and peaceful. > > May you all be calm and peaceful on Wesak Day. > > With Much Metta, > > Htoo Naing > > robmoult wrote: > Just want to wish all DSGrs, especially our moderators, a very happy > Wesak! > > Metta, > Rob M :-)