22400 From: Date: Fri May 23, 2003 5:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion To Chris, Mike, Larry, Sarah and others: In a message dated 5/22/03 9:02:03 PM, mlnease@z... writes: << > There was a discussion of detachment and compassion, (extremely) > loosely based on an article I brought along. It somehow evolved into > a discussion of the Iraq war and peace marches. I'm not sure we > moved past talking about the relative merits of "no-self", "doing > something" vs."just sitting on the cushion and pervading loving or > compassionate thoughts" - and there was a slight disagreement on > whether peace marches are full of dosa and righteous anger or not. As > usual, it was stated, 'these are just stories anyway.' - I never do > fully grasp this, 'my stories' are riveting :-) and either feel very > good or very bad. I can't just brush them aside like last weeks' > T.V. soapie. > We didn't seem to find an answer to the question about "How are we to > live an 'examined life if there is no-self, no-control?' > Even 'listening to the true dhamma, reflecting ... discussing with > Admirable friends ... and practising in accordance with the true > Dhamma, seems to imply 'someone' who can have 'some control' and 'the > ability to choose, plan and do' to some extent. > > So ... what do you all reckon? The original questions were: > > 1. If compassion means to relieve suffering in a positive way, and > detachment to remain aloof from the world, how can the two be > practised together? Karu.naa (compassion) doesn't mean 'to relieve suffering in a positive way'. It is a mental factor, and one that's difficult to understand, not the 'feeling bad for someone' it's usually taken to mean, in my opinion--feeling bad must always be akusala, I think. > 2. Does detachment in Buddhism imply lack of concern for humanity? As you know, I'm not a Buddhist and have no interest in religion. That said, in my opinion again (of course!), detachment born of understanding (as opposed to indifference) is the greatest force for good known to humanity, both on an individual and on a social level. That's what I reckon, anyhow... mike >> %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: This has been an interesting dialog to follow, all good thoughts, and please excuse me now putting in just a few pennies in the dhana jar. In the Satipatthana Sutta, MN 10, the historic Buddha describes a training program, that leads ultimately to enlightenment. MN 10.2 "The direct path for the purification of beings..." for the relief of suffering "...for the attainment of the true way, for the realization of Nibbana – namely, the four foundations of mindfulness" The first stage is developing concentration and calm abiding through anapana, breath observation MN 10.4. In MN 10.5 the yogi is instructed to contemplate the body as a body, what has become known as the Vipassana meditation technique, and not to have any clinging in this world. It is through the avoidance of clinging that dispassion emerges. As we read through the Satipatthana Sutta we find a progressive practice that leads the yogi from suffering to Nibbana through the various stages which lead from dispassion, or detachment, through the arising of equanimity and the other 6 enlightenment factors MN 10.42. The arising of equanimity and the other 6 enlightenment factors occurs in jhana 3 and above which lead to the arising of the Brahmavihara, which are Karruna (compassion), Metta (loving kindness), Upekkha (equanimity) and sympathetic joy. Since the yogi has developed first dispassion (detachment) then he or she does not suffer for humanity, because they have relieved their own suffering. So, far from being stoic and disinterested, ultimately, the yogi cultivates compassion, loving kindness, and sympathetic joy, or a loving positive regard for all beings. The yogi, though, in their daily life can either choose to sit on the cushion and "radiate" loving kindness, or to become a peace activist. Either path I believe is valid, but for one who seeks enlightenment, or has attained it, I believe the peace activism must not have any element of an attachment to the outcome, or there can be no compassion in their actions, only attachment. Best to all, layman Jeff 22401 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 23, 2003 11:28am Subject: FW: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 3. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Fri, 23 May 2003 10:34:19 +0200 Aan: Pali yahoo Onderwerp: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 3. Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 3. After my explanation of the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta Lodewijk and I had the following discussion: Nina: Rahula had to apply himself to development of the mind like the earth, he had to be steadfast and unshakable. He had to be unmoved by pleasant or unpleasant objects. When we experience a pleasant object we are bound to like it and when we experience an unpleasant object we are bound to dislike it. The Commentary explains about the cittas rooted in attachment (lobha) and the cittas rooted in aversion (dosa) which may arise. Rahula had to learn not to be overcome by objects. This is like a test we have to pass. Lodewijk: Do I have to pass this test? N: We all have. L: This is very difficult, I cannot do it. N: Rahula was ripe for arahatship, the arahat is steady and unshakable when facing pleasant and unpleasant objects. We have to develop understanding of the objects that present themselves through the senses and the mind-door. It is said in the Commentary that Rahula had to develop vipassanaa pa~n~naa. He had to develop understanding of ultimate realityies, of nama and rupa. L: We have to pass tests in daily life all the time. Daily life is social, we meet other people whether we like it or not. We have to develop metta. N: We have to develop all four brahma viharas: metta, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity. We have serious problems in our family and we have to face controversial behaviour of others. The citta may be completely overcome by situations, but we have to remember that the Buddha said: It is important to remember that in the ultimate sense our difficult situations, our unsurmountable problems, are only different experiences through the six doors, pleasant or unpleasant, and that they are conditioned. We cannot change the objects we have to experience. We have to remember that kamma brings its appropriate result. This can be the condition for equanimity when facing problems. Rahula had to become like the earth when facing pleasant and unpleasant impressions. We have to develop patience with regard to what is desirable and what is undesirable. Just now I failed the test. When we were talking about the Sutta at the dining table of the hotel, we were all the time interrupted by people who served food and wine and by a talkative fellow guest, sitting at a table next to us, who started a conversation. I had to stop my explanation and therefore I had aversion, dosa. Dosa is often conditioned by conceit. We think, ³How can he do this to me² and then we cling to the importance of self. We need to remember the dustrag mentality of Sariputta. L: I would like you to repeat all that you said about Rahula tomorrow, since we were interrupted in our conversation. I fail all the time, I cannot pass the test. N: If we say all the time that we cannot do it, is there not an idea of self who cannot pass the test? It depends on conditions whether we can pass the test, and the condition is the development of right understanding. The Commentary to the Mahaaraahulovadasutta refers several times to the ³Discourse on the Elephant's Footprint" (M 28, translation of Wheel 101). We read : The same is said about feeling, perception (sa~n~naa), san"khaarakkhandha (the activities) and consciousness (vi~n~naa.na). We then read: ³And his mind enters into that very object (taking it just as an impersonal) element, and acquires confidence, steadiness and decision (herein)². It is very helpful to see that our life is in the ultimate sense only one moment of experiencing an object. Seeing is completely different from hearing or thinking, these are only cittas dependent on different contacts, experiencing different objects. I quote from my ³Abhidhamma in Daily Life²: When we see our life as conditioned namas and rupas we shall be less taken in by difficult circumstances. When someone scolds us, it does not matter, there is only the experience of sound and this is dependent on contact. Intellectual understanding, pariyatti, is only a beginning. Intellectual understanding can help us to a certain extent and it is a foundation of patipatti, the practice, vipassanaa, which is awareness and direct understanding of naama and ruupa. Patipatti will lead to the realization of the truth, pativedha. We need many reminders to begin being aware of naama and ruupa. The texts can be a real support. Jim suggested to me that I do research on the passage He provided me with a long list of textual references of a passage similar to this. I find that this research useful, not only from the point of grammatical knowledge, but that it is above all a reminder of the truth which is stated again and again. Several of these passages are in the ³Kindred Sayings²(II, ch XVII, §1) in the Suttas about gains, favours and flattery. The Buddha said: ³Wherefore, brethren, thus should you train yourselves:- ŒWhen gains, favours and flattery come to us, we will put them aside, nor when they come shall they take lasting hold on our hearts.¹ ² These are among the worldly conditions which are gain and loss, honour and dishonour, praise and blame, bodily wellbeing and pain. They change all the time. L: We are facing problems in our family which cannot be solved, and I cannot help being overcome by them, being worried about them day and night. N: It is helpful to remember that in the midst of trying circumstances there are also ultimate realities such as seeing, thinking or aversion. There are pleasant and unpleasant impressions assailing us all the time and they are bound to persist, unless understanding of them is developed. **** Nina. 22402 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 23, 2003 11:28am Subject: Questions from Jetty. Dear friends, A friend, Jetty, who lives in Bogor sent me some questions. Question1. I have the impression that kamma rules everything in our life. How is it possible that people can use parittas which can help them to overcome their misery, provided they have confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Nina: Kamma, good and bad deeds bring their appropriate results, vipaka. The result can take place at rebirth and throughout life in the form of pleasant or unpleasant experiences through the senses. We cannot say that whatever happens is due to kamma, because there are many different conditions which play their part in our life. There are factors which prevent kusala kamma or akusala kamma from producing results, there is counteractive kamma which prevents another kamma from producing result, it is all very complex. How do we react towards the different vipakas we receive? With kusala citta or with akusala citta? We can have wise attention or unwise attention to the pleasant or unpleasant object that is experienced. In Sri Lanka, in other Buddhist countries and also in Indonesia, parittas, certain texts, are recited to help people to have kusala citta and to overcome unhappiness. Paritta means protection. However, in how far people benefit from these depends on the citta. When people have confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, they have kusala citta instead of akusala citta with aversion about their misery. Best of all is the development of right understanding: in the ultimate sense there are only conditioned phenomena in our life: mental phenomena and physical phenomena. They arise because of their own conditions and they are beyond control, anatta. Q. 2. Anatta means that one has no power over oneself. Thus, when someone is on the right Path he does not have to strive to improve himself, he has the right conditions for obtaining happiness. Is the consequence of such a view not that one becomes passive? One leaves everything to conditions. N: At this moment we are full of the idea of self, only the person who has attained enlightenment has eradicated the wrong view of self. Therefore, it is natural that we are wondering whether we should strive for wholesomeness. We can begin to see that life is only in a moment, that when we see, our life is seeing, when we think, our life is thinking. These moments arise because of their own conditions and they change very rapidly. Actually, there is no time to think, what do I have to do, or to wonder, do I have to strive for wholesomeness? each moment of citta passes away immediately. It is most difficult to really understand the truth of anatta, it requires the development of right understanding of all realities of our life, on and on. We cannot understand anatta just by reasoning about it. As we begin to develop understanding of realities doubts about anatta will gradually disappear. Your questions are very much to the point and do continue asking. Nina. 22403 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 23, 2003 11:28am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 5. Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 5. Two cetasikas, ³applied thinking², vitakka, and ³sustained thinking², vicåra, accompany all cittas of the sense-sphere other than the sense-cognitions. Vitakka and vicåra arise in sense-door processes of cittas and in mind-door processes of cittas. Thus we see that thinking as used in conventional language is different from the cetasika vitakka arising at the moments other than the sense-cognitions. Vitakka hits or strikes the object so that citta can cognize it and vicåra, sustained thinking, keeps the accompanying dhammas occupied with the object. We may have theoretical understanding of the difference between the sense-cognitions and the other types of citta which are accompanied by vitakka and vicåra, but it is important to consider more thoroughly the difference between them when they occur now, in daily life. Seeing just sees, it arises on the eyebase, it does not need vitakka. The other cittas in that process need vitakka, they do not see, they do not arise at the eyebase. We can begin to understand that seeing which experiences colour, is different from the cittas accompanied by vitakka which ³strikes² the object that is experienced. There are many moments of thinking after seeing or hearing. Vitakka strikes the object we are thinking of again and again. Then there may be hearing which just experiences sound. After hearing many moments of thinking arise: we think of the origin of the sound and its meaning, the meaning of words. Cittas are diverse because of the accompanying cetasikas, and also because cittas belong to different jåtis. All cittas can be classified as four jåtis (jåti means nature or birth). They can be classified as: kusala (wholesome), akusala (unwholesome), vipåka (result of kamma) and kiriya (inoperative: neither cause nor result). The sense-cognitions are vipåka, result of kamma. Depending on the kamma that produces them, seeing can be kusala vipåkacitta, experiencing a pleasant object, or akusala vipåkacitta, experiencing an unpleasant object. There are five pairs of sense-cognitions that experience a sense object through each of the five sense-doors. It seems that seeing lasts for a while, but this is not so, it is immediately succeeded by other types of citta within the eye-door process. All the other cittas of the process are accompanied by more than the seven cetasikas which are the ³universals². The citta that precedes seeing-consciousness is a kiriyacitta (inoperative consciousness) which has the function of adverting to the object through the eye-door. It is the first citta of that process and it is accompanied by the universals and in addition by applied thinking, sustained thinking and determination (adhimokkha). Determination is manifested as decisiveness with regard to the object, it assists the citta in cognizing the object. Decisiveness is the opposite of doubt, it cannot arise together with doubt. There must be determination with regard to the object that impinges on one of the senses so that the sense-door process can begin and one of the sense-cognitions can arise. 22404 From: Date: Fri May 23, 2003 8:42am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? In a message dated 5/23/03 7:26:08 AM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << Hi Jeff, --- macdocaz1@a... wrote: > > %%%%%%%%%%%% > Jeff: > Yes, well said, but if we go back to this excellent quote, is it yours? ... just to butt in quickly - I posted the quote of Bhikkhu Bodhi's (from his introduction to the Brahmajala Sutta). Sorry for any confusion in my last post. One other quote was from the same source and one was from the commentary to the sutta itself. Hope this clarifies. I may add more later. Metta, Sarah >> Thanks, Sarah for the excellent quotes. Jeff 22405 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 23, 2003 6:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Hi Jon, I think you might find this discourse helpful. Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 Satta Sutta A Being http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn23-002.html Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > ... > > 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'. > > Thanks for these comments on the passage and my paraphrase of it. > > Would you care to share with us your understanding of intended > meaning of this passage, particularly the connection between the five > aggregates and the convention 'a being' that is being described here > (or in whatever terms you see it)? > > Thanks again. Looking forward to your further comments. > > Jon 22406 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 23, 2003 6:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi Htoo Naing, Thank you for your response. I think the comment in the page http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dukkha.html might be of some interest to you. I often use the term "dukkha" untranslated in writing. However, when I did translate it to English, I often used the words "unsatisfactory"/"unsatisfactoriness" in place of the pali original. Your feedback is welcome. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: > Dear Yu, > > You are quite right Victor.If it is not an accurate translation of ''Dukkha'' what is then the accurate one?I look forward to your reply. > > With best wishes, > > Htoo Naing > > yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Howard (and Suan), > > Pardon me for jumping in. > > This is how I see it: > The five aggregates are unsatisfactory, whether one clings to them > or not. Seeing that the five aggregates are unsatisfactory does not > mean aversion toward them. I would say that the term "misery" is > not an accurate translation of the term "dukkha". > > Your feedback is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor [snip] 22407 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri May 23, 2003 10:54pm Subject: Conditioned Reality Hello All, I hope you are all doing fine. I haven't been participating in a while, I have been on a bit of a spiritual quest I guess you could say. I have a series of questions for you all to consider, call it my thinking out loud: Is it possible that everything is conditioned, including the dhamma? Is one person's dhamma is necessarily another person's dhamma? Could it be that some entities are reborn countless times and that some have a soul that goes to "Heaven" to reside with "God" when they die…simply because that is how they view reality? If there is intelligent life on other planets in the universe, are they subject to the same dhamma as us or a different type of dhamma, conditioned by their particular set of beliefs? I bring up these questions, in part, because they relate to current studies in quantum physics. It seems that, under controlled conditions, matter will act in ways that the observer `wishes' it to act. In other words, perception of reality is what determines the reality. Is this a possibility? How does it fit/not fit within the teachings of Lord Buddha? Metta, James 22408 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 24, 2003 2:24am Subject: Universal Unwholesome Mental Factors - Please Comment According to the Abhidhamma, four mental factors (cetasikas) accompany all unwholesome (akusala) states of mind: - Moha (Delusion / Ignorance / Dullness / Mental Blindness) - Ahirika (Shamelessness / Lack of Moral Shame / Impudence / Immodesty / Lack of Conscience) - Anottappa (Recklessness / Lack of Moral Dread / Disregard of Blame) - Uddhacca (Restlessness / Distraction / Wavering) Moha (Delusion / Ignorance / Dullness / Mental Blindness) ========================================================= Moha is the root of all immoralities. It is like the director of a film; it directs everything that is unwholesome but we do not see moha directly. Moha arises when there is no right understanding. Moha is not the same as lack of worldly or scientific knowledge. Moha is the mental blindness which conceals the true nature of things: - Mental blindness to nama and rupa as they truly are - Mental blindness to anicca, dukkha and anatta - Mental blindness to the four noble truths There are two kinds of moha: - Latent moha: Just as there is poison in a tree that bears poisonous fruit, latent moha is the element that conceals the Dhamma. Even at moments of performing good deeds, latent moha still exists. Latent moha is not a cetasika; it is an accumulation. Only an Arahant has uprooted latent moha. - Rising-up moha: All unwholesome states of mind include rising-up moha. Because of the concealing nature of rising-up moha, the unwholesome nature of the current state of mind is not understood and the future consequences of one's actions are not understood. Rising-up moha is a cetasika that only arises in unwholesome states of mind. Moha is also known as avijja, the first link in the chain of dependent origination. Though avijja is the first link in the chain, it is not a "causeless first cause". Moha cannot be eradicated merely by thinking about realities; it can eventually be eradicated by the wisdom that knows the true nature of realities (Study -> Practice -> Realization). Ahirika (Shamelessness / Lack of Moral Shame / Impudence / Immodesty / Lack of Conscience) and Anottappa (Recklessness / Lack of Moral Dread / Disregard of Blame) ==================================== Ahirika inhibits the shame and disgust that should arise with unwholesome actions, speech or thought. Ahirika is internally focused; it comes from a lack of respect for self. Just as a pig is not ashamed to roll in sewage, ahirika is not ashamed of committing immoral actions, speeches and thoughts. The Buddha said to his son, "Of anyone for whom there is no shame at intentional lying; of him I say that there is no evil he cannot do. 'I will not speak a lie, even for fun' - this is how you must train yourself, Rahula." (i.e. there is no room for "white lies") Ahirika is often a factor in rationalizing repeat offences, "I've already spoiled my diet, so I might as well have one more helping..." Ironically, our legal system treats repeat offences more seriously than the first. Anottapa inhibits the fear that should arise with unwholesome actions, speech or thought. Anottapa is externally focused; it comes from a lack of respect for others. Just as a moth, unaware of the consequences, gets attracted by fire and is burned - anottappa is unaware of the consequences, gets attracted by evil and plunges into unwholesome deeds. The opposites of Ahirika and Anottappa are Hiri and Ottappa. Hiri and Ottappa are present in all wholesome states of mind and are called the "Guardians of the World" because they protect society. In a Jataka tale, the Buddha interpreted the sixteen dreams of King Pasendai to foretell what would happen when society decayed. 1. Four wild bulls entered a courtyard to fight. They roared and bellowed but did not fight. Then they left the courtyard. -> When society decays... clouds will gather as if to rain. There will be thunder and lightning, but no rain. There will be famine. The seasons, conditioned by unnatural energies, become unbalanced. 2. Trees and shrubs sprouted from the earth. Almost immediately they flowered and bore fruit. -> When society decays... lifetimes will be short, passions will be strong and very young women will have children. 3. Cows drank milk from their own newly born calves. -> When society decays... parents will depend on children while children do not respect elders. 4. Men untied sturdy oxen from a cart, replacing them with young steers. The steers are not strong enough to move the cart. -> When society decays... important positions will be entrusted to the inexperienced. When they fail, the wise will refuse to help because they had been passed over. 5. A horse eating from two mouths, on either side of its head. -> When society decays... judges give themselves up to corruption and taking bribes. 6. People with gold bowls ask an old jackal to urinate in the bowl. - > When society decays... low-born will be powerful so noble maidens will marry upstarts. 7. A she-jackal hungrily eats a rope as a man weaves it. -> When society decays... women will behave badly using their husband's money. 8. People keep pouring water into a big pitcher that is already overflowing. Smaller pitchers surround, all remain empty. -> When society decays... common people are poor because they must contribute all they earn to the government, who mishandles the funds. 9. Animals drink out of a pool which is muddy in the centre but clear at the edges. -> When society decays... to escape the government, people will move away from the cities and take refuge in the frontier. 10. Rice cooking in a pot, not cooking evenly; part of the rice is sodden, part is raw and part is well cooked. -> When society decays... even guardian deities will be caught up in evil ways, the weather will turn unpredictable causing some areas to be rich, some to be poor. 11. Men bartering butter milk for precious sandal wood. -> When society decays... the Dhamma will decay as monks and teachers seek money and gifts. 12. Empty pumpkins sinking in the water. -> When society decays... low-born will become great lords while the noble sink into poverty. 13. Solid blocks of rock floated in the water. -> When society decays... nobles and wise men are scorned while upstarts shall thrive. 14. Tiny frogs pursuing and eating huge black snakes. -> When society decays... because of lust, men chase after young women who take advantage. 15. A wicked village crow attended by regal-looking ducks. -> When society decays... the wicked will wield power and the wise will have to attend on them. 16. Goats chased panthers, devouring them. -> When society decays... the low-born will usurp power and the ancestral rights of the nobles. Uddhacca (Restlessness / Distraction / Wavering) ================================================ Uddhacca is sometimes translated as confusion or mental distraction over an object of excitement; it is the opposite of steadiness or calm. Uddhacca makes the mind unsteady and results in unsystematic thought due to mental excitement. Uddhacca is not the same as the conventional term "restlessness" or "agitation"; these are unpleasant mental states. Uddhacca is the factor that inhibits us from applying ourselves to wholesome mental states. Just as we cannot see a reflection in a pot of boiling water, the restless mind cannot see the consequences of evil deeds. Conclusion ========== Greed, wrong view, conceit, hatred, envy, selfishness, remorse or doubt cannot arise without delusion, shamelessness, recklessness and restlessness at their core. Delusion, shamelessness, recklessness and restlessness can be suppressed during moments of wholesome mental states, but they remain dormant in the mind, always ready to condition the arising of unwholesome mental states until they are uprooted when one becomes an Arahant. 22409 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 24, 2003 2:45am Subject: Re: Conditioned Reality Hi James, I missed having you around. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > I have a series of questions for you all to consider, call it my > thinking out loud: Is it possible that everything is conditioned, > including the dhamma? Is one person's dhamma is necessarily another > person's dhamma? Could it be that some entities are reborn countless > times and that some have a soul that goes to "Heaven" to reside > with "God" when they die…simply because that is how they view > reality? If there is intelligent life on other planets in the > universe, are they subject to the same dhamma as us or a different > type of dhamma, conditioned by their particular set of beliefs? ===== I remember a talk by Ajahn Brahm, where he talked about a major study done in the US on near-death experiences. A doctor conducted a survey of a large number of patients who had been clinically dead but had come back to life. The subjects came from a cross-section of cultures and religions. There was surprising consistency in the experiences; a feeling of lightness, floating away from the body, going toward a light, passing through the centre of the light, meeting somebody, being told that it was not their time yet, going through the process in reverse ending up back in their own body. Because of the consistency, the study concluded that the patients had a common experience. What was interesting in the study was that the "person" that they met after going through the centre of the light depended on the person's religion; Catholics met Jesus or Mary, Hindus met Vishnu or Krishna, Buddhists met Kuan Yin or the Buddha, aethists met dead relatives. Ajahn Brahm's conclusion was that there was a consistent experience at the core, but layer upon layer of "conceptual proliferation" was added. In the patient's mind, they were all convinced that they had met Mary, Vishnu, Kuan Yin, etc. James, I beleive that it is extremely easy to put our own belief systems around a "true" reality and convince ourselves that what we are experiencing is in line with our own belifs. I believe that this tendency is deeply ingrained and there is no way to convince anybody that their own belief system is "wrong". > > I bring up these questions, in part, because they relate to current > studies in quantum physics. It seems that, under controlled > conditions, matter will act in ways that the observer `wishes' it to > act. In other words, perception of reality is what determines the > reality. Is this a possibility? How does it fit/not fit within the > teachings of Lord Buddha? ===== I would like to know more about these current studies in quantum physics. It is clear that the design of the experiment will determine the type of outcome. However, the same experiment will consistently deliver the same type of outcome, irrespective of the "wishes" of the observer. When Heisenberg said, "The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it.", he was saying that the act of observing forces the system to a fixed state, but we cannot infer that this state was uniquely defined before the observation (i.e. an extention of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.). In other words, the "wish" of the observer does not enter into the equation, but the action of observation does. You have suggested that perception of reality is what determines the reality. My understanding is that conceptual proliferation creates a perceived realtity that, through "wrong understanding", we take as real. I would be interested in hearing your comments. Metta, Rob M :-) 22410 From: m. nease Date: Sat May 24, 2003 10:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Universal Unwholesome Mental Factors - Please Comment Hi RobM, ----- Original Message ----- From: robmoult To: Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 2:24 AM Subject: [dsg] Universal Unwholesome Mental Factors - Please Comment > Conclusion > ========== > Greed, wrong view, conceit, hatred, envy, selfishness, remorse or > doubt cannot arise without delusion, shamelessness, recklessness and > restlessness ...to be sure... > at their core. ...not sure about the 'core' (hair-splitting, perhaps)... > Delusion, shamelessness, recklessness and restlessness can be > suppressed during moments of wholesome mental states, but they > remain dormant in the mind, always ready to condition the arising of > unwholesome mental states until they are uprooted when one becomes > an Arahant. ...of paramount importance in my opinion, and one of the most valuable (and conventional) lessons of all three pitakas. mike p.s. Do they (the unwholesome universals) actually 'condition the arising of unwholesome mental states' (I'd ascribe this more to moha) or just always arise with them? 22411 From: m. nease Date: Sat May 24, 2003 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 3. Hi Nina, ----- Original Message ----- From: nina van gorkom To: Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 11:28 AM Subject: [dsg] FW: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 3. > It is said in the Commentary that Rahula had to develop vipassanaa pa~n~naa. He > had to develop understanding of ultimate realities, of nama and rupa. If you haven't already done so, could you please post this particular passage from the Commentary (in English!)? Thanks, mike 22412 From: m. nease Date: Sat May 24, 2003 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conditioned Reality Hi Again, RobM, ----- Original Message ----- From: robmoult To: Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 2:45 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Conditioned Reality > ...I believe that it is extremely easy to put our own belief > systems around a "true" reality and convince ourselves that what we > are experiencing is in line with our own belifs. I believe that this > tendency is deeply ingrained and there is no way to convince anybody > that their own belief system is "wrong". Unfortunately, I think it's far (almost infinitely) easier to 'put our own belief systems around a "FALSE" reality'. For us poor, unenlightened beings, this occurs every moment of every day, I think. (Sorry if I've missed the significance of the quotation marks surrounding 'true' and 'wrong'). mike 22413 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 24, 2003 3:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Universal Unwholesome Mental Factors - Please Comment Hi Mike, Thanks for your quick response. I agree with both of the points that you raised and have changed the text accordingly. Much appreciated. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > > at their core. > > ...not sure about the 'core' (hair-splitting, perhaps)... ===== I agree with you. I have changed "... at their core." to "... as a base." ===== > Do they (the unwholesome universals) actually 'condition the arising > of > unwholesome mental states' (I'd ascribe this more to moha) or just always > arise with them? ===== Technically, "arising with" (co-nascent) is one of the 24 conditions. However, I agree that it is better to say "... always ready to accompany the arising...". Metta, Rob M :-) 22414 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 24, 2003 3:13pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conditioned Reality Hi Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > > ...I believe that it is extremely easy to put our own belief > > systems around a "true" reality and convince ourselves that what we > > are experiencing is in line with our own belifs. I believe that this > > tendency is deeply ingrained and there is no way to convince anybody > > that their own belief system is "wrong". > > Unfortunately, I think it's far (almost infinitely) easier to 'put our own > belief > systems around a "FALSE" reality'. For us poor, unenlightened beings, this > occurs every moment of every day, I think. > > (Sorry if I've missed the significance of the quotation marks surrounding > 'true' and 'wrong'). The significance of the quotation marks around "true" is to emphasize that there is a true, unalterable reality (paramattha dhammas). I have a hard time with "false reality"; I prefer "perceived reality", perhaps just an issue of semantics. The significance of the quotation marks around "wrong" is that belief systems, by definition, are "true" from their own frame of reference. As one changes one's frame of reference, one's belief system automatically adapts. The implication of this point is that one cannot change our own (or another's) belief system directly. One can, however, change our own (or another's) frame of reference by considering our own experiences from a different perspective. Metta, Rob M :-) 22415 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat May 24, 2003 5:14pm Subject: Re: Conditioned Reality --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: Hi Rob M, I missed having you around. (James: Thanks. It is kind of you to say so.) I remember a talk by Ajahn Brahm, where he talked about a major study done in the US on near-death experiences. A doctor conducted a survey of a large number of patients who had been clinically dead but had come back to life. The subjects came from a cross-section of cultures and religions. There was surprising consistency in the experiences; a feeling of lightness, floating away from the body, going toward a light, passing through the centre of the light, meeting somebody, being told that it was not their time yet, going through the process in reverse ending up back in their own body. Because of the consistency, the study concluded that the patients had a common experience. What was interesting in the study was that the "person" that they met after going through the centre of the light depended on the person's religion; Catholics met Jesus or Mary, Hindus met Vishnu or Krishna, Buddhists met Kuan Yin or the Buddha, aethists met dead relatives. Ajahn Brahm's conclusion was that there was a consistent experience at the core, but layer upon layer of "conceptual proliferation" was added. In the patient's mind, they were all convinced that they had met Mary, Vishnu, Kuan Yin, etc. (James: Thank you for this information. I hadn't currently heard of this study and it is good to know. What I am suggesting/or wondering is that it is quite possible that each of these occurrences are as `real' as anything is `real'.) James, I beleive that it is extremely easy to put our own belief systems around a "true" reality and convince ourselves that what we are experiencing is in line with our own belifs. I believe that this tendency is deeply ingrained and there is no way to convince anybody that their own belief system is "wrong". (James: That isn't what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that they are each correct. What they believe is what there is. Maybe it is quite possible that Jesus (As Son of God), God, Satan, Angels, Vishnu, Krishna, and Nibbana all exist because people believe they exist. Perhaps the Lord Buddha found enlightenment because he believed that he could and that it existed. Nibbana may not exist separate from the belief that creates it. Are you now following me?) I would like to know more about these current studies in quantum physics. It is clear that the design of the experiment will determine the type of outcome. However, the same experiment will consistently deliver the same type of outcome, irrespective of the "wishes" of the observer. (James: Rob, I am afraid that this declarative statement doesn't bear itself out with some quantum experiments. Results are not consistent, even when all other factors are consistent, and results will vary depending on the influence of the observer. It would take a lengthy explanation of this, and would veer off-topic for this group (or would appear to at least), so you can check out the information about this at this link: http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/quantum.htm ) You have suggested that perception of reality is what determines the reality. My understanding is that conceptual proliferation creates a perceived realtity that, through "wrong understanding", we take as real. (James: I am not sure of the difference in these two descriptions. They seem to be different wording for the same description, but I may misunderstand your meaning. The Abhidhamma states that there is a reality that exists which is irrespective of the observer and is `real' and consistent…and is ultimate. I do not agree with that. But what I would like to know is if the Buddha, in the suttas, stated that his perception of reality, after enlightenment, was no longer conditioned and was 'ultimate'; that he got a 'backstage look' at things, at all things, so to speak. After all, I feel that he was very guarded and selective in how he described his teachings; he wanted them to be understood by his audience. By his admission, there were many things that he knew that he did not tell. It is interesting to consider what those things were.) I would be interested in hearing your comments. (James: Well, here they are. I am not sure if they do either one of us a bit of good! ;-) Metta, Rob M :-) Metta, James 22416 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun May 25, 2003 0:02am Subject: Additions to Photo Albums Dear Group, Just to let you know that a few new photos have been added to the albums: --One to the Members Album which now has 54 photos --Two to the Significant Others and Family Album which now has 8 photos. (Doesn't anyone have a few more Significant Others or Family members they'd like us to admire? :-)) --Two to the Meetings Album which now has 14 photos As well, there are 11 in the Others Album and 2 in the Buddha statues Album They can be viewed by going to: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst and clicking on each album. May I encourage any and all who do not yet grace the pages of our Photo Albums to take the plunge. Don''t be shy. We'd love to see you there - I think it is much more interesting to talk to other members when you know what they look like. Don't wait for the 'perfect shot' - no-one else has. :-) Anyone needing help can send their photos to Kom or I, and we'd be glad to settle you in. metta and peace, Christine 22417 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 25, 2003 4:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Robert - H: I do understand that the notion of "purple, flying elephant" is a concept concocted by the mind, and, in fact, not a single thought. In fact, the very "thought" (and not the obviously nonexistent referent) of a 'purple, flying elephant' is likely not actually a separate, individual thought. There is more likely a sequence of mental occurrences (mostly thoughts), some involving shapes, some involving colors, some involving "stories" of elephants and their parts (trunks, tails, etc), memories of "Dumbo, the Flying Elephant", etc, etc, etc, and with each of these not a single mental event either, but a great package of mental phenomena! It is all extremely complex. J: Yes, this is more or less how I conceive it to be, also. H: ... Moreover, it is *important* to clearly see the patterns of thought, the clusters of thoughts of certain types, recurring again and again, because many of these are traps our ignorant minds set for ourselves. Not only are the individual thoughts and other mental phenomena kamma vipaka, but so are the patterns in which they occur, the interrelationships among them. Our thoughts of personal identity, for example, are among these complex thought clusters, and they need to be clearly seen. J: I am wondering if you are not overlooking the distinction between thinking and thoughts here. As you know, thinking is the consciousness that experiences (= conceives of) a thought; the thought is the object of that moment of consciousness (this can be likened to the distinction between, say, seeing consciousness and visible object). What characterises any thinking moment are the mental factors that accompany the moment of consciousness, rather than thought that is the object of the thinking. For example, the difference between thinking of oneself with wrong view of self and thinking of oneself without wrong view of self lies not in the thought itself but in the mental factor of wrong view that accompanies the moment of thinking. So when you mention 'thoughts of personal identity' as an instance of something that needs to be clearly seen, could this perhaps be better expressed by saying that it is 'thinking accompanied by the idea of personal identity' that needs to be clearly seen as it is? In this instance, the thinking would of course be akusala rather than kusala. A thought itself can have no characteristic of kusala or akusala, since these are attributes of consciousness and mental factors only. H: To simply say "They're only concepts" and dismiss them, is to skip over a matter of great importance I think. J: The question I think we need to consider is whether, according to the teachings, concepts are included among the fundamental phenomena of which the aggregates, ayatanas, elements etc are comprised. If the answer is that they are not, this doesn't mean they are being dismissed, merely that they are being distinguished. H: You do say "Good to be aware of thinking, I think!". I think this can't be emphasized too much. To apply mindfulness to our thoughts, as I see it, is not only possible, but quite necessary. J: Again, the difference between thinking and thoughts needs to be kept in mind. H: In the process we will see how we create "our world" through mental projection, and we will come to see through our concepts to the direct phenomena that compose them and learn that these, themselves, are ephemeral will-o'-the-wisps, conditioned, fleeting, and empty. J: But all the creating is done by the mind, by thinking (i.e., not by the thoughts). I think. ;-)) Jon 22418 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 25, 2003 4:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Smallchap --- smallchap wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > smallchap: If one knows now nama as nama, rupa as rupa, he knows > nama > as nama, rupa as rupa. If one does not know now nama as nama, rupa > as rupa, he knows not nama as nama, rupa as rupa. This is > irregardless > of whether attained the higher insight previously (except an > arahant). (Sorry! Can't quote any texts here to support my > statements.) I agree with this (if I have understood you correctly). But my point was that there cannot be the higher stages without first developing the lower stages. One cannot have gained insight into the characteristic of anicca/dukkha/anatta without having developed insight into the distinction between namas and rupas. > Insight meditation is a way to cultivate continuous chain of > mements > of insight, until one reaches the final goal (I am not sure if I > make > myself clear here). Again, don't ask me for the supporting texts as > I can find none so for. To talk of insight meditation as a way of achieving continuous insight may give the idea that insight is simply a matter of getting the hang of the right 'practice' (technique); I don't believe that would be correct. > another ps. I will reply your next post and thereafter I wish to > observe cyber silence. So I will not discuss further on this > subject. My sincere apology. We look forward to hearing from you again when your period of cyber-silence is over ;-)) Jon 22419 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 25, 2003 4:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott wrote: ... L: I am not sure I understand your comments. J: Don't worry. I probably haven't understood the passage I'm trying to comment on ;-)). Fortunately, you have clarified it for me (below), so I hope I can do better this time. L: In particular, I don't see how the distinction between ultimate and conventional truths helps you out of the problems posed by the author - such as, how to account for valid inferences and how to then distinguish them from faulty conception or how to account for how our conceptions operate nonrandomly. J: Thanks for this restatement of the problem posed by the author, namely, 'how to account for valid inferences and how to then distinguish them from faulty conception'. What I was trying to say was that the instances of valid inference and faulty conception cited by the author, namely - the assertion 'a mountain is impermanent' as an instance of a valid inference, and - the assertion 'a mountain is impermanent' as an instance of a faulty conception, do not in fact correctly represent the teachings (as found in the tipitaka, including the sutta pitaka). To elaborate, I am not aware of any instance in the suttas where the characteristic of impermanence is attributed to conventional objects such as mountains, as suggested by the author. To my knowledge, the 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are only discussed in the context of the five aggregates, the sense-bases, the elements etc, these being different ways of classifying the same fundamental phenomena that underlie the world as we know it. Accordingly, I think the author is in error in his 'valid inference/faulty conception' distinction, and I don't think the ensuing discussion can meaningfully be commented on. > The unique characteristic > of insight is the mental factor of panna of a certain > level that accompanies that moment of consciousness. Otherwise, > dhammas are being directly experienced by consciousness all the > time, but not by consciousness that is accompanied by panna. > Every moment > of seeing, for example, is a moment of consciousness experiencing > the dhamma that is visible object. L: Yes, I understand that is what the Abhidhamma approach asserts, ... J: In fact I was not putting this forward as an example of the Abhidhamma approach (I happen not to think in terms of and Abhidhamma approach vs. a suttanta approach), but as something found throughout the pitaka. Regarding the 2 statements: - panna is the unique characteristic of insight; - the object of a moment of seeing is is visible object, one of the 'dhammas', you seem to be suggesting these are specific to the Abhidhamma. I don't think that's so. As an instance of the latter, consider the many suttas on the senes-bases (ayatanas). L: ... but, to me, it still does not answer the question of how to bridge the gap between perception and conception. I think Larry also suggested the idea of panna as a solution to the problem, but frankly, I don't understand how either of you intend it as a solution. I believe I have a rudimentary understanding of panna's positioning within the Abhidhamma system of thought, but don't see how it works as a solution within the context Dreyfus is discussing. I would be interested in hearing the reasoning of either you or Larry on this point. J: As I've said, to my thinking the author has misconceived the teachings in stating his problem. My guess is that what he is meaning to describe is the difference between ultimate truths (his 'valid inference', e.g., 'mountain is impermanent') and conventional truths (his 'faulty conception' e.g., 'mountain is permanent'), but I couldn’t be sure on this. Sorry that I can't say anything more constructive a this stage. Please feel free to say if I've misunderstood the author. Jon 22420 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 25, 2003 5:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Hi Jonothan: ... > > For example, we can check for ourselves whether it is > > correct that there is one kind of phenomenon (nama)that > experiences > > other phenomena, and another kind of phenomenon (rupa) that > doesn't > > experience other phenomena; or that the experiences through the > > different doorways are separate and discrete experiences. These > are > > very relevant 'issues' that can be considered and investigated > > without the need for any a priori assumptions. > > This is probably where we part company for the time being, for it > is not clear to me that this conceptual description of the > experiential > process is necessary for awakening or that it is necessarily > intended as a description that serves ontological rather than > purely salvational needs. I think it's clear from the suttas dealing with the sense-bases (ayatanas) that the realisation of the different nature of the consciousness and the objects experienced through the 6 doors is essential for enlightenment. See for example the Chachakka Sutta ('Six sets of six') M 148, especially the second set of 6 (visible object, sound, etc) and third set of 6 (seeing consciousness, hearing consciousness, etc) referred to there (I have pasted below an extract from the ATI translation) These are clearly stated to be things that 'should be known'. I take this to mean that they are capable of being known at the present moment as and when they arise. Perhaps this is the point of our difference. Do you read this as a 'conceptual description of the experiential process'? > In saying this, I don't mean to denigrate the value or wisdom of > the > Abhidhamma approach. Rather, I am simply describing where I am in > my > own thought process at this particular time. The approach that you > and others follow on DSG is fascinating and, consistent with the > call to come and see, I have much to learn about your approach. Actually, I don't see it as a matter of an Abhidhamma approach vs. a suttanta approach. All 3 baskets talk about the same truths and the same path to enlightenment. The difference is in the way the material is laid out. There is much in the suttas that is way over our heads and accordingly has to be 'figured out'. It's a question of whether we do the figuring out on the basis of the commentaries and the Abhidhamma, or on some other basis. Jon http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html The Blessed One said: "The six internal media should be known. The six external media should be known. The six classes of consciousness should be known. The six classes of contact should be known. The six classes of feeling should be known. The six classes of craving should be known. "'The six internal media should be known.' .... This is the first sextet. "'The six external media should be known.' Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said? The form-medium , the sound-medium, the aroma-medium, the flavor-medium, the tactile sensation-medium, the idea-medium. 'The six external media should be known.' Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the second sextet. "'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. 'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the third sextet. 22421 From: m. nease Date: Sun May 25, 2003 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Universal Unwholesome Mental Factors - Please Comment Hi RobM, ----- Original Message ----- From: robmoult To: Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Universal Unwholesome Mental Factors - Please Comment > ===== > > > Do they (the unwholesome universals) actually 'condition the arising > > of unwholesome mental states' (I'd ascribe this more to moha) or just > > always arise with them? > > ===== > > Technically, "arising with" (co-nascent) is one of the 24 > conditions. True and you're right of course. When I think of the 24 paccaya I think of them as 'arising with and conditioning' rather 'conditioning' in the sense of 'causing' (which was the way I took your 'condition the arising'). > However, I agree that it is better to say "... always ready to accompany the arising...". Anyway, I wasn't suggesting you change anything--I'm sure you know all of this much better than I do. I'm really just trying to clarify my own views. Keep up the good work... mike 22422 From: Lee Dillion Date: Sun May 25, 2003 6:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: > To elaborate, I am not aware of any instance in the suttas where the > characteristic of impermanence is attributed to conventional objects > such as mountains, as suggested by the author. To my knowledge, the > 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are only discussed in the > context of the five aggregates, the sense-bases, the elements etc, > these being different ways of classifying the same fundamental > phenomena that underlie the world as we know it. > > Accordingly, I think the author is in error in his 'valid > inference/faulty conception' distinction, and I don't think the > ensuing discussion can meaningfully be commented on. Hi Jonothan: You raise an interesting issue, for what is or isn't understod as impermanent in the Buddhist tradition seems to be the subject of some fascinating discussion about anicca and dukkha being descriptive of sabbe sankhárá and anatta being descriptive of sabbe dhamma. But Dreyfus is talking not solely within a particular tradition (Theravada or otherwise) but from the perspective where select terms and definitions were ascribed some common or conventional understanding or meaning among a range of Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions simply to facillitate discussion and debate and not to suggest that these defintions were ultimately correct from *within* each tradition entering the discussion. In any event, Dreyfus' example seems to be a stumbling block for you as you filter the discussion through your perspective (which, of course, we all tend to do) and that is understandable if the example does not speak to you. If viewed as ultimate language, it would also be unlikely to speak to a tradition that sees all as mere illusion as they await unity with their god. I invite you to provide an example that does make more sense to you as a way of explaining or examining the questions of how we can account for valid inferences and how to then distinguish them from faulty conception or how to account for how our conceptions operate nonrandomly. -- Lee Dillion 22423 From: Lee Dillion Date: Sun May 25, 2003 6:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: > --- Lee Dillion wrote: >>>For example, we can check for ourselves whether it is >>>correct that there is one kind of phenomenon (nama)that experiences >>>other phenomena, and another kind of phenomenon (rupa) that doesn't >>>experience other phenomena; or that the experiences through the >>>different doorways are separate and discrete experiences. These are >>>very relevant 'issues' that can be considered and investigated >>>without the need for any a priori assumptions. >> >>This is probably where we part company for the time being, for it >>is not clear to me that this conceptual description of the >>experiential process is necessary for awakening or that it is necessarily >>intended as a description that serves ontological rather than >>purely salvational needs. > I think it's clear from the suttas dealing with the sense-bases > (ayatanas) that the realisation of the different nature of the > consciousness and the objects experienced through the 6 doors is > essential for enlightenment. Hi Jonothan: Again this is where we differ as to the salvational versus the ontological nature of the suttas. I can read any number of passages regarding the sense bases, from the Satipatthana Sutta to the Chachakka Sutta, remaining solely at the phenomenal level of the discourse and experiencing the pragmatic value of these suttas as another example of the regularity we call dependent arising. I realize others have gone farther, seeing these suttas as part of a deeper, more sophisticated philosophy. Bikkhu Bodhi describes this latter approach as follows: --- Such a conception of the nature of the real seems to be already implicit in the Sutta Pitaka, particularly in the Buddha's disquisitions on the aggregates, sense bases, elements, dependent arising, etc., but it remains there tacitly in the background as the underpinning to the more pragmatically formulated teachings of the Suttas. Even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself the dhamma theory is not yet expressed as an explicit philosophical tenet; this comes only later, in the Commentaries. Nevertheless, though as yet implicit, the theory still comes into focus in its role as the regulating principle behind the Abhidhamma's more evident task, the project of systemization. This project starts from the premise that to attain the wisdom that knows things "as they really are," a sharp wedge must be driven between those types of entities that possess ontological ultimacy, that is, the dhammas, and those types of entities that exist only as conceptual constructs but are mistakenly grasped as ultimately real. Proceeding from this distinction, the Abhidhamma posits a fixed number of dhammas as the building blocks of actuality, most of which are drawn from the Suttas. It then sets out to define all the doctrinal terms used in the Suttas in ways that reveal their identity with the ontological ultimates recognized by the system. On the basis of these definitions, it exhaustively classifies the dhammas into a net of pre-determined categories and modes of relatedness which highlight their place within the system's structure. And since the system is held to be a true reflection of actuality, this means that the classification pinpoints the place of each dhamma within the overall structure of actuality. From "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" ----- I may get there at some point. Who knows? -- Lee Dillion 22424 From: Date: Sun May 25, 2003 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Jon - I reply to the 2nd half of your post. In a message dated 5/25/03 7:18:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > H: ... Moreover, it is *important* to clearly see the patterns of > thought, the clusters of thoughts of certain types, recurring again > and again, because many of these are traps our ignorant minds set for > ourselves. Not only are the individual thoughts and other mental > phenomena kamma vipaka, but so are the patterns in which they occur, > the interrelationships among them. Our thoughts of personal identity, > for example, are among these complex thought clusters, and they need > to be clearly seen. > > J: I am wondering if you are not overlooking the distinction between > thinking and thoughts here. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think so. I see the following going on during "thinking": A thought arises as an object of awareness. The thought is the objective pole of the thinking event, the awareness of the thought is the subjective pole, the two are mutually dependent but distinguishable. -------------------------------------------------------- > > As you know, thinking is the consciousness that experiences (= > conceives of) a thought; the thought is the object of that moment of > consciousness (this can be likened to the distinction between, say, > seeing consciousness and visible object). > ----------------------------------------------- Okay. That's one way of parsing it. The awareness of the thought is the thinking of it. (I tend to parse it as the thinking of the thought involving both the thought and the awareness, as one does not occur without the other.) ------------------------------------------------ > > What characterises any thinking moment are the mental factors that > accompany the moment of consciousness, rather than thought that is > the object of the thinking. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Says who? The content of consciousness is certainly a part of the nature of that consciousness. Think, for example, of the Buddha's distinguishing eye consciousness from ear consciousness. The sort of object is a critical aspect of the consciousness of that object. Likewise, mental consciousness/thinking is conditioned by its objects. Thinking of light is different from thinking of darkness, and has different effect. ------------------------------------------------- > > For example, the difference between thinking of oneself with wrong > view of self and thinking of oneself without wrong view of self lies > not in the thought itself but in the mental factor of wrong view that > accompanies the moment of thinking. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: You believe there is some single concrete thing that goes by the name of 'wrong view'? I certainly do not. -------------------------------------------------- > > So when you mention 'thoughts of personal identity' as an instance of > something that needs to be clearly seen, could this perhaps be better > expressed by saying that it is 'thinking accompanied by the idea of > personal identity' that needs to be clearly seen as it is? In this > instance, the thinking would of course be akusala rather than kusala. > A thought itself can have no characteristic of kusala or akusala, > since these are attributes of consciousness and mental factors only. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: First of all, you are asserting right here that the thinking is characterized in part by the nature of its object, which seems to contradict your previous assertion to the contrary. That aside: Seeing the occurrence of a thought of personal identity, and seeing that that moment of awareness is accompanied by the idea of personal identity are not separable. The thought of personal identity and the thinking of that thought co-occur; as soon as one realizes the occurrence of one of these, one also realizes the occurrence of the other. When I think of red, I am aware of both the thought of red and of the thinking of it. (I do not think for a second that I am *seeing* redness. I know that the redness is a thought.) --------------------------------------------------------- > > H: To simply say "They're only concepts" and dismiss them, is to > skip over a matter of great importance I think. > > J: The question I think we need to consider is whether, according to > the teachings, concepts are included among the fundamental phenomena > of which the aggregates, ayatanas, elements etc are comprised. If > the answer is that they are not, this doesn't mean they are being > dismissed, merely that they are being distinguished. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Are you saying, Jon, that there actually do not arise directly apprehended, elementary thoughts that are to the mind door what images are to the eye door, sounds are to the ear door, and hardness is to the body door? I certainly take exception to such a claim. If the Abhidhamma asserts that, it becomes of less interest to me. ----------------------------------------------------- > > H: You do say "Good to be aware of thinking, I think!". I think this > can't be emphasized too much. To apply mindfulness to our thoughts, > as I see it, is not only possible, but quite necessary. > > J: Again, the difference between thinking and thoughts needs to be > kept in mind. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I see this issue as a red herring. Thoughts arise at the mind door just as images at the eye door etc, and it is the thoughts that arise, and that we take seriously, that constitute the scaffolding of this house we build and rebuild for ourselves whose rafters need to be shattered in ordered for us to become free. ------------------------------------------------------- > > H: In the process we will see how we create "our world" through > mental projection, and we will come to see through our concepts to > the direct phenomena that compose them and learn that these, > themselves, are ephemeral will-o'-the-wisps, conditioned, fleeting, > and empty. > > J: But all the creating is done by the mind, by thinking (i.e., not > by the thoughts). > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: It's a red herring, Jon. There's no thinking that is not thinking of thoughts, and there are no unthought thoughts. We don't need to stop our thinking, i.e., stop the flow of thoughts and co-occuring awareness of them, but we need to see the nature of the thoughts, the presumptions they carry, the belief we invest in them, and the repeated patterns of thought. One disclaimer, though. For me, attending to thoughts is most important with regard to guarding the senses. We need to see the reactive thinking following in the wake of pleasant and unpleasant contacts, catching the reaction as soon as possible. But I don't consider mindfulness of thought/thinking to be a primary practice, for me at least. I think that we are so committed to various patterns of thinking and so fooled by concepts of ours, that it is hard, except for the very advanced practitioner, for wisdom to fully arise using mindfulness of thinking as a primary practice. I think it is far more effective and safer as well to take mindfulness of the body, of bodily sensation, as the *primary* foundation of mindfulness for most of us. ------------------------------------------------------ > > I think. ;-)) ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) ---------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 22425 From: Date: Sun May 25, 2003 4:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/25/03 8:00:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > To elaborate, I am not aware of any instance in the suttas where the > characteristic of impermanence is attributed to conventional objects > such as mountains, as suggested by the author. To my knowledge, the > 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are only discussed in the > context of the five aggregates, the sense-bases, the elements etc, > these being different ways of classifying the same fundamental > phenomena that underlie the world as we know it. > ============================= How about the body? That's a conventional object. In the Gela~n~na Sutta, available at the following web site, the Buddha states "And this body, indeed, is impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen". http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn36-007a.html - 7KB - 10 Sep 2001 Also,with regard to the body Bhikkhu Bodhi writes the following accessible at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/cgi-bin/search/proxy.pl?terms=impermanent& url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accesstoinsight.org%2Flib%2Fbps%2Fmisc%2Fwaytoend.html << The last exercise in mindfulness of the body is a series of "cemetery meditations," contemplations of the body's disintegration after death, which may be performed either imaginatively, with the aid of pictures, or through direct confrontation with a corpse. By any of these means one obtains a clear mental image of a decomposing body, then applies the process to one's own body, considering: "This body, now so full of life, has the same nature and is subject to the same fate. It cannot escape death, cannot escape disintegration, but must eventually die and decompose." Again, the purpose of this meditation should not be misunderstood. The aim is not to indulge in a morbid fascination with death and corpses, but to sunder our egoistic clinging to existence with a contemplation sufficiently powerful to break its hold. The clinging to existence subsists through the implicit assumption of permanence. In the sight of a corpse we meet the teacher who proclaims unambiguously: "Everything formed is impermanent." >> Also there is the following, obviously with regard to the body, to be found at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/cgi-bin/search/proxy.pl?terms=impermanent& url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accesstoinsight.org%2Fcanon%2Fkhuddaka%2Fiti%2Fiti2.html
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 N: As you say: are">. But when is there seeing things as they are? That is the result of a long, long development of understanding during many lives, understanding which gradually grows in the course of the stages of insight. How could we expect this to happen soon? It is natural we have moha-mula citta accompanied by restlessness. You say, moha-mula citta rooted in restlessness, but uddhacca is not a root like lobha, dosa and moha. When there is mohamulacitta accompanied by uddhacca, certainly we accumulate moha. We accumulate so many defilements, not only moha. You find, this is more worrisome than the kammic impact of being distracted. It is as it is, but we should not find it worrysome. If we think in this way, could it not lead to ideas of improving ourselves, wondering how the self can prevent this, how we can find ways to counteract akusala? I just looked at some notes of our discussions in Kraeng Kacang: A. Sujin said: Thus, akusala cetana cetasika accompanying akusala citta is kamma; kamma is another word for cetana; but, when it is not intense there is merely the accumulation of akusala. When we commit a serious akusala kamma, there are also mohamulacittas accompanied by uddhacca in between which support it and these can bring result, but only in the course of life, not in the form of rebirth-consciousness. R: ... 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). N: I am inclined to think that all defilements, not just distraction, also former lobha, dosa and other defilements, can give rise to lobha-mula or dosa-mula citta. R: 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). N: I am inclined to think that it also leads to akusala vipaka during life. My conclusion is that only a Buddha knows exactly kamma and vipaka. We cannot, but for us, best of all is the development of right understanding of all realities, akusala included, in our daily life. We should not worry about forgetfulness, that is again dosa. Such worry can also be conditioned by conceit: clinging to the importance of self who has so much distraction. I had a note on janaka kamma. During the last javanacittas in a life (thus, not, as some people think at the moment of dying-consciousness which is just a moment of vipaka) the object can be kamma (that one has performed) kamma nimitta (symbol or sign of kamma) or gati nimitta (image of one's future destiny). Now, on the radio I heard: when we hear sound now and after that it is time for our death, the sound can be kamma nimitta, thus, it is very daily. It reminds us that cuti-citta can come any time. (In Topics of Abhidhamma: p. 106 and following). Best wishes and with appreciation, Nina. 22428 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun May 25, 2003 11:39am Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 9 Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 9 He does not become disheartened, he does not show dislike, not even slightly, when he hears, ³He alone can attain Buddhahood who can cross a whole world-system filled with water and reach the further shore by the bare strength of his arms". This is an occasion for joy and for endeavour to attain Buddhahood. He has to cross a whole world-system. There is not only this world, he has to cross a whole worldsystem. We read: If he were to hear: "He alone can attain Buddhahood who can cut through a whole world-system that has become a jungle of thorny creepers covered by a solid thicket of bamboo, cross out, and reach the other side," etc .... If he were to hear: "Buddhahood can only be attained after being tortured in hell for four incalculables and a 100,000 aeons" -- he would not deem that difficult to do, but would be filled with desire for the task and would not shrink away. Such is the magnitude of the desire required. The Bodhisatta thought that he could achieve this, but his determination was not yet firm enough; he had to continue to accumulate keen and refined paññå so that his noble qualities could reach accomplishment. When he had visited the Sammasambuddha and his excellent qualities had become firmly established, he could begin to make the resolution to accumulate the perfections. We can see that it is extremely difficult to accumulate the perfections which lead to the attainment of the incomparable awakening wisdom of the Buddha. He penetrated the truth of the realities that are arising and falling away at the present moment, so that akusala could be completely eradicated and he could attain Buddhahood. The person who has the supreme aspiration to become a Sammasambuddha, should have eight qualifications: the human state, the male sex, the cause (which are the necessary supporting conditions), the sight of the Teacher, the going forth, the achievement of noble qualities, extreme dedication and strong desire. As regards the first qualification, the human state, if he is not a human, his aspiration will not succeed. As to the second qualification, the male sex, a woman cannot become a Buddha. The third qualification is the cause (hetu), and this means that in the life when he aspires to be the Sammasambuddha, he must be endowed with the necessary supporting conditions. As to the fourth qualification, the sight of the master, he must be in the presence of a Sammasambuddha. His aspiration will only succeed when it is made in the presence of a living Buddha, not after the Exalted One has finally passed away. His aspiration will not succeed when it is made at the foot of the Bodhi-tree, before a shrine, in front of an image, in the presence of Paccekabuddhas (silent Buddhas) or the Buddha¹s disciples. The aspiration only succeeds when made in the presence of a Buddha. When he has not met a Buddha in person, the power that is necessary to confirm his dedication is lacking. 22429 From: Date: Sun May 25, 2003 4:35pm Subject: Way 93, 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 Sense-bases After explaining the contemplation of mental objects by way of the aggregates the Master said: "And, further, o bhikkhus," in order to explain the contemplation of mental objects by way of the sense-bases. Chasu ajjhattika bahiresu ayatanesu = "In (the mental objects of) the six internal and the six external sense-bases." The eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind are the six internal sense-bases, and material form, mind, smell, tastes, tactual object, and mental object are the six external sense-bases. Cakkhum pajanati = "(He) understands the eye." He understands the sensory apparatus of the eye, by way of its own distinct function and salient characteristic. Rupe pajanati = "(He) understands material form (objects) that are visible." He understands material form arising from the four producers of corporeality, namely, karma, consciousness, climate and nutriment [kamma citta utu ahara], by way of their own distinctive function and salient characteristic. Yam tadubhayam paticcca uppajjati samyojanam = "The fetter that arises dependent on both (eye and forms)." He understands according to distinct function and characteristic the tenfold fetter that arises dependent on both eye and forms -- the tenfold fetter of sense-desire, resentment, pride, speculative theory, doubt, belief in rites and ceremonies, the desire to go on existing, envy, avarice and ignorance. "How does this tenfold fettering arise?" asks one. The fetter of sensuality arises for him who by way of sensuous enjoyment takes delight in a pleasant sense-object become visible at the eye-door. For him who is annoyed or angry at the sight of an unpleasant object, the fetter of resentment arises, and the fetter of pride arises in him who thinks: No one but me is able to consider the object wisely. The fetter of speculative theory comes to be in him who takes material form to be permanent and everlasting. The fetter of doubt arises in him who thinks in this way: Is the material form a being or a being's? The fetter of the desire to go on existing arises in him who wishes thus: To be sure, in a favorable state of existence this material form will become easy of access. The fetter of rites and ceremonies arises in him who undertakes to perform rites and ceremonies thinking: In the future it will be possible to obtain such an object as this by taking up the observance of rites and ceremonies. The fetter of envy arises in him who contemplates grudgingly: Should no others get this material form, it would be good, indeed. The fetter of avarice arises in one who stints for another the material form belonging to one. The fetter of ignorance arises (with all the previously mentioned fetters), with all sensuous passion and the like, by way of the relation of conascent nescience. Yathaca anupannassa samyojanassa uppado hoti tañca pajanati = "He understands how the arising of the non-arisen (tenfold) fetter comes to be." He understands that the (tenfold) fetter had not arisen earlier owing to some cause of non-occurrence. Yatha ca uppannassa samyojanassa pahanam hoti tañca pajanati = "He understands how the abandoning of the arisen (tenfold) fetter comes to be." He understands the reason for the abandoning of just the (tenfold) fetter arisen through previous non-abandoning or through occurrence. Yatha ca pahinassa samojanassa ayatim anuppado hoti tañca pajanati = "He understands how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned (tenfold) fetter comes to be." He understands the reason for the non-arising in the future of even the (tenfold) fetter abandoned by way of rejection of separate factors through right reflection [tadangavasena] and through absorption [vikkhambhana vasena]. Owing to what reason does the tenfold fettering cease to arise in the future finally? The path of stream-winning or the first stage of awakening is the reason for final cessation of the five fetters of speculative theory, doubt, rites and ceremonies, envy, and avarice. The path of once-returning or the second stage of awakening is the reason for the final cessation of sensuality and resentment of a gross kind and the residuum of these two fetters finally ceases by reason of the statement of the path of never-returning, the third stage of awakening. The fact which makes the fetter of pride, of the desire to go on existing, and of ignorance to cease finally in the future is the path of final purification, arahantship, the fourth state of awakening. The same is the method of exegesis in sotañca pajanati sadde ca pajanati = "He understands the ear and sounds." Further, in this connection, the talk on the sense-bases in full should be understood as stated by the commentator in the Path of Purity. Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally." The bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects by laying hold of the internal sense-bases in his own mental objects or in another's or laying hold of the external sense-bases in another's mental objects or in his own or at one time in his own and at another time in another's mental objects. Origination and dissolution should be brought forward and connected here by the extended application of the method indicated by the words: "From the origin of ignorance the origin of the eye" to the sense-bases of material form in the aggregate of materiality, to the mental sense-base in the aggregate of consciousness, and to the sense-base of the mental object in the other non-material aggregates, according to the method of exegesis already stated by the commentator. The supramundane states should not be taken. From here onward the exposition is according to the method already shown by the commentator. [Tika] The two groups of six sense-bases are stated by way of determining the sense-doors and the sense-objects of arising of sixfold consciousness. Of the consciousness or mind aggregate included in a course of cognition of eye-consciousness, just the eye-base is the "door" of origin, and the base of the material form is the object. So it is in the case of the others. But of the sixth sense-base the part of the mind-base called the life-continum, the unconscious mind, is the "door" of origin [chatthassa pana bhavangamanasankhato manayatanekadeso uppatti dvaram]. And in a particular or special way the mind-object base is the object [asadharananca dhammayatanam arammanam]. [T] Dependent on both: The eye becomes a condition by way of decisive support and the material forms, the objects, become a condition by way of objective predominance and objective decisive support [cakkhum upanissaya paccayavasena paccayabhutam rupe arammanadhipati arammanupanissaya vasena paccayabhute ca paticca]. 22430 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun May 25, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 3. Dear Mike, See below. op 24-05-2003 19:30 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > Subject: [dsg] FW: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part > 3. >> It is said in the Commentary that Rahula had to develop vipassanaa > pa~n~naa. He >> had to develop understanding of ultimate realities, of nama and rupa. > > If you haven't already done so, could you please post this particular > passage from the Commentary (in English!)? Nina: And further on: And the Subcommentary: Nina. Weight Age Gender Female Male 22431 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun May 25, 2003 11:21pm Subject: Cooran meeting; cetana Hello all, At the Cooran meeting, Andrew handed out copies of the Cetana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya XII.38 (translated by B. Thanisssaro)) and asked for comments. Even the bookworms (Christine and Steve), couldn't come up with much on the key terms, "intend," "arrange," and "obsess." Steve pointed out that the third paragraph described the Arahant (and, presumably, the second; the Noble Learner and the first; the Worldling(?)). But apart from that, we were struggling for ideas. The translation consists of just three paragraphs so hopefully, it can be explained quite briefly. If any dsg members are prepared to do so, I'll put their suggestions to the next Cooran meeting. Thanks in advance. Ken H ------------ CETANA SUTTA INTENTION "Staying at Savatthi . . [the Blessed One said,] "What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about;[1] this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or; an establishing] of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair. Such is the origination of the entire mass of suffering and stress. "If one doesn't intend and doesn't arrange, but one still obsesses [about something], this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is . . [as above]. . . and despair. Such [too] is the origination of this entire mass of suffering and stress. "But when one doesn't intend, arrange or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land and grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering and stress."" Note [1] The seven obsessions are; the obsession of sensual passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming and the obsession of ignorance. See AN VII.12. 22432 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 26, 2003 0:14am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Jeff (& Lee), Thanks for your kind comments. ..... Jeff: > ... I believe at the center of this question lies the question > of what > the person's concept of self is. If, for instance, the person has > completely > erased the concept of self, then we are talking about a condition of > non-dualism, because if there is no self, then there is no 'other.' > > In the condition of non-dualism, then anything goes. There is no karma, > > because there is no self to act or react. ..... S: Regardless of whether there is any wrong view of self or not, the ‘reality’ or ‘truth’ of anatta and of other aspects and conditions such as kamma remain the same. Kamma is not dependent on wrong views. Also it is not that there is a self and then no self. There never is a self regardless of any misperceptions to the contrary. What we take for a self acting and reacting are ‘bare phenomena (i.e namas and rupas) rolling on’. I think these are important issues you’ve raised and I’d be glad to discuss them further. ..... J: >There is no reaction, because > there is > no self to react. But, one who is free of a self, is not likely to be > compelled to act harmfully or selfishly, because there is no self > present to be > selfish. .... S: I agree that with no wrong view of self, there will be fewer conditions to act in these ways - for a start, no conditions to take anything ‘personally’ such as the worldly conditions with wrong view. Still, as we know, the sotapanna is free of this wrong view, but still has plenty of attachment and aversion and ‘selfish’ inclinations in the sense of pursuing pleasant experiences. ..... J: > On the other hand, if there is a self present, and the practitioner only > believes there is no self, then they are acting from self, whether they > believe it > or not, and their actions are therefore self motivated. Consequently > there > is karma. .... S: Only at the stage of arahantship will there be no new kamma. Even then, for the rest of the life of the arahant (and even the Buddha), there will be the experiencing of the results of past kamma. Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding you here, Jeff. ..... J: >So, in the case of no self present, then it is non-dualism, in the all > other > cases, it is either nihilism or antinomiumism which require a self to > maintain > a belief, but no belief will save one from karma. Only not having a > self for > karma to cling to will releive one of karma. ..... S: I would say this will only be done by the full eradication of all kilesa (defilements) and in particular the eradication of tanha (craving), as expounded in the second Noble Truth. In another post to Lee and myself you wrote: J: >“Yes the Pali canon is a big document for one who was seeking the cessation of conceptualization and the self”. ..... S: As I understand, the aim of the teachings (in the Pali canon) is not the ‘cessation of conceptualization and the self’, but the understanding that the conceptual and self worlds are illusions and the actual worlds that can be known and realized at this very moment are those of the six senses. There cannot be any final cessation without full knowledge. I’m not sure if we are in agreement here or not, but I agreed with your point that conceptual understanding is not the same as direct knowledge or ‘realization’. ..... J: > I feel complete here, I hope I have expressed myself adequately. If not > I am > sure someone here will let me know. Please excuse me if I misspelled > 'antinomium' or 'antinomiumism.' I am actual a terrible speller, but > thanks to > spell-check I am freed of much humiliation. Unfortunately, my dead hard > drive has > my good dictionary on it. ..... S: I make many mistakes of all kinds, inc. spelling, too.... especially when I’m rushing which is often. Also, I haven’t even found the spell-check here as yet so I can’t help with the ‘antinomium/antinomiumism’ qu!!! Instead I’ll thank you for the ‘camaraderie’ which I managed to combine with ‘comradeship’ in a recent post and saw too late;-(. With metta, Sarah ====== 22433 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 26, 2003 0:31am Subject: Lee - nibbana and sabhava Hi Lee, In another post to Jeff you were discussing the often quoted lines from the Udana description of nibbana (see below). I thought you might find the following notes from the Udana of interest as well. You may also wish to look at other posts in the same series at this link, under ‘Udana - nibbana’. Also, following interesting comments you made to Jon on sabhava,you may like to look at some of the saved posts at the same link under ‘sabhava’ too when you have a little spare time as it has been discussed quite a lot: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts I’ll be glad to hear any further comments on either of these threads (or any other of course;-)) Metta, Sarah ===== QUOTE from my earlier post ======================= Udana VIII.1 > "There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor > fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor > dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of > nothingness, .................... S: I may not have made it clear, that in the Masefield translation and Comy notes which I’m using, base is used instead of dimension (as here) in ‘There is, monks,that base’ (tadayatanam) ******************** (p.1012 Udana Comy): “...The Lord, having thus indicated, face to face, the existence, in its highest sense, of the unconditioned element, next says ‘Wherein there is neither earth, nor water’ and so on so as to indicate its own nature via an elimination of things that are the antithesis thereof. Just as nibbana is nowhere (to be found) amidst conditioned (sankhata) things, since it has as its own nature that which is antithetical to all formations (sankhara), so are all conditioned things (not to be found) therein either, for the collection of things conditioned and unconditioned is (a thing)not witnessed......there is neither the earth element whose characteristic is that of hardness, nor the water element whose characteristic is that of oozing, nor the fire element whose characteristic is that of heat, nor the wind element whose characteristic is that of distending......absence therein of the four great elements, the absence of all derived materiality....absence..of any becoming associated with (the world of) sense desires and (the world of) form.....Even though its own nature is one in which there is an absence of forms, there is next said, so as to indicate the absence within nibbana of any of the states belonging to becoming in the formless (sphere), ‘Nor that base consisting of endless space......nor that base consisting of neither perception nor non-perception’.” ******************** In other words, as I understand ‘endless space.....non-perception’, these lines are referring to the arupa planes where there are already an absence of the elements and all rupas. They are referred to here to indicate that even so, all ‘states belonging’ to these planes (i.e. all conditioned realities) are also absent. END EARLIER POST =================== 22434 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 26, 2003 2:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion Hi Christine & All, --- christine_forsyth wrote: C: > I think the problem I had with the Jatakas was initially not knowing > how they were regarded in Buddhism. Once it was clarified that the > verses are Word of the Buddha, but the Tales are not, I began to feel > a little less dosa about them. .... S: I think there are two points here - one concerns the origins of the Jataka stories and other commentaries which is of course a topic in itself and has been discussed before. The other concerns those parts of the Pali Canon (inc. commentaries) which we find disturbing and off-putting. For some this may mean Abhidhamma texts, for others the Vinaya, for many, Jatakas such as the Vessantara commentary Tale. On an internet discussion group we read not only what we’re ready and interested to hear but what, as you say, may be a condition for doubt and shock as well. We’ve discussed this before, I know. ..... C: >Maybe in some cultures, or in some > time periods, the Tales may make good teaching tools, but I would > think right now in western cultures some of the stories would > probably be an occasion for doubt, shock, revulsion, and a turning > away from Buddhism (especially the Vesantara Jataka). ..... S: As Ken put it in a post to Mike, “I was reminded that nothing about the Dhamma is easy”. I don’t think the Tales or other parts of the teachings condition adverse responses just in western cultures, but in all cultures. The teachings are contrary to our conditioned views and instincts and the way we’d like life to unfold. As Nina mentioned, even at the time of the discussions between the King and Ven Nagasena in the ‘Questions of King Milinda’,written long before Buddhaghosa’s commentaries (prob. 1st century AD), it was difficult for people to accept the Vessantara Jataka without feeling shock. I’ve just re-read these questions and answers (Dilemma 71, ‘Vessantara’s Giving’) and it’s uncanny how similar the questions are to ones you or I might raise. I think the answers may also give some useful clues to the other questions raised in Cooran on detachment and compassion, i.e: ..... C: > 1. If compassion means to relieve suffering in a positive way, and > detachment to remain aloof from the world, how can the two be > practised together? > 2. Does detachment in Buddhism imply lack of concern for humanity? ..... S: The King (Dilemma 71) asks “What, pray, has the man who seeks to gain merit to do with bringing sorrow on others! Should he not rather give himself away?” and also “....he who gives gifts in such a way as to bring sorrow upon others - does that giving of his bring forth fruit in happiness, does it lead to rebirth in states of bliss?”. The King perceives that Vessantara had no pity and when the children were ‘led away to nameless horrors’ that ‘his heart did not break, utterly break!’. Aren’t these responses familiar?? Ven Nagasena explains that it was because the acts were so difficult that “the fame of the Bodisat was spread abroad” and so on and the paramis were perfected. He also explains that sometimes a gift brings sorrow but leads to a happy rebirth. He gives an example of a monarch ‘harassing people with taxation’ in order to bestow gifts. Hmm.. The King suggests Vessantara’s gift was excessive and therefore worthy of ‘censure and blame’ by the wise. Nagasena explains this is not so - “just as the ocean by its exceding greatness can never be quite filled”, so no gift (with the right intentions) is excessive and subsequently Vessantara was praised and exalted in all those world systems or planes. Other interesting questions are asked about what kinds of gifts are unsuitable and why Vessantara didn’t give himself instead (answer: because he was asked for his wife and children and the greatest gift is to give what is requested. If someone asks for water, giving food is not a substitute.) We read two further reasons for the giving of the children against their wishes or lack of understanding. One is that the “practice of giving should not be interrupted” and the other is that he knew they would eventually be set free. “Vessantara knew, O king: ‘No one is capable of keeping my children as slaves. their grandfather will ransom the children, and so they will come back to me.’” The old Brahman’s ‘merit is small’ and he could not ‘seize the moon and the sun’. In other words, Vessantara knew what the ramifications would be and had confidence in the power of the wholesome deed. Further, “Just as a mighty bonfire burning on a mountain top would be visible afar off in the darkness and the gloom of night, so was Vessantara the king well known among men, and therefore could no one whatever keep in use, as his slaves, the children of so distinguished a man...” Christine, I’m not sure if any of these comments help - I’ve really just been exploring and considering further for my own interest and understanding too. As I mentioned before in a post, according to one of the commentaries (AN Comy), the Vessantara Jataka will be the first Tale to disappear. In response to the questions concerning compassion and detachment, Mike wrote: “detachment born of understanding (as opposed to indifference) is the greatest force for good known to humanity, both on an individual and on a social level.” I have confidence that if we could learn to appreciate its value, this Jataka Tale would epitomise the Bodhisatta’s fully developed ‘detachment, compassion and concern for humanity’. If however, we were to copy the actions -- as opposed to seeing the value and developing the qualities in our daily lives -- it would of course be with wrong understanding and not lead to good results at all. With metta, Sarah ====== 22435 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 26, 2003 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Additions to Photo Albums Hi Christine, Kom & All, Good work! It’s good to see Christine’s tall SOs (Significant Others)in place and that reminds me - it’s a long time since we heard from Sarah F....perhaps a nudge is in order.... Andrew, whilst I sympathise with any SOs who have their rear ends caught on film and then displayed for the world (well, for DSG members anyway) to see, perhaps it’s time for Smokey Joe to consider a little diet;-) Good to see a group pic from Cooran (hope it nudges others like Reg to join us, and the new good pics of Azita and RobM. LIke Chris said, perhaps a few members might ask for permission to post their SOs whilst shy members might like to try giving their excuses to Chris to work with - she can handle them all, I promise. (She even managed to rescue Larry’s pic from the Non-Duality Salon..). James, good to see your photographic work - maybe you could make sure your name is included in the labels for clarity. Nice to see you around again as well;-) Azita and Andrew, Looking forward to your weekend reflections as well...please add comments about what you found helpful then and now on reflection. Maybe Andrew, you’d like to give a summary of the paper you presented on environmental issues and Buddhism as well and the feedback. It looks like a beautiful setting at Cooran and obviously everyone finds it very beneficial. Anumodana (appreciation) in your hospitality. With metta, Sarah ====== 22436 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 26, 2003 3:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: L: > Eye consciousness, for example, is literally insignificant because it is > without concept. Concept=sign=nimitta. No-sign = inSIGNificant. Because > it is formless (no shape) one might be tempted to say there is no gift > and no result of giving etc. Clearly nihilistic. .... S: I get your inSIGNificent point;-) In an ultimate sense, there is no gift.....merely mental and phsyical phenomena. However, there are wholesome cittas, intentions and results in the way of eye consciousness and so on. Even though there is no concept, shape or form in what is seen, doesn’t mean the result, i.e the seeing of pleasant or unpleasant visible objects, is without sign or lakkhana (characteristics) and so on. You may need to elaborate further for me to really understand your point. ..... > L: That's it!!! In order to see an object as it is, concept is > NECESSARY. All eye consciousness sees is formless light. This is not the > object. ..... S: I think that if we say eye consciousness ‘sees ..formless light’, again our scientific knowledge is intruding. All I would say is that the visible object is just that which is seen now ...this and this and that...no need to think about it. The same ‘this and this and that’ or visible object can be known immediately by panna as it is - just that which is seen at that moment and then gone. As soon as there are concepts it is the thinking again which cuts in immediately. Sorry, I know this sounds garbled. .... L: >The result of kamma is not limited to consciousness. It is > reasonable to assume there are many aspects of my body that I am not > aware of. .... S: Yes and what we take for body are a multitude of rupas. Howard is discussing this area with Jon. When we read about ‘body’ in the various suttas, we find it is referring to rupas, i.e paramatha dhammas. For example in the MahaRahula sutta, after references to the body, details are given of all the various elements to be known. ..... L: >We don't know what they are the result of, but they are all > the result of some process. This rescues kamma result from being nearly > nothing because kamma result is much more than a few cittas in the > 5-door process. .... S: Yes, the rupas making up the body are formed by kamma from the first instant of life. It’s very complicated isn’t it? ..... L: AND because 5-sense consciousness cannot distinguish > between a rock and a hair because it has no concept, it PROVES that > concept is necessary in order to see objects "as they are". What do you > say? .... S: This was the ‘No, to your last question’ I mentioned;-) It’s true that while say, looking at a rock and a hair, that seeing only sees visible object, touching just experiences hardness/softness and so on. However, it is on account of the different visible objects, touching experiences and so on that concepts are then conceived by the mind to ‘identify’ the various objects as Howard explained well, I believe. But for panna to see (or rather know) objects “as they are”, such as visible object or hardness, none of these concepts are necessary. They are simply understood when they are experienced , just as they are. It’s not interested in conceptualising or distinguishing but in knowing the characteristics that appear. Again, I may be missing part of your point and I’d ask you to be patient and add further detail if I’ve gone off track. I think these are important points to consider and you’re making some pertinent comments imho. With metta, Sarah ====== 22437 From: Lee Dillion Date: Mon May 26, 2003 5:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lee - nibbana and sabhava Hi Sarah: Thanks so much for the references. The "useful posts" listing is a great service that I wasn't aware of. As for the Udana passage, I like Bhikkhu Nanananda's take on the passage as follows: -- "In a psychological sense, a design could be 'unmade' or 'dissolved' by shifting one's attention to its components. Even so, 'what is born' (jaatam), 'become' (bhuutam), 'made' (katam) and 'compounded' (samkhatam) is transformed into a 'not-born', 'not-become', 'not-made' and 'not-compounded' state by a penetrative insight into its causes and conditions. All 'designs' involved in the magic-show of consciousness, which are but dependently arisen, also cease when ignorance and craving are eradicated. The above epithets of Nibbaana are therefore psychological, and not metaphysical, in their import. Where there is no 'putting-together', there is no 'falling-apart'. Hence Nibbaana is also called apalokitam--the 'Non-disintegrating'. It is unfortunate that many scholars, both Eastern and Western, have interpreted metaphysically the two passages from the Udaana quoted here, bringing out conclusions which are hardly in keeping with the teachings of Anattaa. The widespread tendency is to see in these two passages a reference to some mysterious, nondescript realm in a different dimension of existence, though the Buddha was positive that all existence is subject to the law of impermanence." from _The Magic of the Mind_, pages 78-79, footnote 2 -- Lee Dillion 22438 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 8:59am Subject: anatta, good or bad? Hi all, In the suttas anatta seems to be an undesirable characteristic. What does this mean? Does anatta NOT mean "egoless"? Is "self" (atta) NOT equivalent to "ego"? If so, what does "self" mean in the suttas and why is anatta undesirable? Larry 22439 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon May 26, 2003 10:00am Subject: Re: anatta, good or bad? Hi Larry, Let me pose these questions: How is the term "self" used in the verses in Dhammapada XII, Self http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/12.html (or http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html) ? What are the definitions for the word "self" in the dictionary? In what sense, given the definitions in the dictionary, is the word "self" used in the verses in Dhammapada XII, Self? Is what is impermanent, dukkha desirable? Is what is impermanent, dukkha fit to be seen thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? Your feedback and/or comment is welcome. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > In the suttas anatta seems to be an undesirable characteristic. What > does this mean? Does anatta NOT mean "egoless"? Is "self" (atta) NOT > equivalent to "ego"? If so, what does "self" mean in the suttas and why > is anatta undesirable? > > Larry 22440 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon May 26, 2003 10:15am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 7. Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 7. There is a specific order of the cittas arising in sense-door processes and in mind-door processes, and if we consider this carefully, we can understand more clearly that there is no self who can decide whether kusala citta or akusala citta arises after the determining-consciousness in the sense-door process, and after the mind-door adverting-consciousness in the mind-door process . This depends on conditions; akusala cetasikas and sobhana cetasikas have been accumulated from moment to moment, from life to life and this is a condition for the arising of akusala citta and kusala citta. Each dhamma has its own unchangeable characteristic. Seeing only experiences colour, it is not angry, it is not attached. Anger and attachment are cetasikas that can accompany other moments of citta. Whenever we see, the seeing-consciousness is followed very closely by kusala citta or akusala citta. It all happens so rapidly that we do not notice this. Whenever we do not perform generosity, observe síla or apply ourselves to mental development, the javanacitta is akusala. Then we act, speak or think with akusala citta. When sati sampajañña arises and it is aware of nåma and rúpa, the citta is kusala citta. However, mindfulness does not last and akusala citta is bound to arise again. If there is no awareness the moments of kusala citta or akusala citta cannot be known. Akusala citta with clinging is bound to arise very often, but clinging may be very subtle. We learn about the processes of citta and we have theoretical understanding of these processes. However, it is important to consider more deeply the cittas as they arise in our daily life. We may not be able to know the characteristic of each citta, but we can come to understand that seeing is completely different from akusala citta or kusala citta. We may see more clearly that what we take for ³I² is in the ultimate sense: citta, cetasika and rúpa. Gradually we can come to understand what the Abhidhamma is: the Buddha¹s teaching of ultimate or absolute realities, paramattha dhammas. When we verify in our own life the Buddha¹s teaching on paramattha dhammas, we shall have no doubt that the Abhidhamma is part of the Tipitaka. The Abhidhamma gives us a sense of urgency as to the development of kusala: before we realize it, akusala cittas arise. We learn about the processes of cittas, we learn that after seeing, hearing etc. akusala cittas can arise. We do not even notice them, cittas arise and fall away extremely rapidly. As we have seen, there is a certain fixed order in the processes of cittas, and nobody can change this order. It depends on the accumulated cetasikas and many conditions whether kusala cittas or akusala cittas arise within a process, and before we realize it the process is over, and another process begins again. This can help us when we are in difficult situations. We are only citta, cetasika and rupa, or, in other words, five khandhas, that is the same. When we hear someone's angry words and we react with aversion we can remember that there are only citta, cetasika and rupa that have immediately fallen away. Understanding of realities can condition more mettå. ******* (end of Ch 2) 22441 From: connie Date: Mon May 26, 2003 10:19am Subject: jhana Hi, All ~ I've been listening to the Foundation's India 2001 tapes and Jon (thank you) was nice enough to explain the phrase "ben puu mii-pokati charoen satipatthaan" to me as: <> ben - is, to be puu - person, 'one who' mii - has/have pokati - usually, normally, regularly, habitually charoen - develop satipatthaan - satipatthana Thus: One who develops satipatthana regularly The Thai word 'pokati' is actually the Pali word 'pakati' meaning 'natural(ly)'. <> I've just been thinking a little about the ideas that jhana also develops naturally and that satipatthana includes jhana but not the other way around... so I guess it's "ben puu mii-pokati charoen chan(?)" as well and the 'dry insight worker' would also have jhana, just not as a 'practiced art' and wouldn't place that much importance on it... it would be there but just not conditioned to play an obvious role. Mostly, I just want to thank everyone for making this list possible and say I enjoy being here. peace, connie 22442 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon May 26, 2003 10:36am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 7. Hi Nina, Exactly who take citta, cetasika, and rupa for "I"? Regards, Victor We may see more > clearly that what we take for ³I² is in the ultimate sense: citta, cetasika > and rúpa. 22443 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 7:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/26/03 12:02:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi all, > > In the suttas anatta seems to be an undesirable characteristic. What > does this mean? Does anatta NOT mean "egoless"? Is "self" (atta) NOT > equivalent to "ego"? If so, what does "self" mean in the suttas and why > is anatta undesirable? > > Larry > > =========================== Well, I would suppose that in order for something to be desirable (in the usual sense of tanha) it must be graspable and controllable. No dhamma is either of these. Of course, what is truly of value is the absence of desire. 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) 22444 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon May 26, 2003 1:53pm Subject: Re: Cooran - detachment and compassion Hello Sarah, I think we will have to agree to disagree on the relative merits of the Jataka Tales. As previously stated, I don't regard the Jataka Tales as part of the Dhamma, the Buddha's Teachings. When they are included as 'evidence' for or 'justifications' or 'explanations' of the true Teachings I think they undermine and weaken the point the writer is trying to make. (IMO no different from using Beowulf, as a support). In the Vesantara Jataka, women and children are seen as 'things', 'belongings', 'parcels' , which the men in the story have the right to trade or give away, use and mistreat with impunity for their own benefit, 'spiritual' or otherwise. I am appalled that the abuse of human beings is depicted in this and other Buddhist stories as acceptable and meritorious. I note that the Questions of King Milinda are a very late inclusion and are only in the Burmese Canon. I reiterate my understanding (and relief) that the Jataka Tales as a whole are not part of the Canon, and that only the verses are. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/14958 My point of view is clearly coloured by the crisis work I do with women, babies and children, by my being a woman, by my having dearly loved children, and by the culture I was born in. In this country, those men engaged in the use, trading and assault of the children would have been arrested, charged, prosecuted, and jailed for their abuse and neglect, and for failing to provide for the protection of a minor. The claim by the perpetrator that he was advancing his own spiritual progress, would merely give reason for the magistrate to order a pyschiatric review. The woman and the children would have been offered the refuge, support and protection that any civilised society ought to offer its citizens. I see no benefit in a 'teaching' whose point is so obscure that it requires one to disregard basic decency, the teachings on morality and to consider what is unwholesome as wholesome. I do not greet with sadness your comment that the Vesantara Jataka is predicted to be the first one to disappear. metta, Christine > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > C: > I think the problem I had with the Jatakas was initially not knowing > > > how they were regarded in Buddhism. Once it was clarified that the > > verses are Word of the Buddha, but the Tales are not, I began to feel > > a little less dosa about them. > .... > S: I think there are two points here - one concerns the origins of the > Jataka stories and other commentaries which is of course a topic in itself > and has been discussed before. > > The other concerns those parts of the Pali Canon (inc. commentaries) which > we find disturbing and off-putting. For some this may mean Abhidhamma > texts, for others the Vinaya, for many, Jatakas such as the Vessantara > commentary Tale. On an internet discussion group we read not only what > we're ready and interested to hear but what, as you say, may be a > condition for doubt and shock as well. We've discussed this before, I > know. > ..... > C: >Maybe in some cultures, or in some > > time periods, the Tales may make good teaching tools, but I would > > think right now in western cultures some of the stories would > > probably be an occasion for doubt, shock, revulsion, and a turning > > away from Buddhism (especially the Vesantara Jataka). > ..... > S: As Ken put it in a post to Mike, "I was reminded that nothing about the > Dhamma is easy". > > I don't think the Tales or other parts of the teachings condition adverse > responses just in western cultures, but in all cultures. The teachings are > contrary to our conditioned views and instincts and the way we'd like life > to unfold. > > As Nina mentioned, even at the time of the discussions between the King > and Ven Nagasena in the `Questions of King Milinda',written long before > Buddhaghosa's commentaries (prob. 1st century AD), it was difficult for > people to accept the Vessantara Jataka without feeling shock. > > I've just re-read these questions and answers (Dilemma 71, `Vessantara's > Giving') and it's uncanny how similar the questions are to ones you or I > might raise. I think the answers may also give some useful clues to the > other questions raised in Cooran on detachment and compassion, i.e: > ..... > C: > 1. If compassion means to relieve suffering in a positive way, and > > detachment to remain aloof from the world, how can the two be > > practised together? > > 2. Does detachment in Buddhism imply lack of concern for humanity? > ..... > S: The King (Dilemma 71) asks "What, pray, has the man who seeks to gain > merit to do with bringing sorrow on others! Should he not rather give > himself away?" and also "....he who gives gifts in such a way as to bring > sorrow upon others - does that giving of his bring forth fruit in > happiness, does it lead to rebirth in states of bliss?". > > The King perceives that Vessantara had no pity and when the children were > `led away to nameless horrors' that `his heart did not break, utterly > break!'. > > Aren't these responses familiar?? > > Ven Nagasena explains that it was because the acts were so difficult that > "the fame of the Bodisat was spread abroad" and so on and the paramis were > perfected. He also explains that sometimes a gift brings sorrow but leads > to a happy rebirth. He gives an example of a monarch `harassing people > with taxation' in order to bestow gifts. Hmm.. > > The King suggests Vessantara's gift was excessive and therefore worthy of > `censure and blame' by the wise. Nagasena explains this is not so - "just > as the ocean by its exceding greatness can never be quite filled", so no > gift (with the right intentions) is excessive and subsequently Vessantara > was praised and exalted in all those world systems or planes. > > Other interesting questions are asked about what kinds of gifts are > unsuitable and why Vessantara didn't give himself instead (answer: because > he was asked for his wife and children and the greatest gift is to give > what is requested. If someone asks for water, giving food is not a > substitute.) > > We read two further reasons for the giving of the children against their > wishes or lack of understanding. One is that the "practice of giving > should not be interrupted" and the other is that he knew they would > eventually be set free. "Vessantara knew, O king: `No one is capable of > keeping my children as slaves. their grandfather will ransom the > children, and so they will come back to me.'" The old Brahman's `merit is > small' and he could not `seize the moon and the sun'. > > In other words, Vessantara knew what the ramifications would be and had > confidence in the power of the wholesome deed. > > Further, "Just as a mighty bonfire burning on a mountain top would be > visible afar off in the darkness and the gloom of night, so was Vessantara > the king well known among men, and therefore could no one whatever keep in > use, as his slaves, the children of so distinguished a man..." > > Christine, I'm not sure if any of these comments help - I've really just > been exploring and considering further for my own interest and > understanding too. As I mentioned before in a post, according to one of > the commentaries (AN Comy), the Vessantara Jataka will be the first Tale > to disappear. > > In response to the questions concerning compassion and detachment, Mike > wrote: > > "detachment born of understanding (as opposed to indifference) is the > greatest force for good known to humanity, both on an individual and on a > social level." > > I have confidence that if we could learn to appreciate its value, this > Jataka Tale would epitomise the Bodhisatta's fully developed `detachment, > compassion and concern for humanity'. > > If however, we were to copy the actions -- as opposed to seeing the value > and developing the qualities in our daily lives -- it would of course be > with wrong understanding and not lead to good results at all. > > With metta, > > Sarah > ====== 22445 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 26, 2003 2:13pm Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; cetana Hi Ken, I will start the ball rolling on this one. I believe that that the Buddha was expalaining the second link in the chain of dependent origination in this Sutta. In brief, this is the link whereby sankhara is a condition for vinnana to arise. Let me first give the Abhidhamma perspective on this link and then try to relate it to this Sugga. Abhidhamma Perspective on Second Link ===================================== Sankhara (kamma-formations) is cetana in 29 cittas: - Merit (cetana in 8 kamavacara kusala and 5 rupavacara kusala) - Demerit (cetana in 12 akusala) - Imperturbable (cetana in 4 arupavacara) The two modes of conditioning of this link are asynchronous kamma and natural decisive support. Vinnana (consciousness) arises at two times (kala) - At rebith (patisandhi-kala) - During life (pavatti-kala) One can read more about this in Visuddhi Magga XVII, 177-179. Relating this to the Sutta ========================== I see intend = cetana and arrange / obsess as being different degrees of papanca (conceptual proliferation). I see "stationing of consciousness" as referring to rebirth linking. Patisandhi-citta is a base of support for the various vipaka citta that arise during life (pavatti-kala). The "landing and growing" refers to the new kamma and new papanca in the subsequent existence that arises and binds to samsara. This is my undestanding of the first paragraph. I see the second paragraph referring to the rupavacara and arupavacara planes of existence; in these planes of existence, there is no new object, but there continues to be obsession with the object of the jhanic state and therefore rebirth continues. I see the third paragraph as referring to the Arahant. My analysis could probably use some fine tuning, but does this make sense? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > At the Cooran meeting, Andrew handed out copies of the > Cetana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya XII.38 (translated by B. > Thanisssaro)) and asked for comments. Even the bookworms > (Christine and Steve), couldn't come up with much on the > key terms, "intend," "arrange," and "obsess." Steve > pointed out that the third paragraph described the > Arahant (and, presumably, the second; the Noble Learner > and the first; the Worldling(?)). But apart from that, > we were struggling for ideas. > > The translation consists of just three paragraphs so > hopefully, it can be explained quite briefly. If any dsg > members are prepared to do so, I'll put their suggestions > to the next Cooran meeting. Thanks in advance. > > Ken H > ------------ > CETANA SUTTA > > INTENTION > > "Staying at Savatthi . . [the Blessed One said,] "What > one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses > about;[1] this is a support for the stationing of > consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing > [or; an establishing] of consciousness. When that > consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of > renewed becoming in the future. When there is the > production of renewed becoming in the future, there is > future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, > distress and despair. Such is the origination of the > entire mass of suffering and stress. > > "If one doesn't intend and doesn't arrange, but one still > obsesses [about something], this is a support for the > stationing of consciousness. There being a support, > there is . . [as above]. . . and despair. Such [too] is > the origination of this entire mass of suffering and > stress. > > "But when one doesn't intend, arrange or obsess [about > anything], there is no support for the stationing of > consciousness. There being no support, there is no > landing of consciousness. When that consciousness > doesn't land and grow, there is no production of renewed > becoming in the future. When there is no production of > renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, > aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or > despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of > suffering and stress."" > > Note [1] > The seven obsessions are; the obsession of sensual > passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of > views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of > conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming and the > obsession of ignorance. See AN VII.12. 22446 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 2:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anatta, good or bad? No good Victor. A question isn't an answer. Larry 22447 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 7:13am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? To Sarah: In a message dated 5/26/03 12:14:41 AM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << ..... Jeff: > ... I believe at the center of this question lies the question > of what > the person's concept of self is. If, for instance, the person has > completely > erased the concept of self, then we are talking about a condition of > non-dualism, because if there is no self, then there is no 'other.' > > In the condition of non-dualism, then anything goes. There is no karma, > > because there is no self to act or react. ..... S: Regardless of whether there is any wrong view of self or not, the ‘reality’ or ‘truth’ of anatta and of other aspects and conditions such as kamma remain the same. Kamma is not dependent on wrong views. Also it is not that there is a self and then no self. There never is a self regardless of any misperceptions to the contrary. What we take for a self acting and reacting are ‘bare phenomena (i.e namas and rupas) rolling on’. I think these are important issues you’ve raised and I’d be glad to discuss them further. >> %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I Understand that this is what you believe, but this has not either been my experience, nor my perception of human cognitive history. Just because the Buddha (and a few other enlightened teachers) said there was no ultimate self, does not mean that humans have been conceiving, or better perceiving and interacting with their reality through a conception of a self. I have not found that just changing one's belief regarding a self has lead to the annihilation of self. I am sure if you look around in the Dhamma community, you will find plenty of "egotists" who claim there is no self, while they have constructed very elaborate precious little egos that they maintain with impeccable effort. .... S: I agree that with no wrong view of self, there will be fewer conditions to act in these ways - for a start, no conditions to take anything ‘personally’ such as the worldly conditions with wrong view. Still, as we know, the sotapanna is free of this wrong view, but still has plenty of attachment and aversion and ‘selfish’ inclinations in the sense of pursuing pleasant experiences. ..... Jeff: Well, one then should ask what is that 'sotapanna?' Why do we need to resort to Pali, when the English language is a very rich language that we are all quite familiar with? If there is no self there is nothing to attach or avert. Just by believing there is no self does not eliminate grasping and aversion. The ego, or self, is still a construct that one has maintained for many lifetimes. It doesn't just devolve because one chooses not to believe in it any more. That is in part why Buddhism is a contemplative tradition at it heart. Buddhism isn't about thinking and believing, that's Christianity. Buddhism is about realizing. One doesn't realize, or actualize an egoless state through belief or thought. One does it through an intense contemplative practice. .... S: Only at the stage of arahantship will there be no new kamma. Even then, for the rest of the life of the arahant (and even the Buddha), there will be the experiencing of the results of past kamma. Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding you here, Jeff. ..... Jeff: Well, I think that is what I am getting at. One still has an ego (self), whether one believes it or not, until one has effaced it through nibbana, which means one has become an arahant. As for the results of past karmas, I believe it depends on how you define karma. Siddharta Gotama had chronic intestinal problems. I am no medical doctor, but his subsistence strategy was based on begging. I am sure not everyone during his lifetime consider him to be an enlightened being. Probably most people during his time period gave the wandering samanas of India the leftovers from the previous meal, or day. Since there was no refrigeration that means that the Buddha was probably eating yesterday's un-refrigerated meal. In a tropical climate, like much of India, that means he was eating food that was definitely going bad. Therefore he probably had chronic food poisoning. Can we say that his food poisoning was due to karma? No, he was enlightened, therefore he had no actions or reactions of a self anymore, his subsistence strategy probably caused his chronic food poisoning. Can we call his food poisoning due to his subsistence strategy karma? Only if you have a mechanistic view of karma. Otherwise, no. Also when you read the section on body meditation, foulness meditations, and cremation ground meditation, he talks about the parasites that live in our body working their way out of the dead body at a particular stage of its decomposition. From his perspective of human anatomy, it seems clear to me that he believed parasites were beneficial creatures that lived inside of everyone. Therefore he also probably had a host of parasites of every kind inside of him. So, one could say Siddharta's health problems were based on the "karma" of his subsistence strategy and the time period in which he lived. But, I do not look at karma in a mechanistic way. To me karma is about the actions and reactions of the 'self' with respect to its subjective world. If one were to consider karma from this perspective then, the manifestations of one's life are irrelevant, the only thing of interest to the yogi at this point is whether suffering exists for him or her. And, suffering is purely a consequence of an ego as it grasps and averts at its subjective world. For an enlightened being, experiencing food poisoning has no element of suff ering. There may be pain as he or she retches out the poisonous food, but since there is no grasping or averting over the experience there is no suffering, and no perpetuation of suffering through actions and reactions of a clinging self. ..... S: I would say this will only be done by the full eradication of all kilesa (defilements) and in particular the eradication of tanha (craving), as expounded in the second Noble Truth. ..... Jeff: Yes, I would agree, first comes the "eradication of the defilements," which requires 'eradication' of grasping and aversion, as you say "the second Noble Truth." Once one has annihilated, or as you say 'eradication,' these then one continues through cessation to the final stage is 'eradication' or 'annihilation' of the self. J: >“Yes the Pali canon is a big document for one who was seeking the cessation of conceptualization and the selfâ€?. ..... S: As I understand, the aim of the teachings (in the Pali canon) is not the ‘cessation of conceptualization and the self’, but the understanding that the conceptual and self worlds are illusions and the actual worlds that can be known and realized at this very moment are those of the six senses. There cannot be any final cessation without full knowledge. I’m not sure if we are in agreement here or not, but I agreed with your point that conceptual understanding is not the same as direct knowledge or ‘realization’. ..... Jeff: Good point, but if we look at the Potthapada Sutta, DN. 9-17 we get that we move out of the world of the sense as we pass through the rupa jhana to the arupa jhanas (supramundane ecstasies) which are beyond the 6 sense world as we approach cessation which equals nibbana. As for "There cannot be any final cessation without full knowledge." It depends on how you conceive of full knowledge, but it is generally considered that nibbana is the ultimate "knowledge" or state of "wisdom." ..... S: I make many mistakes of all kinds, inc. spelling, too.... especially when I’m rushing which is often. Also, I haven’t even found the spell-check here as yet so I can’t help with the ‘antinomium/antinomiumism’ qu!!! Instead I’ll thank you for the ‘camaraderie’ which I managed to combine with ‘comradeship’ in a recent post and saw too late;-(. With metta, Sarah ====== Jeff: Yes, I appreciate the "virtual" sangha or company we keep here as well. Best regards to you and all, layman Jeff 22448 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 3:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi Howard, My reading of many suttas is that "X" is anatta BECAUSE "X" is dukkha. I've been trying to think of a better translation than "not self" and it occured to me that the flavor (or flavour) of anatta is closer to "selfish" than it is to "selfless". That seems to me to be the logic behind calling the khandhas anatta. Here I am using "selfish" and "selfless" in the modern sense of "self grasping or not", not in the sutta sense of "permanent". Although I am not clear on what the Buddha is getting at by implying that the common sense of "self" is "permanent". How do you understand the suttas on this issue? Larry 22449 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 8:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] jhana To Connie: In a message dated 5/26/03 10:17:32 AM, nichicon@h... writes: << I've just been thinking a little about the ideas that jhana also develops naturally and that satipatthana includes jhana but not the other way around... so I guess it's "ben puu mii-pokati charoen chan(?)" as well and the 'dry insight worker' would also have jhana, just not as a 'practiced art' and wouldn't place that much importance on it... it would be there but just not conditioned to play an obvious role. Mostly, I just want to thank everyone for making this list possible and say I enjoy being here. peace, connie >> %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thank-you Connie, well said, it has been my experience. A great deal of 'dry' practitioners seem to have jhana, but since there is no dialog about it, they wouldn't know. I personally believe it is an error not to have dialog about a natural consequence of meditation practice. As for the question of jhana practitioners or 'wets' being different from 'drys.' I have found people meditate for many reasons. Not many vipassana practitioners seem to be intent on nibbana. I believe most of us have humbler goals, so should we fault a vipassana practitioner for not giving everything away and shaving their head and going forth? No, why should we. We all have our path to follow, and it takes us in different ways. So, jhana yogis, 'wets,' are like 'drys,' they do what they do for a wide range of reasons. But, the difference is, the 'wets' don't believe ignorance, or choosing not to have a dialog about something, like the conditions of abs orption, is a good idea. They believe dialog and open conversation can only be healthy. Best to all, Jeff Brooks president, University of Arizona Meditation Club http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Vivatha/ editor, Southwest Insight E'letter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWI_E_letter/ moderator, Jhana Support Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/ 22450 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon May 26, 2003 3:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: anatta, good or bad? Hi Larry, Thank you for your reply. Regarding the questions that I posed to you, you are free to contemplate, investigate, and respond to them or not. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > No good Victor. A question isn't an answer. > > Larry 22451 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 0:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/26/03 6:11:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > My reading of many suttas is that "X" is anatta BECAUSE "X" is dukkha. > I've been trying to think of a better translation than "not self" and it > occured to me that the flavor (or flavour) of anatta is closer to > "selfish" than it is to "selfless". That seems to me to be the logic > behind calling the khandhas anatta. Here I am using "selfish" and > "selfless" in the modern sense of "self grasping or not", not in the > sutta sense of "permanent". Although I am not clear on what the Buddha > is getting at by implying that the common sense of "self" is > "permanent". How do you understand the suttas on this issue? > > Larry =========================== I understand 'anatta' as meaning all the following - impersonal, not (fully) controllable, insubstantial, dependent, contingent, and empty of own-being. So, I certainly don't see "selfish" as an appropriate rendering of 'anatta'. Also, while one *might* agree that whatever would be personal, controllable, substantial, independent, self-reliant, or self-existing would be satisfactory, and, thus, whatever is unsatisfactory (dukkha) must lack all these (and, hence, be anatta), I don't see being unsatisfactory as being a "cause" for being anatta. 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) 22452 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 4:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran meeting; cetana Hi Ken, There are many interesting points in the three and a half pages of commentary in the "Wisdom" edition of this sutta (B. Bodhi trans.) This is actually the first of three short suttas all saying the same thing in slightly different ways. B. Bodhi translates the first part of the formula as follows: "...whatever one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes the basis..." L: Here "intends" is "cetana", "plans" is "craving and views", "tendency towards" is "anusaya" (bad habits, see below), and "basis" is a translation of "arammana" and means in this case "condition". The difference between the three suttas is as follows: 1. "When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence...future birth, aging, death etc..." 2. "When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is a descent of name-and-form...sense bases...contact etc." 3. "When consciousness is established and has come to growth there is inclination...coming and going...passing away and being reborn etc." L: The commentary on the second section is as follows: The second section is stated to show that wholesome and unwholesome kamma capable of producing rebirth is accumulated in the preliminary portion (of the path of practice), and that even without planning (through craving and views), the volitions of insight meditation in a meditator who has seen the dangers in existence are still conditioned by the underlying tendencies and capable of generating rebirth. It is also stated to show that even when wholesome and unwholesome states are not occurring there is still an establishing of kammic consciousness with underlying defilements as condition; for so long as these have not been abandoned they lie latent in the existing resultants of the three planes, etc. L: This merits a bit of subcommentary, imo. What does it mean for anusaya to lie dormant in resultants? Maybe others can bring up some of the other points. Larry CETANA SUTTA INTENTION "Staying at Savatthi . . [the Blessed One said,] "What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about;[1] this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or; an establishing] of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair. Such is the origination of the entire mass of suffering and stress. "If one doesn't intend and doesn't arrange, but one still obsesses [about something], this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is . . [as above]. . . and despair. Such [too] is the origination of this entire mass of suffering and stress. "But when one doesn't intend, arrange or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land and grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering and stress."" anusaya ["tendencies", "obsessions"] the 7 'proclivities', inclinations, or tendencies are: sensuous greed (káma-rága, s. samyojana), grudge (patigha), speculative opinion (ditthi, q.v.), sceptical doubt (vicikicchá, q.v.), conceit (mána, q.v.), craving for continued existence (bhavarága), ignorance (avijjá, q.v.) (D. 33; A. VII, 11, 12). "These things are called 'proclivities' since, in consequence of their pertinacity, they ever and again tend to become the conditions for the arising of ever new sensuous greed, etc.'' (Vis.M. XXII, 60). Yam. VII, first determines in which beings such and such proclivities exist, and which proclivities, and with regard to what, and in which sphere of existence. Thereafter it gives an explanation concerning their overcoming, their penetration, etc. Cf. Guide VI (vii). According to Kath. several ancient Buddhist schools erroneously held the opinion that the anusayas, as such, meant merely latent, hence karmically neutral qualities, which however Contradicts the Theraváda conception. Cf. Guide V, 88, 108, 139. [BUDDHIST DCTIONARY, ~Nanatiloka] 22453 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 5:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi Howard, This is an example of why I think the characteristic of dukkha is a cause or condition for the characteristic of anatta: MN 22, par. 26: "Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" -- "No, venerable sir." "Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with material form, etc." L: Seeing anatta leads to disenchantment. Disenchantment leads to cessation (nibbana). Therefore anatta is not a positive attribute of a dhamma but seeing its negativity leads to the end of craving for that dhamma. It is a wrong valuation to regard anatta as selfless or egoless, in a modern sense. Larry 22454 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 6:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, I think the main reason Buddhists argue over what is real and what is not is in order to steer a middle course between the two extreme views of kamma. Some would say an "ultimate" view that says nothing is given is an extreme. Others would say not so. However that may be, let's take another tack. Is ignorance a reality? How does it manifest? [hint: I'm trying to get you to say ignorance is a wrong conceptual view and a reality] Larry 22455 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 3:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/26/03 8:32:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > L: Seeing anatta leads to disenchantment. Disenchantment leads to > cessation (nibbana). Therefore anatta is not a positive attribute of a > dhamma but seeing its negativity leads to the end of craving for that > dhamma. It is a wrong valuation to regard anatta as selfless or egoless, > in a modern sense. > ========================== I don't quite know whether I agree or disagree with you, because I don't quite understand your point. We are enchanted by what we think is a self-sufficient, independent, substantial, personal, and controllable reality. When we discover that this way of seeing things is illusory, that nothing is me or mine or mine-to-control or self-existent, the enchantment evaporates. Dukkha is exactly a matter of grasping at what is not graspable. When we see the true nature of things, we open our grasping fist, we let go, and the dukkha goes. This is what I see to be the case. Do you see it differently, or do we see it similarly but you are using terminology to characterize it that somehow doesn't ring true with me? 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) 22456 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon May 26, 2003 8:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi Howard, Pardon me for jumping in. I would consider this way: For instance, body is not self. Body is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." I wouldn't say that seeing that body as impersonal, not (fully) controllable, insubstantial, dependent, contingent, and empty of own- being is the same as seeing body as not self, as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry - [snip] > I understand 'anatta' as meaning all the following - impersonal, not > (fully) controllable, insubstantial, dependent, contingent, and empty of > own-being. So, I certainly don't see "selfish" as an appropriate rendering of > 'anatta'. > Also, while one *might* agree that whatever would be personal, > controllable, substantial, independent, self-reliant, or self- existing would be > satisfactory, and, thus, whatever is unsatisfactory (dukkha) must lack all these > (and, hence, be anatta), I don't see being unsatisfactory as being a "cause" for > being anatta. > > With metta, > Howard 22457 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 8:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi Howard, The way I see our differences is that I am saying the suttas say impermanence is dukkha while you say impermanence is just impermanence; dukkha is attempting to grasp the impermanent. I think your view is more of a Mahayana view. Not necessarily wrong but possibly a difficulty in relinquishing due to aesthetic appreciation of the "illusion". My view has the danger of being too negative and reactionary. In my view, impemanence, dukkha, and anatta are almost the same characteristic. I think it would be inappropriate to call nibbana anatta and I don't think you will find this characterization in the tipitaka or commentaries, in spite of the "sabbe dhamma anatta". Anatta and nibbana are nearly an equation in some Mahayana schools but I think this goes against the Theravada strategy of cultivating at least some degree of revulsion. Does the idea of anatta make you want to throw-up? Larry 22458 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 5:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/26/03 11:33:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Pardon me for jumping in. > > I would consider this way: > For instance, body is not self. Body is to be seen as it actually > is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. > This is not my self." > > I wouldn't say that seeing that body as impersonal, not (fully) > controllable, insubstantial, dependent, contingent, and empty of own- > being is the same as seeing body as not self, as it actually is with > right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is > not my self." > > Your feedback is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== That's fine, Victor. You are certainly welcome to your perspective. To me, to say with regard to the body "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." and to say that it is impersonal come down to the same thing. If the rest of what I said has no appeal to you, or if the word 'impersonal' is unappealing to you, that's fine. 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) 22459 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 5:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/26/03 11:58:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > The way I see our differences is that I am saying the suttas say > impermanence is dukkha while you say impermanence is just impermanence; > dukkha is attempting to grasp the impermanent. I think your view is more > of a Mahayana view. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: That is definitely my view. If it is a Mahayanist view, then in that respect I am a Mahayanist. But as far as I'm concerned, the Pali canon distinguishes the five khandhas from the five khandhas afflicted by clinging, and it identifies dukkha with tanha and upadana. ----------------------------------------------------- Not necessarily wrong but possibly a difficulty in> > relinquishing due to aesthetic appreciation of the "illusion". My view > has the danger of being too negative and reactionary. > > In my view, impemanence, dukkha, and anatta are almost the same > characteristic. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that 'sabbe sankhara dukkha' means that all conditions are unsatisfactory in the sense of not affording satisfaction to us, not being worthy of clinging to, and in fact causing distress if clung to due to their impermanent and empty nature. But without the clinging, there is no problem. No conditions were problems to the Buddha. When Gotama became Buddha, dukkha, for him, was *gone*. ------------------------------------------------------ > I think it would be inappropriate to call nibbana anatta and I don't > think you will find this characterization in the tipitaka or > commentaries, in spite of the "sabbe dhamma anatta". > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: So, do you think that nibbana is atta??? ------------------------------------------------- Anatta and nibbana> > are nearly an equation in some Mahayana schools but I think this goes > against the Theravada strategy of cultivating at least some degree of > revulsion. Does the idea of anatta make you want to throw-up? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually quite the opposite! It makes me calm. I see it as the way things really are, and I see its realization as the doorway to freedom. -------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22460 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue May 27, 2003 1:08am Subject: Re: anatta, good or bad? Dear All, Anatta Good or Bad ? Anatta is a concept of no-self. In other religions there is a soul, a permanent entity that survives death . The teachings of the Buddha denies the existence of a self, soul or Atma. Therefore the Buddha's teaching is called the doctrine of Anatma (no-self). Whether it is good or bad is how one looks at it. I think the way the question has been put makes it unclear what is really meant by it. What is good or bad in Anatta. Perhaps what he means is whether, anatta is true or false. Anatta, as we know it, is a concept, we have to go beyond the concept to understand what it means. It is not possible to understand the reality of antama, by merely saying I am antama or I am not anatma. To understand the reality of it we have to understand the other relevant teachings of the Buddha-such as the Causal Genesis (paticchasamuppada) or his discourse the Annatta Lakkhana Sutta among others.Besides, calling into question ultimate realities.....! Self is the basic cause of suffering (dukkha). If we understand the impermanence of all conceptual things, we will know the reality of Dukkha and the non existence of a self. If we were to understand, that the cause of dukkha, is the attachment to a self. Then it would logically follow that, if there is no self there is no dukkha.-then to that extent Anatma is good. With metta, Yasa 22461 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue May 27, 2003 10:26am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 1. Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 1. Chapter 3 The five Khandhas The five khandhas are: rúpakkhandha, including all materiality, vedanåkkhandha, including all types of feeling, saññåkkhandha, remembrance or perception, sankhårakkhandha, including all cetasikas other than feeling and remembrance, viññånakkhandha, including all cittas. We read in the ³Greater Discourse at the Time of a Full Moon² (Middle Length Sayings III, 109) that the Buddha, while he was staying near Såvatthí in the Eastern Monastery, explained the five Khandhas to a monk who questioned him about this: Whatever, monk, is material shape (rúpa), past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near, this is the group of material shape (rúpakkhandha). The Buddha said the same about the four nåma-khandhas. The five khandhas will be seen and understood as they are by the development of insight. Right understanding of nåma and rúpa is developed stage by stage. There are three stages of beginning insight, ³tender insight², and after that several stages of ³principal insight² (mahå-vipassanå ñåna) follow, before enlightenment is attained. Acharn Sujin said during our discussions that, before we understand what the khandhas are, we should clearly know nåma as nåma and rúpa as rúpa. At the first stage of ³tender insight² the difference between the characteristic of nåma and of rúpa is clearly distinguished. So long as this stage is not reached, we are confused as to what nåma is, and what rupa is. We do not know feeling as nåma. We may think of khandha as a whole, it seems as if it is a concept. It is a concept so long as we have not yet directly experienced the khandhas. When the third stage of ³tender insight² is reached the five khandhas can be directly experienced, dhammas that arise and fall away, that are past, present and future. We should remember again the words of the ³Bhaddekaratta Sutta², ³A Single Excellent Night²: "Let not a person revive the past Or on the future build his hopes; For the past has been left behind And the future has not been reached. Instead with insight let him see Each presently arisen state...² The past has just fallen away, and the future that has not come yet, but the future will be present very soon. We should consider in how far we really understand the texts of the Tipiìaka. Acharn Sujin reminded us that when we read the Tipiìaka we shall come to know the amount of our understanding, we shall know ourselves. This reminder helps us to realize how little we understand. 22462 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue May 27, 2003 10:26am Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 10. Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 10. As to the fifth qualification, the going forth, he must have gone forth into the homeless state, either as an ascetic or as a bhikkhu who believes in the doctrine of kamma and its appropriate result. His aspiration does not succeed when he lives as a layman. Also at the time he makes his resolution to become a Sammasambuddha, he should have gone forth, because a monk is stronger in his determination than a layman. As to the sixth qualification, the achievement of noble qualities, we read in the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct²: 6) The achievement of noble qualities (gunasampatti): the achievement of such noble qualities as the direct knowledges (abhiññå), etc. For the aspiration only succeeds when made by one who has gone forth and gained the eight meditative attainments (samåpatti) and the five mundane types of direct knowledge; it does not succeed for one devoid of these qualities. Why? Because one devoid of them is incapable of investigating the paramis. It is because he possesses the necessary supporting conditions and the direct knowledges that the Great Man, after he has made the aspiration, is able to investigate the påramís by himself. As to the seventh qualification, extreme dedication, we read: (7) Extreme dedication (adhikåra): extreme devotion. The aspiration only succeeds for one endowed with the aforesaid qualities who at the time has such strong devotion for the Buddhas that he is prepared to relinquish his very life for them. During the Bodhisatta¹s life as Sumedha, people were clearing the way for the Buddha Dípankara, but since they were not yet ready, Sumedha threw himself on the road so that the Buddha would tread on him. As to the eighth qualification, we read: (8) Strong desire (chandatå): wholesome desire, the wish for accomplishment. One possessed of the aforesaid qualities must have strong desire, yearning, and longing to practise the qualities issuing in Buddhahood. Only then does his aspiration succeed, not otherwise. This shows us the Buddha¹s great compassion. Due to his great compassion we still have the opportunity to listen to the Dhamma. We read further on about the aspiration of the Bodhisatta who is endowed with these eight factors: Its characteristic is rightly resolving to attain the supreme enlightenment. Its function is to yearn, "Oh, may I awaken to the supreme perfect enlightenment, and bring well-being and happiness to all beings!" It is manifest as the root-cause for the requisites of enlightenment. Its proximate cause is great compassion, or the achievement of the necessary supporting conditions. Since it has as its object the inconceivable plane of the Buddhas and the welfare of the whole immeasurable world of beings, it should be seen as the loftiest, most sublime and exalted distinction of merit, endowed with immeasurable potency, the root-cause of all the qualities issuing in Buddhahood. Simultaneous with its arising, the Great Man enters upon the practice of the vehicle to great enlightenment, mahåbodhiyånapaìipatti. He becomes fixed in his destiny, irreversible, and therefore properly gains the designation "bodhisattva." His mind becomes fully devoted to the supreme enlightenment in its completeness, and his capacity to fulfil the training in the requisites of enlightenment becomes established. 22463 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue May 27, 2003 10:26am Subject: sense-door and mind-door, thinking. Dear Yasa (Charles), Thank you for your input. I hope you do not mind that I react to your question on dsg. Your questions are interesting for everybody, I am sure. I appreciate it that you continue with this difficult subject, and also for myself this proves to be really useful. It is very appropriate to direct to dsg whatever questions you have, also those you want to ask me personally. As you have seen, we write also personal letters on dsg, because we like to share our experiences. Yasa wrote: Now the mind is also a sense-door, isn't it....? That is the sixth sense door, in the sense-door process one speaks only of the dvipancha ( "pancha" is five- does it mean that the mind is left out as a sense-door). Nina: In the case of the processes of cittas experiencing an object through one of the senses of eye, ear, etc. the sense-doors are rupa, not nama. Y: If not, a thought arising in the mind is the object...in that case, how does the mind-door process work ..? Is it the same as a mind-door process after a sense door process or do you have the sense-door process and the mind-door process in that case as well ? Please let me know if I am not clear. Nina: If I understand your question about a thought, you mean thinking about a subject, a story, an idea? The word thought can have several meanings. But from the context I take it, when citta thinks. The cittas in a mind-door process that succeed a sense-door process have the same object as that sense-door process, thus, the rupas of visible object, sound, etc. After that there are other mind-door processes and these may take ideas, concepts: they know a name, they know details. For example, when you are reading, there is the experience of visible object through the eyesense, and after that the experience of visible object through the mind-door. After that: the object is a concept, not a rupa, you know the shape of the letters, the meaning, the meaning of the whole story. There are many mind-door processes not preceded by a sense-door process. After that there are other mind-door processes of cittas which think of many different subjects, any subject, not necessarily related to the sense object that was experienced before. For example, we think a great deal all the time, we think of what we are going to do today, we are planning. These are long stories. We are so absorbed in our thoughts that we do not notice that these are interrupted by sense-door processes, such as sound which is heard, or hardness which is touched. Each of these sense-door processes is followed by a mind-door process which experience that same sense object, but then we may not dwell further on these, but continue our original story of planning what we are going to do today. Processes of cittas succed one another so rapidly, that we do not even notice that our thinking of stories is interrupted by other processes. It is good to know how forgetful and ignorant we are. I just realize this now because of your questions. The Abhidhamma helps us to understand what the objects of satipatthana are: all objects impinging on six doors experienced by cittas arising in different processes. Intellectual understanding is a foundation for the arising of sati-sampajanna, and this is different from thinking about the objects of satipatthana. With appreciation, Nina. 22464 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue May 27, 2003 11:33am Subject: Re: anatta, good or bad? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > In the suttas anatta seems to be an undesirable characteristic. What > does this mean? Does anatta NOT mean "egoless"? Is "self" (atta) NOT > equivalent to "ego"? If so, what does "self" mean in the suttas and why > is anatta undesirable? > > Larry Hi Larry, Here is my perspective: Anatta is good for the enlightened, but bad for the unenlightened. The self or ego is created through fear of anatta. It is like the ego is balancing on the head of a pin, in the middle of a endless abyss of nothingness, one false move and the ego will fall off into nothing and disappear. That is a scary proposition isn't it? But the enlightened person, who has conquered the fear and taken that plunge, realizes that an eternity of balancing on the head of a pin, enmeshed in fear, is the worse of the two. Again, this is just my opinion and I could be wrong. I am making an educated guess. Thank you for bringing up the subject. Metta, James 22465 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue May 27, 2003 0:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran meeting; cetana Dear RobM, Larry (and Mike), Thank you very much for your replies, they have been most helpful; I am beginning to see the meaning of the sutta. It seems to cover some of the territory that Mike has been researching. Currently, my rough summary of the three paragraphs is as follows: The first paragraph refers to akusala javana cittas (of the worldling): Whatever object one has intentions towards and whatever object one sees with craving and wrong view and whatever object one has akusala tendencies towards; that object is a condition for rebirth-producing kamma. The second paragraph refers to vipaka cittas and to kusala javana cittas (of the non-arahant): When there is neither intention, craving nor wrong view directed at the object, there are still [latent] accumulated tendencies. Therefore, there is still the condition for rebirth-producing kamma. That is: 1) Even vipaka cittas carry forward the accumulated tendencies (not to mention accumulated kamma), albeit in a latent form. 2) Neither the mundane jhana absorbtions nor mundane vipassana, is enough to destroy accumulations. The third paragraph refers to all cittas of the arahant: In the arahant, the accumulated tendencies to perform kusala and akusala kamma have been eradicated (by supramundane consciousness), and so there is no condition for kamma. Alterations and additions welcome. Kind regards, Ken H 22466 From: Date: Tue May 27, 2003 5:02pm Subject: Way 94, 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 1. Mindfulness After explaining the contemplation of mental objects by way of the internal and the external sense-bases, the Master said, "And further, o bhikkhus," in order to talk on the contemplation of mental objects, by way of the Factors of Enlightenment, the mental limbs of a being who is awaking from the stupor of the passions that soil or who is penetrating the Real Truths of Suffering, its Cause, its Cessation, and the Way Leading to the Cessation of Suffering. [Tika] Limbs are members or constituent parts of the awaking mind. Santam = "Is present". Existing by way of attainment. The enlightenment factor called mindfulness is the enlightenment factor of mindfulness. Because in these enlightenment factors, the meditator effectively gets enlightened, the meditator is called "Complete Enlightenment" from the time he begins strenuous contemplation on insight. It is a name for him who stands in the practice starting from the arising of the knowledge of the rise and fall of phenomena. The sevenfold completeness or harmony, beginning with mindfulness by which he awakes, effectively, rises from the sleep of the defilements, or penetrates the Truths, is "Complete Enlightenment." The components of that "Complete Enlightenment" or of the harmony called "Complete Enlightenment" are the factors of enlightenment. [T] The instruction of the Discourses is figurative and as this instruction on the Arousing of Mindfulness is set going by way of the mundane eightfold path, it is said by the commentator that the meditator is "Complete Enlightenment". Otherwise he should be a Pure Disciple [ariya savaka]. The meditator is considered the personification of the factors of complete enlightenment by which he can reach Nibbana. In the other factors of enlightenment the word-meaning should be understood in the same way. Assantam = "Is absent". Not existing through lack of attainment. Yatha anuppannassa = "How (the arising) of the non-arisen." First, is the enlightenment factor of mindfulness. There are things which condition the enlightenment factor of mindfulness, and an abundance of right reflection on them is the reason that is conducive to the arising of the non-arisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness and for the increase, the expansion and completion by culture of the arisen enlightenment factor. Thus it comes into being: just mindfulness comprises the things which condition the enlightenment factor of mindfulness. Right reflection has just the characteristic already mentioned, and when right reflection occurs plentifully in the things which condition the enlightenment factor of mindfulness, the enlightenment factor of mindfulness arises. Further, four things lead to the arising of the enlightenment factor of mindfulness: Mindfulness with clear comprehension, the avoiding of persons with confused minds, association with persons who keep mindfulness ready for application, inclination towards mindfulness. In explanation it is said: Mindfulness arises through mindfulness with clear comprehension in the seven positions beginning with that of "going forwards"; or the mindfulness arousing the knowledge which grasps the purpose of these actions is mindfulness with clear comprehension, and as mindfulness with clear comprehension everywhere is a state which brings about the cultivation of mindfulness, mindfulness with clear comprehension is necessary for the arising of mindfulness. As the abandoning or rejection of contrary things and the practice of suitable things are necessary for the arising of fresh karmically wholesome things, so the eschewing of persons bereft of mindfulness, association with persons who cultivate mindfulness, the state of being not engaged with the first kind and the state of being engaged with the second are necessary for the arising of the enlightenment factor of mindfulness. Mindfulness arises through the avoiding of persons who are confused in mind like crows that come cawing to food thrown; through association with persons who keep mindfulness ready for application like the Elder Tissadatta who in the Terrace of the Wisdom Tree having got a golden ticket authorizing him to expound the Dhamma [bodhi mande suvanna salakam gahetva] entered the assembly saying: "In which one of the eighteen languages shall I expound the Dhamma?" and the Elder Abhaya who is mentioned as the Elder Dattabhaya by the commentator; and through the state of mind tending for originating mindfulness in all postures, in all kinds of behavior or disposition of the body. And the bhikkhu knows that the completion by culture of the enlightenment factor of mindfulness brought into being by these four ways takes place by means of the attainment of the path of arahantship. 22467 From: Date: Tue May 27, 2003 5:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anatta, good or bad? Dear Howard, Yasa, and James, I think everyone expressed themselves very clearly and I thank you all for your input. It's always good to reflect on the characteristic of anatta and see what we can learn. Larry 22468 From: Date: Tue May 27, 2003 5:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran meeting; cetana Well done Ken. Makes sense to me. Larry 22469 From: Date: Tue May 27, 2003 4:07pm Subject: Get Published in the Southwest Insight E'letter Hello everyone, I publish a web-based newsletter called the Southwest Insight E'letter. The journal is dedicated to Theravadan Buddhism, the emergence of a Western Dhamma, the practice of Vipassana meditation and the emergence of jhana (Ecstatic Buddhism). I am always happy to receive submissions of articles for publication. Since I have noticed there are some excellent writers in this Yahoo group, I hope that some of you will be inclined to polish up some of your excellent commentary and send it my way. Unfortunately at this time the journal does not have the money to pay for submissions. The intention of this monthly newsletter is to provide timely information to the community of contemplatives who adhere to a non-dualistic philosophy, such as Theravadan Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta and seek a post-absorption (jhana) insight practice, such as vipassana and satipatthana meditation. This newsletter principally serves practitioners in the Southwestern USA, and offers articles on Buddhism, a monthly calendar of retreats and other related activities, letters to the editor and an editorial. This newsletter is a service of the University of Arizona Meditation Club Best to all, Jeff Brooks editor, Southwest Insight E'letter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWI_E_letter/ president, UofA Meditation Club http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Vivatha/ moderator, Jhana Support Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/ 22470 From: connie Date: Tue May 27, 2003 10:25pm Subject: Re: jhana Hi, Jeff ~ Interesting choice of words: "the 'wets' don't believe ignorance, or choosing not to have a dialog about something, like the conditions of absorption, is a good idea. They believe dialog and open conversation can only be healthy." I shave my head when my hair starts falling in my eyes. I just don't care to mess with it. peace, connie 22471 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 27, 2003 11:08pm Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Jeff, I appreciated your feedback and comments. --- macdocaz1@a... wrote: S:....>There never is a self > regardless of any misperceptions to the contrary. What we take for a > self > acting and reacting are ‘bare phenomena (i.e namas and rupas) rolling > on’. > %%%%%%%%%%%% J: > Jeff: > I Understand that this is what you believe, but this has not either been > my > experience, nor my perception of human cognitive history. Just because > the > Buddha (and a few other enlightened teachers) said there was no ultimate > self, > does not mean that humans have been conceiving, or better perceiving and > interacting with their reality through a conception of a self. ...... S: I hope I’ve got your point. The Buddha’s teachings are contrary to what most people (including ourselves much of the time) believe they experience. A good example of the latter point is Potthapada’s crowd of wanderers (in the DN sutta you’ve referred to a few times). Even after listening to the Buddha teach a discourse, they sneer and jeer at Potthapada for agreeing with the Buddha eventually. For Potthapada himself, it is very difficult to comprehend there is no self as he admits: “Lord, is perception a person’s self, or is perception one thing, and self another?” “Well, Potthapada, do you postulate a self?” “Lord, I postulate a gross self, material, composed of the four elements, and feeding on solid food.” Later, “Well, Lord, if this question of self and perceptios is difficult for one like me - tell me: Is the world eternal.? Is only this true and the opposite false..?” He continues to ask the avyaakataani( questions which the Buddha refused to answer), indicative of his wrong understanding in spite of having no difficulty in fully comprehending the jhanas. ..... J: >I have > not found that > just changing one's belief regarding a self has lead to the annihilation > of > self. .... S: I think I agree. As you have implied before, just conceptualising or repeating ‘anatta’ like a manatra without any direct understanding will not lead to any annihilation (to use your word this time;-)) ..... J: > I am sure if you look around in the Dhamma community, you will find > plenty of > "egotists" who claim there is no self, while they have constructed very > elaborate precious little egos that they maintain with impeccable > effort. ..... S: Perhaps as we get to know our own conceits and defilements more and more, --especially the great attachment to self -- there will be more compassion and equanimity ( rather than aversion or conceit) when we see other examples of the same difficulties. ..... J: > Jeff: > Well, one then should ask what is that 'sotapanna?' Why do we need to > resort > to Pali, when the English language is a very rich language that we are > all > quite familiar with? .... S: ;-) Sorry, a sotapanna is a ‘person’ who has reached the first stage of enlightenment. Wrong view of self has been eradicated. As for the Pali, it is often helpful to use the very precise terms to avoid confusion. For example, in the ‘Cetana Sutta’ which Ken H recently posted, I had no idea that ‘obsessions’ was a translation of ‘anusaya’ (proclivity) until Larry added the helpful references and details of a very specific term, not captured by the rich English language translations imho. I do try to avoid Pali terms or give an English meaning, especially when writing to those who have difficulty or find the terms an irritant. I also recommend printing out this very basic glossary to have handy for following other posts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms For more detail, Nyantiloka’s dictionary is a very rich source of detail: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html ..... J: >...... Buddhism isn't > about > thinking and believing, that's Christianity. Buddhism is about > realizing. > One doesn't realize, or actualize an egoless state through belief or > thought. > One does it through an intense contemplative practice. ..... S: Like we see with Potthapada’s questions and the responses, there has to be a clear intellectual right view in the first place, developed by hearing, contemplating and considering the truths over and over again. There is no self to do any practice, merely mental and physical phenomena. The first stage of insight is clearly knowing and distinguishing these phenomena directly when they arise. ..... J: > Jeff: > ..... One still has an ego > (self), > whether one believes it or not, until one has effaced it through > nibbana, which > means one has become an arahant. ..... S: As I mentioned, at the first stage of enlightenment, all wrong view and belief of self is eradicated. It is panna (wisdom) that ‘effaces’, no self. It’s true that only the arahant (your choice of Pali term and I also note 'karma' below;-)), has no more attachment to becoming at all. ..... J: > So, one could say Siddharta's health problems were based on the "karma" > of > his subsistence strategy and the time period in which he lived. But, I > do not > look at karma in a mechanistic way. To me karma is about the actions > and > reactions of the 'self' with respect to its subjective world. I... ..... S: According to the teachings, the results of kamma are inevitable, regardless of whether there is attachment or wrong view of self or not. The Buddha and arahants still experienced unpleasant bodily feeling, but no mental aversion subsequently. Usually there are many factors involved. Experiencing the physical effects of food poisoning or a splinter must be the result of kamma, but other factors such as temperature (no refrigeration) or others’ deeds will of course be decisive in support of these effects. This is a good area to continue discussing separately if you wish. You make some interesting points and I agree with many of those snipped. ...... J: > Jeff: > ....first comes the "eradication of the defilements," > which > requires 'eradication' of grasping and aversion, as you say "the second > Noble > Truth." Once one has annihilated, or as you say 'eradication,' these > then one > continues through cessation to the final stage is 'eradication' or > 'annihilation' of the self. .... S: Would you clarify what you mean by ‘One’ and ‘the self’. I’m not sure whether by ‘annihilation of the self’ you mean self view or the khandhas or parinibbana or something else. ..... J: > Jeff: > Good point, but if we look at the Potthapada Sutta, DN. 9-17 we get that > we > move out of the world of the sense as we pass through the rupa jhana to > the > arupa jhanas (supramundane ecstasies) which are beyond the 6 sense world > as we > approach cessation which equals nibbana. ..... S: I understand these experiences without any sensory impingement to also be impermanent and therefore inherently unsatisfactory (dukkha). So although they are very highly wholesome states --and taught and followed by many before the Buddha-- they still have to be known as namas, no self involved. They have to be seen with detachment and righ view of satipatthana in order for all kilesa to be finally eradicated and final liberation attained. This is why I said there cannot be any final cessation without full knowledge directly realizing the truths. “ ‘But, Lord, what has the Lord declared?’ ‘Potthapada, I have declared: ‘this is suffering, this is the origin of suffering, this is the cessation of suffering, and this is the path leading to the cessation of suffering.’” .... J: > As for "There cannot be any final cessation without full knowledge." It > depends on how you conceive of full knowledge, but it is generally > considered that > nibbana is the ultimate "knowledge" or state of "wisdom." .... S: I understand nibbana to be that state experienced by this ultimate knowledge or wisdom. Nibbana is not the knowledge or wisdom. Let me know if you have a Pali canon reference you wish to discuss further. .... J: > Jeff: > Yes, I appreciate the "virtual" sangha or company we keep here as well. > > Best regards to you and all ..... S: Thanks for all your interesting comments. There are many topics of discussion here. Please feel free to break them into separate threads if you can. Metta, Sarah ===== 22472 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 28, 2003 0:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: jhana Hi Connie, --- connie wrote: > > I've just been thinking a little about the ideas that jhana also > develops naturally and that satipatthana includes jhana but not the > other way around... so I guess it's "ben puu mii-pokati charoen chan(?)" > as well and the 'dry insight worker' would also have jhana, just not as > a 'practiced art' and wouldn't place that much importance on it... it > would be there but just not conditioned to play an obvious role. ..... I think not necessarily. I believe all kinds of kusala (including samatha) are bound to be developed as the characteristics are known more and more precisely -- the kilesa (defilements) being seen more and more as unwholesome and kusala (wholesome) states being seen more and more as skilful. As you suggest, as detachment and equanimity develop with right understanding in satipatthana, there will be less attachment and it’ll depend on individual accumulations as to what is apparent, just as now. Whilst at the moments of actual enlightenment , the concentration must be of a very high level (equivalent to jhana, I think), satipatthana development does not necessarily include jhana . Lots of controversy here ;-) Perhaps others will help further. .... > Mostly, I just want to thank everyone for making this list possible and > say I enjoy being here. .... Like you say, it takes ‘everyone’ to make it possible;-) In another post (to Howard), you referred to jhana paccaya, one of the 24 conditions and concluded by saying: C:“(the no deed part) suggests that at least a feeble jhana predisposition is accumulating a great deal of the time. Just thought it was interesting and hadn't thought of it like that before.” Yes, this is a very interesting condition and the jhana factors can be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ affecting our actions a great deal of the time. This is why it is so important to know whether the concentration and other factors such as thinking and blissful feelings are wholesome or unwholesome in daily life. One point - we need to distinguish between the use of ‘jhana’ in jhana paccaya (jhana condition) and ‘jhana’ as in attainment of jhanas. I wrote a post on this subject of (right and wrong) jhana factors and jhana paccaya which you may find of interest. It relies a lot on Nina’s ‘Conditions’ and U Narada’s ‘Guide to Conditional Relations’: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m11231.html I’d be very glad to discuss any of these points further, though I’m just exploring what I read, like you. Metta, Sarah p.s. I'm glad to see you're finding the series of tapes from India of interest (and even learning a little Thai as well as Pali;-)).Please share any points you find of special significance or value. If anyone else would like a copy of these or the ones from Kaeng Kacang, please let me know off-list. (They are not edited, contain lots of Pali terms and are only available on old-fashioned cassettes). ======== 22473 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 28, 2003 0:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran - detachment and compassion Hi Christine (& Yasa ), I’m glad you replied and to read your further comments. --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello Sarah, > > I think we will have to agree to disagree on the relative merits of > the Jataka Tales. ..... ;-) Yes and I think it’s ‘healthy’ to be able to do this..... no one should ever agree just for the sake of an easy life;-) I understand and appreciate the points you make and as you say, many others will be responding as you do. Sometime I’d like to pursue the origins and inclusion of the Jataka Tales and Qus of King Milinda with you and anyone else. (*Yasa, please see footnote). One question that immediately comes to mind is whether you would also reject all the commentaries which make reference to both of these sources of the teachings as well? For example, I just came across a long quote from Qus of K. Milinda in the Sammohavinodani (Comy to the Vibhanga). I know many Buddhists do reject all these sources, but to my mind, they miss out on a lot of the important and detailed explanations. .... > I see no benefit in a 'teaching' whose point is so obscure that it > requires one to disregard basic decency, the teachings on morality > and to consider what is unwholesome as wholesome. I do not greet with > sadness your comment that the Vesantara Jataka is predicted to be the > first one to disappear. ..... I think your point about obscurity in a teaching is a good one and certainly if the reflection on it leads “one to disregard basic decency, the teachings on morality and to consider what is unwholesome as wholesome” then it is certainly not wise to pursue it. We read and consider about the perfections, but only a Bodhisatta can really appreciate or fully investigate the qualities. I was reminded of this as I read from Nina’s recent extract on Perfections: ..... “The achievement of noble qualities (gunasampatti): the achievement of such noble qualities as the direct knowledges (abhiññå), etc. For the aspiration only succeeds when made by one who has gone forth and gained the eight meditative attainments (samåpatti) and the five mundane types of direct knowledge; it does not succeed for one devoid of these qualities. Why? Because one devoid of them is incapable of investigating the paramis. It is because he possesses the necessary supporting conditions and the direct knowledges that the Great Man, after he has made the aspiration, is able to investigate the påramís by himself.” ..... Chris, I appreciate your honest response which has helped me to reflect further and question my own limited understanding of these qualities and paramis. I apologise for any further dismay caused (or at least conditioned!) by my posts on this or any other subject . Metta, Sarah * Yasa, you may find it interesting to look at some of the posts under: ‘Abhidhamma- Origins’ at this link on the origins of the Abhidhamma with regard to the Councils and so on. I’d be glad to hear any comments: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts ======================================================== 22474 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Wed May 28, 2003 0:59am Subject: Burma trip Dear Jon, Sarah, Chris, Azita, Tom W. and Bonnie, and anyone else interested, Sorry for delays in coming up with the information you need, but it looks like what I have below are the final arrangements. The tour company made a survey trip to Burma to scout out better hotels and other arrangements for our group and Tan Achaan has assured me that a complete itinerary, including dates and hotels, will finally be ready at the beginning of next week. After I translate it, I will send it on to you. It will be a 5 day trip, ideally from Monday to Friday, during the last week in October through the first week in November, depending on flight schedules for Phuket Airways, the carrier we will use (I think its a brand new airline). We will visit Yangon (Rangoon), Hongsawadee (Pegu), Mandalay (2 nights) and Pagan (1 night). A local carrier will be used for any internal flights within Burma. The emphasis of the trip will be on holding Dhamma discussions (sontana) and performing tamboon (merit making) ceremonies, as well as visits to well known and important temples and religious sites. The cost will be Bt. 27,500 (US$654.76; US$1=42 baht, but the rate may change between now and time of payment). So, this is all I have for you now. Watch out for the itinerary, some time next week, metta, Betty _______________________ Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 e-mail: beyugala@k... 22475 From: dragonwriter2 Date: Wed May 28, 2003 1:37am Subject: Link for Lee (The Problem of Knowledge) Hi Lee After following the Concepts & Ultimate Realities thread thought this link http://www.orientalgate.org/article381.html to The Problem of Knowledge & The Four Schools of Later Buddhism may be of interest. metta Simon 22476 From: yasalalaka Date: Wed May 28, 2003 2:17am Subject: Re: sense-door and mind-door, thinking. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Yasa (Charles), > > Thank you for your input. I hope you do not mind that I react to your > question on dsg. Your questions are interesting for everybody, I am sure. I > appreciate it that you continue with this difficult subject, and also for > myself this proves to be really useful. It is very appropriate to direct to > dsg whatever questions you have, also those you want to ask me personally. > As you have seen, we write also personal letters on dsg, because we like to > share our experiences. > Yasa wrote: > Now the mind is also a sense-door, isn't it....? That is the sixth > sense door, in the sense-door process one speaks only of the > dvipancha ( "pancha" is five- does it mean that the mind is left out > as a sense-door). > > Nina: In the case of the processes of cittas experiencing an object through > one of the senses of eye, ear, etc. the sense-doors are rupa, not nama. > > Y: If not, a thought arising in the mind is the > object...in that case, how does the mind-door process work ..? > Is it the same as a mind-door process after a sense door process or do you > have the sense-door process and the mind-door process in that case as > well ? Please let me know if I am not clear. > Nina: If I understand your question about a thought, you mean thinking about > a subject, a story, an idea? The word thought can have several meanings. But > from the context I take it, when citta thinks. The cittas in a mind- door > process that succeed a sense-door process have the same object as that > sense-door process, thus, the rupas of visible object, sound, etc. After > that there are other mind-door processes and these may take ideas, concepts: > they know a name, they know details. For example, when you are reading, > there is the experience of visible object through the eyesense, and after > that the experience of visible object through the mind-door. After that: the > object is a concept, not a rupa, you know the shape of the letters, the > meaning, the meaning of the whole story. There are many mind-door processes > not preceded by a sense-door process. > After that there are other mind-door processes of cittas which think of > many different subjects, any subject, not necessarily related to the sense > object that was experienced before. For example, we think a great deal all > the time, we think of what we are going to do today, we are planning. These > are long stories. We are so absorbed in our thoughts that we do not notice > that these are interrupted by sense-door processes, such as sound which is > heard, or hardness which is touched. Each of these sense-door processes is > followed by a mind-door process which experience that same sense object, but > then we may not dwell further on these, but continue our original story of > planning what we are going to do today. Processes of cittas succed one > another so rapidly, that we do not even notice that our thinking of stories > is interrupted by other processes. It is good to know how forgetful and > ignorant we are. I just realize this now because of your questions. > The Abhidhamma helps us to understand what the objects of satipatthana are: > all objects impinging on six doors experienced by cittas arising in > different processes. Intellectual understanding is a foundation for the > arising of sati-sampajanna, and this is different from thinking about the > objects of satipatthana. > With appreciation, > Nina. ________________________________Yasa_______________________________ Dear Nina, Thank you , for your reply. I don't know how to post a new problem to the Yahoo Forum. There is no page, for all posts, on a particular subject under discussion, to appear. Some times it is difficult to get reference on a particular subject under discussion, as there are several posts on the same subject. That is why I send you the e-mails direct. I will try to use the dsg for future queries to you. I think I was not quite clear in the question I posed to you, about the sense-door process and mind- door process. The Buddha had used two different terminology to describe " nama-rupa" for meditation purposes in his discourses in Sutta Pitaka and for analytical purposes in Abhidhamma. For a yogi to see all the 17 citta moment in meditation would be a distraction of concentration. Therefore in meditation, there are, in each sense door, five elements which represent the , nama: (i) contact ( passa, which probably includes ,atita bhavanga, bhavanga-chalana,bhavanga uppajjedha,panca dvaravajjana) (ii) feeling (vedana, which probably includes, sampaticchana, santirana) (iii) perceptions( sanna-which probably includes, votapanna) (iv) consciousness( vinnana- which probably includes, seven javana) (v ) mind-factors ( sankhara-which probably includes, two moments of tadarammana) And there are six sense doors: Eyes (cakkhu vinnana) Ear (sota vinnana) Nose (Ghana vinnana) Tongue (jivvha vinnana) Body ( kaya vinnana) Mind (mano vinnana) In seeing an object three factors come into play- the eye (cakkhu) - eye-consciousness (cakkhu-vinnana) - visible object (arammana), similarly, In hearing a sound - the ear( sota) -ear consciousness (sota vinnana) -sound ( arammana) In smelling -the nose (Ghana) -nose consciousness(Ghana vinnana) - smell (arammana) In tasting -tongue (jivvha) -taste consciousness (jivvha vinnana) - taste( arammana) In feeling -body(kaya) -feeling consciousness (kaya vinnana)- form (arammana) In thinking- mind (mana)- mind consciousness (mano vinnana) -thought (arammana) It is in reference to the latter: " mind(-mana) mind consciousness-(mano vinnana)-thought- (arammana) , that I asked you how in Abhiddhamma the sense-door process and mind- door process are explained. I think it could perhaps be explained in the same way as in the case of the "eye door process". Because, say suddenly a thought of a "woman" arises in my mind, then the "the mental form of the woman", becomes the object that impinges on the mind, which will result in the awakening of the atita bhavanga……etc. ……. And end up in tadarammana. All thought moments thus becomes an object of reflection ( if any one were to objects to the word "meditation"). Nina, I would not say that sati-sampajjana, is the result of intellectual understanding but ,it would be due to rather mindful observation. With metta, Yasa 22478 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 28, 2003 2:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 3. Dear Nina (and Lodewijk), I was glad to hear about your Vesak discussions on Rahula and appreciate the series very much. I’d like to just add a few comments between some of yours: --- nina van gorkom wrote: > ---------- > Nina: Rahula had to apply himself to development of the mind like the > earth, > he had to be steadfast and unshakable. He had to be unmoved by pleasant > or > unpleasant objects. When we experience a pleasant object we are bound to > like it and when we experience an unpleasant object we are bound to > dislike > it. The Commentary explains about the cittas rooted in attachment > (lobha) > and the cittas rooted in aversion (dosa) which may arise. > Rahula had to learn not to be overcome by objects. This is like a test > we > have to pass. > Lodewijk: Do I have to pass this test? > N: We all have. > L: This is very difficult, I cannot do it. ..... I understand Lodewijk’s response. LIke the earth ‘accepts’ the dirt and spittle and garbage dumped on it, is it really possible to accept and be unshakable regardless of what we experience? A friend mentioned that he finds it difficult not to respond in kind when hearing or reading wrong speech. At the time I was thinking about these lines which you then quoted: >Discourse on the Elephant's Footprint" (M 28, translation of Wheel > 101). We read : > understands thus, ‘This painful feeling born of ear-contact has arisen > in me. That is dependent, not independent. Dependent on what? Dependent on > contact.’ Then he sees that contact is impermanent.> > The same is said about feeling, perception (sa~n~naa), > san"khaarakkhandha (the activities) and consciousness (vi~n~naa.na). We then read: ‘And his mind enters into that very object (taking it just as an > impersonal) element, and acquires confidence, steadiness and decision (herein)’. ..... I don’t think we should expect too much of ourselves. If we do and feel disappointed when yet again we fail the test, get drawn into concerns about the ‘others’, doesn’t it show the clinging to self? Perhaps it’s more useful to learn to see the value of developing the mind ‘like the earth’, understanding how moved we are by the objects being experienced and develop detachment from the passing and failing of the test at this moment. Otherwise, like you say, Nina , it’s always an idea of self trying to ‘do’ it, trying to pass the test, being concerned when it doesn’t work out as we know thoretically would be best. Sometimes we need to smile at all the ‘falling over’ and start again. What’s gone is gone and the future hasn’t come yet as we all keep reminding each other! .... > It is important to remember that in the ultimate sense our difficult > situations, our unsurmountable problems, are only different experiences > through the six doors, pleasant or unpleasant, and that they are > conditioned. We cannot change the objects we have to experience. We have > to > remember that kamma brings its appropriate result. This can be the > condition > for equanimity when facing problems. .... Yes, I think this is the point they were discussing in Cooran. Everyone faces difficult situations and worldly conditions. Usually we’re so concerned with our own problems, which always seem more serious, that we really have no idea or concern for others facing far harder tests still. So often when we think that kamma is bring a difficult result, we are referring to proliferations about very brief sensory experiences which may not be so bad at all. .... > Rahula had to become like the earth when facing pleasant and unpleasant > impressions. We have to develop patience with regard to what is > desirable > and what is undesirable. > Just now I failed the test. When we were talking about the Sutta at the > dining table of the hotel, we were all the time interrupted by people > who > served food and wine and by a talkative fellow guest, sitting at a table > next to us, who started a conversation. I had to stop my explanation and > therefore I had aversion, dosa. .... I smiled when I read this .... Yesterday, I was about to start writing a post a few times, but I kept being interrupted by telephone calls until it was time to teach and I had no more opportunity. I started to justify the aversion to myself, saying, ‘just some nonsense on the telephone or useless chatter’, but ‘the dhamma post is useful’ and so on. At these moments subtle wrong views about ‘practice’ can easily sneak in, thinking again in terms of ‘situation’ and ‘activity’, instead of having confidence in the value of kusala cittas whilst say, explaining the progress of a student to his parent, talking with family members about what they’d like to hear or politely listening to fellow guests at your table. Sometimes, I find that as a result of the irritation I’m not even able to resume what I was doing after the interruption. .... > Dosa is often conditioned by conceit. We think, ‘How can he do this to > me’ > and then we cling to the importance of self. We need to remember the > dustrag > mentality of Sariputta. .... Yes, I was thinking of this again before you mentioned it. As you say, conceit and so much clinging to self at these times. Self-occupied and no metta at all. Still there can be dosa, conceit, wise reflection, metta.....and in between moments of seeing and hearing with or without any awareness. So Lodewijk should rest assured there is plenty of passing and failing tests all the time. Better to know this and not cling to the truth being any different. No self involved. .... > Several of these passages are in the 3Kindred Sayings2(II, ch XVII, §1) > in > the Suttas about gains, favours and flattery. The Buddha said: > 3Wherefore, > brethren, thus should you train yourselves:- ŒWhen gains, favours and > flattery come to us, we will put them aside, nor when they come shall > they > take lasting hold on our hearts.1 2 > These are among the worldly conditions which are gain and loss, honour > and > dishonour, praise and blame, bodily wellbeing and pain. They change all > the > time. .... Without understanding of the underlying realities it’s so true that we are bound and ensnared by these worldly conditions as Jon, KenH and others were discussing. I think it helps a lot to know that the actual results of kamma are just the brief moments of seeing, hearing and so on. .... > L: We are facing problems in our family which cannot be solved, and I > cannot > help being overcome by them, being worried about them day and night. > N: It is helpful to remember that in the midst of trying circumstances > there > are also ultimate realities such as seeing, thinking or aversion. There > are > pleasant and unpleasant impressions assailing us all the time and they > are > bound to persist, unless understanding of them is developed. .... I think L’s point ‘which cannot be solved’ is right. Isn’t this the truth that the Buddha taught? Conventional problems as we know them cannot be solved. Age, sickness, death are inevitable and there isn’t any real worldly solution. While we are obsessed by them and to solving them, as a result of the anusaya (underlying tendencies), we’re bound to be overcome like the ‘madman’ referred to in the Mulapariyaya Sutta Comy: “..he perceives through a perversion of perception, seizing upon the conventional expression (and thinking) “it is earth’ (lokavohaara”m gahetvaa sa~n~naavipallaasena sa~njaanaati). Or, without releasing such a segment of earth, he perceives it as a being (satta) or as belonging to a being. Why does he perceive it in this way? This should not be asked, for the worldling is like a madman. He seizes upon anything he can in whatever way he can......” Just occasionally in the midst of the perversions and mad obsessions there may be be moments of sanity when realities are seen for what they are and there is a ‘living alone’ with the sense door experiences without being overwhelmed by the pleasant and unpleasant impressions you discuss. We can be grateful for just these very brief moments of wisdom, wise reflection and even for any moments of calm or generosity including appreciation of others’ kindnesses. With metta and best wishes as you face any difficulties, Sarah ====== 22479 From: bodhi2500 Date: Wed May 28, 2003 3:59am Subject: Cooran Weekend Visible object Hi The subject of visible object came up a few times at the cooran get together. It was my understanding that visible object was colour alone. Looking in the Dhammasangani it states> Dependent on the 4 primary elements, there is the corporeality which is visible, which arises with impingement, and is of various colours; dark blue, pale yellow, red//snip other colours//: long, short, small, large, spherical, circular, four-sided, six-sided, eight- sided, sixteen-sided; low, high; shade, sunshine; light, darkness; snow, smoke, mist; moonlight, sunlight, starlight …then back into more colours. How are the "long, short, small, large, spherical, sided-sided, six- sided-sided, sixteen-sided; low, high" or the "snow, smoke, mist" to be understood? Is it only colour that is "visible object" or are "forms" included as well? Thanks Steve 22480 From: Lee Dillion Date: Wed May 28, 2003 4:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Link for Lee (The Problem of Knowledge) dragonwriter2 wrote: > Hi Lee > > After following the Concepts & Ultimate Realities thread > thought this link http://www.orientalgate.org/article381.html to The > Problem of Knowledge & The Four Schools of Later Buddhism may be of > interest. Thanks so much, Simon. -- Lee Dillion 22481 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed May 28, 2003 5:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: jhana Hi Connie, Sarah, and all, I see that the development of right mindfulness and right concentration quite interrelated. Concentration is part of the development of mindfulness, and the development of mindfulness, in turn, leads to concentration. Let's examine the Anapanasati Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn118.html , starting with the following passage. "[5] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to breathe out sensitive to rapture. [6] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure. [7] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication (feeling & perception), and to breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication. [8] He trains himself to breathe in calming mental fabrication, and to breathe out calming mental fabrication. What is the rapture and pleasure mentioned in the above passage ([5]- [8])? It is the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation in the first jhana or the one born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance in the second jhana. In this sense, concentration is an integral part of the development of mindfulness. How can concentration be developed in the development of mindfulness? It can be developed through the first frame of reference of the mindfulness of breathing as mentioned in the following passage ([1]- [4]): "[1] Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. [3] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body, and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. [4] He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication (the breath), and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. With the first or two jhana state developed through the development of mindfulness in the first frame of reference as mentioned in the above passage ([1]-[4]), one would then proceed to the second frame of reference of the development of the mindfulness as mention in the passage ([5]-[8]). From a broader perspective, in terms of the seven factors for Awakening as mentioned in the Anapanasati sutta, the development of mindfulness as a factor for Awakening indirectly leads to the development of concentration as a factor for Awakening. Nevertheless, concentration is also a part of development of mindfulness Your feedback and comment is appreciated Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Connie, [snip] > > Metta, > > Sarah [snip] 22482 From: m. nease Date: Wed May 28, 2003 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran meeting; cetana Hi Ken, This is the way I see it, I couldn't have encapsulated it so well. Usually when I think something's right, it turns out to contain errors, so be on the look out for corrections! mike ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau To: Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran meeting; cetana > Dear RobM, Larry (and Mike), > > Thank you very much for your replies, they have been most > helpful; I am beginning to see the meaning of the sutta. > It seems to cover some of the territory that Mike has > been researching. > > Currently, my rough summary of the three paragraphs is > as follows: > > The first paragraph refers to akusala javana cittas (of > the worldling): > Whatever object one has intentions towards and whatever > object one sees with craving and wrong view and whatever > object one has akusala tendencies towards; that object is > a condition for rebirth-producing kamma. > > The second paragraph refers to vipaka cittas and to > kusala javana cittas (of the non-arahant): > When there is neither intention, craving nor wrong view > directed at the object, there are still [latent] > accumulated tendencies. Therefore, there is still the > condition for rebirth-producing kamma. That is: > 1) Even vipaka cittas carry forward the accumulated > tendencies (not to mention accumulated kamma), albeit in > a latent form. > 2) Neither the mundane jhana absorbtions nor mundane > vipassana, is enough to destroy accumulations. > > The third paragraph refers to all cittas of the arahant: > In the arahant, the accumulated tendencies to perform > kusala and akusala kamma have been eradicated (by > supramundane consciousness), and so there is no condition > for kamma. > > Alterations and additions welcome. > Kind regards, > Ken H 22483 From: abhidhammika Date: Wed May 28, 2003 8:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lee - nibbana and sabhava Dear Sarah, Lee, and All How are you? Lee quoted Bhikkhu Nanananda's commentary on nibbana as follows. "In a psychological sense, a design could be 'unmade' or 'dissolved' by shifting one's attention to its components. Even so, 'what is born' (jaatam), 'become' (bhuutam), 'made' (katam) and 'compounded' (samkhatam) is transformed into a 'not-born', 'not-become', 'not- made' and 'not-compounded' state by a penetrative insight into its causes and conditions. All 'designs' involved in the magic-show of consciousness, which are but dependently arisen, also cease when ignorance and craving are eradicated. The above epithets of Nibbaana are therefore psychological, and not metaphysical, in their import." Nibbana is often called the Unconditioned Element (Asankhatadhaatu). Because it is unconditioned, it is timeless. Nibbana is not time- bound because it is not something temporally measurable in terms of arising, decaying and vanishing phases (the time of arising, the time of decaying, etc.). A sentient event, however, is temporally measurable in terms of emerging, decaying, and vanishing phases. So a sentient event is time- bound. What I am getting at is that the timeless unconditioned element does not depend on a time-bound conditioned phenomena. Yet, Bhikkhu Nanananda seemed to be asserting that nibbana, the highest dhamma (nibbanam paramam) depended on sentient beings. In short, according to Bhikkhu Nanananda's interpretation, sentient beings must pre-exist before nibbana can "happen" - (a conditioned/compounded state must be transformed into the unconditioned/uncompounded state). Thus, Bhikkhu Nanananda's description of nibbana amounted to making nibbana a time-bound, dependent phenomenon. Furthermore, Bhikkhu Nanananda seemed to be declaring that there are only three ultimate realities in terms of matter, consciousness, and mental associates (ruupam, cittam, and cetasikam) because he described nibbana only psychologically, i.e, a transformed state of consciousness and mental associates. In short, Bhikkhu Nanananda did not accept the independent ultimate existence of nibbana. Therefore, Bhikkhu Nanananda's interpretation of nibbana is outside the original teachings of the Buddha and those of Arahant commentators. Please read the following quote from the Commentary on Udaana that supports and confirms the independent ultimate existence of nibbana. "..micchaavaadabhañjanatthañca imam amatamahaanibbaanassa paramatthato atthibhaavadiipanam udaanam udaanesi." "..and for the purpose of breaking the wrong speech (doctrine), the Buddha uttered this solemn utterance that shows the fact of the existence of the immortal supreme nibbana as an independent untimate reality." Section 73, Udaana A.t.thakathaa. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lee Dillion wrote: Hi Sarah: Thanks so much for the references. The "useful posts" listing is a great service that I wasn't aware of. As for the Udana passage, I like Bhikkhu Nanananda's take on the passage as follows: -- "In a psychological sense, a design could be 'unmade' or 'dissolved' by shifting one's attention to its components. Even so, 'what is born' (jaatam), 'become' (bhuutam), 'made' (katam) and 'compounded' (samkhatam) is transformed into a 'not-born', 'not-become', 'not- made' and 'not-compounded' state by a penetrative insight into its causes and conditions. All 'designs' involved in the magic-show of consciousness, which are but dependently arisen, also cease when ignorance and craving are eradicated. The above epithets of Nibbaana are therefore psychological, and not metaphysical, in their import. Where there is no 'putting-together', there is no 'falling-apart'. Hence Nibbaana is also called apalokitam--the 'Non-disintegrating'. It is unfortunate that many scholars, both Eastern and Western, have interpreted metaphysically the two passages from the Udaana quoted here, bringing out conclusions which are hardly in keeping with the teachings of Anattaa. The widespread tendency is to see in these two passages a reference to some mysterious, nondescript realm in a different dimension of existence, though the Buddha was positive that all existence is subject to the law of impermanence." from _The Magic of the Mind_, pages 78-79, footnote 2 -- Lee Dillion 22484 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 28, 2003 10:20am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 2. Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 2. When the third stage of insight is reached, also the different groups of rúpa are directly known. Rúpas always arise in groups, kalåpas, consisting of at least eight rúpas. These eight are: the four great Elements of Earth (hardness or softness), Water (cohesion), Fire (temperature: heat or coldness), and Wind (motion or pressure). In addition there are: visible object, odour, flavour and nutrition. Each group of rúpa is surrounded by the rúpa that is space, åkåsa. This is the infinitesimally tiny space that surrounds each group so that the groups are distinct from each other. When at the third stage of tender insight groups of rúpa are directly known, also the space in between them can be known. This makes us realize again how little we know now, at present, and how coarse our awareness is. When, for example, hardness appears there can be awareness of it, but there is no precise understanding yet of that rúpa. Acharn Sujin reminded us that it is the function of paññå to understand realities precisely. She said: ³You do not have to think of a group. We should not try to understand that word. When there is an idea of group, it is thinking. We do not have to count groups. Develop understanding of visible object: a reality that does not experience something. Nåma is a reality that experiences an object. See the difference between nåma and rúpa. Why should we think of groups? It is a stage of insight knowledge that understands what groups are. People have different abilities. We do not have the wisdom of a Buddha, but that does not mean that all these realities cannot be experienced by insight knowledge in due time.² We are bound to have expectations as to the experience of the arising and falling away of realities, but it is understanding that should be developed so that the impermanence of nåma and rúpa can be realized. Each moment of understanding is very precious, we should be grateful to the Buddha who taught us the Dhamma. If we have expectations as to the development of paññå we have attachment and this will obstruct the development of paññå. We should not forget that the Tipiìaka points to elimination, to the eradication of defilements. When there is even one moment of understanding there is no condition to cling to our progress, and then we are on the right Path. We read in the ³Kindred Sayings²(III, Kindred Sayings on Elements, First Fifty, §1)about personality belief, sakkåyadiììhi. Såriputta explained to Nakulapitar who was sick, how body and mind are sick: Herein, housefather, the untaught many-folk, who discern not those who are ariyans, who are unskilled in the ariyan doctrine, who are untrained in the ariyan doctrine...these regard the body as the self, they regard the self as having body, body as being in the self, the self as being in the body. ³I am the body², they say, ³body is mine,² and are possessed by this idea; and so possessed by this idea, when body alters and changes, owing to the unstable and changeful nature of body, then sorrow and grief, woe, lamentation, and despair arise in him... The same is said about the other four khandhas. Såriputta then explained that the person who does not have personality belief, though sick in body, is not sick in mind. 22485 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 28, 2003 10:20am Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no. 11 Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no. 11 Here we see the Buddha¹s great compassion for all of us. We do not have to cross the worldsystems that are extremely hot, or that are a jungle of thorny creepers, or to accumulate the perfections for as long as an incalculable period and a hundred thousand aeons. The Buddha, whose excellent qualities are incomparable, extended his great compassion to us. He became a Sammasambuddha so that we could gain the benefit of the Dhamma he taught to all people. He taught the Dhamma so that we can investigate and consider it, so that paññå can arise that leads to the eradication of our defilements and the realization of the four noble Truths, and we can become true disciples. When we see the immense benefit of the Dhamma the Buddha taught because of his great compassion, we become humble and respectful. We become people who are ³easily instructed², that is, openminded to the Dhamma, and in this way our defilements can gradually be eliminated. The determination for relinquishment, cåga, pertains to the abandoning of defilements, it pertains to síla, our conduct through body and speech in daily life. We should investigate whether we already eliminated some of our wrong conduct through body and speech, or whether our conduct is still as it used to be, although we have listened to the Dhamma. The abandonment of defilements which pertains to our conduct, to síla, is the condition for heedfulness in action and speech, it is the cause of excellent qualities. We can notice this in someone who has pleasing manners, who is gentle and does not show anger; he does not cause uneasiness in others by a cross and fierce facial expression and harsh manners. Heedfulness in conduct is to be applied in daily life. When kusala citta arises our behaviour changes. Heedfulness in speech means that we have to give up wrong speech. Some people are straightforward, but this does not mean that they should speak disagreeable words. People who have accumulated straightforwardness may neglect heedfulness in speech and the elimination of defilements. When they develop the kusala kamma which is the ³straightening of one¹s views² (ditthujukamma), they have right view which knows when there is kusala that is to be developed and when there is akusala that is to be abandoned. The ³straightening of one¹s views² can be accumulated so that it becomes one¹s nature. 22486 From: Lee Dillion Date: Wed May 28, 2003 10:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lee - nibbana and sabhava Hi Suan: abhidhammika wrote: > Dear Sarah, Lee, and All > > How are you? I am doing fine - thank you. > Lee quoted Bhikkhu Nanananda's commentary on nibbana as follows. > > "In a psychological sense, a design could be 'unmade' or 'dissolved' > by shifting one's attention to its components. Even so, 'what is > born' (jaatam), 'become' (bhuutam), 'made' (katam) and 'compounded' > (samkhatam) is transformed into a 'not-born', 'not-become', 'not- > made' and 'not-compounded' state by a penetrative insight into its > causes and conditions. All 'designs' involved in the magic-show of > consciousness, which are but dependently arisen, also cease when > ignorance and craving are eradicated. > > The above epithets of Nibbaana are therefore psychological, and not > metaphysical, in their import." > > Nibbana is often called the Unconditioned Element (Asankhatadhaatu). > Because it is unconditioned, it is timeless. Nibbana is not time- > bound because it is not something temporally measurable in terms of > arising, decaying and vanishing phases (the time of arising, the time > of decaying, etc.). A sentient event, however, is temporally > measurable in terms of emerging, decaying, and vanishing phases. So a > sentient event is time- bound. > > What I am getting at is that the timeless unconditioned element does > not depend on a time-bound conditioned phenomena. Yet, Bhikkhu > Nanananda seemed to be asserting that nibbana, the highest dhamma > (nibbanam paramam) depended on sentient beings. In short, according > to Bhikkhu Nanananda's interpretation, sentient beings must pre-exist > before nibbana can "happen" . . . > Therefore, Bhikkhu Nanananda's interpretation of nibbana is outside > the original teachings of the Buddha and those of Arahant > commentators. This is a misreading of what the Bhikkhu writes. Let me try to help by posting below my signature several quotes from Richard Hayes who had a number of helpful discussions on the nature of Nibbana on usenet some years back. In essence, what Richard says below (and that agrees with Bhikkhu Nanananda) is that every vastu (thing) is compounded or conditioned, Nibbana is avastu (i.e. not a thing) but is merely a designation (abhidhaana-maatra) for the absence of some particular things, which are greed, hatred and delusion. I am not sure as to the source of your confusion about the Bhikkhu's understanding, but perhaps it is because you would see Nibbana as something more than a mere absence but not as a conditioned thing? In any event, this absence is not a "thing" conditioned on the efforts of sentient beings - rather, it is a merely a designation for the absence of greed, hatred and delusion as noted in the following sutta passage: "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." -- AN III.32 That sentient beings can experience Nibbana (the absence of greed, hatred and delusion) through their efforts is wholly in line with the suttas - for to argue that Nibbana is not secured by their efforts would render the teachings meaningless in my view. Take care. Lee ------- Post by Richard Hayes to talk.religion.buddhism "Every thing (vastu) is compounded or conditioned. Whatever is compounded is bound to perish. This cannot be avoided. So every thing that comes into existence is destined to become absent. This absence or cessation (nirodha) therefore is the destiny of every thing. Only that which does not exist at all can avoid perishing. Only absence itself does not become absent. It is deathless, because it does not exist in the first place, except as a name and a concept. - 1997/12/05" "The debate over the nature of nirvana in India has been a debate over whether or not nirvana is a vastu. (The word "vastu" is quite vague, rather like the word "thing".) The side of the controversy that makes more sense to me is the one that holds that nirvana is "avastu", which literally means "not a thing" or "nothing". The position is that nirvana is not in itself a thing but is merely a designation (abhidhaana-maatra) for the absence of some particular things, namely, greed, hatred and delusion. Not being a thing, nirvana naturally has no beginning and no end, so it can be said to be uncreated and deathless. Not being a thing, nirvana in fact has no attributes at all. No predicate can apply to it, just as no predicate can apply to the present Queen of the United States of America. Now how, according to this view, is it possible to account for the fact that nirvana is said to be blissful and so forth? The traditional answer to this question is that the predicate "blissful" is applied to nirvana by synecdoche (upacaara), which is the rhetorical device of transferring a predicate from one subject to another. The bliss is a quality of the mental continuum that is free of greed and hatred. But since the occasion of that bliss is the very absence of greed and hatred, the bliss is poetically ascribed to the absence itself. It is similar to when someone says, "The dark is terrifying." Actually, the darkness itself is not frightening, for darkness is merely a word for the absence of light. What is frightening is one's own ideas about what might happen when there is no light by which to see dangerous things. Alternatively, the dangerous things concealed for want of light to reveal them can be said to be frightening. But since that fright is associated with times when there is an absence of light, one says poetically that darkness is terrifying. But not every absence of passion is nirvana. Nirvana is a very particular kind of absence of passion. - 1997/12/02" 22487 From: Date: Wed May 28, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? To Sarah: In a message dated 5/27/03 11:10:36 PM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << As for the Pali, it is often helpful to use the very precise terms to avoid confusion. For example, in the ‘Cetana Sutta’ which Ken H recently posted, I had no idea that ‘obsessions’ was a translation of ‘anusaya’ (proclivity) until Larry added the helpful references and details of a very specific term, not captured by the rich English language translations imho. I do try to avoid Pali terms or give an English meaning, especially when writing to those who have difficulty or find the terms an irritant. I also recommend printing out this very basic glossary to have handy for following other posts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms For more detail, Nyantiloka’s dictionary is a very rich source of detail: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html >> %%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thank-you Sarah for your kind responses, which resonate for the most part with my own point of view so I have skipped over them. I am aware of the Pali Glossary, and I am also familiar with "As for the Pali, it is often helpful to use the very precise terms to avoid confusion." I hear this often, but it never seems to avoid confusion, because, just like with English, Pail also often has a range of meaning for each word in its language. Words are just approximations, and are best used when there is agreement. But, there is rarely agreement, even in the Pali language. The word 'samadhi' is an example. Samadhi is a Sanskrit term that means spiritual absorption, much like jhana, but in Pali I find it is often used for 'concentration.' When this use of the word came to be I cannot say, but I believe it is an incorrect use of the word and only perpetuates confusion. I believe 'samadhi' coming to mean 'concentration' probably came about from using the word to describe a meditation technique that leads to absorption. This is much like the confusion we have at present over the word 'vipassana.' It's original meaning was 'insight,' but because it has been used to describe a particular meditation technique in the U ba Kin lineage, it has come to mean a kind of meditation technique. Give this confusion a few more centuries and 'vipassana' it will no doubt come to mean 'body scanning' and not 'insight' ..... S: Like we see with Potthapada’s questions and the responses, there has to be a clear intellectual right view in the first place, developed by hearing, contemplating and considering the truths over and over again. There is no self to do any practice, merely mental and physical phenomena. The first stage of insight is clearly knowing and distinguishing these phenomena directly when they arise. ..... Jeff: Yes, I agree, but obsessing over whether one has a self or not, I believe is immaterial. One will find out upon cessation. Why argue if one has a self or not? One cannot know until nibbana anyway. I don't see how belief is relevant, as long as one is practicing. Beliefs are simply shed as realization (insight) emerges. Yes, the basics have to be grasp, 3 gems, 4 noble truths, 8 fold path, 10 precepts. The irony, is these will take a whole lifetime of meditation to grasp. One cannot understand them intellectually. They are meant to be realized, revealed through insight, which is driven by a dedicated and intense contemplative practice. But, I am sure you know that, and I am preaching to the choir. .... S: Would you clarify what you mean by ‘One’ and ‘the self’. I’m not sure whether by ‘annihilation of the self’ you mean self view or the khandhas or parinibbana or something else. ..... Jeff: I am speaking from the stand point of jhana, as you know there are 8 jhanas, as one moves through these there is a progressive effacement of the self, much like the proverbial peeling of the onion. The 4 arupa jhanas, the immaterial jhanas, or supramundane absorptions, are various experiences of becoming infinite, time, space, being, consciousness, etc. When one becomes infinity there is no longer a self, as we speak of a self. That being is empty, empty, just infinite and empty. ..... S: I understand these experiences without any sensory impingement to also be impermanent and therefore inherently unsatisfactory (dukkha). So although they are very highly wholesome states --and taught and followed by many before the Buddha-- they still have to be known as namas, no self involved. They have to be seen with detachment and righ view of satipatthana in order for all kilesa to be finally eradicated and final liberation attained. This is why I said there cannot be any final cessation without full knowledge directly realizing the truths. ..... Jeff: Yes, they are impermanent until 'final' cessation in nibbana, but does that not mean one avoids them? No. they are various passageways to nibbana. One must pass through the stages leading to nibbana, not just pop magically through the 8 stages into nibbana after one's morning coffee. Nice quote, I'll use it to. “ ‘But, Lord, what has the Lord declared?’ ‘Potthapada, I have declared: ‘this is suffering, this is the origin of suffering, this is the cessation of suffering, and this is the path leading to the cessation of suffering.’â€? .... S: I understand nibbana to be that state experienced by this ultimate knowledge or wisdom. Nibbana is not the knowledge or wisdom. Let me know if you have a Pali canon reference you wish to discuss further. .... I believe we are now splitting hairs as intellectuals like to do. The i ntellect can never understand these things. It is better to sit morning and evening, evening and morning, and through the dark and stillness of the night. Knowledge, wisdom will eventual come like dawn, then there is no reason for quoting some dead guy. ..... S: Thanks for all your interesting comments. There are many topics of discussion here. Please feel free to break them into separate threads if you can. Metta, Sarah %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Yes, you are right there are many interesting things to talk about here. But, I know the intellectual approach cannot liberate anyone. Just take refuge, let the Four Noble Truths be your guiding-light, follow the Eighth Fold Path, and observe the precepts, and practice regularly and often, with duration and intensity. Best to you, Jeff Brooks editor, Southwest Insight E'letter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWI_E_letter/ president, UofA Meditation Club http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Vivatha/ moderator, Jhana Support Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/ 22488 From: Date: Wed May 28, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: jhana In a message dated 5/27/03 10:18:49 PM, nichicon@h... writes: << Hi, Jeff ~ Interesting choice of words: "the 'wets' don't believe ignorance, or choosing not to have a dialog about something, like the conditions of absorption, is a good idea. They believe dialog and open conversation can only be healthy." I shave my head when my hair starts falling in my eyes. I just don't care to mess with it. peace, connie >> It must be a common hairstyling motif among yogis, because I have the same method of hair cutting. Jeff 22489 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed May 28, 2003 11:14am Subject: Pain As A Signal (04) Dear Dhamma Friends, Pain is a daily problem but hardly anyone notices that it is a signal.What signal does it bring with it.This depends on sufferers. Actually pain is a signal of disease or sufferings.Bodhisatta saw a man in desparate pain and He assumed that finding as a signal for searching for Dhamma and finally led to forest-going and deserting everything He owned. That signal should be borne in mind and review repeatedly.It is a phase of decaying of a life.If someone can see this with a great wisdom he will be able to see the real Dhamma.Dhamma is nowhere but around us and in our mind if we can recognise it. May you all recognise pain as a signal in your daily life. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 22490 From: Date: Wed May 28, 2003 7:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 2. Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/28/03 1:22:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 2. > > When the third stage of insight is reached, also the different groups of > rúpa are directly known. Rúpas always arise in groups, kalåpas, consisting > of at least eight rúpas. These eight are: the four great Elements of Earth > (hardness or softness), Water (cohesion), Fire (temperature: heat or > coldness), and Wind (motion or pressure). In addition there are: visible > object, odour, flavour and nutrition. Each group of rúpa is surrounded by > the rúpa that is space, åkåsa. This is the infinitesimally tiny space that > surrounds each group so that the groups are distinct from each other. When > at the third stage of tender insight groups of rúpa are directly known, also > the space in between them can be known. This makes us realize again how> > little we know now, at present, and how coarse our awareness is. When, for > example, hardness appears there can be awareness of it, but there is no > precise understanding yet of that rúpa. Acharn Sujin reminded us that it is > the function of paññå to understand realities precisely. She said: > ³You do not have to think of a group. We should not try to understand that > word. When there is an idea of group, it is thinking. We do not have to > count groups. Develop understanding of visible object: a reality that does > not experience something. Nåma is a reality that experiences an object. See > the difference between nåma and rúpa. Why should we think of groups? It is a > stage of insight knowledge that understands what groups are. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Nina, much of the foregoing "bothers" me. Please don't take what I now say as indicating disrespect. That is not my intention. But much of the foregoing appears to me to be a prescientific, rather primitive addition to what the Buddha teaches in the suttas. What particularly make no sense to me at all are the following: 1) that image, odor, flavor, and "nutrition" arise with every rupic discernment [By the way, *what* in the world is nutrition??], 2) that space is a rupa rather than a relation, and 3) the statement by Khun Sujin: " It is a stage of insight knowledge that understands what groups are," because I fail to see what that has to do with the wisdom the grasps the tilakkhana. [I understand pa~n~na as the function consisting of directly seeing the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self character (impersonality and insubstantiality) of all dhammas, plus whatever subordinate insights foster such direct understanding.] I would much appreciate a way of looking at this material which would provide a basis for my finding it to be more believable. (I'm not someone who enjoys being skeptical.) ----------------------------------------------------- > People have > different abilities. We do not have the wisdom of a Buddha, but that does > not mean that all these realities cannot be experienced by insight knowledge > in due time.² > We are bound to have expectations as to the experience of the arising and > falling away of realities, but it is understanding that should be developed > so that the impermanence of nåma and rúpa can be realized. Each moment of > understanding is very precious, we should be grateful to the Buddha who > taught us the Dhamma. If we have expectations as to the development of paññå > we have attachment and this will obstruct the development of paññå. We > should not forget that the Tipiìaka points to elimination, to the > eradication of defilements. When there is even one moment of understanding > there is no condition to cling to our progress, and then we are on the right > Path. > We read in the ³Kindred Sayings²(III, Kindred Sayings on Elements, First > Fifty, §1)about personality belief, sakkåyadiììhi. Såriputta explained to > Nakulapitar who was sick, how body and mind are sick: > > Herein, housefather, the untaught many-folk, who discern not those who are > ariyans, who are unskilled in the ariyan doctrine, who are untrained in the > ariyan doctrine...these regard the body as the self, they regard the self as > having body, body as being in the self, the self as being in the body. ³I am > the body², they say, ³body is mine,² and are possessed by this idea; and so > possessed by this idea, when body alters and changes, owing to the unstable > and changeful nature of body, then sorrow and grief, woe, lamentation, and > despair arise in him... > > The same is said about the other four khandhas. Såriputta then explained > that the person who does not have personality belief, though sick in body, > is not sick in 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) 22491 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed May 28, 2003 4:51pm Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: , > As for the results of past karmas, I believe it depends on how you define > karma. Siddharta Gotama had chronic intestinal problems. I am no medical > doctor, but his subsistence strategy was based on begging. I am sure not everyone > during his lifetime consider him to be an enlightened being. Probably most > people during his time period gave the wandering samanas of India the leftovers > from the previous meal, or day. Since there was no refrigeration that means > that the Buddha was probably eating yesterday's un-refrigerated meal. In a > tropical climate, like much of India, that means he was eating food that was > definitely going bad. Therefore he probably had chronic food poisoning. > > Can we say that his food poisoning was due to karma? No, he was enlightened, > therefore he had no actions or reactions of a self anymore, his subsistence > strategy probably caused his chronic food poisoning. Can we call his food > poisoning due to his subsistence strategy karma? Only if you have a mechanistic > view of karma. Otherwise, no. > > Also when you read the section on body meditation, foulness meditations, and > cremation ground meditation, he talks about the parasites that live in our > body working their way out of the dead body at a particular stage of its > decomposition. From his perspective of human anatomy, it seems clear to me that he > believed parasites were beneficial creatures that lived inside of everyone. > Therefore he also probably had a host of parasites of every kind inside of him. > > So, one could say Siddharta's health problems were based on the "karma" of > his subsistence strategy and the time period in which he lived. But, I do not > look at karma in a mechanistic way. To me karma is about the actions and > reactions of the 'self' with respect to its subjective world. If one were to > consider karma from this perspective then, the manifestations of one's life are > irrelevant, the only thing of interest to the yogi at this point is whether > suffering exists for him or her. And, suffering is purely a consequence of an ego > as it grasps and averts at its subjective world. > > For an enlightened being, experiencing food poisoning has no element of suff > ering. There may be pain as he or she retches out the poisonous food, but > since there is no grasping or averting over the experience there is no suffering, > and no perpetuation of suffering through actions and reactions of a clinging > self. Hi layman Jeff, I wish to comment a bit on your observations here…specifically about the Lord Buddha`s diet. Sarah did a bit, and then encouraged other threads as well, so I am going to pick up her lead. Frankly, and please don't take this the wrong way, I take exception to this characterization of the Buddha. Even though everything you state is correct, in one sense, it doesn't factor in the great interplay of karmic forces that the Buddha had to contend with. It is easy for us, anyone, to sit back and say, "Look, the Buddha ate meat, and the Buddha taught against killing, so there is an contradiction there. The Buddha paid the consequences for that hypocrisy." I find that view complete sacrilege! (Sorry for my outburst.) Human kind is eventually working itself toward vegetarianism; I am also working my way, slowly but surely, toward that state. But it cannot be forced overnight! The Lord Buddha realized this and rather than trying to force a premature conversion of his kinfolk, he chose to take the negative karma onto himself for their poor choices. Please give credit where credit is due. In all the universe, with its material and non-material beings, there is none to match or rival the Lord Buddha. We should never bite the hand that feeds us. I hope you can understand my intentions here. I respect your insights and am very thankful that you brought this subject up. Take care. Metta, James ps.I felt that I needed to comment because your reasoning, though all- inclusive, is confusing and undeclarative. On issues as weighty as this, I believe concrete stands should be posited. Forgive me if you disagree. Weight Age Gender Female Male 22492 From: gazita2002 Date: Wed May 28, 2003 5:19pm Subject: Re: Cooran Weekend Visible object --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi2500" wrote: > Hi > The subject of visible object came up a few times at the cooran > get together. It was my understanding that visible object was colour > alone. Looking in the Dhammasangani it states> > --snip-- > > How are the "long, short, small, large, spherical, sided-sided, six- > sided-sided, sixteen-sided; low, high" or the "snow, smoke, > mist" to > be understood? > Is it only colour that is "visible object" or are "forms" included as > well? > > > Thanks > Steve dear Steve, this is an interesting one for me too. I always thought that visible object was just 'color'. I'll be keen to see this explained. Happy to have met you at the Cooran w/e. For others infomation, I found the group get-together that w/e very beneficial. It was great to meet fellow dhamma 'students' on my own soil, so to speak, rather than travellin' overseas - and I enjoy doing that too. The discussion on vipaka has make me think more about vipaka. I guess by saying "I was robbed" is not strictly vipaka in the true sense, but many, many moments of cittas arising and falling. Because I am 'an uninstructed worldling', I mix all these moments up, and have the concept 'I was robbed". Loosing possessions, loved ones, etc. causes us pain because we still have attachment [and will until arahatship]. Slowly, slowly the wisdom grows and slowly, slowly the kilesa fall away. I remember saying to K. Duangdern, as we gazed out over the river in BKK. on a rare peaceful day, how beautiful it was, but there was really no point dwelling on our good vipaka bec both the deed and the result were gone already, and by being seduced by the pleasantness of the object, we were creating future result - we went on enjoying the view anyway!!!!! patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 22493 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed May 28, 2003 6:36pm Subject: Re: Cooran Weekend Visible object --- Dear Steve, As you say visible object is only different colours. There is no shape or form in visible object. However to describe the wonder of cakkhu-vinnana (seeing consciousness) it is helpful to refer to different objects. Seeing can distinguish them all because of the variety of different shades and colours. If there was only one colour there would be no way to distinguish different shapes such as spherical or octagonal or large or small. Acharn Sujin writes: "Is what is appearing through the eyes at this moment one and the same colour or are there different colours appearing? Reality is true dhamma (sacca dhamma), it can be verified. We should find out whether at this moment we see only one thing, only one colour, or whether we see that which is appearing as different colours, in a detailed way, so that we can distinguish between different things which are perceived. Can we, for example, distinguish between a real diamond and a synthetic diamond? Citta is the reality which sees and knows clearly, it clearly knows the different characteristics of the different objects, and that even into the smallest details. At this moment the rúpa which is the eyesense has as its characteristic a special clarity, it can be compared to a mirror in which the image of whatever passes is clearly reflected. The eyesense can come into contact with visible object. .. Whatever colour appears, colour of a real diamond, of a synthetic diamond, of jade, of a stone, even the colour of the look in someone's eyes which expresses envy, all that can appear to the citta which sees. What appears at this moment through the eyes appears to citta which clearly knows it. It sees all the colours of the different objects which appear, and thus the meaning of things can be known, the shape and form perceived, and there can be thinking about what has appeared through the eyes. " "http://www.abhidhamma.org/Para3.htm Robertk In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi2500" wrote: > Hi > The subject of visible object came up a few times at the cooran > get together. It was my understanding that visible object was colour > alone. Looking in the Dhammasangani it states> > > Dependent on the 4 primary elements, there is the corporeality which > is visible, which arises with impingement, and is of various colours; > dark blue, pale yellow, red//snip other colours//: long, short, > small, large, spherical, circular, four-sided, six-sided, eight- > sided, sixteen-sided; low, high; shade, sunshine; light, darkness; > snow, smoke, mist; moonlight, sunlight, starlight …then back into > more colours. > > How are the "long, short, small, large, spherical, sided-sided, six- > sided-sided, sixteen-sided; low, high" or the "snow, smoke, > mist" to > be understood? > Is it only colour that is "visible object" or are "forms" included as > well? > > > Thanks > Steve 22494 From: Date: Wed May 28, 2003 2:51pm Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, James - We haven't "talked" for a while. It's a pleasure to do so! Please forgive me that this particular conversation involves a little disagreement. ;-) In a message dated 5/28/03 7:55:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes with regard to the Buddha's not insisting on vegetarianism: > But it cannot be forced > overnight! The Lord Buddha realized this and rather than trying to > force a premature conversion of his kinfolk, he chose to take the > negative karma onto himself for their poor choices. Please give > credit where credit is due. In all the universe, with its material > and non-material beings, there is none to match or rival the Lord > Buddha. ========================== I just want to confirm my understanding that by "he chose to take the negative karma onto himself for their poor choices," what you are saying is that out of kindness to others, the Buddha allowed himself and his followers to eat meat, thereby creating akusala kamma vipaka for himself, a "price" he was willing to pay. If I understand you correctly, then that is much better than if you were saying that the Buddha was "taking on himself" the consequences of the kamma of others. (That, of course, cannot be done, and to claim it would sound more Christian than Buddhist, rather like taking on the "sins" of others! ;-) But I don't think, even given that I'm correct in my non-salvational interpretation of what you wrote, that you are quite correct. I don't think that a buddha (or arahant) can act except functionally. That is, it is not possible for an arahant to engage in either kusala or akusala kamma. An arahant, of course, always acts compassionately, lovingly, sympathetically, and with equanimity, but does not will actions in the same way as worldlings, and does not generate kamma vipaka. So, not only did the Buddha not take on the kammic results of others' actions, but he also didn't produce any himself. 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) 22495 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 28, 2003 9:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door and mind-door, thinking. Dear Yasa, op 28-05-2003 11:17 schreef yasalalaka op charlesperera@h...: There is no page, for all posts, on > a particular subject under discussion, to appear. Some times it is > difficult to get reference on a particular subject under discussion, > as there are several posts on the same subject. Nina: It is this way: anything that comes up, any problem, any experience you have, you can just post, it does not matter whether it is a subject under discussion. Anybody can start a new subject. Y: I think I was not quite clear in the question I posed to you, about > the sense-door process and mind- door process. The Buddha had used > two different terminology to describe " nama-rupa" for meditation > purposes in his discourses in Sutta Pitaka and for analytical > purposes in Abhidhamma. N: I do not see it this way. All teachings point to satipatthana, to vipassana. The purpose of the Abhidhamma is not merely analytical, the purpose is the same as that of the sutta: develop right understanding to eradicate defilements. Y: For a yogi to see all the 17 citta moment in meditation would be a > distraction of concentration. N: I cannot separate meditation and life.We cannot count all the moments of citta in a process, and there is no need to. We just learn so that we have more understanding that citta cannot be controlled or directed. It helps to know more details about processes, but we should not try to catch the moments of citta. Y:Therefore in meditation, there are, in > each sense door, five elements which represent the , nama: > > (i) contact ( passa, which probably includes ,atita bhavanga, > bhavanga-chalana,bhavanga uppajjedha,panca dvaravajjana) > > (ii) feeling (vedana, which probably includes, sampaticchana, > santirana) > > (iii) perceptions( sanna-which probably includes, votapanna) > > (iv) consciousness( vinnana- which probably includes, seven javana) > > (v ) mind-factors ( sankhara-which probably includes, two moments of > tadarammana) N: It is not so that each of them include certain cittas. Contact is cetasika, how could it be bhavangacitta and panca dvaravajjana? The same for the other cetasikas, feeling perception, how could it include cittas? It is important to distinguish here citta and cetasika. Cetasikas are mental factors that accompany citta. There is one citta at a time and it is accompanied by several cetasikas, at least seven, which always include contact, feeling, perception.When we have cleared this point perhaps your next point about doors may be solved? > Y: Nina, I would not say that sati-sampajjana, is the result of > intellectual understanding but ,it would be due to rather mindful > observation. N: Now I quote Sarah to Jeff: < Like we see with Potthapada’s questions and the responses, there has to be a clear intellectual right view in the first place, developed by hearing, contemplating and considering the truths over and over again. There is no self to do any practice, merely mental and physical phenomena. The first stage of insight is clearly knowing and distinguishing these phenomena directly when they arise.> end quote. Thus, intellectual understanding is the foundation and the condition for the arising of sati-sampajanna. The other part of your post: this depends whether it is solved or not yet. Just tell me, Nina. . 22496 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 28, 2003 9:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 94, Mental Objects Dear Larry, just wondering about a term: op 28-05-2003 02:02 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w... > > Because in these enlightenment factors, the meditator effectively gets > enlightened, the meditator is called "Complete Enlightenment" from the > time he begins strenuous contemplation on insight. Pali:ettha hi sambujjhati aaraddhavipassakato pa.t.thaaya yogaavacaroti sambodhi, strenuous contemplation on insight: aaraddhavipassakato pa.t.thaaya. aaraddha: from arabhati: to begin, firm. Also said of viriya. There is viriya, but it is a cetasika. We should not be neglectful, but there should not be any idea of I am strenuous. The word strenuous could give rise to misunderstandings of : I have to be mindful uninterruptedly. A certain translation can have influence on one's conduct, I think. Nina. 22497 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 28, 2003 9:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran Weekend Visible object Hi Steve, op 28-05-2003 12:59 schreef bodhi2500 op Bodhi2500@a...: > The subject of visible object came up a few times at the cooran > get together. It was my understanding that visible object was colour > alone. Looking in the Dhammasangani it states> > > Dependent on the 4 primary elements, there is the corporeality which > is visible, which arises with impingement, and is of various colours; > dark blue, (snipped) > How are the "long, short, small, large, spherical, sided-sided, six- > sided-sided, sixteen-sided; low, high" or the "snow, smoke, > mist" to > be understood? > Is it only colour that is "visible object" or are "forms" included as > well? Nina: It gives examples by way of conventional terms that colour is not neutral. Anything that appears through eyes, but seeing does not know yet that the object has six sides, it does not count. When we pay attention to shape and form it is not seeing. We always have doubts about visible object, until there can be awareness of just visible object and just seeing. Nina. 22498 From: Date: Wed May 28, 2003 9:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 94, Mental Objects Hi Nina, I agree "strenuous" is a little strange. Sort of like "muscular". And I also agree we need to be aware of conceit, the "I". But I seem to remember there is the intention to be continually mindful, at least for the recluse. I don't remember which section this was in though. Maybe the Section On Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension. Larry ------------------ Nina wrote: Pali:ettha hi sambujjhati aaraddhavipassakato pa.t.thaaya yogaavacaroti sambodhi, strenuous contemplation on insight: aaraddhavipassakato pa.t.thaaya. aaraddha: from arabhati: to begin, firm. Also said of viriya. There is viriya, but it is a cetasika. We should not be neglectful, but there should not be any idea of I am strenuous. The word strenuous could give rise to misunderstandings of : I have to be mindful uninterruptedly. A certain translation can have influence on one's conduct, I think. Nina. Re: Way 94, "Because in these enlightenment factors, the meditator effectively gets enlightened, the meditator is called "Complete Enlightenment" from the time he begins strenuous contemplation on insight." 22499 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed May 28, 2003 10:39pm Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > We haven't "talked" for a while. It's a pleasure to do so! Please > forgive me that this particular conversation involves a little disagreement. ;-) James: It is nice to talk with you also. I don't mind if you disagree. It isn't a contest ;-). I just want to confirm my understanding that by "he chose to take the > negative karma onto himself for their poor choices," what you are saying is > that out of kindness to others, the Buddha allowed himself and his followers to > eat meat, thereby creating akusala kamma vipaka for himself, a "price" he was > willing to pay. If I understand you correctly, then that is much better than > if you were saying that the Buddha was "taking on himself" the consequences of > the kamma of others. (That, of course, cannot be done, and to claim it would > sound more Christian than Buddhist, rather like taking on the "sins" of others! > ;-) > But I don't think, even given that I'm correct in my non- salvational > interpretation of what you wrote, that you are quite correct. I don't think > that a buddha (or arahant) can act except functionally. That is, it is not > possible for an arahant to engage in either kusala or akusala kamma. An arahant, of > course, always acts compassionately, lovingly, sympathetically, and with > equanimity, but does not will actions in the same way as worldlings, and does not > generate kamma vipaka. So, not only did the Buddha not take on the kammic > results of others' actions, but he also didn't produce any himself. > > With metta, > Howard James: You are entitled to your opinon, of course. But I disagree with these statements and stand by my original statements. In Buddhism there is such a thing as 'giving and gaining merit' which operates contrary to how you describe the functions of karma. The Buddha taught that people would gain merit through dana (generosity), and he also taught that this merit would be higher if the generosity was directed toward his monks (There are many, many sutta references about this). He also taught that there is a type of karma that 'neutralizes' other karma, that is what I mean by his 'taking on' negative karma...if this reminds you of Christian ideology, okay. I have nothing against Christian ideology, per se. I just don't believe in Original Sin, which means I don't believe in the emphasis you will find therein. Again, it was nice to hear from you again. Take care. Metta, James 22500 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 29, 2003 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I think the main reason Buddhists argue over what is real and what is > not is in order to steer a middle course between the two extreme views > of kamma. >Some would say an "ultimate" view that says nothing is given > is an extreme. Others would say not so. ..... ??? .... ?However that may be, let's take > another tack. Is ignorance a reality? How does it manifest? [hint: I'm > trying to get you to say ignorance is a wrong conceptual view and a > reality] ..... Actually it’s a great help if you give me a hint each time of what you’re wishing to hear;-) At least then I know what you’re getting at. It reminds me of playing chess with my brothers - I was hopeless as they’d always be several steps ahead. To your question: Ignorance is a reality but is not the same as wrong conceptual view. However, whenever there is wrong view (micha ditthi) there must be ignorance accompanying it -- ignorance accompanies and is a root for all unwholesome cittas. Wrong view arises with cittas rooted in attachment as well. To put it another way, any moments now when the cittas (in the javana process) are not wholesome, ie concerned with dana, sila or bhavana, then they are unwholesome and rooted in ignorance. Those cittas arising which are rooted in attachment (lobha-mula-cittas) may in addition be accompanied by wrong view. Hope that clarifies, even if it wasn't what you wished me to say;-). Metta, Sarah ===== 22501 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 29, 2003 1:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hi Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote > > I'll start with accumulated kamma as related in stories in the Suttanta > and > the Jatakas. In this example from > > Samyutta Nikaya III.19 > Aputtaka Sutta > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn03-019.html > > and > > Samyutta Nikaya III.20 > Aputtaka Sutta, > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn03-020.html .... These suttas and your summaries and comments raised many interesting issues and I'm keen for you to pursue your reflections - .... > Unfortunately I've run out of time--I'd like to go ahead and post this > as a > basis for further discussion and hope to pick up the thread later. > > Thanks again for your patience, .... Just trying to make sure you don't forget that many of us are waiting for the sequel;-) With thanks in advance, Metta, Sarah ====== 22502 From: Andrew Date: Thu May 29, 2003 2:32am Subject: Re: Additions to Photo Albums > Dear Sarah and all Having survived a cold and an attack by computer gremlins, I am busily catching up on all the wonderful posts about some of the issues discussed at our Cooran weekend. Thank you to all those contributors. > Sarah: Andrew, whilst I sympathise with any SOs who have their rear ends caught > on film and then displayed for the world (well, for DSG members anyway) to > see, perhaps it?s time for Smokey Joe to consider a little diet;-) A: Smokey is firmly of the view that there is no "I" to go on a diet and it is therefore not on "his" agenda. Besides, as he often says to Christine "I think my karma just ran over your dogma!" > S: Andrew, > you?d like to give a summary of the paper you presented on environmental > issues and Buddhism as well and the feedback. A: I didn't actually write a paper on environmental issues and Buddhism but referred to a book on that theme and a chapter by Christopher Titmus on "being passionate" about the environment. I also related my story of attending a Palm Sunday protest many years ago as part of a Buddhist group, some members of which had a yelling match with disgruntled motorists caught in a traffic jam caused by the march. I suggested that going on such marches was akin to grasping a snake, chances are you will not take the proper hold and the snake will bite. Then again, just staying at home furnishes ample scope for creating akusala too. One aspect of dukkha is expecting samsara to be better or get better. And how can we know these things anyway? There are instances of scientists implementing a program intended to save a species from extinction, and later discovering that part of that program was actually having the opposite effect. Perhaps what we need is just to understand the present moment, what is paramattha dhamma and what isn't, and conditions will produce whatever result they do - be it marching or not marching. I fully intend to keep up my membership and support for environmental groups and would not be surprised if I go on another march sometime but I seem to get less "worked up" over conceptual debate.I have to end here, but perhaps some of the others may like to summarise some of the points discussed on the weekend. Metta, Andrew 22503 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu May 29, 2003 3:04am Subject: Pain As A Signal ( 05 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Pain,a signal,is not a permanent one as other dhammas.Pain arises than may persist and then passes away with time. If the pain is bodily pain,it is sensed by body sense-receptors.In bodily sense there are three types in Abhidhamma.The first type is called Pathavi(hardness,softness,roughness,smothness-density of mass). Next type is Vayo(pulling force,pushing force,springingness,resilience,attraction,propulsion,repulsion-any moving forces). And then Tejo comes as a type of pain.It is coolness,coldness,warmness,hotness- some degree of temperature.Pain is a mixture of all these three even though the most prominent Rupa that sensed as pain is Tejo. When a pain comes,it may manifest as a form of wave of heat and it spread through out the nearby structures and related organs.In Abhidhamma that sense is carried a long Kaya-Pasada with the aid of Thaddha-Pathavi. If an insight can be developed by practice then pain can become tolerable one and if it is based as an mental object further mental faculty can be developed through the practice of putting the mind at the object pain at the bodily sense-door. May you all can tolerate pains of different kind and have an insight into pains and real dhamma. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 22504 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 29, 2003 3:23am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Jeff, S: Thanks for your further comments - as expected, I agree with some and not with others. In any case, I think it’s useful to have these discussions even if we eventually agree to disagree on some aspects of the teachings. ..... --- macdocaz1@a... wrote: J: > But, there is rarely agreement, even in the Pali language. The word > 'samadhi' > is an example. Samadhi is a Sanskrit term that means spiritual > absorption, > much like jhana, but in Pali I find it is often used for > 'concentration.' When > this use of the word came to be I cannot say, but I believe it is an > incorrect > use of the word and only perpetuates confusion. .... S: I think we need to look carefully at the texts. Samadhi can refer to momentary concentration which accompanies all consciousness (ekaggata cetasika). Furthermore there is miccha samadhi (wrong concentration) as well as samma samadhi (right concentration). It can refer to the mundane or supramundane path factor and it can refer to jhanas. I think you would find these past posts helpful (particularly Jon’s post 10879 perhaps): - Right Concentration (samma samadhi) 2155, 4068, 4104, 10879, 11742, 14294. 19448, 19571, 20503 ..... J: > I believe 'samadhi' coming to mean 'concentration' probably came about > from > using the word to describe a meditation technique that leads to > absorption. .... S: So perhaps it would be better to use ‘samadhi’ or ‘ekaggata cetasika’;-) ..... J: > This is much like the confusion we have at present over the word > 'vipassana.' .... S: I agree with your comments about the mis-use of the term. I think our job is to explore and understand the terms and help clarify misunderstandings. I appreciate we’re on the same page here;-) ..... J: > Jeff: > Yes, I agree, but obsessing over whether one has a self or not, I > believe is > immaterial. One will find out upon cessation. Why argue if one has a > self or > not? One cannot know until nibbana anyway. I don't see how belief is > relevant, as long as one is practicing. Beliefs are simply shed as > realization > (insight) emerges. ..... S: I would call this ‘wishful thinking’. To quote from a past post of Jon’s to another friend: Jon: “You suggest that it's better to actually start following the Buddha's instruction than to concern oneself with getting the theory right. I'm afraid I can't agree here. If the teachings are not correctly understood, I don't think the 'practice' can have any chance of being right. Simply following what we understand from a superficial reading of selected suttas, or what we are told by a 'teacher' to be the practice, does not seem to me either prudent or in accord with what the Buddha himself said on the subject. On the question of what the Buddha himself said, let me quote this passage from a sutta ....: Anguttara Nikaya, Chapter XX, Mahavaggo, The Great Chapter (1) Blessings "Brethren, four blessings should be expected from listening to with the ear, constant recitation with the voice, careful consideration with the mind and penetration of the Norm through insight. What four? …" “ **** S: We also read about how much detail Potthapada had to hear in the sutta you selected (including lots of argument about ‘self’)before he could understand what was meant by ‘practice’. Without this detail, he would have continued to practice with his wrong views, waiting for nibbana. ..... J: > Yes, the basics have to be grasp, 3 gems, 4 noble truths, 8 fold path, > 10 > precepts. The irony, is these will take a whole lifetime of meditation > to grasp. > One cannot understand them intellectually. They are meant to be > realized, > revealed through insight, which is driven by a dedicated and intense > contemplative practice. But, I am sure you know that, and I am > preaching to the choir. .... S: I don’t consider the 4 noble truths or 8 fold path as basics. We probably have different ideas about ‘practice’ as well. .... J: > Jeff: > I am speaking from the stand point of jhana, as you know there are 8 > jhanas, > as one moves through these there is a progressive effacement of the > self, much > like the proverbial peeling of the onion..... >When one becomes > infinity there > is no longer a self, as we speak of a self. That being is empty, empty, > just > infinite and empty. .... S: The cessation of sensory impingements and so on pertaining to jhanas was not discovered by the Buddha and does not equate to any understanding of anatta. There is only one way to understand realities as anatta, that of satipatthana, regardless of what other attainments have been realized as I understand. This is the unique teaching by the Buddha as often pronounced. ... J: > Jeff: > Yes, they are impermanent until 'final' cessation in nibbana, but does > that > not mean one avoids them? No. they are various passageways to nibbana. > One > must pass through the stages leading to nibbana, not just pop magically > through > the 8 stages into nibbana after one's morning coffee. .... S: In truth, there’s no self to follow or avoid or choose at all. If there are the right conditions for samatha to develop and jhanas to be attained, it should be praised. Regardless, there is one eightfold path leading to nibbana with 8 ‘right’ path factors. .... J: > I believe we are now splitting hairs as intellectuals like to do. The intellect can never understand these things. It is better to sit morning > and > evening, evening and morning, and through the dark and stillness of the > night. > Knowledge, wisdom will eventual come like dawn, then there is no reason > for > quoting some dead guy. ..... S: I think this would be contrary to the Buddha’s own advice which is what we are discussing here;-) In the latest extract from the Satipatthana Sutta which Larry just posted, it stresses the development of mindfulness in all positions and on all occasions. I appreciate that not everyone has the same respect for the Buddha and his teachings and that quotes tend only to be used when it supports one’s position;-) ..... J: > But, I know the intellectual approach cannot liberate anyone. Just take > refuge, > let the Four Noble Truths be your guiding-light, follow the Eighth Fold > Path, > and observe the precepts, and practice regularly and often, with > duration and > intensity. .... S: Just to clarify - I don’t think anyone on DSG has ever suggested that an intellectual approach or knowledge in itself can ever bring about any liberation. For me, refuge in the Triple Gem is closely related to the degree of respect I have for the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Again I stress that I consider the teachings to be very subtle, only for ‘the wise’ and not something that can be ‘grasped’ without very careful reflection and consideration. I appreciate your good wishes, Jeff and I’m glad we find some aspects to agree on;-) With metta, Sarah ====== 22505 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu May 29, 2003 3:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran Weekend Visible object Dear Nina,Robert and Steve, This topic is one of interesting subjects in Dhamma discussion.If all parts of real Dhammas are fully realised,then despute,query,suspicion,confusion and everything mixing up in the mind no more exist. What is visible object?Is it just colour?Or does it include form,shape,size and so on? Dhamma is working on its own. Understanding of a thing sometimes comes up only when constellation parts work together. To completely realise and fully experience a visible object,there have to arise countless Cittas. The external object(visible object) is called Rupa(in arammana it is Ruparammana,and other names are Rupayatana,Rupa-Dhatu). Rupa,Cekkhu,Mansikara and light all must arise together and simultaneously to experience visible object.But for full realisation of visible object there have to arise many series of Vithi-Cittas. You all are experts in the subject.The question here is whether visible object is just colour or whether it also includes shape,form,size,etc. Anyway,all the visible sense information is carried through light without which there is total impossibility of visible-sense perception (leave Dibbacekkhu which works at mind-door). Visual information passes over as a wave.This wave contains all the visual information.Colours are just different wave forms.Outlining and shape is the basis.Then it is volumatise as three-dimensional shape.Size is included in volumatisation.This 3-D again has to have smoothness-looking or roughness-looking.Finally colouring has to complete the whole visual information. This is just exploration of visual sense object.To experience it all four necessary requisites have to exist.The first series of Vithicittas pass on the Cekkhu Vatthu.Next series arise at Manodvara and in between Citta shifts from Hadaya Vatthu and Cekkhu Vatthu and there have to arise many series of Vithicittas just to recognise visible object. This may take 10 to 100 milliseconds or even less.But countless Cittas have to happen in series.Full understanding needs to look 2 or 3 seconds even in well trained persons. May you all be free from any sufferings. With Metta, Htoo Naing ================ Nina: It gives examples by way of conventional terms that colour is not neutral. Anything that appears through eyes, but seeing does not know yet that the object has six sides, it does not count. When we pay attention to shape and form it is not seeing.We always have doubts about visible object, until there can be awareness of just visible object and just seeing. Nina. 22506 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 29, 2003 5:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lee - nibbana and sabhava Hi Suan, ----- Original Message ----- From: abhidhammika To: Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Lee - nibbana and sabhava Please read the following quote from the Commentary on Udaana that supports and confirms the independent ultimate existence of nibbana. "..micchaavaadabhañjanatthañca imam amatamahaanibbaanassa paramatthato atthibhaavadiipanam udaanam udaanesi." "..and for the purpose of breaking the wrong speech (doctrine), the Buddha uttered this solemn utterance that shows the fact of the existence of the immortal supreme nibbana as an independent untimate reality." Section 73, Udaana A.t.thakathaa. ___ Could you please post the 'solemn utterance' to which this refers (in English and in Pali too, if you like)? Thank you sir, mike 22507 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 29, 2003 6:56am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, A fine post, and thanks for reminding me of Anguttara Nikaya, Chapter XX, Mahavaggo, The Great Chapter--a great and wide-ranging discourse, full of similes etc. as well as a very interesting passage on right concentration and right insight: Just as, Saa.lha, a warrior is a far-shooter, so also the Ariyan disciple is endowed with right concentration. Of all forms whatsoever, past, present or future, subjective or objective, gross or subtle, low or high, and near or far, he says 'this is not mine, this am not I, this is not the soul of me.' Thus, Saa.lha, the Ariyan disciple endowed with right concentration sees, as it really is, with the eye of right insight. Whatsoever sensation, whatsoever perception, whatsoever predispositions and whatsoever consciousness there be, whether past, present or future...of all such sonsations, perceptions, predispositions or consciousness he says, 'This is not mine ; this am I not ; this is not the soul of me.' Thus he sees a thing as it really is, with the eye of right insight. This struck me as somewhat unusual, that is the 'disciple endowed with right concentration sees, as it really is, with the eye of right insight'. Of course this does refer to an Ariyan in whom all the path-factors have already arisen. Well--just found this interesting... ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:23 AM Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > Hi Jeff, > > S: Thanks for your further comments - as expected, I agree with some and > not with others. In any case, I think it's useful to have these > discussions even if we eventually agree to disagree on some aspects of the > teachings. > ..... > --- macdocaz1@a... wrote: > J: > But, there is rarely agreement, even in the Pali language. The word > > 'samadhi' > > is an example. Samadhi is a Sanskrit term that means spiritual > > absorption, > > much like jhana, but in Pali I find it is often used for > > 'concentration.' When > > this use of the word came to be I cannot say, but I believe it is an > > incorrect > > use of the word and only perpetuates confusion. > .... > S: I think we need to look carefully at the texts. Samadhi can refer to > momentary concentration which accompanies all consciousness (ekaggata > cetasika). Furthermore there is miccha samadhi (wrong concentration) as > well as samma samadhi (right concentration). It can refer to the mundane > or supramundane path factor and it can refer to jhanas. > > I think you would find these past posts helpful (particularly Jon's post > 10879 perhaps): > - Right Concentration (samma samadhi) > > 2155, 4068, 4104, 10879, 11742, 14294. 19448, 19571, 20503 > ..... > J: > I believe 'samadhi' coming to mean 'concentration' probably came > about > > from > > using the word to describe a meditation technique that leads to > > absorption. > .... > S: So perhaps it would be better to use 'samadhi' or 'ekaggata > cetasika';-) > ..... > J: > This is much like the confusion we have at present over the word > > 'vipassana.' > .... > S: I agree with your comments about the mis-use of the term. I think our > job is to explore and understand the terms and help clarify > misunderstandings. I appreciate we're on the same page here;-) > ..... > J: > Jeff: > > Yes, I agree, but obsessing over whether one has a self or not, I > > believe is > > immaterial. One will find out upon cessation. Why argue if one has a > > self or > > not? One cannot know until nibbana anyway. I don't see how belief is > > relevant, as long as one is practicing. Beliefs are simply shed as > > realization > > (insight) emerges. > ..... > S: I would call this 'wishful thinking'. To quote from a past post of > Jon's to another friend: > > Jon: "You suggest that it's better to actually start following the > Buddha's instruction than to concern oneself with getting the theory > right. I'm afraid I can't agree here. If the teachings are not correctly > understood, I don't think the 'practice' can have any chance of being > right. Simply following what we understand from a superficial reading of > selected suttas, or what we are told by a 'teacher' to be the practice, > does not seem to me either prudent or in accord with what the Buddha > himself said > on the subject. > > On the question of what the Buddha himself said, let me quote this passage > from a sutta ....: > > Anguttara Nikaya, Chapter XX, Mahavaggo, The Great Chapter > (1) Blessings > "Brethren, four blessings should be expected from listening to with the > ear, constant recitation with the voice, careful consideration with the > mind and penetration of the Norm through insight. What four? ." " quote> > **** > S: We also read about how much detail Potthapada had to hear in the sutta > you selected (including lots of argument about 'self')before he could > understand what was meant by 'practice'. Without this detail, he would > have continued to practice with his wrong views, waiting for nibbana. > ..... > J: > Yes, the basics have to be grasp, 3 gems, 4 noble truths, 8 fold > path, > > 10 > > precepts. The irony, is these will take a whole lifetime of meditation > > to grasp. > > One cannot understand them intellectually. They are meant to be > > realized, > > revealed through insight, which is driven by a dedicated and intense > > contemplative practice. But, I am sure you know that, and I am > > preaching to the choir. > .... > S: I don't consider the 4 noble truths or 8 fold path as basics. We > probably have different ideas about 'practice' as well. > .... > J: > Jeff: > > I am speaking from the stand point of jhana, as you know there are 8 > > jhanas, > > as one moves through these there is a progressive effacement of the > > self, much > > like the proverbial peeling of the onion..... > >When one becomes > > infinity there > > is no longer a self, as we speak of a self. That being is empty, empty, > > just > > infinite and empty. > .... > S: The cessation of sensory impingements and so on pertaining to jhanas > was not discovered by the Buddha and does not equate to any understanding > of anatta. There is only one way to understand realities as anatta, that > of satipatthana, regardless of what other attainments have been realized > as I understand. This is the unique teaching by the Buddha as often > pronounced. > ... > J: > Jeff: > > Yes, they are impermanent until 'final' cessation in nibbana, but does > > that > > not mean one avoids them? No. they are various passageways to nibbana. > > One > > must pass through the stages leading to nibbana, not just pop magically > > through > > the 8 stages into nibbana after one's morning coffee. > .... > S: In truth, there's no self to follow or avoid or choose at all. If there > are the right conditions for samatha to develop and jhanas to be attained, > it should be praised. Regardless, there is one eightfold path leading to > nibbana with 8 'right' path factors. > .... > J: > I believe we are now splitting hairs as intellectuals like to do. > The intellect can never understand these things. It is better to sit > morning > > and > > evening, evening and morning, and through the dark and stillness of the > > night. > > Knowledge, wisdom will eventual come like dawn, then there is no reason > > for > > quoting some dead guy. > ..... > S: I think this would be contrary to the Buddha's own advice which is what > we are discussing here;-) In the latest extract from the Satipatthana > Sutta which Larry just posted, it stresses the development of mindfulness > in all positions and on all occasions. I appreciate that not everyone has > the same respect for the Buddha and his teachings and that quotes tend > only to be used when it supports one's position;-) > ..... > J: > But, I know the intellectual approach cannot liberate anyone. Just > take > > refuge, > > let the Four Noble Truths be your guiding-light, follow the Eighth Fold > > Path, > > and observe the precepts, and practice regularly and often, with > > duration and > > intensity. > .... > S: Just to clarify - I don't think anyone on DSG has ever suggested that > an intellectual approach or knowledge in itself can ever bring about any > liberation. For me, refuge in the Triple Gem is closely related to the > degree of respect I have for the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Again I stress > that I consider the teachings to be very subtle, only for 'the wise' and > not something that can be 'grasped' without very careful reflection and > consideration. > > I appreciate your good wishes, Jeff and I'm glad we find some aspects to > agree on;-) > > With metta, > > Sarah > ====== 22508 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu May 29, 2003 8:41am Subject: Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance Dear Mike and all How are you? Here is a fast and rough translation of Tatiyanibbanapa.tisamyutta Suttam (The Third Nibbana Connection Discourse). Ref: Section 73, Udaana Pali, Khuddaka Nikaaya. "Atthi, bhikkhave, ajaatam abhuutam akatam asa`nkhatam. No cetam, bhikkhave, abhavissa ajaatam abhuutam akatam asa`nkhatam, nayidha jaatassa bhuutassa katassa sa`nkha tassa nissara.nam paññaayetha. Yasmaa ca kho, bhikkhave, atthi ajaatam abhuutam akatam asa`nkhatam, tasmaa jaatassa bhuutassa katassa sa`nkhatassa nissara.nam paññaayatii"ti. "Monks, there exists nibbana that is the un-arising (due to conditions), the un-emerging (due to causes or self-caused), the un- made (by any causes), the un-conditioned (by any conditions). Monks, if nibbana that is the un-arising, the un-emerging, the un-made, the un-conditioned were not to exist, the liberation from the arising, the emerging, the made, the conditioned would not be evident. Monks, only because nibbana that is the un-arising, the un-emerging, the un- made, the un-conditioned does exist, the liberation from the arising, the emerging, the made, the conditioned is evident." In this Suttam, the Buddha was unmistakably confirming the independent ultimate existence of nibbana. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: Hi Suan, ----- Original Message ----- From: abhidhammika To: Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Lee - nibbana and sabhava Please read the following quote from the Commentary on Udaana that supports and confirms the independent ultimate existence of nibbana. "..micchaavaadabhañjanatthañca imam amatamahaanibbaanassa paramatthato atthibhaavadiipanam udaanam udaanesi." "..and for the purpose of breaking the wrong speech (doctrine), the Buddha uttered this solemn utterance that shows the fact of the existence of the immortal supreme nibbana as an independent untimate reality." Section 73, Udaana A.t.thakathaa. ___ Could you please post the 'solemn utterance' to which this refers (in English and in Pali too, if you like)? Thank you sir, mike 22509 From: connie Date: Thu May 29, 2003 9:58am Subject: re: jhana Hi, Victor, Jeff & Sarah ~ Thanks for the quotes from Nina's 'Conditions' in the http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m11231.html [dsg] Right and Wrong Path and Jhana Factors, Sarah. There's another book I should go read again. A lot of reminders that it all starts with right understanding if I'm not going to just keep my spinning wheel going down the wrong path. Right View: The Sammaditthi Sutta [Translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Nanamoli] Bhikkhus, just as the dawn is the forerunner and first indication of the rising of the sun, so is right view the forerunner and first indication of wholesome states. For one of right view, bhikkhus, right intention springs up. For one of right intention, right speech springs up. For one of right speech, right action springs up. For one of right action, right livelihood springs up. For one of right livelihood, right effort springs up. For one of right effort, right mindfulness springs up. For one of right mindfulness, right concentration springs up. For one of right concentration, right knowledge springs up. For one of right knowledge, right deliverance springs up. Anguttara Nikaya 10:121 Sorry for being snide, Jeff. My hair comment was just to say that my haircut might say one thing to people, but my reasons are entirely different. peace, connie 22510 From: Lee Dillion Date: Thu May 29, 2003 9:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance abhidhammika wrote: > > Dear Mike and all > > How are you? > > Here is a fast and rough translation of Tatiyanibbanapa.tisamyutta > Suttam (The Third Nibbana Connection Discourse). Ref: Section 73, > Udaana Pali, Khuddaka Nikaaya. > > > "Atthi, bhikkhave, ajaatam abhuutam akatam asa`nkhatam. > No cetam, bhikkhave, abhavissa ajaatam abhuutam akatam > asa`nkhatam, nayidha jaatassa bhuutassa katassa sa`nkha > tassa nissara.nam paññaayetha. Yasmaa ca kho, bhikkhave, > atthi ajaatam abhuutam akatam asa`nkhatam, tasmaa jaatassa > bhuutassa katassa sa`nkhatassa nissara.nam paññaayatii"ti. > > "Monks, there exists nibbana that is the un-arising (due to > conditions), the un-emerging (due to causes or self-caused), the un- > made (by any causes), the un-conditioned (by any conditions). Monks, > if nibbana that is the un-arising, the un-emerging, the un-made, the > un-conditioned were not to exist, the liberation from the arising, > the emerging, the made, the conditioned would not be evident. Monks, > only because nibbana that is the un-arising, the un-emerging, the un- > made, the un-conditioned does exist, the liberation from the arising, > the emerging, the made, the conditioned is evident." > > > In this Suttam, the Buddha was unmistakably confirming the > independent ultimate existence of nibbana. Hi Suan: Translations are always an interesting thing, with two alternative translations of the same Pali excerpt provided below, neither of which choose to use the word "exists" in their version to describe Nibbana: "There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned." - Translated from the Pali by John D. Ireland. "There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is discerned." - Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. But these translations differences are just minor quibbles compared to my original point - which is that there are those (like Bhikkhu Nanananda) firmly within the Theravada tradition who disagree with your position that Nibbana is a "thing" and who have presented a comprehensive picture of the Buddha's teachings in line with their understanding. That you choose to have a different understanding of Nibbana is ok with me if it helps you in your practice and also because I do not pretend to hold the final answer to these types of questions. My concern is that you state your view as the only possible view with absolute certainty, a rigid mental approach that I personally have not found beneficial in my own practice. Take care. Lee 22511 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 29, 2003 10:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Vesak Discussion and problems Dear Sarah, thank you for your kind words. op 28-05-2003 11:38 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > ..... > I don’t think we should expect too much of ourselves. If we do and feel > disappointed when yet again we fail the test, get drawn into concerns > about the others’, doesn’t it show the clinging to self? > > Perhaps it’s more useful to learn to see the value of developing the mind > like the earth’, understanding how moved we are by the objects being > experienced and develop detachment from the passing and failing of the > test at this moment. Otherwise, like you say, Nina , it’s always an idea > of self trying to do’ N: I agree. If there can be a short moment of awareness when failing the test, of dosa, we are for that short moment like the earth. And we always have to check our understanding when there are tests, we know how little it is. But no need to be surprised about it, or have aversion, we have to think of the aeons of ignorance we have behind us. Tests are in daily life, objects present themselves in daily life and these are the objects understanding can be developed of. S: I think L’s point which cannot be solved’ is right. Isn’t this the truth > that the Buddha taught? Conventional problems as we know them cannot be > solved. Age, sickness, death are inevitable and there isn’t any real > worldly solution. N: I am glad you mention this, we often hear it, but forget. There is our problem, and then: we should see them as part of the cycle we are in: birth, old age, sickness, death. The real problems are only to be finally solved by the wisdom of the arahat. With appreciation for the reminders, Nina 22512 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 29, 2003 10:21am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 3. Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 3. We cling to citta, cetasika and rúpa, we take them for self. The are four kinds of personality belief with regard to each of the five khandhas: 1. We believe that we are identical with each of the five khandhas, we identify ourselves with them. 2. We believe that we ³own² them. 3. We believe that the khandhas are contained in ³us². 4. We believe that we are contained in them. Thus, there are twenty kinds of personality belief. When we ponder over the words khandha and personality belief, we may have doubts, but when satipatthåna arises we can understand the meaning of the words of the scriptures. We have accumulated the tendency to think of ourselves, the clinging to personality belief may be very subtle. Only paññå can detect this. Khun Anop, one of the teachers at the ³Foundation² said that it seems that there is ³I² who acts, ³I² who thinks. Acharn Sujin asked: ³What is I?² The answer was: personality belief, sakkåya ditthi. When we are concerned about someone else, there may still be clinging to ourselves. This may be with wrong view or without wrong view, only paññå can know this. When Lodewijk and I were walking with Acharn Sujin in the garden, in between our discussions, I said that I am sometimes worried about Lodewijk, about his wellbeing. She explained: ³When there is Œhim¹ in the thinking we are still thinking of ourselves. It is very difficult to get rid of belonging. When we do not cling to the notion of a particular person, more mettå can arise." We read that the five khandhas are non-self, but we may have only intellectual understanding of this truth. We should try to find out why it is so difficult for us to see the truth directly. Personality belief (sakkaya ditthi) prevents us from direct understanding of the truth. We have to find out for ourselves what personality belief is when it arises. When we are thinking about different things, when we perform different actions in daily life, is there a subtle clinging to the idea of "I do this"? Or, "this is my opinion"? We have to be very honest with regard to ourselves, and we need patience to listen to the Dhamma, to study and consider it and to be mindful of different characteristics. We cling to nåma and rúpa with personality belief, sakkå ditthi, but we also tend to cling to wrong practice, ³sílabbata paråmåsa². Only the sotåpanna has eradicated this. Even when we have understood what the right Path is, we can still cling to wrong practice. In the Buddha's time some people were also clinging to wrong practice and they believed that they could obtain a result in this way. The word sílabbata paråmåsa,³clinging to rite and rituals² stands for wrong practice, practice that does not lead to the goal. The goal is: detachment from the wrong view of self, and the eradication of all defilements. We have to verify whether a certain practice is based on the teachings and whether it leads to detachment from the concept of self, that is, detachment from the idea of, ³I do it, I practise². 22513 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu May 29, 2003 1:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran Weekend Visible object --- Dear Htoo, This whole world is completly dark - except at the moment of cakkhuvinnana - when for an incredibly brief instant there is seeing contacting colour. All the other cittas in the following processes cannot do this. All ideas of volume, 3d etc happen in these later processes. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear Nina,Robert and Steve, > > Visual information passes over as a wave.This wave contains all the > visual information.Colours are just different wave forms.Outlining > and shape is the basis.Then it is volumatise as three-dimensional > shape.Size is included in volumatisation.This 3-D again has to have > smoothness-looking or roughness-looking.Finally colouring has to > complete the whole visual information. > > This is just exploration of visual sense object.> ================ > 22514 From: Date: Thu May 29, 2003 7:51am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? to Sarah: In a message dated 5/29/03 3:24:31 AM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << .... S: I think we need to look carefully at the texts. Samadhi can refer to momentary concentration which accompanies all consciousness (ekaggata cetasika). Furthermore there is miccha samadhi (wrong concentration) as well as samma samadhi (right concentration). It can refer to the mundane or supramundane path factor and it can refer to jhanas. I think you would find these past posts helpful (particularly Jon’s post 10879 perhaps): - Right Concentration (samma samadhi) 2155, 4068, 4104, 10879, 11742, 14294. 19448, 19571, 20503  ..... >> Jeff: Thank-you Sarah, for your kind post, I should most certainly be clear that I am by know means a scholar of anything. I am simply a native English speaking yogi who is trying to make sense out the many translated texts and the many commentaries and points of view that are published in my native language. And, I compare that literature to my personal subjective experience and endeavor to make some comparison between them. I will of course avail myself of your fine recommendations at my earliest convenience. I do have grant proposals pending which will serve to further my endeavors and a journal to compose and post this weekend, as well as my daily activity of service to inquiring seekers intent on jhana. But, while Pali or at least Pali scholarship seems to be intent on viewing the word 'samadhi' as concentration, I have to simply voice that every word has a range of meaning in every language. And, as words move from one language to the next that meaning can change. I believe 'samadhi' is originally (as best we can know) a Sanskrit word, which I said before means absorption (the consequence of concentration) not concentration, but I can see how it has come to be used for 'concentration' in Pali. But, if we are to allow ourselves to question the historic Buddha's use of the word 'samadhi,' since he no doubt was an educated man, and trained by Brahmans, and there for he probably knew the current Sanskrit use for the term, so when he used that word in his Eight Fold Path as "samma samadhi" perhaps he wasn't speaking of right concentration, but right absorption. This interpretation of the word certainly worked better for me when examining the Eight Fold Path of Siddharta Gotama. ..... J: > This is much like the confusion we have at present over the word > 'vipassana.' .... S: I agree with your comments about the mis-use of the term. I think our job is to explore and understand the terms and help clarify misunderstandings. I appreciate we’re on the same page here;-) ..... Jeff: Yes, I agree and that is why I endeavor to use English whenever possible, and when using a non-English word I try to place the English meaning I am intending on in brackets instead of resorting to the Pali, which can have, as I have said, have a range of meaning, like words in any language, and therefore I believe using Pali terms is no where nearly as accurate as many here seem to think it is. Unless you subscribe to a single, and often narrow interpretation of that Pali term, which I do not. ..... J: > Jeff: > Yes, I agree, but obsessing over whether one has a self or not, I believe is immaterial. One will find out upon cessation. Why argue if one has a self or not? One cannot know until nibbana anyway. I don't see how belief is > relevant, as long as one is practicing. Beliefs are simply shed as > realization (insight) emerges.>> ..... S: I would call this ‘wishful thinking’. To quote from a past post of Jon’s to another friend: Jon: “You suggest that it's better to actually start following the Buddha's instruction than to concern oneself with getting the theory right. I'm afraid I can't agree here. If the teachings are not correctly understood, I don't think the 'practice' can have any chance of being right. Simply following what we understand from a superficial reading of selected suttas, or what we are told by a 'teacher' to be the practice, does not seem to me either prudent or in accord with what the Buddha himself said on the subject. ..... Jeff: Well, I would agree, now who's interpretation are you depending on for understanding what the Buddha intended? If you are going to depend on a scholar's interpretation of the Pali canon to direct your practice, I assure you, your practice will not be "correct." Only a practitioner, that is one who has "gone before" or "achieved" can understand the practice and the intent. A scholar can only give you one of many interpretations for the text. Also, it does not seem to me to be prudent to wait to practice until one has understood the "Buddha's instruction(s)" thoroughly, Are you saying you want to first read and understand the whole of the Pali cannon before you will begin to practice? If so, how many lifetimes do you think that will take? ..... Sarah: On the question of what the Buddha himself said, let me quote this passage from a sutta ....: Anguttara Nikaya, Chapter XX, Mahavaggo, The Great Chapter (1) Blessings "Brethren, four blessings should be expected from listening to with the ear, constant recitation with the voice, careful consideration with the mind and penetration of the Norm through insight. What four? …" “ **** Jeff: Thank-you for the nice quote, but who's interpretation of that quote is it? Are you willing to consider there are other linguistically valid interpretations for the same quote? And, how do you interpret the word 'insight' (vipassana)? I interpret vipassana (insight) as a subjective state as a consequence of absorption when the activities of thinking and cogitation are at rest. I do not consider 'insight' as a thinking process, which I believe some here do. Therefore my interpretation for the above quote is likely to be radically different from someone who thinks insight is a process of thinking, which in my view constitutes wrong thinking. ..... S: I think this would be contrary to the Buddha’s own advice which is what we are discussing here;-) In the latest extract from the Satipatthana Sutta which Larry just posted, it stresses the development of mindfulness in all positions and on all occasions. I appreciate that not everyone has the same respect for the Buddha and his teachings and that quotes tend only to be used when it supports one’s position;-) ..... Jeff: That is the very problem with endlessly quoting the same tiresome rhetoric. Every orthodoxy depends on their quotes and their interpretation of those quotes. So, why not speak from personal experience instead? .... S: Just to clarify - I don’t think anyone on DSG has ever suggested that an intellectual approach or knowledge in itself can ever bring about any liberation. For me, refuge in the Triple Gem is closely related to the degree of respect I have for the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Again I stress that I consider the teachings to be very subtle, only for ‘the wise’ and not something that can be ‘grasped’ without very careful reflection and consideration. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Yes, I agree that is why I have spent 30 years reflecting on these concepts and testing them in my daily practice. Blessing to you and all, &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Take refuge Let the Four Noble Truths be your guiding-light Follow the Eighth Fold Path, and observe the precepts Practice regularly and often, with duration and intensity &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Jeff Brooks editor, Southwest Insight E'letter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWI_E_letter/ president, UofA Meditation Club http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Vivatha/ moderator, Jhana Support Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/ 22515 From: Date: Thu May 29, 2003 9:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: jhana In a message dated 5/29/03 9:56:37 AM, nichicon@h... writes: << Sorry for being snide, Jeff. My hair comment was just to say that my haircut might say one thing to people, but my reasons are entirely different. peace, connie >> %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: No harm taken, it does seem like nama-rupa in action again with respect to your hair. The appearance, verses the content. Best to you Jeff 22516 From: peterdac4298 Date: Thu May 29, 2003 2:49pm Subject: Reith Lectures 2003, The Emerging Mind Hi everyone Thought this might be interesting. Having listened to it all myself I can well recommend the fifth talk. Science can't find any self, even in the Brain. Cheers Peter 22517 From: Date: Thu May 29, 2003 4:03pm Subject: Way 95, 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 Factors of Enlightenment 2. Investigation of Mental Objects There are karmically good and karmically bad things... right and wrong counterparts of bright and dark things, and an abundance of right reflection on them is the reason conducive to the arising of the non-arisen enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects and for the increase, expansion and the completion of culture of that enlightenment factor when it has arisen. [Tika] Here, right reflection is the conscious state that is associated with knowledge and which arises by way of perceiving, according to actuality, the nature, function, characteristic and so forth of the several skillful (or wholesome) states of mind and the like. Because it is correct reflection it is called right (or radical) reflection. Six things lead to the arising of this enlightenment factor: Inquiring about the aggregates and so forth; the purification of the basis (namely, the cleaning of the body, clothes and so forth); imparting evenness to the (five spiritual) controlling faculties; avoiding the ignorant; associating with the wise; reflecting on the profound difference of the hard-to-perceive processes of the aggregates, modes (or elements), sense-bases and so forth; and the inclining (sloping, bending) towards the development of the enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects. Inquiring about the aggregates and so forth means: seeking the meaning of the aggregates, the modes (or elements), sense-bases, controlling faculties, powers, enlightenment factors, way factors, absorption factors, the meditation for quietude, and the meditation for insight by asking for explanation of knotty points regarding these things in the Five Nikayas with the commentaries from teachers of the Dhamma. Purification of the basis is the cleaning of the personal basis: the body, and of the impersonal basis: clothes and dwelling place. The flame of a lamp is unclear when its wick, oil and container are dirty; the wick splutters, flickers; but the flame of a lamp that has a clean wick, oil and container is clear and the wick does not spit; it burns smoothly. So it is with knowledge. Knowing that arises out of the mind and mental qualities which are in dirty external and internal surroundings is apt to be impure, too, but the knowledge that arises under clean conditions is apt to be pure. In this way cleanliness leads to the growth of this enlightenment factor which comprises knowledge. Personal cleanliness is impaired by the excessive length of hair of the head, nails, hair of the body, by the excess of humors, and by the dirt of perspiration; cleanliness of impersonal or external things is impaired when robes are worn out, dirty and smelly, and when the house where one lives is dirty, soiled and untidy. So personal cleanliness should be secured by shaving, hair-cutting, nail-paring, the use of pectoral emetics and of purgatives which make the body light, and by shampooing, bathing and doing other necessary things, at the proper time. In similar way external cleanliness should be brought about by darning, washing and dyeing one's robes, and by smearing the floor of one's house with clay and the like to smoothen and clean it, and by doing other necessary things to keep the house clean and tidy. 22518 From: Date: Thu May 29, 2003 7:51am Subject: Re: non-dualism becomes diet? [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? To James: In a message dated 5/28/03 4:55:29 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% <> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% James: (from his post) << I wish to comment a bit on your observations hereâ€|specifically about the Lord Buddha`s diet. Sarah did a bit, and then encouraged other threads as well, so I am going to pick up her lead. Frankly, and please don't take this the wrong way, I take exception to this characterization of the Buddha. Even though everything you state is correct, in one sense, it doesn't factor in the great interplay of karmic forces that the Buddha had to contend with. It is easy for us, anyone, to sit back and say, "Look, the Buddha ate meat, and the Buddha taught against killing, so there is an contradiction there. The Buddha paid the consequences for that hypocrisy." >> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: To say that the historic Buddha is a hypocrite because, since he lived off of alms, he ate what he was given (some of which was meat) seems to me to be an extreme conclusion, even if you do call him "Lord." First, I do not believe it says anywhere in the Pali canon one should not eat meat. The only thing I believe Siddharta Gotama said was not to harm (precepts), which meant to him not to kill creatures as well as humans, and not to eat the flesh of animals that were killed for you. So, how does him eating yesterday's leftovers that are given to him, which might have some meat in it, become hypocrisy? We may want to take into account the period in which Siddharta Gotama lived. I believe Brahmans today are typically vegetarian, but according to the record in the Pali Canon, they engaged in animal sacrifice. If they engaged in animal sacrifice, they probably ate the flesh after the ceremony. In fact if we look at the descriptions of the typical animal sacrifice of the day, it wasn't too different from what we would call a barbecue. It was just a highly ritualized, culturally distinct and period relevant barbecue. So, if Siddharta, during his alms rounds, came upon a Brahman animal sacrifice (barbecue), and they felt it would be good luck to give a samana (a spiritually dedicated street person) alms, and he accepted their gift of generosity and ate it, then in someone's mind here he is a hypocrite. That is an interesting conclusion based on how we use the word 'hypocrite,' but Hypocrites was a pretty cool guy, he was basically the Greek equivalent of a yogi. So, I agree with you, one cannot call the Buddha's behavior here hypocritical, nor did I imply in my earlier post that he was being hypocritical, so I am not sure who you are responding to here, but I do not believe it was me. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% James: Human kind is eventually working itself toward vegetarianism; %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: This is an interesting assumption that I donot believe is either valid nor neccessarily valid. If one studies Permaculture, which I did, one finds out that "strict" vegetarianism isn not neccessarily the most apropriet lifestyle for a people who grow their own food, and for Permaculture, a population is not sustainable if it doesn't grow its own food. It turns out chickens, rabbits and goats are a pretty useful to have in a small farm unit, because they provide useful fertilizer and composting functions as well as provide sources of nutrition. This is in no means my way of justifying a carnivorous diet, but only an acknowledgement, that rural communities of subsistance argiculture is more successful (sustainable) if it encorporates some "harvestable" domesticated meat production. I was at a Thai Wat over Vesak and I noticed the monks were keeping chickens, and they were offered fish products in their meal that day. In fact, of the two Wats I've been to, both served eggs, chicken and fish protein. I also spent last year intimately involved in the regional Vajrayana community, Tibetan monks and Rinpoches eat meat, primarily beaf. So, according to the assumption that a Buddhist who eats meat is a hypocrit, therefore all of these peoples from whom we are learning Buddhism from are hypocrits. Well, since we are learning Buddhism from them, maybe we should not be so quick to judge our teachers. But, then I think you will agree with me, thus there is no arguement. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% James: I am also working my way, slowly but surely, toward that state. But it cannot be forced overnight! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I wouldn't kill myself over it, there is no evidence that vegetarianism is a requirement for Buddhism. Probably the only "strictly" vegetarian Buddhists in the world are Western converts anyway, therefore it is probably not too big a deal. I would go so far to say that since relinquishing grasping and aversion was higher up the historic Buddha's agenda than vegetarianism, I would think it is safe to say, "go out and have a Big Mac, but just focus your attention (mindfulness) on relinquishing your grasping and aversion." %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% James: The Lord Buddha realized this and rather than trying to force a premature conversion of his kinfolk, he chose to take the negative karma onto himself for their poor choices. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: This sounds like a distinctly Christian interpretation of the historic BUddha's life. I assume you are implying that since he had chronic food poisoning and intestinal parasites (among others) his "suffering" was for us. Well, I would agree that I believe it is the very nature of an enlightened being to not do anything for him or her self, but to dedicate all actions and their "merit" for the benefit of all beings. But, I do not believe that this is clearly stated any where in the Pali canon. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% James: We should never bite the hand that feeds us. I hope you can understand my intentions here. I respect your insights and am very thankful that you brought this subject up. Take care. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Well, I hope I poitned out that I believe it is clear you missunderstood me. I neither said, nor implied that the historic Buddha was a hypocrit for eating meat. He ate what was offered him. I find no fault in that. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% James: Metta, James ps.I felt that I needed to comment because your reasoning, though all- inclusive, is confusing and undeclarative. On issues as weighty as this, I believe concrete stands should be posited. Forgive me if you disagree. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: My logic must have been pretty unclear, and as you say confusing, because no where in it did I state or imply the Buddha was hypocritical for eating meat. Proof of my errors is how a dialog on non-dualism can become an argument over diet. Please accept my apologies. But, I can understand your confusion when I said: <> But, I negated that statement by saying: <> In fact, I couldn't care less about what he ate, my point had nothing to do with defending his diet or a discussion of diet. I was talking about karma and cessation, I used his subsistence strategy as a means of proving my point, that since he was an enlightened one, he was free of karma. <> My point was, someone in cessation has no karma, regardless of what they do, because there is no 'self' for karma to cling to. If I may quote again myself from the message you were responding to? <> So, please forgive my obvious flaws in logic, and my flawed writing. Thank-you for your kind patience. Blessing to you and all, &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Take refuge Let the Four Noble Truths be your guiding-light Follow the Eighth Fold Path, and observe the precepts Practice regularly and often, with duration and intensity &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Jeff Brooks editor, Southwest Insight E'letter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWI_E_letter/ president, UofA Meditation Club http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Vivatha/ moderator, Jhana Support Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/ 22519 From: Date: Thu May 29, 2003 4:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, Hmm. Ignorance is a reality but it isn't wrong conceptual view. So what is it? You said it accompanies all uwholesome consciousnesses but you didn't say what it is. Is wrong conceptual view a reality? [Remember, we are using a very broad definition of concept. A shape or, presumably, a compound (apparent whole) is a concept.] *The answer is yes. Wrong conceptual view is a reality. No idea what you have in mind for ignorance. Larry 22520 From: Date: Thu May 29, 2003 4:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pain As A Signal ( 05 ) Hi Htoo, Your series on pain prompted me to try to identify the various kinds of pain I experienced today as they arose. Really, there was way too much to identify it all, but mostly lots of hot and thirsty. Pain of not getting what one wants seemed to arise as a factor in nearly every action. There was some pain of conceit and even a pain of pleasure. Not necessarily because pleasure is temporary but it seems that pain is in everything. Several pains I couldn't identify their sign (nimitta). I'm going to try to look at these more carefully when they arise. Many people have trouble sleeping at night because of the pain of worry. And then there was Christine's pain of compassion. All very interesting. Larry 22521 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 29, 2003 9:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang,groups of rupa. Hi Howard, op 28-05-2003 20:33 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > What particularly make no sense to me at all > are the following: 1) that image, odor, flavor, and "nutrition" arise with > every rupic discernment [By the way, *what* in the world is nutrition??], N: Instead of rupic discernment I like to use: group(kalapa) of rupas. Rupas do not arise in isolation, say colour (I prefer the word colour to image) does not float in the air, it needs for instance solidity (the element of earth) to support it, and also the three other great Elements of cohesion, heat and motion (oscillation). The same for sound: does it not need solidity? It must seem a primitive, theory, I understand your point. But it is so helpful to know: solidity which is in earth is also in what I take for my body. Think of the Discourse on the Elephant Footprint Simile.Thus, in each unit of rupa (very tiny) there are the four Great Elements and in addition: colour, odor, flavor, and "nutrition". Nutrition: it is nutritive essence which is present. It is in your famous tree outside, you will not deny it, but also in your table, and in the smallest unit of rupas. A primitive prescientific vision? It is good you bring this up, it helps me to understand what people may find not appealing in the Abhidhamma. This is food for thought. We have to think of the goal: detachment. The goal is not the same as in science. I would think: it shows the intricacy of realities that are conditioned and conditioning. All these units of rupa arising and falling away and then they are immediately replaced. They are produced by one of the four factors of: kamma, citta, heat or nutrition. All conascent rupas support each other for that extremely short moment of their presence and one out of such a group impinges on a sense which also consists of groups of rupa. And it impinges only on one rupa. Thus, sound only impinges on earsense, and sound as well as earsense are in a group of conascent rupas which support each other. Does this make more sense to you? H: 2) > that > space is a rupa rather than a relation, N: Yes, see also the Suttas. Space is real, it is not mental, it is rupa. It has a function, as was explained: separates the groups of rupa, holds them together. H: 3) the statement by Khun Sujin: " > It is a stage of insight knowledge that understands what groups are," because > I > fail to see what that has to do with the wisdom the grasps the tilakkhana. [I > understand pa~n~na as the function consisting of directly seeing the > impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self character (impersonality and > insubstantiality) of all dhammas, plus whatever subordinate insights foster > such direct > understanding.] N: I agree that the tilakkhana have to be known as they are, but they are characteristics *of* namas and rupas. Take impermanence: it is impermanence *of* a nama and *of* a rupa, seen one at a time when that nama or rupa appears. This cannot be realized immediately, only when panna through the successive stages of insight understands more profoundly what nama is, what rupa is, that they are conditioned, and panna can become more disenchanted. At the third stage (which is still a beginning stage) panna understands more about the groups of rupa. Each of the stages is significant and plays its part. See the Visuddhimagga (at a shelf in your bedroom! Now I visualize too much of your house and garden). With appreciation, Nina 22522 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 30, 2003 0:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance Hi Lee, Suan & Mike, --- Lee Dillion wrote: > > "There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a > not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, > not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be > discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But > since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a > not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, > brought-to-being, made, conditioned." > > - Translated from the Pali by John D. Ireland. ..... S:I’ve just repeated one of the translations you added here. It reads the same to me whether we say ‘there is’ or ‘there exists’, like Suan and Masefield use in their translations. I’d like to quote further from the Udana commentary which I believe helps to elucidate the meaning of these famous lines. (As it is long, I am just typing out parts only with a few comments --suggestions only;-)-- of mine interspersed): Comy to Udana 8-3, Nibbana(P.Masefield transl) =============================================== “.....”This Udana (ma.m udaana.m)”: gave rise to this Udana elucidating the existence, in the highest sense, of the Deathless Great Nibbana, not only with the aim of scattering the scepticism of those monks, but also with the aim of rending asunder the false doctrine of those brahmin recluses within with the erroneous prctice of holding, as with those of the Lokayata (school) and so on, that “‘Nibbana, nibbana’ is mere talk, for that which is termed nibbana does not exist in the highest sense , on account of its own nature failing to be discovered” and of those on the outside resorting to a multiplicity of (wrong) views....” ***** S: nibbana is paramattha (ultimate)dhamma with sabhava(nature/characteristic) which can be known ***** “....Or alternatively, (taking things) in reverse order, “that which is conditioned (sa”nkhata.m) is such since it has been created (kata.m) by conditions that have come together (samecca), that have become co-existent (sambhuuya), “that which is unconditioned” (asa”nkhata.m) being such since it is not so conditioned.......It is to be understood that, upon thus fathoming the significance of these four terms, the existence, in the highest sense, of nibbana is (itself) made known , in that (they imply) “There exists, monks, that same nibbana”.....” ***** S: by clearly understanding the nature of conditioned dhammas, the unconditioned dhamma, i.e nibbana will be realized ***** “...Monks, “if there were not (na abhavissa=na siyaa,)” that unconditioned element having as its own nature that which is unborn and so on, “there could not be made known,” there could not be discovered, there could not be witnesssed,”here,” in this world , “the escape”, allayment and without remainder, “for that which is conditioned” reckoned as the khandha-pentad of form and so on that has as its own nature being born and so forth. For states associated with the ariyan path, such as right view and so on, as they proceed making nibbana their object, extirpate the defilements without remainder. In this way, there is made known in this connection the non-occurrence of, the disappearance of, the escape from, the entire dukkha belonging to the cycle......” ***** S: The 8-fold path factors have nibbana as object at moments of enlightenment, eradicating defilements in stages. ***** “.....yet however good that knowledge associated with vipassanaa, which has conditioned dhammas as its object, may be, not even adaptation-knowledge is able to abandon the defilements by way of extirpation. Similarly, that knowledge which, in the first jhana and so on, has conventional truth as its object, abandons the defilements only by way of suppression, not by way of extirpation. Hence, given the inability, as regards abandoning the defilements by way of extirpation, on the part of either that knowledge having conditioned dhammas as its object or that having conventional truth as its object, there has to be an object, with an own nature the converse of both of these, for that knowledge associated with the ariyan paths that does effect the abandonment of these by way of extirpation - this being the unconditioned element....” **** Only the supramundane knowledge, with nibbana -- the unconditioned element -- as object, can eradicate defilements. ***** “...Or alternatively, the unconditioned element itself exists in the highest sense, on account of its own nature being the converse of, and free of, the rest , such as the earth-element or sensation. It is by way of methods such as these and so on that the existence, in the highest sense , of the unconditioned element is to be understood also through logic.” ***** S: Nibbana is the unconditioned ultimate reality or element,without trace of the khandhas which conditioned realities consist of. Whilst it can only be realized by the supramundane path factors arising (i.e conditioned) in the mind-door process,it has its particular ‘nature’ regardless. It is on account of there being the unconditioned reality to be known by the fully developed path factors, that eradication of defilements and an eventual ‘escape’ from samsara is possible. I’d be glad to hear any further comments or different understandings to the comments I’ve given. With metta, Sarah ======= 22523 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri May 30, 2003 1:21am Subject: Re: non-dualism becomes diet? [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > To James: > > In a message dated 5/28/03 4:55:29 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > < (from a previous post which James is responding to) > As for the results of past karmas, I believe it depends on how you define > karma. Siddharta Gotama had chronic intestinal problems. I am no medical > doctor, but his subsistence strategy was based on begging. I am sure not everyone > during his lifetime consider him to be an enlightened being. Probably most > people during his time period gave the wandering samanas of India the leftovers > from the previous meal, or day. Since there was no refrigeration that means > that the Buddha was probably eating yesterday's un-refrigerated meal. In a > tropical climate, like much of India, that means he was eating food that was > definitely going bad. Therefore he probably had chronic food poisoning.>> > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > James: (from his post) > << I wish to comment a bit on your observations hereâ€|specifically about > the Lord Buddha`s diet. Sarah did a bit, and then encouraged other > threads as well, so I am going to pick up her lead. Frankly, and > please don't take this the wrong way, I take exception to this > characterization of the Buddha. Even though everything you state is > correct, in one sense, it doesn't factor in the great interplay of > karmic forces that the Buddha had to contend with. It is easy for > us, anyone, to sit back and say, "Look, the Buddha ate meat, and the > Buddha taught against killing, so there is an contradiction there. > The Buddha paid the consequences for that hypocrisy." >> > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > Jeff: > To say that the historic Buddha is a hypocrite because, since he lived off of > alms, he ate what he was given (some of which was meat) seems to me to be an > extreme conclusion, even if you do call him "Lord." LOL! Okay, thank you for your post. Metta, James 22524 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 30, 2003 3:44am Subject: Ditthi vs. Mana Hi All, A quick question. Somebody asked me what makes ditthi and mana mutually exclusive (they cannot appear in the same lobha-mula citta). I answered that ditti was "inward looking" while mana was "outward looking" but I am not really satisfied with my answer. Nina's book, "Cetasikas" says, "Conceit and wrong view are different realities which do not arise at the same time. When one takes a reality for permanent or for self there is wrong view and there cannot be at the same time conceit, which is pride or self- assertion." Metta, Rob M :-) 22525 From: Lee Dillion Date: Fri May 30, 2003 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance Sarah wrote: > Hi Lee, Suan & Mike, > > --- Lee Dillion wrote: > > > >>"There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a >>not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, >>not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be >>discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But >>since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a >>not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, >>brought-to-being, made, conditioned." >> >>- Translated from the Pali by John D. Ireland. > > ..... > S:I’ve just repeated one of the translations you added here. It reads the > same to me whether we say ‘there is’ or ‘there exists’, like Suan and > Masefield use in their translations. Hi Sarah: Thanks for the commentary material. I don't mean to be contrary, but this is simply one of those situations where I choose to go with an interpretation of the suttas by a well-respected Bhikkhu that is at variance with the understanding that you and Suan (and the much later commentarial tradition) has of the suttas. I don't make this lightly, as I have considered your position, and that in the commentary, very carefully and found it is contrary to my understanding of the suttas. In particular, I find that speculation about Nibbana as some other sphere of existence (for I assume that that must be what you mean to talk of an existent thing that is unconditioned for how could an unconditioned existent exist in our conditioned realm?): (a) difficult to square with the idea in the suttas that anything outside of the six sense-spheres (or the five aggregates) is only a thing of speech; and (b) contrary to the mental outlook of the Buddha to not speculate beyond the all. But just to be clear, it isn't my position that your view of Nibbana is wrong - my position is that I personally have no basis within my range to determine anything more than what appears to me in the sutta - that Nibbana is the state described in AN III.32 as "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana" and that to ask if there is anything more is to engage in fabrications. That is, I see no need to make ontological claims about Nibbana when I have no basis for doing so and when the psychological understanding is within my range and more than sufficient to keep me moving forward with my practice. That this position of mine may reflect my own limitations and not something inherent in the dhamma is admitted. :) -- Lee Dillion 22526 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 30, 2003 5:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: ... > Hi Jonothan: > > You raise an interesting issue, for what is or isn't understod as > impermanent in the Buddhist tradition seems to be the subject of > some > fascinating discussion about anicca and dukkha being descriptive of > sabbe sankhárá and anatta being descriptive of sabbe dhamma. > > But Dreyfus is talking not solely within a particular tradition > (Theravada or otherwise) but from the perspective where select > terms and > definitions were ascribed some common or conventional understanding > or meaning among a range of Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions > simply to > facillitate discussion and debate and not to suggest that these > defintions were ultimately correct from *within* each tradition > entering the discussion. I'm afraid I don't see the purpose in such an approach, which no doubt makes it difficult for me to participate in this kind of discussion. But I'm happy to contribute what I can from the perspective of the Pali canon. > In any event, Dreyfus' example seems to be a stumbling block for > you as > you filter the discussion through your perspective (which, of > course, we > all tend to do) and that is understandable if the example does not > speak > to you. If viewed as ultimate language, it would also be unlikely > to > speak to a tradition that sees all as mere illusion as they await > unity with their god. > > I invite you to provide an example that does make more sense to you > as a > way of explaining or examining the questions of how we can account > for > valid inferences and how to then distinguish them from faulty > conception > or how to account for how our conceptions operate nonrandomly. To my understanding the teachings do not require the drawing of any valid inferences, of the kind I understand the author to be referring to. I see the teachings as claiming to be descriptive of the present moment, and as inviting the listener to confirm by his or her own observation the correctness (or otherwise) of that description. In doing so, however, I do not see them as asking one to make any assumptions or draw any inferences about the present moment. (I suppose this puts me fundamentally at odds with the author.) Do you have an different perspective on the teachings? Jon 22527 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 30, 2003 5:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, If you remember, in ADL chapter 7, we read a lot of detail about moha (ignorance). One quote now from the Atthasalini: “ ‘Delusion’ (moha) has the characteristic of blindnes or opposition to knowledge; the essence of non-penetration or the function of covering the intrinsic nature of the object; the manifestation of being opposed to right conduct or causing blindnes; the proximate cause of unwise attention; and it should be regarded as the root of all akusala...” So at this moment of looking out of the window or picking up a pencil or sipping some tea, there are bound to be countless moments of moha -- no knowing anything about kusala and ignorance about the nature of phenomena being experienced. As you say, wrong conceptual view is also a reality, but it doesn’t necessarily arise with all these moments of ignorance. Without the development of understanding of the various paramattha dhammas, I believe it will be impossible to understand what the characteristics of moha and ditthi are. Please give me another hint if this is not the answer you were looking for;-) Metta, Sarah p.s. You may also like to review a few of the posts under “ignorance and wrong view” in Useful Posts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts =================== 22528 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 30, 2003 5:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Hi Jonothan: > > Again this is where we differ as to the salvational versus the > ontological nature of the suttas. I can read any number of > passages > regarding the sense bases, from the Satipatthana Sutta to the > Chachakka > Sutta, remaining solely at the phenomenal level of the discourse > and > experiencing the pragmatic value of these suttas as another example > of the regularity we call dependent arising. I *think* I see what you're saying here, but I hope you won't mind if I ask you to comment in terms I can more easily relate to. I would see these suttas as descriptive of the present moment, and of development of insight into the true nature of the present moment. Is this your perspective also? If not, then what do you see these suttas as being descriptive of, and what parts of the sutta pitaka do you see as descriptive of the development of insight? > I realize others have gone farther, seeing these suttas as part of > a > deeper, more sophisticated philosophy. Bikkhu Bodhi describes this > latter approach as follows: Thanks for the quote from the introduction to CMA. I know that people react differently to the Abhidhamma. Indeed, many who find it useful now probably did not have any particular affinity with it in the beginning (and in some cases quite the opposite). I would suggest that there's no need to either embrace or reject the Abhidhamma, or to reach any final view on it's origin or content. As I said in an earlier post, the suttas by themselves are beyond us, and there is much in the Abhidhamma and commentaries that can help unlock the meaning. I've never heard of any instance of a contradiction between the suttas and the Abhidhamma. > I may get there at some point. Who knows? That's about how it is for all of us ;-)) Jon 22529 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 30, 2003 7:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > I think you might find this discourse helpful. > Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 > Satta Sutta > A Being > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn23-002.html Thanks for the reference to the sutta. I like the analogy of the child's sandcastles. Is there any specific aspect of the sutta you wanted to draw my attention to? I note you haven't responded to the question in my previous post. Does this mean we're not going to hear your comments on the words spoken by Sister Vajira? I was looking forward to hearing your views on the connection being made between the five aggregates and the concept 'a being'. Jon 22530 From: Lee Dillion Date: Fri May 30, 2003 7:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: >> I invite you to provide an example that does make more sense to you >> as a way of explaining or examining the questions of how we can >> account for valid inferences and how to then distinguish them from >> faulty conception or how to account for how our conceptions operate >> nonrandomly. > > > To my understanding the teachings do not require the drawing of any > valid inferences, of the kind I understand the author to be referring > to. > > I see the teachings as claiming to be descriptive of the present > moment, and as inviting the listener to confirm by his or her own > observation the correctness (or otherwise) of that description. In > doing so, however, I do not see them as asking one to make any > assumptions or draw any inferences about the present moment. (I > suppose this puts me fundamentally at odds with the author.) > > Do you have an different perspective on the teachings? Hi Jon: Personally, I agree with your statement that you "do not see them [the teachings of the Buddha] as asking one to make any assumptions or draw any inferences about the present moment" as I am more than content to work with the apparent regularity of the arising and cessation of what appears to my senses without needing to designate or characterize this flow any further. However, many Buddhist do seem to have a need to make assumptions and draw inferences about the ontological status of what constitutes the "present moment," and for those, Dreyfus's questions are relevant. 22531 From: Lee Dillion Date: Fri May 30, 2003 7:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: >> Again this is where we differ as to the salvational versus the >> ontological nature of the suttas. I can read any number of >> passages regarding the sense bases, from the Satipatthana Sutta to >> the Chachakka Sutta, remaining solely at the phenomenal level of >> the discourse and experiencing the pragmatic value of these suttas >> as another example of the regularity we call dependent arising. > > I *think* I see what you're saying here, but I hope you won't mind if > I ask you to comment in terms I can more easily relate to. > > I would see these suttas as descriptive of the present moment, and of > development of insight into the true nature of the present moment. > Is this your perspective also? If not, then what do you see these > suttas as being descriptive of, and what parts of the sutta pitaka do > you see as descriptive of the development of insight? Hi Jon: I suppose I don't know what you intend by the phrase "true nature" since I have seen these words used in so many different ways. If you mean that we have to understand the ontological status of the present moment, then I have not found that approach particularly useful since it quickly implicates the whole thicket of questions raised by Dreyfus. If you mean, simply, the way in which appearances arise and cease and how those appearances can be understood, in a salvational sense, as a way of letting go of fabrications based on cravings, conceit, and views (what I would see as a psychological and not an ontological perspective), then I prefer that approach. >> I realize others have gone farther, seeing these suttas as part of >> a deeper, more sophisticated philosophy. Bikkhu Bodhi describes >> this latter approach as follows: > > > > > Thanks for the quote from the introduction to CMA. I know that > people react differently to the Abhidhamma. Indeed, many who find it > useful now probably did not have any particular affinity with it in > the beginning (and in some cases quite the opposite). > > I would suggest that there's no need to either embrace or reject the > Abhidhamma, or to reach any final view on it's origin or content. I agree. > As I said in an earlier post, the suttas by themselves are beyond us, > and there is much in the Abhidhamma and commentaries that can help > unlock the meaning. I've never heard of any instance of a > contradiction between the suttas and the Abhidhamma. Here I would disagree. I find the suttas powerful in their clarity and vision. That others have a different understanding is not unexpected, nor is it unexpected that your interpretation, which may vary from mine, is consistent with your take on the Abhidhamma as you have an apparent affinity for the Abhidhamma. Such is the power of our interpretive systems - to see harmony if that is what we look for. >> I may get there at some point. Who knows? > > > That's about how it is for all of us ;-)) True. Thanks. Lee 22532 From: Date: Fri May 30, 2003 3:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Lee (and Jon) - In a message dated 5/30/03 10:12:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, leedillion@c... writes: > Hi Jon: > > Personally, I agree with your statement that you "do not see them [the > teachings of the Buddha] as asking one to make any assumptions or draw > any inferences about the present moment" as I am more than content to > work with the apparent regularity of the arising and cessation of what > appears to my senses without needing to designate or characterize this > flow any further. > > However, many Buddhist do seem to have a need to make assumptions and > draw inferences about the ontological status of what constitutes the > "present moment," and for those, Dreyfus's questions are relevant. > ========================== Not only that, but there is also the view that the Gelukpas seem to have with regard to the role reasoning plays in Buddhist practice. As I understand it, their practice could be viewed as a form of gnani yoga in which cool contemplation at the conceptual level (of ultimates) conditions the development of subsequent wisdom. 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) 22533 From: Lee Dillion Date: Fri May 30, 2003 7:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities upasaka@a... wrote: >>However, many Buddhist do seem to have a need to make assumptions and >>draw inferences about the ontological status of what constitutes the >>"present moment," and for those, Dreyfus's questions are relevant. >> > > ========================== > Not only that, but there is also the view that the Gelukpas seem to > have with regard to the role reasoning plays in Buddhist practice. As I > understand it, their practice could be viewed as a form of gnani yoga in which cool > contemplation at the conceptual level (of ultimates) conditions the development > of subsequent wisdom. Hi Howard; There is much in the Gelukpa intellectual tradition that I find fascinating, though my practice remains far more mundane in orientation. Perhaps if I could get them to ditch the funny hats . . . :) 22534 From: Date: Fri May 30, 2003 4:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Lee - In a message dated 5/30/03 11:00:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, leedillion@c... writes: > Hi Howard; > > There is much in the Gelukpa intellectual tradition that I find > fascinating, though my practice remains far more mundane in orientation. > Perhaps if I could get them to ditch the funny hats . . . :) > > > ========================== Always ready for a party, those guys! ;-)) 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) 22535 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 30, 2003 10:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Hi Jon, Thank you for your reply. I have responded to your question by providing the reference to the discourse Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 Satta Sutta A Being http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn23-002.html Let me quote the following passage from the discourse: I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?" "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be 'a being (satta).' "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' It is the above passage that I wanted to draw your attention to. Thank you again for your reply. Your comment is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor [snip] > Thanks for the reference to the sutta. I like the analogy of the > child's sandcastles. Is there any specific aspect of the sutta you > wanted to draw my attention to? > > I note you haven't responded to the question in my previous post. > Does this mean we're not going to hear your comments on the words > spoken by Sister Vajira? I was looking forward to hearing your views > on the connection being made between the five aggregates and the > concept 'a being'. > > Jon 22536 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri May 30, 2003 2:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance --Dear Lee, A quick comment: - In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lee Dillion wrote: > > Hi Sarah: > > Thanks for the commentary material. > > I don't mean to be contrary, but this is simply one of those situations > where I choose to go with an interpretation of the suttas by a > well-respected Bhikkhu that is at variance with the understanding that > you and Suan (and the much later commentarial tradition) has of the > suttas. I don't make this lightly, as I have considered your position, > and that in the commentary, very carefully and found it is contrary to > my understanding of the suttas. > > In particular, I find that speculation about Nibbana as some other > sphere of existence (for I assume that that must be what you mean to > talk of an existent thing that is unconditioned for how could an > unconditioned existent exist in our conditioned realm?): > > +++++++++++++ One thing the commentaries are at pains to stress is that nibbana is absolutely not 'some other sphere of existence'. RobertK 22537 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 30, 2003 2:19pm Subject: Re: Ditthi vs. Mana Hi All, I have been thinking about this question. How does the following sound? Mana (conceit) is a thought of the nature, "I am 'X'", where 'X' can be 'man', 'young', 'wealthy', etc.. This type of thought has the nature of separating the world into (at least) two parts; those who have a characteristic of 'X' and those who do not have this characterisitic. Therefore, mana (conceit) has a nature of separating. Ditthi (wrong view) can arise on a variety of subjects; personality- view, nature of the world, nature of kamma, nature of existence, etc.. All of these types of thoughts have the nature of generalizing or combining. In summary, mana is a "specific" / "separating" mode of thinking, whereas ditthi is a "general" / "combining" mode of thinking. This is why the two are incompatible within the same citta. Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi All, > > A quick question. Somebody asked me what makes ditthi and mana > mutually exclusive (they cannot appear in the same lobha-mula citta). > > I answered that ditti was "inward looking" while mana was "outward > looking" but I am not really satisfied with my answer. > > Nina's book, "Cetasikas" says, "Conceit and wrong view are different > realities which do not arise at the same time. When one takes a > reality for permanent or for self there is wrong view and there > cannot be at the same time conceit, which is pride or self- > assertion." > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 22538 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 30, 2003 4:59pm Subject: The Cetasikas in Lobha-mula Cittas - Please comment Because they are akusala, each of the lobha-mula cittas include the four universal unwholesome cetasikas: - Moha: Delusion that conceals the true nature of things - Ahirika / Anottappa: No shame / no fear in doing wrong - Uddhacca: Restlessness or mental distraction There are eight lobha-mula cittas: - Four cittas with pleasant feeling, four with indifferent feeling. Lobha-mula cittas with pleasant feeling are accompanied by the cetasika piti (enthusiasm), which increases their kammic weight. - Four cittas accompanied by wrong view, four not accompanied by wrong view (see section below on ditthi). - Four spontaneous cittas and four prompted cittas. Prompted cittas are accompanied by the cetasikas thina (sloth) and middha (torpor); see section below on thina and middha. Lobha (Greed / Attachment / Sensuous Desire) ============================================ To catch monkeys, hunters would tie a coconut with a small hole in it to a tree. There would be food placed inside the coconut and the hole would be large enough for the monkey to inert its hand to grasp the food, but too small for the monkey to withdraw its hand while grasping the food. When the hunters came to kill the monkey, the monkey would struggle to escape, not realizing that the only thing holding it back was its own greed; the monkey does not even consider letting go of the food in order to escape. We can see that lobha has a characteristic of grasping an object, a function of sticking to the object, a manifestation of not giving up and a proximate cause of seeing enjoyment in things that lead to bondage. The story of the monkey hunters illustrate how lobha can be regarded as taking beings with it to states of loss. Unfortunately, for most people, lobha is the most common citta. In fact, the first javana (kamma-creating) citta in an existence is clinging to life. This type of subtle clinging to existence is only uprooted by the Arahant. Clinging to pleasures of the senses (enjoying a taste, liking a smell or feeling comfortable, etc.) is not uprooted until one is an Anagami (non-returner, the stage of sainthood before Arahant). It is easy to recognize the coarse forms of lobha (greed, covetousness, craving) but more difficult to recognize the subtle types of lobha. According to dependent origination, the feeling that accompanies the five senses gives rise to the form of lobha called craving (tanha); craving for visible data, sound, odour, flavour, tangible-data and dhamma-data (ideas). Craving is a condition for the arising of other forms of lobha; sense-door clinging, false view clinging, rite-and- ritual clinging and self-clinging. We can see that, according to dependent origination, lobha ties us to continuous rebirth. Lobha can also result in rebirth in one of the four woeful planes when it acts as a motivator for: - Thoughts: Covetousness and clinging to wrong view (see section on ditthi) - Speech: Lying, slandering and idle talk (when these actions have an objective of benefiting oneself or pleasing others) - Action: Stealing and sexual misbehaviour Lobha arises extremely frequently in our thoughts: - Politeness and pleasant speech can easily be motivated by a desire to please others. Through mindfulness, we can become more sincere in our behaviour. - Before and after doing kusala, we can be attached to the idea of "our kusala" and "our kamma" - When we meditate, we can have a desire for results and this attachment to results may inhibit progress; the purpose of meditating is to sit, results come from proper practice, not from a desire for results - During the sense-door citta process, there can be attachment to the stimulation of the senses. In the subsequent mind-door citta process, there can be a desire to understand and an attachment to familiar concepts. In the Gandhabhaka Sutta (SNXLII.11), the Buddha explained that craving is a source of suffering (dukkha). We experience dukkha when those to whom we are attached experience problems. We do not experience dukkha when those to whom we are not attached experience problems. Therefore, attachment is a cause of dukkha. There are two forms of lobha that are particularly dangerous because they can also have a negative impact on others: - Maya: this form of lobha causes one to conceal one's faults. - Satheyya: this form of lobha causes one to pretend to have qualities that one does not have Just as drinking salty water can never quench one's thirst, lobha is insatiable; it cannot be satisfied. Ditthi (Wrong View / Evil Opinion) ================================== All akusala cittas contain moha (delusion), but in those moments with ditthi, there is an attachment to a false conviction. When there is ditthi, one clings to a false view of reality. Ditthi perverts one's way of thinking, leading one down the wrong path. Conditions leading to deviation from the right path can arise as long as ditthi has not been uprooted (Sotapanna has no ditthi). Ditthi should be regarded as the highest fault. Just as Right View is the foundation of the right path (Noble Eightfold Path), ditthi is the foundation of the wrong path. In the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Ones, Chapter XVII), the Buddha said: "Monks, I know not of any other single thing so apt to cause the arising of evil states not yet arisen, or if arisen, to cause their more-becoming and increase, as perverted view… Monks, in one of perverted view evil states not yet arisen do arise, and if arisen, are apt to grow and grow… Monks, I know not of any other single thing so apt to cause the non-arising of good states not yet arisen, or, if arisen, to cause their waning, as perverted view… Monks, in one of perverted view good states not yet arisen arise not, or, if arisen, waste away… Monks, I know not of any other single thing so apt to cause the arising of perverted view, if not yet arisen, or the increase of perverted view, if already arisen, as unsystematic attention . In him who gives not systematic attention perverted view, if not arisen, does arise, or, if already arisen, does increase… Monks, I know not of any other single thing so apt, when body breaks up after death, to cause the rebirth of beings in the Waste, the Way of Woe, the Downfall, in Hell, as perverted view…" The Sotapanna has uprooted ditthi and therefore there are no conditions to break precepts or perform acts that can result in rebirth in one of the four woeful planes. When one does not cling anymore to the concept of self and sees realities as they are, this will bear on one's actions, speech and thoughts. One has to uproot ditthi before other defilements can be uprooted. Types of wrong view capable of causing an unhappy rebirth are: - There is no result of kamma - There are no causes - There is no such thing as kamma Examples of less serious wrong view include: - Personality view (sakkaya-ditthi): Body as self, self having body, body being in the self, self as being in the body (the same for the other four aggregates, for a total of 20 views). - Ego-illusion (atta-ditthi): Believes in the existence of a soul, ego or life-entity within the body. - Taking concepts as reality - Belief that wrong practice can eradicate defilements The Brahma-jala Sutta (The All-Embracing Net of Views) lists sixty- two kinds of wrong view. There are eighteen speculative theories concerning the past and forty-four concerning the future. There are speculative theories about the world being finite or infinite, about the origin of the "soul" or the world. There are speculations about good and evil and about NibbŒna. Mana (Conceit / Pride) ====================== The commentaries say that ditthi and mana are like two lions that cannot live together in the same cave; they cannot arise in the same citta. Lobha-mula cittas with wrong view will never have mana, but lobha-mula cittas without wrong view may or may not have mana. The reason that mana and ditthi cannot arise at the same time is: - The nature of mana is to compare, and comparison requires a separating of "I" from "others" ("I am strong" implies that there are others who are not strong). - The nature of ditthi is to generalize ("… is the nature of kamma for all beings", "… is the nature of self for all beings", "… is the nature of the world for all beings") We normally think of conceit or pride as arising only when we think ourselves better than another person. However, mana includes all forms of comparison; "better than", "equal to" and "inferior to". "I am luckier / unluckier than he is" is a form of mana. Racism, bigotry, prejudice and kiasu are all forms of mana. Competition is driven by mana. When we see an old and sick person and we think, "I am young and healthy", this is mana. Mana makes us blind to the fact that we have lived countless lives; youth and health are impermanent. Mana arises often and there are subjects of mana including birth, health, age, position, wealth, appearance, physique, intelligence, reputation, skills, accomplishment, popularity and being moral. According to the commentaries, mana should be regarded as a form of lunacy. What benefit do we get by comparing ourselves with others? Is mana not a source of mental intoxication? The thought, "I will volunteer to teach Dhamma because I am a good speaker" is based on mana. This thought may condition a wholesome action, but the thought itself is unwholesome. This is an example of akusala being a condition for kusala. Mana is so deeply ingrained that it remains until one becomes an Arahant. Even though a Sotapanna has uprooted ditthi and no longer has personality view or ego-illusion, mŒna can still arise. One may think "one's own" namas and rupas better, equal or less than someone else's, even though one has realized that there is no self. Thina (Sloth) and Middha (Torpor) ================================= Thina (sloth) and middha (torpor) always arise together; they arise in the four lobha-mula cittas that are "prompted". These cetasikas make the mind unwieldy and lazy. Cittas with thina and middha are passive whereas cittas without thina or middha are active and spontaneous. Thina is a sickness of the citta while middha is a sickness of the cetasikas. Summary ======= Lobha -> Mine Ditthi -> Me Mana -> I 22539 From: Date: Fri May 30, 2003 5:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, I was primarily fishing for an acknowledgment that concepts are realities. This is close enough for now: "As you say, wrong conceptual view is also a reality,...". Larry 22540 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri May 30, 2003 7:04pm Subject: Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, Larry, and All, After a while of reading, talking and reflecting. I had begun to think I understood that there are only six classes of objects, which are experienced through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. That these classes included Paramattha dhammas as well as Concepts. I thought that there could only be either paramattha dhamma OR concepts as objects in any lifetime or on any plane of existence. That moments of consciousness (citta) take as object either a concept or a reality. i.e. when a reality, a paramattaha dhamma is not the object in daily life, then a concept must be. I don't understand your last post Larry where you quote Sarah: 'Wrong conceptual view is also a reality'. I haven't been following this thread, so if I've missed the point and have descended into irrelevancy, just ignore. Oterwise, I'd be grateful for directions to get back on track. metta and peace, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I was primarily fishing for an acknowledgment that concepts are > realities. This is close enough for now: "As you say, wrong conceptual > view is also a reality,...". > > Larry 22541 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 30, 2003 8:28pm Subject: Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > when a reality, a paramattaha dhamma is not the object > in daily life, then a concept must be. I don't understand your > last post Larry where you quote Sarah: 'Wrong conceptual view is also > a reality'. I haven't been following this thread, so if I've missed > the point and have descended into irrelevancy, just ignore. Oterwise, > I'd be grateful for directions to get back on track. I haven't been following this stream either, so my comments may add further confusion. I agree that the object of a citta can either be a paramattha dhamma or a concept. The list of paramattha dhammas includes cetasikas, specifically it includes ditthi (wrong view - see my recent post on cetasikas in lobha-mula cittas). The list of paramattha dhammas does not include "car", "tree" or other concepts. Does this help or confuse things further? Metta, Rob M :-) 22542 From: Date: Fri May 30, 2003 9:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Christine, In my ditthi the whole question of the difference between paramattha dhamma and concept hasn't found the right words. A view, ditthi, is listed as a paramattha dhamma but is surely conceptual. The discussion between Sarah and me is based on TA Sujin's "Realities and Concepts" which can be accessed here: http://www.abhidhamma.org/ Larry 22543 From: Date: Fri May 30, 2003 9:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ditthi vs. Mana Hi Rob, I agree that conceit separates, but I think the main difference is that self view is relatively superficial while conceit is very deep. This is evidenced by views being eradicated at stream-entry, but conceit isn't eradicated until arahantship. If you want to be an arahant, forget about opinions and look very carefully at conceit. Maybe the reason views and conceit don't arise with the same consciousness is because they are like two hats rather than a hat and coat. A consciousness can only wear one hat at a time. Btw, one dhamma that doesn't seem to have a name is subjectivity. By "subjectivity" I mean the subjectivity that is void of all objective qualities. Is consciousness the object or the subject? If subject, does it have objective qualities? Larry 22544 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 30, 2003 10:15pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Ditthi vs. Mana Sorry Larry, I am still confused. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > I agree that conceit separates, but I think the main difference is that > self view is relatively superficial while conceit is very deep. This is > evidenced by views being eradicated at stream-entry, but conceit isn't > eradicated until arahantship. If you want to be an arahant, forget about > opinions and look very carefully at conceit. ===== I agree that conceit is more "deep rooted" than wrong view; but why is this so? Also, "self-view" is only part of ditthi. ===== > > Maybe the reason views and conceit don't arise with the same > consciousness is because they are like two hats rather than a hat and > coat. A consciousness can only wear one hat at a time. ===== Lots of other cetasikas can co-exist quite well (like coats and hats); what is it about ditthi and mana that makes them mutually exclusive? ===== > > Btw, one dhamma that doesn't seem to have a name is subjectivity. By > "subjectivity" I mean the subjectivity that is void of all objective > qualities. Is consciousness the object or the subject? If subject, does > it have objective qualities? ===== I don't understand. Can you express this another way to help me? Metta, Rob M :-) 22545 From: rahula_80 Date: Fri May 30, 2003 11:14pm Subject: Reference(s) Hi, I would appreciate if anybody could provide the reference for the stories below. If possible, if you could quote the relevant passage (s) it would be best. 1. The story that the winner of a millitary competition would marry princess Yasodhara, which was won by Prince Siddhartha. 2. Prince Siddhartha, went to watch his wife and son, before departing from his palace. Planned to say goodbye, but decided not to because, afraid that if he did, he would not be able to leave them. 3. The story that when t he Buddha came back to his birthplace. All came to greet him except Princess Yasodhara......... I can't find these story in Life of Buddha by Nanamoli. Maybe I accidentally skip them. Also, does anyone know anywhere in the scripture where the Buddha deal with the issue of love (romantic love, I mean) Thanks, Rahula 22546 From: rahula_80 Date: Fri May 30, 2003 11:28pm Subject: Limerence Hi, See http://gost.isi.edu/brian/elbows/limerence.html 1. How to overcome limerence (romantic love)? If anyone need more information, please email me (rahula_80@y...) 2. Did the Buddha address the issue of limerence? Well, if yes, what did he say? could you also provide the reference(s) 3. What is your opinion of limerence, as a Buddhist and as a human? (answer this only if you have experienced limerence) Thanks, Rahula 22547 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri May 30, 2003 11:53pm Subject: Re: Ditthi vs. Mana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi All, > > I have been thinking about this question. How does the following > sound? > > Hi Rob, Your theory sounds good but I have a different one: 1) As your description would seem to confirm, mana always takes a concept as its object. 2) Wrong View, on the other hand, always has a dhamma as object. (All this is just my theory, of course.) 3) So the two cannot arise in the same citta. My reasoning for 2, is that Wrong View is a wilful refusal to see an object with Right View -- and the only object that can be seen with Right View, is a paramattha dhamma. Comments welcome but feel free to treat with disdain :-) Ken H Mana (conceit) is a thought of the nature, "I am 'X'", where 'X' can > be 'man', 'young', 'wealthy', etc.. This type of thought has the > nature of separating the world into (at least) two parts; those who > have a characteristic of 'X' and those who do not have this > characterisitic. Therefore, mana (conceit) has a nature of > separating. > > Ditthi (wrong view) can arise on a variety of subjects; personality- > view, nature of the world, nature of kamma, nature of existence, > etc.. All of these types of thoughts have the nature of generalizing > or combining. > > In summary, mana is a "specific" / "separating" mode of thinking, > whereas ditthi is a "general" / "combining" mode of thinking. This > is why the two are incompatible within the same citta. > > Comments? > 22548 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat May 31, 2003 0:36am Subject: Re: Reference(s) Hi Rahula, I think this has been discussed on this list in the past, and Ramindu, Peter and KKT posted some information. There are a couple of posts under Yasodhara in the Useful Posts. Peter's post points to the Buddhist Dictionary of Proper Names. If you look under "Rahulamata", one of the other names attributed to Yasodhara, you may find some of your questions answered. http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/r/rahulamata.htm Also below is an excerpt from an article (found by KKT, I think): "The Nidanakatha, Buddha's biography that was the first among the Pali Jataka, but was actually written a while later, seems to have also been influenced, more subtly and indirectly, since our heroine only appears as Rahulamata, the name given to her in most Pali texts. Therein, she is born on the same day as Buddha and various other characters of varied importance in Buddha's legendary biography. (58) She marries him at age 16, after he conquers her hand by proving his superiority over her other pretenders in a series of games comparable to the Olympics. (59) Buddha leaves the layman's life, his wife and his son after taking one last look at his sleeping family, this is the same night that Yasodhara bears Rahula.(60) When Buddha returns to K., Yasodhara is awestruck by his appearance and pronounces verses of praise in his favor.(61) She refuses to assist in the banquet given for Buddha the day after his arrival, although all the other ladies of the court are present. So, Buddha visits her in her wing and she bows before her husband. At the same time S. informs Buddha of Yasodhara's austerity since his death.(62)" http://www.buddha-kyra.com/wife.htm Hope this helps, metta and peace, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rahula_80" wrote: > Hi, > > I would appreciate if anybody could provide the reference for the > stories below. If possible, if you could quote the relevant passage > (s) it would be best. > > 1. The story that the winner of a millitary competition would marry > princess Yasodhara, which was won by Prince Siddhartha. > > 2. Prince Siddhartha, went to watch his wife and son, before > departing from his palace. Planned to say goodbye, but decided not to > because, afraid that if he did, he would not be able to leave them. > > 3. The story that when t he Buddha came back to his birthplace. All > came to greet him except Princess Yasodhara......... > > I can't find these story in Life of Buddha by Nanamoli. Maybe I > accidentally skip them. > > Also, does anyone know anywhere in the scripture where the Buddha > deal with the issue of love (romantic love, I mean) > > Thanks, Rahula 22549 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat May 31, 2003 0:55am Subject: Precepts Dear Group, Here's a story and a question or two. The Story: Yesterday was a wonderful day, a glorious day - even the weather joined with other circumstances - the occasion, the people, the place - and all the other sights, sounds, tastes, smells, bodily feelings and thoughts that so very rarely combine to briefly create a wonderful memory. My daughter and I had flown to Sydney to watch my son's admission as a Solicitor in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The beginning was rising at 3.00 a.m. in a dark wet, cold and squally Brisbane to fly into a perfect warm blue late-Autumn Sydney day - the ending was landing back in the same cold Brisbane Airport drizzle at 9.30 p.m. that night, and home to contented sleep. But in between ... The Admission was presided over by three judges in red ceremonial robes, carrying white gloves and wearing formal long wigs who sat on highbacked chairs, behind a bench on a raised polished wood dias. The judges entered in procession after an official leading them struck the door with a staff, all stood until the judges were assisted to be seated, the gathering bowed, the judges acknowledged the courtesy, and the ceremony began. ... After the ceremony, the Chief magistrate gave a (considerately, brief) rousing and heartening speech about ethics, and community service. Then the judges were assisted to rise, we also rose, bows were exchanged and they were led out in procession. After photos, a group of us went for a long, long lunch sitting in warm, dappled sunlight under the trees on the edge of Sydney's magnificent Harbour, with birds singing, a gentle breeze blowing across the diners and overall the endless blue sky. Lots of legal jokes, lots of 'my learned friend' remarks, lots of smiling toasts, other friends passing the restaurant popping over to shake hands and briefly join with us, much storytelling, more photos, an inundation of non-stop congratulatory calls and text messages coming in from local, interstate and overseas on Luke's mobile phone. The Question: In reflecting on this lovely day, I note a complete forgetfulness of distinguishing nama and rupa, there were just people, things and stories, and a great deal of attachment and delight. How difficult it is to tell akusala from kusala or even to remember to do so. And at that time, there was no real consideration of the five Precepts - or more exactly, the breaking of the Precepts. Does the order of precepts indicate anything regarding their relative importance, or, if broken or 'dented', the relative severity of consequential vipaka? I note that often the five Precepts are listed succinctly as simple, blunt training rules, but that other times (by modern writers) they are expanded so as to become almost unrecognisable compared to the originals, and assume the form of complicated 'cover every situation' commandments. Yesterday many of the Precepts were broken and akusala accumulations were strenghtened in what others would only see as a delightful and significant moment in an individual's and a family's life. Yesterday, nobody was a vegetarian, nobody was a complete teetotaller, nobody spoke without exaggeration, frivolity or hyperbole, nobody was unattached to the joy and fellowship of the day, the sights and sounds and rituals. [As far as I noticed, none of the group killed anyone or was guilty of sexual misconduct over lunch - though I don't recall the Dhamma getting a mention, except by one surprised young lawyer wearing mala beads who said "I thought the precept was just against getting intoxicated, not against taking a drink" - and a few of the party took what was not given - the single page paper menus as a souvenir, photos in an area of the Court where it was not allowed because of tradition, and an extra half hour of their employers' time.]. So, how are we to live in a non-buddhist society, where what buddhists are taught is 'wrong' is not what good people in this society see as wrong? (having a regular drink, telling a joke, long conversations about the theatre, music, books, the latest sensational crimes, money making, and politics) Should there be no celebrations, or non-dhamma discussions? How could this be managed when 99% of the people I know are not Buddhist? I'm sure seclusion or withdrawal from society is not a current option. metta and peace, Christine Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time 22550 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 31, 2003 1:58am Subject: Re: Ditthi vs. Mana Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Your theory sounds good but I have a different one: > > 1) As your description would seem to confirm, mana > always takes a concept as its object. > > 2) Wrong View, on the other hand, always has a dhamma as > object. (All this is just my theory, of course.) > > 3) So the two cannot arise in the same citta. > > My reasoning for 2, is that Wrong View is a wilful > refusal to see an object with Right View -- and the only > object that can be seen with Right View, is a paramattha > dhamma. > > Comments welcome but feel free to treat with disdain :-) > ===== Interesting concept, but it doesn't "feel right". Let me try to put my finger on it... An Arahant always has "right view"; akusala cittas don't even arise for an Arahant. If you are saying that right view can only take a paramattha dhamma as object, never a concept, then this would imply that concepts could not arise in the mind of an Arahant. I believe that concepts do arise in the mind of an Arahant, but unlike worldlings, the Arahant always recognizes them as concepts. What do you think? Metta, Rob M :-) 22551 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 31, 2003 2:25am Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Christine, Nice story... well told. Right view (seeing nama as nama and rupa as rupa) does not arise because of conscious effort exerted at the moment. Nor does right view arise because of reading or studying the Dhamma. Right view arises naturally at the moment because it is a habit, an accumulation. Right practice develops this accumulation. Let's not talk about the others, let's only talk about you. Each are heirs to their own kamma. Which precepts did you yourself break (no need to confess on-line... just consider the answer in your own mind). Examine the conditions that caused you to break a precept. Make a mental note to watch out for those conditions in the future and try to avoid falling into the same pattern that led you to break a precept yesterday. Once you have finished with the precepts, the "avoid doing..", consider the opportunities that presented themselves to do kusala; were there missed opportunities for dana? for metta? for karuna? Examine the conditions that caused you to miss these opportunites and make a mental note to watch for similar conditions in the future so that you do not miss more opportunities. In general, the kammic weight of breaking a precept (or more aptly breaking yourself against a precept) depends on the strength of the volition involved. From what you described, it doesn't sound as though there was a lot of strong negative volition in the air. Obviously, some of the precepts are more difficult to maintain than others. Probably the most difficult precept to maintain is to avoid lying. But I do not believe that it is impossible to function well in society without lying. Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Here's a story and a question or two. > > The Story: Yesterday was a wonderful day, a glorious day - even the > weather joined with other circumstances - the occasion, the people, > the place - and all the other sights, sounds, tastes, smells, bodily > feelings and thoughts that so very rarely combine to briefly create a > wonderful memory. > > The Question: In reflecting on this lovely day, I note a complete > forgetfulness of distinguishing nama and rupa, there were just > people, things and stories, and a great deal of attachment and > delight. How difficult it is to tell akusala from kusala or even to > remember to do so. And at that time, there was no real > consideration of the five Precepts - or more exactly, the breaking of > the Precepts. Does the order of precepts indicate anything regarding > their relative importance, or, if broken or 'dented', the relative > severity of consequential vipaka? I note that often the five > Precepts are listed succinctly as simple, blunt training rules, but > that other times (by modern writers) they are expanded so as to > become almost unrecognisable compared to the originals, and assume > the form of complicated 'cover every situation' commandments. > Yesterday many of the Precepts were broken and akusala > accumulations were strenghtened in what others would only see as a > delightful and significant moment in an individual's and a family's > life. Yesterday, nobody was a vegetarian, nobody was a complete > teetotaller, nobody spoke without exaggeration, frivolity or > hyperbole, nobody was unattached to the joy and fellowship of the > day, the sights and sounds and rituals. [As far as I noticed, none > of the group killed anyone or was guilty of sexual misconduct over > lunch - though I don't recall the Dhamma getting a mention, except > by one surprised young lawyer wearing mala beads who said "I thought > the precept was just against getting intoxicated, not against taking > a drink" - and a few of the party took what was not given - the > single page paper menus as a souvenir, photos in an area of the Court > where it was not allowed because of tradition, and an extra half hour > of their employers' time.]. > So, how are we to live in a non-buddhist society, where what > buddhists are taught is 'wrong' is not what good people in this > society see as wrong? (having a regular drink, telling a joke, long > conversations about the theatre, music, books, the latest sensational > crimes, money making, and politics) Should there be no celebrations, > or non-dhamma discussions? How could this be managed when 99% of the > people I know are not Buddhist? I'm sure seclusion or withdrawal > from society is not a current option. Weight Age Gender Female Male 22552 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat May 31, 2003 3:13am Subject: Re: Precepts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Here's a story and a question or two. > > The Story: Yesterday was a wonderful day, a glorious day - even the > weather joined with other circumstances - the occasion, the people, > Hi Christine, That was a really nice story; I enjoyed reading it! Congratulations on the stellar accomplishment of your son. Thank you for sharing. Metta, James 22553 From: nidive Date: Sat May 31, 2003 3:42am Subject: Re: Ditthi vs. Mana Hi Rob M, > I answered that ditti was "inward looking" while mana was "outward > looking" but I am not really satisfied with my answer. Just to quote a sutta which I think is relevant: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-089.html "It's just like the scent of a blue, red, or white lotus: If someone were to call it the scent of a petal or the scent of the color or the scent of a filament, would he be speaking correctly?" "No, friend." "Then how would he describe it if he were describing it correctly?" "As the scent of the flower: That's how he would describe it if he were describing it correctly." "In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.' Swee Boon 22555 From: Sarah Date: Sat May 31, 2003 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reference(s) Hi Rahula, I haven’t heard the first story and will be glad if you let me know if you find a Theravada source for it. I have read about his skill in archery (he could split a hair) but that’s about the closest I recall. ..... I’ve read the second story in the Introduction to the Jataka Tales (Buddhist Birth Stories transl by Rhys Davids). Much of this Introduction is also included in Clarke Warren’s ‘Buddhism’ along with many other excellent translated passages. Conveniently it’s also on line- here’s a link for the passage. Note, the reason for not waking the queen given here is so that she would not prevent him from leaving. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits006.htm “Now the Future Buddha, after he had sent Channa on his errand, thought to himself, "will take just one look at my son;" and, rising from the couch on which he was sitting, he went to the suite of apartments occupied by the mother of Rahula, and opened the door of her chamber. Within the chamber was burning a lamp fed with sweet-smelling oil, and the mother of Râhula lay sleeping on a couch strewn deep with jasmine and other flowers, her hand resting on the head of her son. When the Future Buddha reached the threshold, he paused, and gazed at the two from where he stood. "If I were to raise my wife's hand from off the child's head, and take him up, she would awake, and thus prevent my departure. I will first become a Buddha, and then come back and see my son." So saying, he descended from the palace.” ..... The third story is summarised in the Dict of Pali Proper Names (thx Chris for the on line reference!!;-)). I think I’ve read it somewhere but forget where. The Dict gives the Canda-Kinnara Jataka (485) as a reference but not all the details are included here. Please let me know if you find another reference to it and I’ll keep it in mind too. We read so many stories about great love and devotion and sorrow. I think the Canda-Kinnara Jataka just referred to is a great example. We read about the wholesome qualities of faith, loyalty and devotion praised by the Buddha, but also about the sorrow and grief that accompanies the loss of what/ whom one is attached to (both when he visits Yasodhara in the last life) and in the earlier tale when they were fairies and the Bodhisatta was shot. “By the power of her pain Sakka’s throne became hot” and he came to her rescue as a brahmin. He then advises them to abide in “The Mountain of the Moon” and she utters this verse which I hope is romantic enough for you;-): “To the mountain let us go Where the lovely rivers flow, Rivers all o’ergrown with flowers: There for ever, while the breeze Whispers in a thousand trees, Charm with talk the happy hours.” “When the Master had ended his discourse, (on the occasion when he visited in your third reference below) he said: “Not now only, but long ago as now, she was devoted and faithful of heart to me.” Why not tell us a little more about your interest in these questions....we’d be glad to hear more feedback from you too;-) With metta, Sarah ====== --- rahula_80 wrote: > 1. The story that the winner of a millitary competition would marry > princess Yasodhara, which was won by Prince Siddhartha. > > 2. Prince Siddhartha, went to watch his wife and son, before > departing from his palace. Planned to say goodbye, but decided not to > because, afraid that if he did, he would not be able to leave them. > > 3. The story that when the Buddha came back to his birthplace. All > came to greet him except Princess Yasodhara......... 22556 From: Date: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reference(s) Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 5/31/03 9:08:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > I haven’t heard the first story and will be glad if you let me know if you > find a Theravada source for it. I have read about his skill in archery (he > could split a hair) but that’s about the closest I recall. > ..... > ========================= Lots of good archers here as well ... we also split hairs! ;-)) [Sorry, just couldn't resist!] 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) 22557 From: Sarah Date: Sat May 31, 2003 6:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reference(s) Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > ========================= > Lots of good archers here as well ... we also split hairs! ;-)) > [Sorry, just couldn't resist!] .... ;-) Perhaps there's hope for us all yet.... Sarah ===== 22558 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 31, 2003 7:34am Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Christine, Thank you for sharing the story and congratulations to your son's achievement! Your questions remind me of the discourse Majjhima Nikaya 8 Sallekha Sutta The Discourse on Effacement http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn008.html The five precepts can be perfectly observed and maintained by a lay follower without seclusion or withdrawal from society. Here is a writing by Thanissaro Bhikkhu that I like: The Healing Power of the Precepts http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/precepts.html Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Here's a story and a question or two. > > The Story: Yesterday was a wonderful day, a glorious day - even [snip] > > The Question: In reflecting on this lovely day, I note a complete > forgetfulness of distinguishing nama and rupa, there were just > people, things and stories, and a great deal of attachment and > delight. How difficult it is to tell akusala from kusala or even to > remember to do so. And at that time, there was no real > consideration of the five Precepts - or more exactly, the breaking of > the Precepts. Does the order of precepts indicate anything regarding > their relative importance, or, if broken or 'dented', the relative > severity of consequential vipaka? I note that often the five > Precepts are listed succinctly as simple, blunt training rules, but > that other times (by modern writers) they are expanded so as to > become almost unrecognisable compared to the originals, and assume > the form of complicated 'cover every situation' commandments. > Yesterday many of the Precepts were broken and akusala > accumulations were strenghtened in what others would only see as a > delightful and significant moment in an individual's and a family's > life. Yesterday, nobody was a vegetarian, nobody was a complete > teetotaller, nobody spoke without exaggeration, frivolity or > hyperbole, nobody was unattached to the joy and fellowship of the > day, the sights and sounds and rituals. [As far as I noticed, none > of the group killed anyone or was guilty of sexual misconduct over > lunch - though I don't recall the Dhamma getting a mention, except > by one surprised young lawyer wearing mala beads who said "I thought > the precept was just against getting intoxicated, not against taking > a drink" - and a few of the party took what was not given - the > single page paper menus as a souvenir, photos in an area of the Court > where it was not allowed because of tradition, and an extra half hour > of their employers' time.]. > So, how are we to live in a non-buddhist society, where what > buddhists are taught is 'wrong' is not what good people in this > society see as wrong? (having a regular drink, telling a joke, long > conversations about the theatre, music, books, the latest sensational > crimes, money making, and politics) Should there be no celebrations, > or non-dhamma discussions? How could this be managed when 99% of the > people I know are not Buddhist? I'm sure seclusion or withdrawal > from society is not a current option. > > metta and peace, > Christine > > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time 22559 From: Date: Sat May 31, 2003 10:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ditthi vs. Mana HI Rob, Larry: Btw, one dhamma that doesn't seem to have a name is subjectivity. By "subjectivity" I mean the subjectivity that is void of all objective qualities. Is consciousness the object or the subject? If subject, does it have objective qualities? ===== Rob: I don't understand. Can you express this another way to help me? L: Is there a pali word for subject as opposed to object? This ties-in to the other two ways of experiencing self: self view and conceit. Is the experience of light the object of eye consciousness or the subject of eye consciousness? Different consciousnesses function differently but the experience of that function seems to be the object. How would you characterize the subject? What is consciousness itself? I don't have any other thoughts on why opinion and conceit don't arise with the same consciousness or why conceit is deep and opinion is shallow. Larry 22560 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 31, 2003 2:52pm Subject: Subject / object Hi Larry, Gramatically, I believe that the Pali language has subjects, verbs and objects. But I don't think that this is your main point and I am sure that they all have labels as parts of speech (though I don't know what they are). In "eye-consciousness", I would say that "citta" is the subject and "visible object" is the object. Citta is defined in three ways: - Process of being aware of an object (Citta is an activity) - That which is aware of an object (Citta is an agent) - The means by which the accompanying mental factors are aware of an object (Citta is an instrument) Nyanatiloka defines "object" (arammana): There are six: visible object, sound, odor, taste, body-impression, mind-object. The mind-object (dhammarammana) may be physical or mental, past, present or future, real or imaginary. The 5 sense- objects belong to the corporeality-group (rupa-kkhandha). They form the external foundations for the sense-perceptions, and without them no sense-perception or sense-consciousness (seeing, hearing, etc.) can arise. If I understand your inquiry properly, I think the fact that citta is both "the process of being aware" and "that which is aware" is significant. Does this help? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Larry: Btw, one dhamma that doesn't seem to have a name is > subjectivity. By "subjectivity" I mean the subjectivity that is void of > all objective qualities. Is consciousness the object or the subject? If > subject, does it have objective qualities? > ===== > Rob: I don't understand. Can you express this another way to help me? > > L: Is there a pali word for subject as opposed to object? This ties-in > to the other two ways of experiencing self: self view and conceit. Is > the experience of light the object of eye consciousness or the subject > of eye consciousness? Different consciousnesses function differently but > the experience of that function seems to be the object. How would you > characterize the subject? What is consciousness itself? 22561 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 31, 2003 3:23pm Subject: Is It Wrong to be Ambitious? Hi All, Christine recently related a story and mentioned how difficult it was to be a "good" Buddhist in a secular society. Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda wrote a booklet, "Is It Wrong to be Ambitious?" which touches on this subject. I have summarized this booklet below: Advice for the Laymen ===================== Buddhism is misinterpreted and misunderstood by many people. The Buddha clearly recognized two classes of people: those who had renounced the world and those who chose to follow the life of householders. Certain precepts and observances that the Buddha prescribed are specifically meant for those who have renounced the worldly life. Some people have mixed these up with the precepts meant for householders. For those who have renounced the worldly life, there is one way to develop selfless ambition. For those who are still attached to the world as householders, there is another way. For instance, during the Buddha's time, many rich people who enjoyed their mundane pleasures approached the Buddha, and told Him that it was difficult for them to renounce the world. They had worldly commitments, family obligations and many other duties to fulfill. They requested the Buddha to lay down a suitable religious way of life for them to practice. The Buddha did not ridicule them; for He knew that not everyone was so ready to give up worldly pleasures. The Teacher who had renounced absolutely everything for His own Enlightenment knew the nature of worldly attachment. Renunciation must only be undertaken when realization appears in the mind. Otherwise, there will be feelings of disappointment or frustration. Those who make a premature renunciation may return to the lay life. So we have to wait until such realization appears in our mind. The Buddha's Advice for Householders ==================================== The first happiness atthi-sukha is to enjoy the economic security of wealth acquired by just and righteous means; the second bhoga-sukha is spending that wealth liberally on oneself, one's family, friends and relatives, and on meritorious deeds; the third anana-sukha is to be free from debts; the fourth happiness anavajja-sukha is to live a faultless and pure and blameless life committing no evil in thought, word or deed. When you come to know that you have earned something honestly, the happiness that you gain through your accumulated wealth develops confidence in the household life. Some people who go on earning and accumulating wealth neither experience happiness nor use wealth in a proper way. According to the Buddha, we can experience worldly happiness by using what we have earned in a reasonable way, following basic religious principles. It is not correct to say that Buddhists should not experience worldly happiness. Certain harmless cultural amusements and entertainments relax the mind and help reduce tension. Human emotions can be satisfied without disturbing the peace and happiness of others. Many cultural performances in Asia actually developed through the influence of Buddhism. Middle Path =========== The Buddha was a most active and energetic religious teacher. He advised people to use their skill and knowledge in their daily life. A Buddhist should not lead a lazy and easy life and blame it on Buddhism for any of his / her failures. A good Buddhist has the quality of V´riya - energy. Buddhists must constantly strive for perfection. They must not delay doing something by finding excuses like it is too hot or it is too cold. The Buddha's advice to lay people was not to go to either extremes of sensual pleasure or self- torture to practice a religion. Everyone must try to lead a happy, harmless and peaceful life. Buddhism is known as the Middle Path. You find it difficult to maintain absolute honesty, kindness and tolerance. It is also true that very few can become perfect religious persons in the household life. Your responsibilities, obligations and duties can disturb your mind. They provoke you to do certain things that go against your conscience. If you try to be a religious fanatic as a layperson, your attitude may not appeal to your family members, friends and others. If you follow Buddhist rules that are meant specifically for monks who lead a monastic life, your associates may feel embarrassed; and they may regard you as a nuisance or an eccentric. Therefore, try to lead a sensible life by observing reasonable religious principles. This is how you avoid becoming a religious fanatic. If you go to extremes, not only will people laugh at you, they will also get a wrong idea of what Buddhism teaches. If you are not fanatical, you can live and work even with other religionists. The Buddha has pointed out that you must know your limit in everything. Try to practice religious principles that are universally accepted. As lay Buddhists, your duty is to lead a normal religious life while fulfilling your family obligations. If you neglect your responsibilities towards your family, you may experience problems. Others may think of you as a useless person. You must know how to adjust your way of life to the country and society you live in without going against the important cultural and traditional practices of the majority, if they are harmless. You should also co-operate with others without behaving as if your religion is the only one that has the right to exist. Buddhism is a religion of freedom. It respects the freedom of other religions. Your commonsense and understanding are important in practicing a religion. Nature of Ambition ================== Every person entertains some kind of ambition. When we refer to the Buddha, He too had an ambition that was implanted in His mind long ago. He continued to develop that ambition, life after life, until He achieved what He wanted. But this ambition is best described as an aspiration. When we read the Buddha's discourses, we can understand how He had worked to reach the goal He aspired to. He has revealed this to us by referring to previous birth stories. He also explained the nature of the great virtues and discipline that He had to cultivate to achieve His aspiration. When we compare our ambition with the Buddha's aspiration we can see a vast difference. This is because our ambition is primarily based on desire and anxiety bound to worldly pleasure. On the other hand, the Buddha's aspiration was to free Himself from selfishness in order to serve others. We develop our ambition by disturbing another's happiness. That is how we create enormous problems and misery in this world. We are willing to do any kind of evil or wicked deed for our own pleasure. From the Buddhist point of view, this kind of selfish ambition is not justifiable. What we should constantly strive to do is to develop the higher kind of ambition by working very hard to obtain freedom, happiness and liberation from our existing worldly problems. This ambition is harmless and reasonable. However, this is not the final goal: we must not be satisfied with these temporary mundane ambitions. Our ultimate goal should be freedom from suffering - Nirvana, where all ambitions cease and the reality of existence seen. Rendering Service to Others =========================== While working for our own happiness, freedom and salvation, we have to render some service for the benefit and happiness of others. The Buddha adopted this type of aspiration with deep conviction and boundless compassion. Whilst working for His own salvation, He served others in every possible way. He continued His service to humanity by sacrificing His sensual pleasures, by cultivating all the good qualities and virtues and by eradicating evil thoughts to maintain purity in the mind. This is the way He developed His selfless ambition to gain His enlightenment. He never cultivated it for His own benefit but for the welfare and liberation of every living being. He developed boundless compassion and wisdom and expressed them by word and deed. But our ambitions, which are selfish in nature, can create much misery. Therefore, we have to learn how to direct our ambitions in such a way as to relieve the suffering of others. Such ambitions are wholesome because they contribute to the greater good of mankind. Metta, Rob M :-) 22562 From: Date: Sat May 31, 2003 3:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Subject / object Hi Rob, I did a search in the PTS Dict. for the word "subject" and found no Pali word for this particular usage as the counterpart of object (arammana). I'm not sure if this is significant of anything as the whole idea of the subject object relationship in experience is a little hazy. As subject, I would think that consciousness would not be experienced with objective qualities but experience _is_ objective qualities and I don't see how these qualities could not be consciousness. So in some sense consciousness is both subject and object with the subject part being zero object. Don't ask me to explain. It doesn't make sense to me either. Larry 22563 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat May 31, 2003 4:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Subject / object Hi Larry and Rob, If you are using the words 'subject' and 'object' as originating in any grammatical sense, then perhaps this will be of interest. Warder's 'Introduction to Pali' - "In sentences (vakya) there is usually one verb, which generally expresses an action (kiriya), and a noun, ordinarily in the nominative case, expressing the agent (kattar) who does the action. (Often there is another noun, ordinarily in the "accusative" case, expressing the patient (kamma) who or which undergoes the action.)" Word order in sentences (Pali sentences sometimes don't have a verb): agent -> attribute -> patient -> action (subject) -> (adjective) -> (object) -> (verb) vakya = sentence kiriya = action kattar = subject kamma = direct object ("patient" who undergoes the action of an active verb). Should you wish, you can go the Pali-Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary and put 'kattar' in the search engine. . http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/index.html metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Rob, > > I did a search in the PTS Dict. for the word "subject" and found no Pali > word for this particular usage as the counterpart of object (arammana). > I'm not sure if this is significant of anything as the whole idea of the > subject object relationship in experience is a little hazy. As subject, > I would think that consciousness would not be experienced with objective > qualities but experience _is_ objective qualities and I don't see how > these qualities could not be consciousness. So in some sense > consciousness is both subject and object with the subject part being > zero object. > > Don't ask me to explain. It doesn't make sense to me either. > > Larry 22564 From: Date: Sat May 31, 2003 0:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Subject / object Hi, Larry (and Rob) - In a message dated 5/31/03 6:42:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Rob, > > I did a search in the PTS Dict. for the word "subject" and found no Pali > word for this particular usage as the counterpart of object (arammana). > I'm not sure if this is significant of anything as the whole idea of the > subject object relationship in experience is a little hazy. As subject, > I would think that consciousness would not be experienced with objective > qualities but experience _is_ objective qualities and I don't see how > these qualities could not be consciousness. So in some sense > consciousness is both subject and object with the subject part being > zero object. > > Don't ask me to explain. It doesn't make sense to me either. > > Larry > > > ============================ I've been following this thread with considerable interest but little comprehension. Are you zero-ing in on the fact that when one is aware of something, one is (often) also aware of being aware? If so, it isn't entirely clear to me what the 2nd order awareness is exactly. One thought is that it is a non-dual, reflexive aspect of the current mindstate the primary function of which, of course, is to discern its object. But I tend to doubt that. I suspect that what actually happens is that one act of awareness of an object is succeeded by an awareness of the just-passed act of discernment (or better, an awareness of a "fresh memory" of that just-passed act of discernment). So what I'm saying is that when it seems we are aware of being aware, we are actually engaged in ordinary discernment of an object, but where the object is a fresh memory of the immediately preceding cognitive event. In this case, the fresh memory which is the current object of consciousness is truly an object, and not a subject, and it is the cognizing of that fresh memory that is the subject. 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) 22565 From: Date: Sat May 31, 2003 5:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Subject / object Hi Christine, "Kattar" That's the word I was looking for. It means subject, agent, doer. I didn't realize that grammar could straighten out a philosophical problem, but it did. Thanks for the tip! Larry 22566 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat May 31, 2003 6:52pm Subject: Re: Ditthi vs. Mana Hi Rob, You wrote: > An Arahant always has "right view"; akusala cittas don't even arise > for an Arahant. If you are saying that right view can only take a > paramattha dhamma as object, never a concept, then this would imply > that concepts could not arise in the mind of an Arahant. I believe > that concepts do arise in the mind of an Arahant, but unlike > worldlings, the Arahant always recognizes them as concepts. > > What do you think? When concepts are arising in the mind of an Arahant, his right view is latent, not manifest. The object of his consciousness is not a reality and so, at that moment, he can't directly see conditioned or unconditioned reality (ie., he can't have right view). All he can do is, as you say, recognize a concept as a concept (illusion). As for mana not arising with miccha-ditthi, I prefer your and Nina's explanations to mine. The two are simply different, incompatible mind states. Ken 22567 From: Date: Sat May 31, 2003 6:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Subject / object Hi Howard, I agree with your point but I was thinking something else that turned out to be wrong. I'll dice your paragraph to illustrate: H: I've been following this thread with considerable interest but little comprehension. Are you zero-ing in on the fact that when one is aware of something, one is (often) also aware of being aware? L: No. I thought that when experiencing something the experience was the object and the experiencer (consciousness) was the point of view. But actually it's the other way around. The experience is the subject and we only know the object as far as reason and our cache of other experiences will take us. When eye consciousness experiences an object it can be expressed grammatically as "yellow yellows a banana" or "like likes banana". The object cues the subject (consciousness) to manifest as experience ("knowledge"). H: If so, it isn't entirely clear to me what the 2nd order awareness is exactly. One thought is that it is a non-dual, reflexive aspect of the current mindstate the primary function of which, of course, is to discern its object. But I tend to doubt that. L: This is where I got stuck. Experience is experiential. There is something very odd about that that makes us assume an experiencer even if that experiencer is labelled "consciousness" or "reflexive awareness". As Rob pointed out consciousness is the process of knowing so the subject and the verb are the same and they are the experience. [I realize this sounds like gibberish but it makes a little sense to me.] H: I suspect that what actually happens is that one act of awareness of an object is succeeded by an awareness of the just-passed act of discernment (or better, an awareness of a "fresh memory" of that just-passed act of discernment). So what I'm saying is that when it seems we are aware of being aware, we are actually engaged in ordinary discernment of an object, but where the object is a fresh memory of the immediately preceding cognitive event. In this case, the fresh memory which is the current object of consciousness is truly an object, and not a subject, and it is the cognizing of that fresh memory that is the subject. L: I agree. This sounds like sati to me. However, I think we have to be careful of the word "object". If my above reasoning is correct then any experience is a subject and the object isn't directly known (isn't the experience). Sorry Howard. Thst's the best I could do, coherence-wise. Larry 22568 From: rahula_80 Date: Sat May 31, 2003 8:11pm Subject: Re: Reference(s) /Limerence Hi, > Why not tell us a little more about your interest in these > questions....we'd be glad to hear more feedback from you too;-) Few months ago, I fell "in love" with someone which I shoudn't. Since then, I have be doing a lot of studies into the feeling I went through. That's how I found the word "limerent" Being a Buddhist, I would like to find out everything Buddhism have to say about it eg. did the Buddha experience went through it, is it a destructive emotion, if it is, how to overcome it, since it is an involuntary reaction, do monks, Arahants and Buddha experience it etc...etc... 22569 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat May 31, 2003 10:35pm Subject: Re: Precepts Dear RobM and Christine, Rob wrote: > Examine the conditions that caused you to break a precept. > Make a mental note to watch out for those conditions in the future > and try to avoid falling into the same pattern that led you to break > a precept yesterday. Obviously, that is good advice but is it the best advice? There is no self who can learn from her mistakes and try harder in the future. But, thanks to the Buddha, there is a description of how mind states come and go by conditions. An understanding of that description, is the most potent condition for kusala states to arise now and in the future. Sorry to be nit-picking, but we must remember that the Middle Way is like no other:-) Kind regards, Ken H 22570 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 31, 2003 11:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Howard Thanks very much for bringing this up. Yes, you are quite correct about the references to the body, and not only in the instance(s) you give but also, for example, in the Satipatthana Sutta and elsewhere throughout the suttas. However, as can be seen from the commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta, reference to the body is to be understood as reference to all rupas, the whole of rupa-khandha. The body simply represents the most important and clung-to rupas of them all for everyone. Another example of conventional discourse, ultimate meaning (as I see it). Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/25/03 8:00:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > jonoabb@y... writes: > > > > > To elaborate, I am not aware of any instance in the suttas where > the > > characteristic of impermanence is attributed to conventional > objects > > such as mountains, as suggested by the author. To my knowledge, > the > > 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are only discussed in > the > > context of the five aggregates, the sense-bases, the elements > etc, > > these being different ways of classifying the same fundamental > > phenomena that underlie the world as we know it. > > > ============================= > How about the body? That's a conventional object. In the > Gela~n~na > Sutta, available at the following web site, the Buddha states "And > this body, indeed, is impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen". ... > Also there is the following, obviously with regard to the > body ... > The born, become, produced, > > made, fabricated, impermanent, > > composed of aging & death, > > a nest of illnesses, perishing, > > come from nourishment > > and the guide [that is craving] -- > > is unfit for delight. 22571 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 31, 2003 11:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities (archery corner) Howard As I think we've agreed previously, a thought is something that is *conceived of* (or 'created') by mind-door consciousness of the kind we call thinking. Absent the consciousness that thinks, there can be no thought. There is no sense in which it can be said that a thought has any existence independent of the consciousness of which it is the object -- the very idea is anomalous. By contrast, however, the objects of the senes-door consciousness are *experienced by* (not conceived of or created by) the sense-door consciousness, the consciousness we call seeing, hearing, etc. Absent sense-door consciousness, rupas that could otherwise constitute sense-door objects still arise in this plane of existence or, at the very least, the possibility that they do so is not conceptually anomalous and cannot be discounted. So while the model of 'object arising and being experienced by consciousness' fits for sense-door objects and consciousness, it's perhaps not a particularly apt description for thoughts and thinking. That's how I see it anyway, based on my reading of the commentaries and the Abhidhamma. The further comments that follow (interspersed) reflect a similar analysis. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - H: I see the following going on during "thinking": A thought arises as an object of awareness. The thought is the objective pole of the thinking event, the awareness of the thought is the subjective pole, the two are mutually dependent but distinguishable. J: You mention the idea of a thought *arising as an object* of awareness/thinking. For reasons just explained, I see it more as a case of thinking arising and having as its object a thought that is conceived of by that thinking. For example, thinking that is accompanied by attachment will have as object thoughts of desirable things, and so on; when attachment has been eradicated, no more daydreaming about being at the beach instead of at work. H: The content of consciousness is certainly a part of the nature of that consciousness. Think, for example, of the Buddha's distinguishing eye consciousness from ear consciousness. The sort of object is a critical aspect of the consciousness of that object. Likewise, mental consciousness/thinking is conditioned by its objects. Thinking of light is different from thinking of darkness, and has different effect. J: As between the thought and the moment of thinking consciousness of which the thought is object, it is the thought that is conditioned by the thinking, not the other way around. By definition, a thought could not condition the very moment of consciousness by which the thought is conceived of or 'brought to mind'. Insofar as a thought takes its nature from the moment of consciousness of which it is the object, the relationship between thoughts and thinking is quite different from the relationship between the sense-door object and consciousness. There, the sense-door object has its own nature and independent existence, which is in no way determined by the 'quality' of the experiencing consciousness (although there must of course be congruence between the 2 as regards the kusala/akusala nature of the vipaka moment). In the case of sense-door experiences, both the consciousness and the rupa that is to become the sense-door object are said to *arise*, so that there are 2 *arisen dhammas* each having its own nature. In the case of (mind-door) thinking, the consciousness arises and conceives of the thought (which is otherwise not to be found), so that there is only 1 arisen dhamma having its own nature. H: Are you saying, Jon, that there actually do not arise directly apprehended, elementary thoughts that are to the mind door what images are to the eye door, sounds are to the ear door, and hardness is to the body door? J: The similarity between mind-door and sense-door objects ends with the fact that both are objects of the corresponding consciousness. There are no 'elementary thoughts' to *arise* and *be apprehended*, since all thoughts are purely a creation of the moment of consciousness of which they are object (although that moment of consciousness is of course itself conditioned by other, mainly preceding, factors). H: Thoughts arise at the mind door just as images at the eye door etc, and it is the thoughts that arise, and that we take seriously, that constitute the scaffolding of this house we build and rebuild for ourselves whose rafters need to be shattered in order for us to become free. J: You are referring to wrong view, I think. Consciousness that is accompanied by wrong view thinks thoughts that are 'wrong', i.e., not in accordance with the way things actually are. It is the consciousness that arises at the mind door. That consciousness must arise in order for the thought to be conceived of and thus become the object of that consciousness. Thoughts can be said to 'arise at the mind-door' only in the sense that they are the object of consciousness that arises at the mind door (advanced archery corner here ;-)) H: We don't need to stop our thinking, i.e., stop the flow of thoughts and co-occurring awareness of them ... J: You equate thinking with a 'flow of thoughts of which thinking consciousness is aware' (I hope I'm not misreading you here, Howard). But thinking is just thinking, a kind of consciousness that has thoughts (images) as its object. 'Flow of thoughts' is how it seems to us; but like so much else of what seems to be the way things are to us, the teachings tell us that the reality ('flow of thinking' only) is otherwise. Jon 22572 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 2:43am Subject: Re: Precepts Hi RobM, Victor, James, KenH, and All, I took a copy of my original post and the replies (except KenH's which I hadn't yet seen) to a small Buddhist discussion group this afternoon. Everyone agreed on the importance of Sila and the fact that all three 'legs' of of buddhist practice must be in evidence and in balance. RobM: Thank you for your advice - on reflection, I see that one should never be complacent about sila - unusual circumstances that undermind restraint can pop up at any time. I'm not sure I agree about lying being the most difficult precept to keep - this caused some discussion this afternoon. Some thought that an alcoholic may find the precept against intoxicating drugs to be the hardest, others thought it depended upon accumulations in general. Generally, people were concerned about other aspects of the Precept concerning Speech. This group ('the first Sunday of the month mob') wondered where it actually says that frivolous speech breaks the precept. And there were varying ideas on what frivolous speech actually is... They felt that more good comes out of what others (me :-)) might see as their frivolous speech, i.e. friendly supportive teasing, ironic understated humour, which creates lasting bonds. (Todays group included some of the Aussie blokes who also go to Cooran.) Victor: Thank you for your links. I printed Thanissaro's article 'The Healing Power of the Precepts' and they all took a copy. We had a stimulating discussion - particularly about the two kinds of denial when we don't measure up to certain standards of behaviour. [We all knew 'someone else' who fitted the description. :-)] The paragraphs about the Precepts being practical, clear-cut, humane, and worthy of respect, met with approval. One of the group, Klaas who is over eighty years of age, and is a volunteer lecturer in The University of the Third Age, intends to include some of the ideas and expressions in his next set of introductory talks. He liked the article. :-) James: :-) Thanks for your kind words :-) KenH: I don't disagree with your words - "there is a description of how mind states come and go by conditions. An understanding of that description, is the most potent condition for kusala states to arise now and in the future." BUT I still don't see how that is any different to other forms of practice (sitting meditation, keeping sila). Who is it that understands, and how do they go about gaining understanding? It reminds me of the question that I asked at Cooran .... "How are we to live an 'examined life if there is no-self, no-control?' Even 'listening to the true dhamma, reflecting ... discussing with Admirable friends ... and practising in accordance with the true Dhamma, seems to imply 'someone' who can have 'some control' and 'the ability to choose, plan and do' to some extent." metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Dear RobM and Christine, > > Rob wrote: > > Examine the conditions that caused you to break a precept. > > Make a mental note to watch out for those conditions in the future > > and try to avoid falling into the same pattern that led you to > break > > a precept yesterday. > > > Obviously, that is good advice but is it the best advice? > There is no self who can learn from her mistakes and try > harder in the future. But, thanks to the Buddha, there > is a description of how mind states come and go by > conditions. An understanding of that description, is > the most potent condition for kusala states to arise now > and in the future. > > Sorry to be nit-picking, but we must remember that the > Middle Way is like no other:-) > > Kind regards, > Ken H 22573 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 3:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pain As A Signal ( 05 ) Dear Larry, Thank you very much for your reply letter.I am going to deal with pains more and finally I will try to relate pains with Abhidhamma and practice. Yours sincerely, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Htoo, > Your series on pain prompted me to try to identify the various kinds of > pain I experienced today as they arose. Many > people have trouble sleeping at night because of the pain of worry. And > then there was Christine's pain of compassion. All very interesting. > > Larry 22574 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 4:02am Subject: Pain As A Signal (06) Dear Dhamma Friends, Pain is not a permanent one like other dhammas.It is a signal.Let's try to focus on pain.You all had once pains in your lives.Among them some will be the worst until worse one arises.The worst will be perimortem pains(????). Now go back to your pain in the past or if you already have a pain now,focus on that pain.Depending on the type of pain it may be intermittent or interrupted or continual or continuous.But consciousness on that pain is not continuous. The mind in pain is interrupted by other mind.Anyway,now look into that pain.It arises.You know it arises.Thing that arise is pain that is Tejo-Phothabba-Arammana mixed with Vayo-Phothabba-Arammana.The real thing that became realised the pain at that moment is Kayavinnanacitta(possibly Ahetuka Akusala Vipaka Citta). With continous attention and concentration at that pain,pain will be seen(realized) as some form form of wave that carries heat.The heat is wandering about here and there inside of the body concerned.What we need to do is just follow what happens next and putting the mind on the present moment of pain. The signal,pain will be finally seen as a separate entity.When pain is separated what left is consciousness or Citta.These two are discriminated by a clear dividing line.When this happens,the practitioner will gain something related to Vipassana-Nana. May you all be able to practice on Vedananupassana-Satipathana and tolerate all sorts of pains. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 22575 From: robmoult Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 5:52am Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > RobM: Thank you for your advice - on reflection, I see that one > should never be complacent about sila - unusual circumstances that > undermind restraint can pop up at any time. I'm not sure I agree > about lying being the most difficult precept to keep - this caused > some discussion this afternoon. Some thought that an alcoholic may > find the precept against intoxicating drugs to be the hardest, others > thought it depended upon accumulations in general. Generally, people > were concerned about other aspects of the Precept concerning Speech. > This group ('the first Sunday of the month mob') wondered where it > actually says that frivolous speech breaks the precept. And there > were varying ideas on what frivolous speech actually is... They felt > that more good comes out of what others (me :-)) might see as their > frivolous speech, i.e. friendly supportive teasing, ironic > understated humour, which creates lasting bonds. (Todays group > included some of the Aussie blokes who also go to Cooran.) I agree that which precept is most difficult to keep depends on one's accumulations. I have been a tea-totaler for twenty years and I am a faithful husband, so for me it is lying that is the toughest to keep. "Frivolous speech" is akusala kamma patha, one of the ten unwholesome deeds that can lead to rebirth in a woeful states but "Frivolous speech" is not one of the five precepts, nor is it one of the eight precepts which are only kept on holy days. Eliminating "frivolous speech" is part of the path factor of "Right Speech". "Frivolous speech" is not uprooted until one becomes an Arahant. The definition of "frivolous speech" that arises in the Suttas is, "tiracchana-katha: 'low talk', lit. 'beastly talk', is the name in the sutta-texts for the following: "Talk about kings and robbers, ministers and armies, danger and war, eating and drinking, clothes and dwellings, garlands and scents, relations, chariots, villages and markets, towns and districts, women and heroes, street talks, talks by the well, talk about those departed in days gone by, tittle- tattle, talks about world and sea, about gain and loss." Obviously, laypeople cannot avoid "frivolous speech". Hope that this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) 22576 From: robmoult Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 6:06am Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Ken, The Buddha very often gave exhortations using conventional terms: - "Strive on with diligence" - "Avoid evil, do good, purify the mind" There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of similar examples in the Suttas. I will do some checking, but I think that the Buddha even used this type of language when talking to those who had already attained the level of Sotapanna and had eliminated self-view. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Dear RobM and Christine, > > Rob wrote: > > Examine the conditions that caused you to break a precept. > > Make a mental note to watch out for those conditions in the future > > and try to avoid falling into the same pattern that led you to > break > > a precept yesterday. > > > Obviously, that is good advice but is it the best advice? > There is no self who can learn from her mistakes and try > harder in the future. But, thanks to the Buddha, there > is a description of how mind states come and go by > conditions. An understanding of that description, is > the most potent condition for kusala states to arise now > and in the future. > > Sorry to be nit-picking, but we must remember that the > Middle Way is like no other:-) > > Kind regards, > Ken H 22577 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 2:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Subject / object Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/31/03 9:55:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > H: I suspect that what actually happens is that one act of awareness of > an object is succeeded by an awareness of the just-passed act of > discernment (or better, an awareness of a "fresh memory" of that > just-passed act of discernment). So what I'm saying is that when it > seems we are aware of being aware, we are actually engaged in ordinary > discernment of an object, but where the object is a fresh memory of the > immediately preceding cognitive event. In this case, the fresh memory > which is the current object of consciousness is truly an object, and not > a subject, and it is the cognizing of that fresh memory that is the > subject. > > L: I agree. This sounds like sati to me. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: No, it isn't sati per se, though some degree of sati must be involved. (I think I may have thrown matters off by using the word 'discernment' here, which I like as a translation of 'vi~n~nana' in preference to 'consciousness', the latter having a "substance flavor" to it, I think, as opposed to a function/event flavor.) ----------------------------------------------- However, I think we have to be> > careful of the word "object". If my above reasoning is correct then any > experience is a subject and the object isn't directly known (isn't the > experience). ----------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I think that when there is an experience, there is an object that is known, and, in fact, it is that object, not the experiencing, which is what is known. I view the matter as follows. On any occasion, there is a single cognitive event (let us leave this nameless) which has two mutually dependent aspects to it, neither of which ever occurs without the other: 1) the subjective aspect which is the visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, gustatory, or mental being-aware-of the object (the discerning of the object), and 2) the objective aspect which is the image, sound, smell, bodily sensation, or thought being discerned. When there is awareness of awareness, as I see it, that is the case of a single cognitive event in which the subjective aspect is a mind-door discernment (mano-vi~n~nana) whose object is a fresh memory of the just passed cognitive event. ---------------------------------------------------- > > Sorry Howard. Thst's the best I could do, coherence-wise. > > Larry > ============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22578 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 2:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi, Jon - In a message dated 6/1/03 2:16:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > Thanks very much for bringing this up. Yes, you are quite correct > about the references to the body, and not only in the instance(s) you > give but also, for example, in the Satipatthana Sutta and elsewhere > throughout the suttas. > > However, as can be seen from the commentary to the Satipatthana > Sutta, reference to the body is to be understood as reference to all > rupas, the whole of rupa-khandha. The body simply represents the > most important and clung-to rupas of them all for everyone. > > Another example of conventional discourse, ultimate meaning (as I see > it). > > Jon > =============================== I agree that there is a difference between conventional speech and speech referring to "primaries". I also agree that references to impermanence etc with respect to conventional objects are derivative matters. But, so long as one is dealing with speech only, as opposed to direct "seeing", it may be just as worthwhile for worldlings (and perhaps even those not yet non-returners) to be made aware of the tilakkhana in conventional objects, because these are what they are most readily aware of. Much of the teaching of the tilakkhana the Buddha gave as recorded in the sutta pitaka pertains to conventional objects, and even when he was teaching in his discourses with regard to elements of the khandhas, he did it in a conventional manner, avoiding the techno-speak of the Abhidhamma. (For those bhikkhus who had gone far in meditative investigation of dhammas, no doubt more technical detail was given as appropriate to their stage of development.) But I do not believe that when the Buddha taught about the impermanence of the body or about how one loses what (and whom) one loves, that he was "really" referring to rupas etc. There is, of course, no doubt that the Buddha knew what the reality of things was, but, from my perspective, he was teaching his bhikkhu and lay followers exactly as he wanted them to understand and as was suitable for them to understand at their stage. ================================ With metta, Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > > > >In a message dated 5/25/03 8:00:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >jonoabb@y... writes: > > > >> > >>To elaborate, I am not aware of any instance in the suttas where > >the > >>characteristic of impermanence is attributed to conventional > >objects > >>such as mountains, as suggested by the author. To my knowledge, > >the > >>3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are only discussed in > >the > >>context of the five aggregates, the sense-bases, the elements > >etc, > >>these being different ways of classifying the same fundamental > >>phenomena that underlie the world as we know it. > >> > >============================= > > How about the body? That's a conventional object. In the > >Gela~n~na > >Sutta, available at the following web site, the Buddha states "And > >this body, indeed, is impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen". > > ... > > Also there is the following, obviously with regard to the > >body ... > >The born, become, produced, > >>made, fabricated, impermanent, > >>composed of aging &death, > >>a nest of illnesses, perishing, > >>come from nourishment > >>and the guide [that is craving] -- > >> is unfit for delight. > > /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) 22579 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 3:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities (archery corner) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 6/1/03 2:25:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > As I think we've agreed previously, a thought is something that is > *conceived of* (or 'created') by mind-door consciousness of the kind > we call thinking. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that thoughts are mind-constructed. I think it doubtful that a thought is created by the act of awareness that is currently discerning the thought. There must a constructive mental *process* that creates the thought and presents it for conscious discernment. ---------------------------------------------------- > > Absent the consciousness that thinks, there can be no thought. There > is no sense in which it can be said that a thought has any existence > independent of the consciousness of which it is the object -- the > very idea is anomalous. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is also no hardness without an act of consciousness discerning it. And both are, ultimately, kamma vipaka. The difference is that specific thought-constructing activities are involved in the creation of thoughts that are not involved in the creation of other sorts of sense-door objects. Another critical difference is that those mental objects that are percepts (the percept of 'the tree is see right now through my den window') and that are concepts (the concept of 'tree') seem to *refer*. They seem to point to something, some conventional object or class of objects, beyond themselves. But the objects of other sense doors lack such referential aspect - they do not point beyond themselves. They are direct. In the seeing there is just the seeing, in the hearing just the hearing, etc. It is mind that projects. ----------------------------------------------------- > > By contrast, however, the objects of the senes-door consciousness are > *experienced by* (not conceived of or created by) the sense-door > consciousness, the consciousness we call seeing, hearing, etc. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: But they are kamma-created, which ultimately means they are cetana-created. But, yes, they are not mental constructs in the same way that thoughts are. ------------------------------------------------------ > > Absent sense-door consciousness, rupas that could otherwise > constitute sense-door objects still arise in this plane of existence > or, at the very least, the possibility that they do so is not > conceptually anomalous and cannot be discounted. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: What exists beyond experience is, per force, unknowable. We cannot presume or deny the existence, for example, of experience-independent hardness. I doubt its existence, but I do not know one way or the other. ------------------------------------------------------ > > So while the model of 'object arising and being experienced by > consciousness' fits for sense-door objects and consciousness, it's > perhaps not a particularly apt description for thoughts and thinking. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think the model still applies quite well. The distinction to be made, I think, lies in the area of the machinery involved in *creation* of arammana at the mind door vs the other sense doors. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > That's how I see it anyway, based on my reading of the commentaries > and the Abhidhamma. The further comments that follow (interspersed) > reflect a similar analysis. > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > > H: I see the following going on during "thinking": A thought arises > as an object of awareness. The thought is the objective pole of the > thinking event, the awareness of the thought is the subjective pole, > the two are mutually dependent but distinguishable. > > J: You mention the idea of a thought *arising as an object* of > awareness/thinking. For reasons just explained, I see it more as a > case of thinking arising and having as its object a thought that is > conceived of by that thinking. For example, thinking that is > accompanied by attachment will have as object thoughts of desirable > things, and so on; when attachment has been eradicated, no more > daydreaming about being at the beach instead of at work. > > H: The content of consciousness is certainly a part of the nature of > that consciousness. Think, for example, of the Buddha's > distinguishing eye consciousness from ear consciousness. The sort of > object is a critical aspect of the consciousness of that object. > Likewise, mental consciousness/thinking is conditioned by its > objects. Thinking of light is different from thinking of darkness, > and has different effect. > > J: As between the thought and the moment of thinking consciousness > of which the thought is object, it is the thought that is conditioned > by the thinking, not the other way around. By definition, a thought > could not condition the very moment of consciousness by which the > thought is conceived of or 'brought to mind'. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: As I see it, the awareness of a thought is the last step in a process of thought creation, most of which is unconscious. We are fooled, I think, into thinking that we, for the most part, consciously create our thoughts. What I think is the case is that for the most part they are unconsciousl constructed and then, finally, though not always, presented to awareness. --------------------------------------------------------- > > Insofar as a thought takes its nature from the moment of > consciousness of which it is the object, the relationship between > thoughts and thinking is quite different from the relationship > between the sense-door object and consciousness. There, the > sense-door object has its own nature and independent existence, which > is in no way determined by the 'quality' of the experiencing > consciousness (although there must of course be congruence between > the 2 as regards the kusala/akusala nature of the vipaka moment). > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's just not so, Jon. Our state of mind dramatically effects what we observe and how it appears. This is well known, and, I think, quite evident. ---------------------------------------------------- > > In the case of sense-door experiences, both the consciousness and the > rupa that is to become the sense-door object are said to *arise*, so > that there are 2 *arisen dhammas* each having its own nature. In the > case of (mind-door) thinking, the consciousness arises and conceives > of the thought (which is otherwise not to be found), so that there is > only 1 arisen dhamma having its own nature. > > H: Are you saying, Jon, that there actually do not arise directly > apprehended, elementary thoughts that are to the mind door what > images are to the eye door, sounds are to the ear door, and hardness > is to the body door? > > J: The similarity between mind-door and sense-door objects ends with > the fact that both are objects of the corresponding consciousness. > There are no 'elementary thoughts' to *arise* and *be apprehended*, > since all thoughts are purely a creation of the moment of > consciousness of which they are object (although that moment of > consciousness is of course itself conditioned by other, mainly > preceding, factors). > > H: Thoughts arise at the mind door just as images at the eye door > etc, and it is the thoughts that arise, and that we take seriously, > that constitute the scaffolding of this house we build and rebuild > for ourselves whose rafters need to be shattered in order for us to > become free. > > J: You are referring to wrong view, I think. Consciousness that is > accompanied by wrong view thinks thoughts that are 'wrong', i.e., > not in accordance with the way things actually are. It is the > consciousness that arises at the mind door. That consciousness must > arise in order for the thought to be conceived of and thus become the > object of that consciousness. Thoughts can be said to 'arise at the > mind-door' only in the sense that they are the object of > consciousness that arises at the mind door (advanced archery corner > here ;-)) > > H: We don't need to stop our thinking, i.e., stop the flow of > thoughts and co-occurring awareness of them ... > > J: You equate thinking with a 'flow of thoughts of which thinking > consciousness is aware' (I hope I'm not misreading you here, Howard). > But thinking is just thinking, a kind of consciousness that has > thoughts (images) as its object. 'Flow of thoughts' is how it seems > to us; but like so much else of what seems to be the way things are > to us, the teachings tell us that the reality ('flow of thinking' > only) is otherwise. > > 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) 22580 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 11:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Cetasikas in Lobha-mula Cittas - Please comment Dear Rob M, I really appreciate your post on lobha-mula-citta. I do not want to be hairsplitting, but there is just a passage on sitting as a purpose. I think your purpose is not sitting. As you say, results do not come from desire for results. Nina. op 31-05-2003 01:59 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > - When we meditate, we can have a desire for results and this > attachment to results may inhibit progress; the purpose of > meditating is to sit, results come from proper practice, not from a > desire for results 22581 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 11:29am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Jacang, Ch 3, no 4 Abhidhamma in Kraeng Jacang, Ch 3, no 4 Some people may select the objects of sati and pañña, but this will not lead to the goal. We read in the Scriptures what the objects of sati and pañña are. We read in the "Path of Discrimination", I, Treatise on Knowledge, Ch 1: All: "Bhikkhus, all is to be directly known. And what is that all that is to be directly known? ...² Then twohundred and one dhammas are summed up and among them are the following: ³Materiality, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness, is to be directly known...Craving for visible objects, sounds...odours...flavours...tangible objects..ideas is to be directly known." Lobha is the second noble Truth, craving that is the origination of dukkha. Lobha has to be known. When? Now, when it appears. Lobha is difficult to detect because it can be very subtle. When it is not subtle but more intense it may happen that we do not want to know it. But it is reality and if there is no awareness, it cannot be realized as non-self. If one tries to suppress akusala, how can it be known as it is? ³The all² should be known, there is no exception. Even the tendency to suppress akusala should be known: it is a conditioned nåma. We read in the "Kindred Sayings" (IV, Salåyatanavagga, Second Fifty, Ch 2, § 70: Then the venerable Upavåna came to see the Exalted One:- " 'Of immediate use is the Norm (Dhamma)! Of immediate use is the Norm!' is the saying, lord. Pray, lord, to what extent is the Norm of immediate use, apart from time, bidding one come and see, leading on (to the Goal), to be experienced, each for himself, by the wise?" "Now here (under my teaching), Upavåna, when a brother sees an object with the eye, he experiences objects, conceives a passion for objects, and of that passion for objects which exists for him personally he is aware, 'I have personally a passion for objects.'..." The same is said with regard to the other doorways. The Buddha then explained that when there is no desire for objects, one is aware of the absence of desire. Realizing akusala as only a conditioned nama is most helpful. We should not have aversion on account of it; when we have aversion, we have even more akusala. At the moment of awareness the citta is kusala. We should not avoid to know akusala. If one avoids knowing it, this causes delusion. Delusion is dangerous, it causes one to believe that one has no tendencies to akusala, that one is a righteous person. Even when we have only begun to develop sati and pañña, it is beneficial to be aware of akusala. When we see akusala as a conditioned reality, we shall also understand other people when they say disagreeable things or commit bad actions. The cittas which motivate speech and action arise because of accumulated tendencies, and they have fallen away already when we are thinking about them. When we have more understanding of realities it will be easier to forgive. 22582 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 11:29am Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 12 Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 12 If we want to relinquish defilements, if we have determination for relinquishment (cågåditthåna) with regard to síla, our conduct in action and speech, we have to guard the faculties of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind-door in daily life. Kusala citta is completely different from akusala citta: when akusala citta arises, the faculties of the senses and the mind-door are involved with akusala which is not beautiful. Whereas when kusala citta arises, the faculties are well guarded, they are involved with kusala, which is beautiful. When the eye-door is not well guarded, this will result in seeing wrongly and understanding wrongly, and hence there will be more trouble and disturbance in our life. We can also see in daily life the consequences of not being heedful as to the faculty of the ear. We cannot avoid hearing senseless words very often, but when we are heedful as to the faculty of the ear we do not pay attention to such words. We should know for ourselves when sati-sampajañña arises which is heedful or when we are not heedful. There can also be heedfulness with regard to the faculty of the nose. Then we are not infatuated with enticing odours, we do not cling to them, or strive to experience them, and we are not disturbed by them. Some people cling to the fragrance of flowers, and if they try to experience ever more of such odours, it leads to distress. When one has developed heedfulness of the sense faculties, all anxiety will gradually decrease. When we are heedful with regard to the bodysense, we shall not be meddlesome, jesting, ridiculing others and be reckless in conduct, we shall not molest or harm others. When we are heedful with regard to the mind, we are not worried and preoccupied, we do not think about things that make us unhappy. Some people seem to be happy in appearance, but in reality they are worried all the time. If they would know that at such moments there are akusala cittas, they would not give in to their worries and make themselves unhappy. They would not think of matters that would cause them to be angry with others, that would cause them to be jealous or to have conceit. If they could consider themselves a dustrag [5] they would be able to guard the faculties of the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, and the bodysense, and they would be able to abandon defilements. This is the determination for relinquishment. Footnote: 5. We read in the ³Gradual Sayings² (IV), Book of the Nines, Ch 2, §1, that a monk falsely accused Såriputta, but that Såriputta felt no ill-will. He compared himself with a duster that wipes up everything, clean and foul, but that is not filled with disgust. He said to the Buddha: ³Even so lord, like a duster, I abide with heart, large, abundant, measureless, feeling no hatred, nor ill-will...² 22583 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 8:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Jacang, Ch 3, no 4 Hi, Nina - In a message dated 6/1/03 2:30:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Abhidhamma in Kraeng Jacang, Ch 3, no 4 > > Some people may select the objects of sati and pañña, but this will not lead > to the goal. We read in the Scriptures what the objects of sati and pañña > are. We read in the "Path of Discrimination", I, Treatise on Knowledge, Ch > 1: All: > "Bhikkhus, all is to be directly known. And what is that all that is to be > directly known? ...² > Then twohundred and one dhammas are summed up and among them are the > following: > ³Materiality, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness, is to be > directly known...Craving for visible objects, > sounds...odours...flavours...tangible objects..ideas is to be directly > known." > Lobha is the second noble Truth, craving that is the origination of dukkha. > Lobha has to be known. When? Now, when it appears. Lobha is difficult to > detect because it can be very subtle. When it is not subtle but more intense > it may happen that we do not want to know it. But it is reality and if there > is no awareness, it cannot be realized as non-self. If one tries to suppress > akusala, how can it be known as it is? ³The all² should be known, there is > no exception. Even the tendency to suppress akusala should be known: it is a > conditioned nåma. > We read in the "Kindred Sayings" (IV, Salåyatanavagga, Second Fifty, Ch 2, § > 70: > > Then the venerable Upavåna came to see the Exalted One:- " 'Of immediate use > is the Norm (Dhamma)! Of immediate use is the Norm!' is the saying, lord. > Pray, lord, to what extent is the Norm of immediate use, apart from time, > bidding one come and see, leading on (to the Goal), to be experienced, each > for himself, by the wise?" > "Now here (under my teaching), Upavåna, when a brother sees an object with > the eye, he experiences objects, conceives a passion for objects, and of > that passion for objects which exists for him personally he is aware, 'I > have personally a passion for objects.'..." > The same is said with regard to the other doorways. > The Buddha then explained that when there is no desire for objects, one is > aware of the absence of desire. > > Realizing akusala as only a conditioned nama is most helpful. We should not > have aversion on account of it; when we have aversion, we have even more > akusala. At the moment of awareness the citta is kusala. We should not avoid > to know akusala. If one avoids knowing it, this causes delusion. Delusion is > dangerous, it causes one to believe that one has no tendencies to akusala, > that one is a righteous person. > Even when we have only begun to develop sati and pañña, it is beneficial to > be aware of akusala. When we see akusala as a conditioned reality, we shall > also understand other people when they say disagreeable things or commit bad > actions. The cittas which motivate speech and action arise because of > accumulated tendencies, and they have fallen away already when we are > thinking about them. When we have more understanding of realities it will be > easier to > forgive. > ============================= The point made in the quotation from the Path of Discrimination may well be a valid one, but I doubt it. I think that for liberating insight into the tilakkhana to arise, it needn't arise with regard to every single, individual conditioned dhamma. With Blake, I think it suffices to see the universe in a grain of sand. The direct seeing of impermanence etc at the ultimate level of experience, even once, is transformative. Also, I have some reservations with regard to the Path of Discrimination as a primary source. As I understand it, it was incorporated into the Khuddhaka Nikaya rather late,and might well be more of a commentarial work than direct Buddha Word. I say this despite my looking favorably on comments made in it with respect to the notion of 'sabhava'. 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) 22584 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 9:03am Subject: The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi, all - The word 'tilakkhana' literally means "three characteristics," but I see them as absences. I see their assertion as stating that nothing in this world remains, nor satisfies (perfectly), nor is personal, substantial, or self-sufficient. Comments anyone? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22585 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 1:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi Howard, I have a problem with saying nothing is personal insofar as the khandhas are said to be personalty. "Impersonal desire" doesn't sound quite right to me. Larry ------------------ Howard wrote: Hi, all - The word 'tilakkhana' literally means "three characteristics," but I see them as absences. I see their assertion as stating that nothing in this world remains, nor satisfies (perfectly), nor is personal, substantial, or self-sufficient. Comments anyone? With metta, Howard 22586 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 9:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/1/03 4:36:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I have a problem with saying nothing is personal insofar as the khandhas > are said to be personalty. "Impersonal desire" doesn't sound quite right > to me. > > Larry > ======================== "Impersonal" is a translation for 'anatta'. To be personal means to be a self, to belong to a self, or to pertain to a self. But there is no self. Thus, all(conditioned) dhammas are impersonal. 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) 22587 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 2:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Limerence Hi Rahula, I looked-up "love" in the PTS Dictionary and found several potential candidates for romantic love, but I couldn't locate any of the textual references. Here's the page: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/index.html Enter love in the third box down. As to your questions: Hi, See http://gost.isi.edu/brian/elbows/limerence.html 1. How to overcome limerence (romantic love)? If anyone need more information, please email me (rahula_80@y...) Larry: The Buddha's standard antidote for "lust and delight" is contemplation of impermanence and/or ugliness. 2. Did the Buddha address the issue of limerence? Well, if yes, what did he say? could you also provide the reference(s) Larry: See above PTS ref. I couldn't find anything in my resources. 3. What is your opinion of limerence, as a Buddhist and as a human? (answer this only if you have experienced limerence) Larry: It's pure hell but I would defiitely recommend it. I am a little uneasy with considering it as evil and unwholesome. For one thing metta and mudita are not far away and I think piti might figure into this somehow. Also there is the slight possibility it may turn into a blissful, limerent, union that produces little baby buddhists. Larry ps: try not to do anything really stupid 22588 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 2:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi Howard,Larry, all, Howard, did you mean that only all conditioned things are anatta, impersonal, soulless? What about: sabbe sankhara anicca: all conditioned things are transient sabbe sankhara dukkha: all conditioned things are sorrowful sabbe dhamma anatta: all things, conditioned and non-conditioned, are impersonal, soulless metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry - > > In a message dated 6/1/03 4:36:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... > writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > I have a problem with saying nothing is personal insofar as the khandhas > > are said to be personalty. "Impersonal desire" doesn't sound quite right > > to me. > > > > Larry > > > ======================== > "Impersonal" is a translation for 'anatta'. To be personal means to be > a self, to belong to a self, or to pertain to a self. But there is no self. > Thus, all(conditioned) dhammas are impersonal. > > With metta, > Howard 22589 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 2:38pm Subject: Re: Precepts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > I took a copy of my original post and the replies (except KenH's > which I hadn't yet seen) to a small Buddhist discussion group this > afternoon. Everyone agreed on the importance of Sila and the fact > that all three 'legs' of of buddhist practice must be in evidence and > in balance. > _______ Dear Christine, When we are concerned that sila be in evidence and in balance what are the dhammas at that moment. Is there genuine understanding that simply sees that at this moment there is sila. Or is there a degree of conceit that is happy that now sila is evident. Or is there worry that it is not so evident. Or is there a subtle clinging to the idea of me having sila. Nina quoted "Kindred Sayings" (IV, Salåyatanavagga, Second Fifty, Ch 2, § 70: Then the venerable Upavåna came to see the Exalted One:- " 'Of immediate use is the Norm (Dhamma)! Of immediate use is the Norm!' is the saying, lord. Pray, lord, to what extent is the Norm of immediate use, apart from time, bidding one come and see, leading on (to the Goal), to be experienced, each for himself, by the wise?" "Now here (under my teaching), Upavåna, when a brother sees an object with the eye, he experiences objects, conceives a passion for objects, and of that passion for objects which exists for him personally he is aware, 'I have personally a passion for objects.'..." Are we as keen as those monks in the Buddha's time who really investigated the present moment including 'passion'. If not there won't be understanding of the anattaness of all dhammas. > > KenH: I don't disagree with your words - "there > is a description of how mind states come and go by > conditions. An understanding of that description, is > the most potent condition for kusala states to arise now > and in the future." > Christine: BUT I still don't see how that is any different to other forms of > practice (sitting meditation, keeping sila). Who is it that > understands, and how do they go about gaining understanding? It > reminds me of the question that I asked at Cooran .... > "How are we to > live an 'examined life if there is no-self, no-control?' > Even 'listening to the true dhamma, reflecting ... discussing with > Admirable friends ... and practising in accordance with the true > Dhamma, seems to imply 'someone' who can have 'some control' and 'the > ability to choose, plan and do' to some extent." > ______________ You ask "who is it that understands"? This reminds me of the questions asked by venerable Moliyaphagunna (Samyuttanikaya Nidana Moliyaphagguna p541 bodhi) "'With the six bases (salayatana)as condition contact comes to be'. Ven. Moliyaphagguna: 'Venerable sir, who feels?' Buddha: 'I do not say 'One makes contact'. If I should say 'One makes contact' in that case this would be a valid question.....In this case the valid answer is 'With the six sense bases as condition, contact [comes to be]; with contact as condition feeling'. Moliyaphagguna: 'venerable sir, who craves?. Buddha: I do not say 'one craves...." endquote The Buddha says (SN 12:35 Bodhi p.575) that with the eradication of ignorance such ideas and vacillations as "what now are volitional formations (sankhara) , and for 'whom' are there volitional formations? or'Volitional formations are one thing, the one for whom there are these volitional formations is another'--all these are abandoned, cut off at the root...."endquote. It is ignorance of dhammas that is the heart of why this wheel keeps spinning. KenH was so compassionate to explain this and so, inspired by him, I add more. The Visuddhimagga notes about the development of vipassana: "there is no removal of false view in one who takes it thus "I see with insight, my insight'..there is removal of false view in one who takes it thus 'only formations see formations with insight, comprehend, define, discern and delimit them." XX83 I might have mentioned a while back meeting a Hare Krishna in Auckland . He was about my age and had spent 20 years living at the center. He told me about his austere life which was quite impressive and by any outward measure full of sila. But to me he seemed trapped by his way of life. This doesn't mean he would be better off leaving and living some conventional life where frivilous talk and so on are common. However, I think it hints at what KenH said with regard to understanding the moment been most potent: Vis XV163 "The perfect ones behave like lions. When they make suffering cease and when they teach the the cessation of suffering, they deal with the cause, not the fruit. But the sectarians behave like dogs. When they make suffering cease and when they teach the cessation of suffering, by teaching devotion to self-mortification etc., they deal with the fruit not the cause." When there is a moment of insight there cannot be the breaking of sila. If it is genuine insight then it isn't forced and so the anattaness of sati is known too. This moments may not happen as regularly as tanha would wish - but that is ok because gradually tanha will come to be known too. That is, if there are the right conditions - such as having good friends, hearing true Dhamma, refelecting wisely. So if there is growing insight then confidence in the benefit of understanding the moment and of sila and of all kusala will develop. And this brings more patience and so the present moment can be seen better, and that leads to more insight, more confidence, which leads... But there is no one who can control any of that. Next year- if conditions are such- we might join the Hares. RobertK Majjhima Nikaya 148 Chachakka Sutta The Blessed One said: "The six internal media should be known. The six external media should be known. The six classes of consciousness should be known. The six classes of contact should be known. The six classes of feeling should be known. The six classes of craving should be known." Note that it says the six classes of craving should be known. I think this is important, craving is part of the wheel. Usually we misperceive it as "my" craving. But craving, as much as other dhammas, can be an object for understanding. if it is seen through the lens of anatta it is not mistaken for "my" craving and so its true characteristic can be seen. (Craving, the English translation of tanha, may make us think of a very strong desire, but tanha includes even very minute aspects of unwholesome desire) Later the sutta says: "'The six classes of craving should be known.' Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. With feeling as a requisite condition there is craving." and it repeats for the other senses of ear, nose, tongue, body, mind. "If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. ...... If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self. " What then should we do and what is right effort: Ogha-tarana Sutta Crossing the Flood This is the very first sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya A deva asks the Buddha how he crossed the flood (the four floods are sensuality, becoming, views, ignorance). "Sir, how did you cross the flood? Friend, by not remaining still, and by not putting forth strenuous effort, I crossed the flood." But Sir, in what way did you cross the flood, neither remaining still, nor putting forth strenuous effort. Friend, if I remained still. I sank; If I put forth strenuous effort, I was swept away Thus, by neither remaining still nor putting forth strenuous effort, I crossed the flood." 22590 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 0:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi, Christine - In a message dated 6/1/03 5:11:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Hi Howard,Larry, all, > > Howard, did you mean that only all conditioned things are anatta, > impersonal, soulless? What about: > > sabbe sankhara anicca: all conditioned things are transient > sabbe sankhara dukkha: all conditioned things are sorrowful > sabbe dhamma anatta: all things, conditioned and non-conditioned, are > impersonal, soulless > > metta and peace, > Christine ============================= In reply to Larrya natta was all I was addressing as that was all Larry was asking about. In my intial post (to which Larry replied as you quote below), what I said involved all three lakkhana. What I had written was the following: **************************************** The word 'tilakkhana' literally means "three characteristics," but I see them as absences. I see their assertion as stating that nothing in this world remains, nor satisfies (perfectly), nor is personal, substantial, or self-sufficient. Comments anyone? **************************************** Larry had picked up on my saying that nothing is personal, and it was that to which I was replying here. With metta, Howard > ---The trouble is that you think you have time > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Larry - > > > >In a message dated 6/1/03 4:36:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > LBIDD@w... > >writes: > > > >>Hi Howard, > >> > >>I have a problem with saying nothing is personal insofar as the > khandhas > >>are said to be personalty. "Impersonal desire" doesn't sound > quite right > >>to me. > >> > >>Larry > >> > >======================== > > "Impersonal" is a translation for 'anatta'. To be personal > means to be > >a self, to belong to a self, or to pertain to a self. But there is > no self. > >Thus, all(conditioned) dhammas are impersonal. > > > >With metta, > >Howard > > > >/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, > a bubble > >in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering > lamp, a > >phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond > Sutra) > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22591 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 5:08pm Subject: Way 96, 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 Factors of Enlightenment 2. Investigation of Mental Objects continued Imparting evenness to the (five spiritual) controlling faculties is the equalizing of the controlling faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom. [Tika] Equalizing is making neither more nor less effective functionally. When faith outstrips the others through over-activity, the others are thrown out of gear. Then energy finds it impossible to exert; mindfulness, to attend to the object; concentration, to be non-distracted; and wisdom, to see. Therefore that over-activity of faith should be made to wane either by reflection on the phenomenal nature of the things (faith) or by not attending to that thing when thinking of which faith becomes excessive. The story of the Thera Vakkali[34] is the illustration of over-active faith. [T] Faith outstrips the others because of unclearness of wisdom and the laxity and so forth of energy and the others, through the excessive zeal of the function of faith, in regard to a believable object, an object that generates trust. Energy is unable to do the work of exerting and of supporting the associated mental characteristics and to avoid indolence. [T] Mindfulness is not able to do the work of attending to the object, of continuing to be at the object, after coming to it. [T] Concentration is not able to do the work of non-distraction, of rejecting distraction. [T] To see the object, according to actuality as if one were seeing a physical thing with the eye, wisdom is not able. [T] These four faculties are unable to do their work because of their being overwhelmed by the faculty of faith acting very strong. Only by the evenness of function can the mental things which exist together with consciousness, and are the principal things amongst conascent mental things, namely, the five spiritual controlling faculties, accomplish their work. Not otherwise. [T] Reflection on the phenomenal nature of the thing (faith). By examining the object of faith by way of the conditioned and the produced from the conditioned and the like, by scrutiny according to actuality. [T] The story of the Thera Vakkali. This venerable person who fulfilled his duties through keen faith liked to behold the Master always. The Master admonished him saying, "What shall it profit you to see this impure body. Who sees the Dhamma, sees me," and urged him to practice a subject of meditation. He was unable to apply himself to the practice of the subject of meditation and as he was inclined to destroy himself, he went up to a place that was a steep declivity. Then the Master showed himself by his psychic power as if he were seated before the thera and spoke these words: [T] The bhikkhu who is full of joy and believes in The Dispensation of the Buddha Can reach the peaceful happy state of the ceasing of activities. [T] Gladdened by the words of the Master he set up the development of insight, but as his faith was very strong he was not able to enter into the joy of the insight. The Master knowing this gave him the subject of meditation after correcting it with the imparting of evenness of the controlling faculties. The thera after putting himself in the path of practice taught by the Master, and after doing hard work in regular order, reached arahantship. 34. Samyutta Nikaya iii, page 120, P.T.S. Edition and Dhammapada Atthakatha iv, pages 117-119, P.T.S. Edition. 22592 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 5:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi Howard, I prefer "worthless" or "vacuous" as the meaning is "anatta". Larry ----------------- Howard wrote: "Impersonal" is a translation for 'anatta'. To be personal means to be a self, to belong to a self, or to pertain to a self. But there is no self. Thus, all(conditioned) dhammas are impersonal. 22593 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 3:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/1/03 8:18:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I prefer "worthless" or "vacuous" as the meaning is "anatta". > > Larry > ----------------- > Howard wrote: "Impersonal" is a translation for 'anatta'. To be personal > means to be a self, to belong to a self, or to pertain to a self. But > there is no self. Thus, all(conditioned) dhammas are impersonal. > > =========================== I'll meet you halfway. I'll buy the "vacuous". But "worthless" is too strong for me. Liberation is not worthless. Wisdom is not worthless. Metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha are not worthless. BTW, my parenthesized 'conditioned' above was an error. ALL dhammas are impersonal. 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) 22594 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 7:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi Howard, "Worthless" for "anatta" is just a personal preference. It's practical. I rationalize it by considering "self" to be some sort of ultimate value as opposed to nibbana which transcends value. It's easier to get into a relinquishing mode with that kind of attitude. As a universal characteristic I use "empty of itself". But this has to do with the imminence or ever-presence of nibbana. That is more of a madhyamika thing; although you can see hints of it in the suttas. Larry ---------------- Howard wrote: I'll meet you halfway. I'll buy the "vacuous". But "worthless" is too strong for me. Liberation is not worthless. Wisdom is not worthless. Metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha are not worthless. 22595 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 5:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/1/03 10:51:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > "Worthless" for "anatta" is just a personal preference. It's practical. > I rationalize it by considering "self" to be some sort of ultimate value > as opposed to nibbana which transcends value. It's easier to get into a > relinquishing mode with that kind of attitude. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Whatever works for you! (Skillful means, and all that! ;-) ----------------------------------------------------- > > As a universal characteristic I use "empty of itself". But this has to > do with the imminence or ever-presence of nibbana. That is more of a > madhyamika thing; although you can see hints of it in the suttas. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, I rather like "empty of itself" due to the koan-like nature of the expression, and also due to my predilection for Madhyamika. -------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ---------------- > Howard wrote: I'll meet you halfway. I'll buy the "vacuous". But > "worthless" is too strong for me. Liberation is not worthless. Wisdom is > not worthless. Metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha are not worthless. > > ============================== 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) 22596 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 11:50pm Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Christine, > "How are we to > live an 'examined life if there is no-self, no-control?' > Even 'listening to the true dhamma, reflecting ... discussing with > Admirable friends ... and practising in accordance with the true > Dhamma, seems to imply 'someone' who can have 'some control' and 'the > ability to choose, plan and do' to some extent." -------------- I appreciate your concern but, unfortunately, I don't think we can allow you even that! I'm thinking of the marionette metaphor which explains that dhammas create the impression of having interest (concern), but really there is no interest there -- all dhammas are impersonal -- without self -- anatta. So, there is no control over, and no interest in, whether we are going to sit on a cushion or whether we will plan, arrange, attend Dhamma discussions -- or whether we will go to the pub. There is an overwhelming impression of interest but that's as far as it goes. Sorry :-) Kind regards, Ken H 22597 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 0:01am Subject: Re: Precepts Hi RobM, > The Buddha very often gave exhortations using > conventional terms: > - "Strive on with diligence" > - "Avoid evil, do good, purify the mind" ------- I realise that your advice to Christine was meant to be read in the light of anatta. It goes without saying that you would never suggest there is a self who can 'try to overcome akusala tendencies.' What I am not clear about is the particular significance you see in the Buddha's use of conventional terminology. Are you suggesting that a conventional approach to 'striving with diligence' can have some efficacy in attaining the Eight-fold Path? That question is not meant to be patronising or rhetorical -- there are dsg members who believe exactly that. Some say that worldlings should not concern themselves with anatta; it will become clear when the final goal is reached. On the other hand, there are members who remind us that 'striving with diligence' refers purely to cetasikas -- because in the Buddha's explanation of reality, there are only namas and rupas. Dare I suggest that your advice to Christine betrayed a slight 'slipping back' into conventional ways? Were you not momentarily forgetting that Christine, just like 'chariot,' 'living being' was a mere designation? Kind regards, Ken H 22598 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 2:55am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Jeff, I’m glad to get back to our discussion and thankyou for your feedback - sorry for the delay. Jeff: > ..... I believe 'samadhi' is originally (as > best > we can know) a Sanskrit word, which I said before means absorption (the > consequence of concentration) not concentration, but I can see how it > has come to be > used for 'concentration' in Pali. .... S: It’s true that many Pali words have Sanskrit equivalents and are often derived from them. We need, however, to carefully examine their meanings in the Pali context. In this regard, according to the Pali dictionaries there are many uses of samadhi, only one of which refers to the jhanas. The PTS Rhys Davids/Stede dict uses ‘concentration’ for translation and then continues to give a very long section on its meanings in various contexts - too much for me to quote or even summarise here. It would be a good sparate topic or post. ..... Jeff: > when he used that word in his Eight Fold Path as "samma samadhi" perhaps > he > wasn't speaking of right concentration, but right absorption. This > interpretation of the word certainly worked better for me when examining > the Eight Fold > Path of Siddharta Gotama. ..... S: So shall we just use ‘samma samaadhi’ ?;-) It’s true, as I understand, that the samma samadhi of the eightfold path at the moment of enlightenment is equivalent to absorption level, so what you say may be valid here. Along the way, as the Path is being developed, the samma samadhi accompanying other path factors will not be of this level unless jhana is being used as a basis for insight as I understand. So now, there may be a moment of right awareness and understanding, accompanied by right concentration, right effort and right thought, but there is no absorption. ..... > Jeff: > I > believe using Pali terms is no where nearly as accurate as many here > seem to > think it is. Unless you subscribe to a single, and often narrow > interpretation of > that Pali term, which I do not. .... S: ;-) I know you mentioned one or two of your broad definitions of terms (eg jhana) before. I like to look at the texts and consider what the Buddha means as best I can. I certainly agree with you that using Pali terms does not eliminate misunderstandings and varied interpetations;-) Good point. ..... > Jeff: > Well, I would agree, now who's interpretation are you depending on for > understanding what the Buddha intended? If you are going to depend on a > scholar's > interpretation of the Pali canon to direct your practice, I assure you, > your > practice will not be "correct." Only a practitioner, that is one who > has "gone > before" or "achieved" can understand the practice and the intent. A > scholar > can only give you one of many interpretations for the text. .... S: I’ll put the translation of the sutta in question at the end of this post as it’s short. I wouldn’t call a translation an interpretation, though of course interpretations affect the translation;-). You make many other good points here. I think the bottom line is that we need to consider the words carefully, discuss and test out. The practice should conform to what is written in the texts however as the Buddha urged in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. Perceived experience - our own or others’ - is a very unreliable guide I think. If someone says “I had a dream about XYZ”, “I experienced being one with the universe”, “I’m enlightened” or “I see white lights”, I think it is of little value to the listener. It’s more helpful, as I see it, to receive guidance about the ultimate phenomena and truths in life which are common to all, have always been common to all and always will be. These phenomena - the mental and physical data - can be tested and proved at this moment. There is no self to have any special experiences or to achieve anything. This is why the exploration and understanding of these phenomena is more precious to me than comparing any anecdotes about personal experiences. I’m not sure if I’m making any sense here. .... Jeff: > Also, it does not seem to me to be prudent to wait to practice until one > has > understood the "Buddha's instruction(s)" thoroughly, Are you saying you > want > to first read and understand the whole of the Pali cannon before you > will begin > to practice? If so, how many lifetimes do you think that will take? ..... S: ;-) no rules - I think we can start by just reading and considering a few lines together. The aim of the study is merely to understand the anatta nature of the phenomena arising now. Some people like to read a lot and find this helpful, others prefer to just read a few lines and question what they say. I agree that the practice should always be now and not put off. I think it’s also important to understand that the practice can be at this very moment of seeing or hearing without waiting for any other conditions too. .... > Jeff: > .....And, how do you interpret the word 'insight' (vipassana)? I interpret > vipassana (insight) as a subjective state as a consequence of absorption > when the > activities of thinking and cogitation are at rest. I do not consider > 'insight' > as a thinking process, which I believe some here do. .... S: Jeff, I’ve read every post on DSG and I haven’t heard anyone refer to or consider ‘insight’ or vipassana as a ‘thinking process’. No one ‘thinks’ that ‘thinking’ can think its way to nibbana;-)You may be getting confused with comments referring to insights in mind-door processes. This doesn’t mean thinking about concepts are involved at moments of insight. Insight (vipassana)refers to the development of panna (wisdom) and its accompanying mental factors in the various stages. Unlike the development of samatha leading to jhanas, vipassana always refers to the development of satipatthana and the objects of panna must be ultimate realities (namas or rupas), not concepts. In the Visuddhimagga we can read about the various vipassana nanas (stages of insight). Before the first stage, the clear distincting and direct understanding of namas and rupas must be known, not by thinking but by direct insight or knowledge. I should add that thinking is not an obstacle to satipatthana. Any reality can be known at any time. If your interpretation of vipassana was correct, surely all those before the Buddha’s time who had attained absorption/jhana would also have experienced ‘insight’ (vipassana) which would be contrary to what we read in the (Pali) texts. ..... Jeff: > Therefore my > interpretation for the above quote is likely to be radically different > from someone who > thinks insight is a process of thinking, which in my view constitutes > wrong > thinking. .... S: We’d agree on this point. .... > Jeff: > Yes, I agree that is why I have spent 30 years reflecting on these > concepts > and testing them in my daily practice. > > Blessing to you and all, .... S: I appreciate your input. You asked again why I don’t speak from ‘personal experience’. I think we all have to consider what is most helpful and of value and what the purpose of discussion is. For me, if I were to talk about my dreams, my insights (or lack of;-)), and so on, it would be motivated by attachment to self and a clinging to an idea of ‘personal experience’, in all probability without any understanding of anatta at those moments. The aim of the path is the development of detachment rather than attachment, so regardless of the experience or insight or dream, it’s gone already, it’s past. The question which I find more interesting is regarding the present reality. I’m not sure if this makes sense, Jeff. I’m not trying to be difficult. Perhaps we can look at some other suttas together if you’re interested or follow any of these comments further. With Metta, Sarah ========= http://www.abhidhamma.org/anguttara_nikaya.%20(2)%2020htm.htm Anguttara Nikaya CHAPTER XX Mahavaggo THE GREAT CHAPTER (1) Blessings BRETHREN, four blessings should be expected from listening to with the ear, constant recitation with the voice, careful consideration with the mind and penetration of the Norm through insight (1). What four ? Herein, brethren, a brother masters the Norm consisting of the Suttas..... Vedalla (2). He thus listens to, constantly recites, carefully ponders over and penetrates the Norm. When he dies bewildered (3) in mind and is reborn in a certain assembly of devas, there the blissful ones recite to him the stanzas of the Norm. Brethren, the arising of mindfulness is slow, but such a being quickly achieves distinction therein.(4) Brethren, this is the first blessing that should be expected from listening to, constant recitation, careful consideration and penetration of the Norm through insight. ++++++++ 1 Diññiyà,. Comy. says 'himself penetrates it by his wisdom both as regards sense and cause.' 2 See suppra, P. 8. 3 Comy. says 'he is still a puthujjana'' One dying without reaching the Paths is said to die with mindfulness not established. 4 Comy`. He becomes nibbàna-gàmin (bound for the goal).' +++++++++ 22599 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 3:07am Subject: Right Reflection Hi Jeff & All, I found this extract from the commentary and sub-commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta (recently posted just after your post to me) to be relevant to the comments about reflection and consideration of the details. Note that ‘right reflection’, as I read it, is not just thinking, but direct knowledge conditioned by wise considering and the development of satipatthana. ********** QUOTE: “2. Investigation of Mental Objects There are karmically good and karmically bad things... right and wrong counterparts of bright and dark things, and an abundance of right reflection on them is the reason conducive to the arising of the non-arisen enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects and for the increase, expansion and the completion of culture of that enlightenment factor when it has arisen. [Tika] Here, right reflection is the conscious state that is associated with knowledge and which arises by way of perceiving, according to actuality, the nature, function, characteristic and so forth of the several skillful (or wholesome) states of mind and the like. Because it is correct reflection it is called right (or radical) reflection. Six things lead to the arising of this enlightenment factor: Inquiring about the aggregates and so forth; the purification of the basis (namely, the cleaning of the body, clothes and so forth); imparting evenness to the (five spiritual) controlling faculties; avoiding the ignorant; associating with the wise; reflecting on the profound difference of the hard-to-perceive processes of the aggregates, modes (or elements), sense-bases and so forth; and the inclining (sloping, bending) towards the development of the enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects. Inquiring about the aggregates and so forth means: seeking the meaning of the aggregates, the modes (or elements), sense-bases, controlling faculties, powers, enlightenment factors, way factors, absorption factors, the meditation for quietude, and the meditation for insight by asking for explanation of knotty points regarding these things in the Five Nikayas with the commentaries from teachers of the Dhamma." *****