22600 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 4:24am Subject: Re: The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi Howard, The Buddha taught that form is impermanent, dukkha, not self, feeling..., perception..., formations..., consciousness is impermanent, dukkha, not self, that eye is impermanent, dukkha, not self, ear..., nose..., tongue..., body..., mind is impermanent, dukkha, not self. Every conditioned/fabricated/formed is impermanent, dukkha, not self. What the Buddha stated is not the same as stating that nothing in this world remains, nor satisfies, nor is personal. I don't see what you stated as an expression of insight into the conditioned/fabricated/formed. I see it as a twist to what the Buddha taught. Your comment is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... 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 22601 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 4:52am Subject: Re: Right Reflection --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > 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. > ********** Hi Sarah, Actually, I see this excerpt as defining Right Reflection as wise considering of those factors which are the conditions for the enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects; as such, it is in fact `thinking' about such and doesn't require `direct knowledge' of those mental objects. The only mental factor, or `frame of mind', required is to possess a `bent' toward this investigation. In other words, right reflection is only an enlightenment factor, it isn't enlightenment itself, and so doesn't require the `direct knowing' of mental objects. Additionally, it doesn't even require meditative practice, though I would think that meditative practice would strengthen it and would enrich the knowledge base. I just thought I would add this because I found your paraphrasing of the commentary a bit confusing/misleading. I am not sure what post of Jeff's and counter post you are referring to because I haven't been following that too closely (frankly, not able to…too dissected). If I have spoken out of turn, I apologize. Metta, James 22602 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 4:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, --- 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,...". .... Sorry for the delay - others may have clarified. Wrong (conceptual) view is a reality, but the concepts it takes as object are not realities. Sorry not to oblige this time;-) Why would you like concepts to be realities? Metta, Sarah ======== 22603 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 5:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi Howard (and Larry), Pardon me for jumping in. To say that form is impersonal is not the same as saying form is not self. Note the definitions of the word "personal" in the Webster online dictionary: 1 : of, relating to, or affecting a person : PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL 2 a : done in person without the intervention of another; also : proceeding from a single person b : carried on between individuals directly 3 : relating to the person or body 4 : relating to an individual or an individual's character, conduct, motives, or private affairs often in an offensive manner 5 a : being rational and self-conscious b : having the qualities of a person rather than a thing or abstraction 6 : of, relating to, or constituting personal property 7 : denoting grammatical person I would say that to translate "anatta" as "impersonal" is misleading, and the idea that there is no self is simply speculative, irrelevant to what the Buddha taught. Your comment is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry - > [snip] > "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 22604 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 6:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hi Larry, Please excuse the late reply: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? > Hi Mike, > > You wrote: "Aren't there two different kinds of > accumulation--accumulated kamma, which does get 'used up'--and > accumulated tendencies, which don't? On the other hand, (if I understand > it correctly), the latter is eradicated by pa~n~naa, the former are > not (Angulimala e.g.). Not sure if the terms 'aayuuhana' vs. 'anusaya' > are pertinent but would like to know more." > > I have no idea but would like to know more. By 'accumulated kamma' do > you mean kamma that is in the pipeline but hasn't come to fruition? I guess so, if you mean kamma that hasn't yet resulted in vipaaka. I think it's consistent with the texts to say that this (cetanaa cetasika?) accumulates (though it isn't clear to me that this is somehow 'discharged' by vipaaka). It seems to me that accumulated cetanaa has some direct relationship to 'anusaya' in it's sense of dormant or latent disposition. Not at all sure that this is sound abhidhamma, though. > Also, it seems reasonable to me that accumulations (aayuuhana) are > neutralized or rendered uninfluential by learning and consequent > repeated counter intention and action, and eradicated by a path insight. Not sure about 'neutralized or rendered uninfluential'. Subjectively, my own latent tendencies (to anger, e.g.) don't seem to be much affected by learning or by 'repeated counter intention and action'--they seem to me to remain latent (actually I'm coming to prefer 'dormant') and this seems consistent with the abhidhamma idea that these dormant dispositions are 'passed' or 'carried' along from citta to citta. I do think the habit of suppressing them can develop but this seems different to me from neutralizing or rendering uninfluential (except that the habit of suppressing may prevent thought from leading to speech or speech leading to action). This is, I think, why dormant dispositions are so resilient--because moments of profound insight are so rare. Thanks for helping to sort through this. mike 22605 From: Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 2:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi, Victor - In a message dated 6/2/03 7:24:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > The Buddha taught that form is impermanent, dukkha, not self, > feeling..., perception..., formations..., consciousness is > impermanent, dukkha, not self, that eye is impermanent, dukkha, not > self, ear..., nose..., tongue..., body..., mind is impermanent, > dukkha, not self. Every conditioned/fabricated/formed is > impermanent, dukkha, not self. What the Buddha stated is not the > same as stating that nothing in this world remains, nor satisfies, > nor is personal. I don't see what you stated as an expression of > insight into the conditioned/fabricated/formed. I see it as a twist > to what the Buddha taught. > > Your comment is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor > ============================== I really don't get what you are talking about, Victor. The elements of the five khandhas are exactly what there is "in the world". They constitute "the all". Moreover, what is impermanent does not remain, what is dukkha does not satisfy, and what is not self is impersonal. Please do not attempt to teach me language use, and please do not accuse me of "twisting" what the Buddha taught. I don't appreciate rudeness. You've acted this way to me before. I let it go. Now you are doing it again. It is at best tiresome. 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) 22606 From: Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 4:19am Subject: Another "Twister" of the Buddha's Teaching Hi Victor and all - The following is the beginning of the definition of 'anatta' from Nyanatiloka's dictionary (copied from ATI). The setting off of words and phrases by double slashes is made by me for emphasis: > anattá: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, //impersonality\\, is the last of > the three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattá > doctrine teaches that //neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of > existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could > be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding > substance\\. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding > which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. //It is the only > really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire Structure of the > Buddhist teaching stands or falls.\\ All the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, > more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religions, but the > anattá-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by the Buddha, > wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattá-vádi, or 'Teacher of > //Impersonality\\'. Whosoever has not penetrated this //impersonality of all existence\\, and > does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually > self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena, and > that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this process, he will not > be able to understand Buddhism, i.e. the teaching of the 4 Noble Truths ( > sacca, q.v.), in the right light. 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) 22607 From: robmoult Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 3:32pm Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Ken H, I believe that the Buddha's approach of using a mixture of conventional and absolute terms to be extremely important. When the Buddha was in His "analysis mode", He used absolute terms. When the Buddha was in His "exhorting mode", He used conventional terms. Why did I volunteer to teach an Abhidhamma class each Sunday morning? I must admit that there was some conceit (mana) involved; "I can do a good job". Yes, there was a love of the Dhamma, a desire to study the Dhamma and the knowledge that it was a kusala thing to study and teach the Dhamma, but there was also an element of mana. Why do I work so hard researching for each week's lecture and why do I work so hard preparing lecture notes? I must admit there there is some dosa (fear) involved; "I am afraid of making a fool of myself if I am not prepared". Yes, there is a love of the Dhamma, a desire to study the Dhamma and the desire to avoid spreading wrong view, but there was also an element of dosa. I am convinced through my own experience that akusala (mana, dosa and yes, "self-view") can be a strong condition for support of kusala. I quote Visuddhi Magga XVII 102: "Herein, for those of merit ignorance is a condition in two ways: it is a condition in two ways, namely, as object condition and as support condition. ... But it is a condition, as decisive support condition, in two cases, that is to say, [for the sense-sphere formation] in one who, for the purpose of surmounting ignorance, fulfils the various instances of sense-sphere merit-making consisting in giving, etc...." From the Bhumija Sutta (MN126), it is clear that good results come from proper practice, not good intentions. Does it make any difference if "proper practice" happened to be partially motivated (i.e. "decisive support condition") by akusala? I don't think so. My favourite "Dhamma the Cat" cartoon (http://www.dharmathecat.com/) is #49 (The Discourse): Bodhi the monk is at the chalkboard. He says, "The first thing we'll discuss is getting beyond words and concepts." Then Bodhi thinks, "Gee, where do I go from here?" The commentary to this cartoon is "Words are one kind of bridge to one level of understanding. On the Path, when you reach each such level, you leave each bridge behind. But you can't leave your bridge behind until you are beyond it." Back to the Buddha and His "analysis mode" and His "exhorting mode". It is easy to read "self-view" (a concept of a self who can change things) into the Buddha's exhorting mode. When in the "exhorting mode", I don't think that the Buddha was concerned about propogating a wrong view of self who can change things. When the monks followed the Buddha's exhortations and went to meditate, the monks would recognize the Dhamma through direct experience. If progress only comes from proper practice, why did the Buddha also use "analysis mode"? We can stimulate ourselves intellectually for hours, analyzing passages on anatta but this will not give us the "bright faith", the understanding that comes from experience. To use an analogy, I see analysis as "fertilizing the soil" - it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for "bright faith" to arise. The understanding of self-view will not arise until the stage of Sotapanna is reached, but I can "fertilize the soil" now while still a worldling. In summary, I strongly support the use of conventional language in exhortation mode to motivate worldlings such as Christine and myself. Some may reject this approach because "it implies a self who can change things". I disagree. I also strongly support the analysis of anatta (and other aspects of the Dhamma) as this activity "fertilizes the soil", facilitating and supporting the arising of direct understanding (bright faith) when other conditions support it. Others may see it differently (perhaps because they have different accumulations) but this approach seems right for me. I also believe that my approach is not against the Buddha's teachings and I believe that my approach is aligned with the Buddha's example. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > 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 22608 From: Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 3:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, You asked, "Why would you like concepts to be realities?" L: For Kamma. Kamma is a concept. "Middle Way" is a concept. Four Noble Truths are concepts. Larry 22609 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 4:38pm Subject: Re: Another "Twister" of the Buddha's Teaching --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi Howard, Hmmm...that does sound pretty twisted...;-). Metta, James 22610 From: Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 7:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, Another thought. You wrote, "Wrong (conceptual) view is a reality, but the concepts it takes as object are not realities." L: As I argued a couple of days ago in the thread on bananas and grammar objects are not experience. So consciousness of yellow and consciousness of concept are the same in that yellow IS consciousness and concept IS consciousness. The same goes for views. Larry 22611 From: Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 8:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hi Mike, I agree with everything you wrote except I haven't noticed you have a propensity for anger. I would say latent tendencies is a sub-group of accumulations, accumulations including wholesome and unwholesome accumulated intentions and latent tendencies being core unwholesome accumlated intentions. Unlike kamma result these can be somewhat manipulated by suppressing the unwholesome and cultivating the wholesome. But of course the cultivation or indulgence of accumulations affects what one's kamma results will be. Larry 22612 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 8:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry and Sarah, Please excuse my butting in, maybe I can learn something here: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > Hi Sarah, > > You asked, "Why would you like concepts to be realities?" > > L: For Kamma. Kamma is a concept. Larry, as I understand it (badly probably) kamma is not a concept. It is cetanaa cetasika and can be known by insight. > "Middle Way" is a concept. If I have this right (always a long shot), the middle path is not a concept--it is vipassanaa (though, of course, there is the idea of the middle path (and of vipassanaa), which is a concept). > Four Noble Truths are concepts. As I see it again, the truths are paramattha dhammas (dukkha, the origin of dukkha (ta.nhaa), the cessation of dukkha (nibbaana) and the path factors. The concepts of these are very profound by conceptual standards but are still just concepts--they can't be the bases of (profound) insight (as opposed to conventional, intellectual insight). Hope you'll excuse the intrusion and look forward to corrections. mike Weight Age Gender Female Male 22613 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 9:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hello Howard, You wrote to Jon: ---------- 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. ---------------- Whenever the Buddha taught a bhikkhu or a lay follower that mind and body were impermanent, he changed that person's entire perspective on the world. That was because he was teaching ultimate reality. I doubt very much, he ever told anyone that concepts - human body, family members, chariot, honeypot, etc. -- were impermanent in the ordinary sense of the word. Would he have told a beggar that food and clothing were impermanent and therefore not worth having? Would he have told a miser that gold and diamonds shouldn't be clung to because, being subject to nuclear decay, they will only last a few trillion years? Not at all. In ordinary, daily usage, 'permanent' means that an object has been in existance for a while and will continue so, for a while longer. We all know that the human body is subject to death and decay but we refer to it as permanent. (After all, it does last a life-time.) We don't need anyone to point out that body and honeypot are not going to be around for all eternity and that therefore, we shouldn't be calling them permanent. That would be pedantic and fatuous -- not in the least bit sagacious. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 22614 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 10:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" <> > Whenever the Buddha taught a bhikkhu or a lay follower > that mind and body were impermanent, he changed that > person's entire perspective on the world. That was > because he was teaching ultimate reality. I doubt > very much, he ever told anyone that concepts - human > body, family members, chariot, honeypot, etc. -- were > impermanent in the ordinary sense of the word. > > > In ordinary, daily usage, 'permanent' means that an object > has been in existance for a while and will continue so, > for a while longer. We all know that the human body is > subject to death and decay but we refer to it as > permanent. (After all, it does last a life-time.) > >_________ Dear Ken, I think sometimes the Buddha pointed out the general impermanence of all things as a initial step to help those overcome with conceit about body and so on. Once he conjured a form of a beutiful woman and then let it decay in front of a queen so that she could have that reminder - and then go deeper to ultimate impermanence.\ Also he pointed out that even the mountains will decay - what to speak of other things. And he told a God in the arupa Brahma realm that one day he will die from that realm. I think the problem these days - as you are pointing out - is that someone might think that understanding these obvious signs of change (that no one ever doubts) means that one understands the deeper meaning of anicca. RobertK 22615 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 11:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Right Reflection Hi James, S: You were quite right to point out that my comments about the extract were not very clear and actually sent hastily as an after-thought to my other post to Jeff. In the discussions with him, we seem to have half a dozen threads on the go in each post, one of which is the role of thinking/direct knowledge/ hearing and considering the details. Of course you haven’t spoken out of turn and you’ve done me a favour by encouraging me to check the texts more carefully and consider your comments. In the passage I quoted from Way 95: ***** >>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 ***** S: The second bojjhanga (enlightenment factor) is discussed in the extract. It is dhamma-vicaya (enlightenment factor of investigation of Dhamma). This is the same as pa~n~naa cetasika (right understanding), which is why I mentioned it is ‘direct knowledge conditioned by wise considering and the development of satipatthana’. We read about these same bhojjhangas in various suttas such as the Satipatthana Sutta and the Sabbaasava Sutta (MN2). In the Visuddhimagga, XV1,86 we read: “right view (sammaa di.t.thi) includes the fourth road to power consisting in inquiry, the understanding faculty, the understanding power, and the ivestigation-of-states enlightenment factor .” ..... --- buddhatrue wrote: >> > Actually, I see this excerpt as defining Right Reflection as wise > considering of those factors which are the conditions for the > enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects; as such, > it is in fact `thinking' about such and doesn't require `direct > knowledge' of those mental objects..... ..... S: I think perhaps the terms ‘reflection’ and ‘investigation’ may be somewhat misleading although I agree with all your comments about the value of wise considering and so on as essential conditions. Here it is ‘associated with knowledge’ and ‘perceiving, according to actuality’. In fact, I believe that for panna (and the other factors) to be a bojjhanga, we are talking about highly developed wisdom, developed to a degree that it can realize the 4 noble truths. Perhaps it’s also relevant that this section comes at the end of the Satipatthana Sutta. ***** S: In your ‘Conditioned Reality’ post you also brought up some interesting comments about the universality of conditioned reality. You wondered about the ‘perception of reality’ as a determining factor of reality and how this fits in with the Teachings. I know Rob M replied but just to add a couple more points while we’re talking here - As we know, our outlooks on life, include our belief systems, do of course have a profound effect. However, I think the ‘truths’ remain as truths regardless of any wishing or varying outlooks. In other words, regardless of contrary views, there remain the six worlds of realities and these actual phenomena are still inherently unsatisfactory, impermanent and not-self. Ignorance and craving continue to be causes of suffering and samsara will continue on whilst there are these causes. I think that by developing awareness and wisdom, confidence grows and there are fewer conditions to consider the possibilities of ‘soul’ and other contrary concepts which can only be ‘imagined’. I hope I haven’t missed your point. I’d be glad to hear any further reflections you have. With metta, Sarah ====== 22616 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 0:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, Mike’s helped me by replying to your first thought. Now the second one: --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Another thought. You wrote, "Wrong (conceptual) view is a reality, but > the concepts it takes as object are not realities." > > L: As I argued a couple of days ago in the thread on bananas and grammar > objects are not experience. So consciousness of yellow and consciousness > of concept are the same in that yellow IS consciousness and concept IS > consciousness. The same goes for views. ..... I fear we may be going round in a circle here - Simply as I understand, citta (consciousness) experiences or is the experiencing of an object at every instant. It may be a reality that is experienced (a nama or rupa), but very often it is a concept such as ‘bananas and grammar’ or ‘yellow’. Regardless of whether the concepts are ‘right’ conventionally or not, they are never the same as the consciousness and thinking which experience them. They are at that moment the object. Wrong view (di.t.thi) is a mental factor which accompanies some kinds of consciousness rooted in attachment. The cittas and ditthi have characteristics which can be directly known. The concepts, such as ‘bananas and grammar’ can only ever be imagined or thought about. Incidentally, if one mistakenly took an apple thinking it was a banana or thought bananas grew in Greenland, these would not be aspects of di.t.thi. When we think consciousness and concepts are equivalent or have any other distorted view of realities, then ditthi comes into play....;-( Metta, Sarah ======= 22617 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 1:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Additions to Photo Albums Hi Andrew, I was glad to hear from you and to get your update on the Cooran discussions. --- Andrew wrote: > > 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!" .... Sounds like Smokey has an answer for everything;-) (Perplexed new members can take a look in the photo album) .... > A:....I also > related my story of attending a Palm Sunday protest many years ago as > part of a Buddhist group..... Then again, just staying at home furnishes ample scope for > creating akusala too. ..... I think these are good examples of how the unwholesome states will sooner or later find an object regardless of the ‘situation’. They have an uncanny knack of following us around and just waiting for an oppotunity;-( moments of letting down the guard or of any akusala are an opportunity to see the accumulations for what they are. ..... >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. ..... Just so.... no need to set any rule about what is right and wrong in this regard. The past march or party has gone and so have any past moments of sense door activity and skilful and unskilful acts. Rather than cling or continue to proliferate on their account, there is the present moment to be known. ..... 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 think you’re making very good points here. No need to NOT go on the march or not take an interest/involvement, but just as you say, with more understanding of paramattha dhammas, less inclination or importance is put on such debates and getting “worked up” is pretty useless....It doesn’t mean one doesn’t have views and positions, but I think when we understand the basis and truth, we can understand it’s just the same for the other side too. Life is so very short. ...... Please keep sharing your reflections, Andrew. I always like hearing your comments and gentle humour. With metta, Sarah ======== 22618 From: sinweiy Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 1:17am Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi, Am new here, do excuse me. :) Although words can be quite difficult to explain the Ultimate Realities. But logically speaking, Truth itself be it Conventional or Ultimate is Permanent. No? :) But thus i heard(read), there are 3 ultimate permanencies. They are Concepts (ignorant mind), Nirvana (pure mind) and Infinite Space/time (emptiness). But since the first two are Mind, thus it's said Samsara and Nirvana are but One. It's said the Buddha have/has no form. And there's why from no form, it can manifest all form. To us, getting to that stage can be a long time. But to a Buddha, time is but a blink of an eye. There's why Buddha taught us emptiness. Buddha had vowed to liberate all sentient beings, but there are but infinite beings, how can it be done. By become the Truth. And Buddha is Truth itself, thus it's said that the Buddha is omniscience. Awaken to Knowing is Permanent. Not knowing and ignorance is Impermanent. Still seeking for the real meaning of Emptiness. Thanks, sinweiy -Amituofo- > >_________ > Dear Ken, > I think sometimes the Buddha pointed out the general impermanence of > all things as a initial step to help those overcome with conceit > about body and so on. > Once he conjured a form of a beutiful woman and then let it decay in > front of a queen so that she could have that reminder - and then go > deeper to ultimate impermanence.\ > Also he pointed out that even the mountains will decay - what to > speak of other things. And he told a God in the arupa Brahma realm > that one day he will die from that realm. > I think the problem these days - as you are pointing out - is that > someone might think that understanding these obvious signs of change > (that no one ever doubts) means that one understands the deeper > meaning of anicca. > RobertK 22619 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 1:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Mike, I can see you struggling with this topic but, being well out of my depth, am unable to help. While you are at it, can you explain to me, why the jhana meditator who is born into the fine immaterial sphere, is doomed to be reborn [however many aeons later] in hell? I only seem to remember that it has something to do with his using up all his kusala kamma leaving only his akusala kamma in tact.(?) Thanks in advance, Ken 22620 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 2:09am Subject: [dsg] Re: Right Reflection --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > S: In your `Conditioned Reality' post you also brought up some interesting > comments about the universality of conditioned reality. You wondered about > the `perception of reality' as a determining factor of reality and how > this fits in with the Teachings. I know Rob M replied but just to add a > couple more points while we're talking here - > > As we know, our outlooks on life, include our belief systems, do of course > have a profound effect. However, I think the `truths' remain as truths > regardless of any wishing or varying outlooks. In other words, regardless > of contrary views, there remain the six worlds of realities and these > actual phenomena are still inherently unsatisfactory, impermanent and > not-self. Ignorance and craving continue to be causes of suffering and > samsara will continue on whilst there are these causes. I think that by > developing awareness and wisdom, confidence grows and there are fewer > conditions to consider the possibilities of `soul' and other contrary > concepts which can only be `imagined'. I hope I haven't missed your point. > > I'd be glad to hear any further reflections you have. > > With metta, > > Sarah > ====== Hi Sarah, You are mixing truth with pure conjecture. The Buddha only taught the Four Noble Truths, which, of course, I believe, regardless of the reality. But he did not describe, in detail, all reality. I happen to believe that there is life on other planets in the universe; actually, it would be mindboggling if there wasn't. The Lord Buddha (and I will continue to call him that...even if LAYMAN Jeff disapproves;-) did not talk about or describe such life. Why? The Buddha actually knew and described that the universe expands and contracts**, over and over again, why wouldn't he describe life on other planets? I'm sorry Sarah, but I don't believe he described everything as neat and tidy as you would like to believe. We do create our own reality...and matter doesn't really matter. Metta, James **I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn036.html 22621 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 1:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi, Ken - In a message dated 6/3/03 12:08:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hello Howard, > > You wrote to Jon: > ---------- > 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. > ---------------- > > Whenever the Buddha taught a bhikkhu or a lay follower > that mind and body were impermanent, he changed that > person's entire perspective on the world. That was > because he was teaching ultimate reality. I doubt > very much, he ever told anyone that concepts - human > body, family members, chariot, honeypot, etc. -- were > impermanent in the ordinary sense of the word. > > Would he have told a beggar that food and clothing were > impermanent and therefore not worth having? Would he > have told a miser that gold and diamonds shouldn't be > clung to because, being subject to nuclear decay, they > will only last a few trillion years? Not at all. > > In ordinary, daily usage, 'permanent' means that an object > has been in existance for a while and will continue so, > for a while longer. We all know that the human body is > subject to death and decay but we refer to it as > permanent. (After all, it does last a life-time.) > > We don't need anyone to point out that body and honeypot > are not going to be around for all eternity and that > therefore, we shouldn't be calling them permanent. That > would be pedantic and fatuous -- not in the least bit > sagacious. :-) > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > ============================= Then, it follows that here are examples of the Buddha being "pedantic and fatuous -- not in the least bit sagacious" (all taken from ATI): ********************************** > "Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is > dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are > dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is > dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five > clinging-aggregates are dukkha." > >> -- SN LVI.11 > **************************************** "And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth ..." **************************************** "Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death ..." **************************************** The Buddha frequently, and non-fatuously ;-), pointed out the impermanence, unsatisfctoriness, and non-self character of (especially) beloved conventional objects to laypersons and venerables alike. It is not uncommon among worldlings, as greedy and confused as we are, to ignore the obvious facts of change, decay, loss and death, and constant reminders of these is very important. This is one reason, for example, for the cemetary meditations. Certainly, conventional grasping of conventional change of conventional objects is *far* from liberating wisdom. I am well aware of that. What is needed is the direct seeing of impermanence and conditionality, at the microscopic level of paramattha dhammas, for transformative disenchantment to set in. But everything has its place, and the clear understanding and recollection of change, decay, loss,and death at the conventional level is not a minor matter, and is far from something that was given short shrift by the Buddha. 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) 22622 From: m. nease Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 6:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau To: Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:22 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? > Mike, > > I can see you struggling with this topic but, being well out of my depth, am unable > to help. Thanks for trying, just the same... > While you are at it, can you explain to me, why the jhana meditator who is born into > the fine immaterial sphere, is doomed to be reborn [however many aeons later] in > hell? I think this refers to a specific yogi (not all)? Text reference? > I only seem to remember that it has something to do with his using up all his kusala > kamma leaving only his akusala kamma in tact.(?) This sounds familiar and I remember the Buddha making similar explanations in reference to individuals in the suttas--that is, that after their accumulated kusala kamma was exhausted they were reborn in various other realms. By the way, I don't believe in reincarnation(!), hells, heavens, world-cycles, devas, petas, yakkhas, asuras, brahmas, talking animals, minced-and-reconstituted arahats flying through the air etc., except as metaphors, myths, parables, fables and so on referring to characteristics of a moment of experience (that is to say that I don't think they have physical existence in the same sense or to the same extent that 'a person'--yet another convention--does). Why is this? Because I'm incapable of believing in them (literally)--it isn't in 'my character' (sankhaarakhandha?) or, to use the popular dsg term, 'my accumulations'. Of course I'm probably quite wrong about all this, but who can choose what he believes? And my confidence in (momentary) kamma and rebirth, paticcasamuppaada and the Four Noble Truths is quite implicit (in the sense of 'being without doubt or reserve') --that is, I think that all of the above work perfectly with regard to momentary phenomena (with certain exceptions such as cuti- and pa.tisandhi-citta) and that they are no less 'true' for this different, less literal interpretation. I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone else should adopt these peculiar views or arguing in favor of them--just stating them in the interest of honest discussion. I realize these comments may seem controversial and apologize in advance for any offense given--none is intended. I have at least one (erstwhile?) friend who says he has no trouble believing literally in all the above, and who has vastly greater knowledge of the tipi.taka than I have. If my views are all wrong, maybe this correspondence will help to correct them in the future. > Thanks in advance, > Ken Back at you, Ken, mike 22623 From: m. nease Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 9:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hi Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 8:04 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? > Hi Mike, > > I agree with everything you wrote except I haven't noticed you have a > propensity for anger. Well--try to keep it under control on dsg, mainly for vanity's sake I think--maybe a little bona fide hiri and ottaapaa in there, but I'm sceptical... > I would say latent tendencies is a sub-group of > accumulations, accumulations including wholesome and unwholesome > accumulated intentions I like this... > and latent tendencies being core unwholesome > accumlated intentions. Really--no wholesome latent tendencies (or dormant dispositions)? Interesting--I'd like to hear more. > Unlike kamma result these can be somewhat > manipulated by suppressing the unwholesome and cultivating the > wholesome. But of course the cultivation or indulgence of accumulations > affects what one's kamma results will be. Yes, especially to the extent that accumulated tendencies lead to kamma-patha (whether kusala or akusala). Parenthetically, I'm glad you used the word 'indulgence' because it reminded me of an interesting passage I just ran across in Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary: manopavicaara 'mental indulging'. There are mentioned 18 ways of indulging: 6 in gladness (somanassuupavicaara), 6 in sorrow (domanassa), 6 in indifference (upekkhaa). "Perceiving with the eye a visible form ... hearing with the ear a sound ... being in mind conscious of an object, one indulges in the joy-producing object, the sorrow-producing object, the indifference-producing object... " (M. 137; A. III, 61). - In the Com. to A., upavicaara is said to be identical with vitakka-vicaara (q.v.). http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/g_m/manopavicaara.htm Just found this interesting... mike 22624 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 4:29pm Subject: Way 97, 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 If however the controlling faculty of energy becomes too powerful then neither will the faculty of faith be able to do its work of arousing faith in a settled way in its object nor will the remaining controlling faculties be able to perform their functions. Therefore, in such a case, energy should be made to lessen its activity by the development of the enlightenment factors of calm, concentration and equanimity. The story of the Thera Sona[35] is given as an illustration of overdone energy. [Tika] The story of the Thera Sona. This refers to Sona Thera who was of delicate constitution. After getting a subject of meditation from the Master he was living in Cool Wood, and he thought thus: "My body is delicate and it is not possible to reach happiness with comfort only. Even after being exhausted, the duty of the recluse should be done." Thereupon, he decided, while giving himself up to exertion, to keep to only the two postures of standing and walking. Owing to excessive walking blisters appeared on the soles of his feet and caused him great pain. He continued to make strong effort in spite of the pain but could not produce a state of distinction in meditation with his excessive energy. [T] The Master visited Sona, instructed him with the simile of the lute, corrected the Thera's subject of meditation showing him the method of applying energy evenly and went to Vulture Peak. Having applied energy evenly according to the method given by the Master, and after working hard for insight, the Thera, developing the practice, established himself in Arahantship. Even thus should the incapacity of the rest of the spiritual faculties to function effectively when one of them has become over-active and powerful, be understood. Here, the wise specially praise the equalizing of faith and wisdom and of concentration and energy. He who is very strong in faith and feeble in wisdom becomes a person who believes in foolish people who have no virtue, persons who are not trustworthy. He who has very strong wisdom and feeble faith gets crafty-minded and is like a drug-produced disease that cannot be cured. Such a person thinks that wholesome karma arises with just the intention to do good. Going along the wrong way, by a species of thought beyond the limits of reason, and doing neither almsgiving nor other similar good deeds, he is born in a state of woe. By the equalizing of faith and wisdom one believes only in those like the Buddha who are worthy of trust because there is a reason for trusting them. As concentration naturally inclines towards indolence, when there is too much of concentration and too little of energy, indolence overwhelms the mind. As energy inclines naturally towards restlessness or agitation when there is much energy and little concentration, restlessness overwhelms the mind. When concentration is combined well with energy there will be no falling of the mind into indolence. When energy is combined well with concentration there will be no falling of the mind into restlessness. [T] Discord of faith and wisdom and discord of concentration and energy through functional unevenness are not conducive to success in meditation. Faith and wisdom should be made functionally even and harmonious. So, too, concentration and energy. With the making even functionally of these pairs full absorption occurs. Further, to a worker in concentration -- a man pursuing the path of quietude [samatha] -- faith that is somewhat strong is met. With faith that is (rather) strong, the yogi will, by believing in and fixing the mind on the object, reach full absorption. [T] If for instance the yogi is meditating on the element of earth he will not think thus: "How can absorption arise by the repetition of the word earth?" He will think that the method of meditation taught by the Supreme Buddha will surely succeed, and he will settle in, and leap on to the object by way of firm belief, having, as it were, forced his way into it. 35. Vinaya Mahavagga Cammakkhandhaka and Anguttara Nikaya iii; pages 374-5, P.T.S. Edition. 22625 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 0:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 97, Mental Objects Hi, Larry (and others - like Jon for instance ;-)) I perked up at the following two items, the first from near the beginning of the article, and the second from near the end. In each case, the thoughts went through my mind "Uh, oh - that sure sounds like recommending the exercising of volition! It sure sounds prescriptive, not descriptive! ;-)) ********************************** "Therefore, in such a case, energy should be made to lessen its activity by the development of the enlightenment factors of calm, concentration and equanimity." and "Faith and wisdom should be made functionally even and harmonious. So, too, concentration and energy. With the making even functionally of these pairs full absorption occurs." =========================== 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) 22626 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 4:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Dear Howard and Robert K, Howard wrote: ----------- > Then, it follows that here are examples of the Buddha being "pedantic and fatuous -- not in the least bit sagacious" (all taken from ATI): > ------------- Thank you Howard. My fatuous words have backfired on me. I withdraw them. Still with egg on my face, let me make another suggestion -- close to my previous one but with an important difference, hopefully: You have quoted the following: ---------------- > "Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, ------------- Whenever those self-evident events of daily life occur, that is when namas and rupas are arising and falling away. Ultimate reality is not something separate from daily life, there is ONLY ultimate reality -- there are ONLY dhammas -- all else is illusory. Ultimate reality is profound, directly knowable to the extremely wise; however, we should not take this to mean that right understanding cannot arise here and now. When there are concepts of bodies -- emerging, aging, dying -- THEN there are rupas to be known as they truly are. Robert wrote: ------------- > I think sometimes the Buddha pointed out the general impermanence of all things as a initial step to help those overcome with conceit about body and so on. Once he conjured a form of a beautiful woman and then let it decay in front of a queen so that she could have that reminder - and then go deeper to ultimate impermanence. > ------------- Point taken, thank you very much. Changing the subject just slightly: Something has happened to make me stop telling non-Buddhists that life is short and brutal. Rightly or wrongly, I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't help them. When casual conversations come around to tragedies that have befallen neighbours or people on the news, I no longer say; "You never know when it's going to happen, do you? These things can happen to any of us, at any time!" I have noticed that such comments cause an involuntary look of dismay on non-Buddhist faces (indicating akusala reactions). My conclusion is that only a person who understands the theory of paramattha dhammas can react to those dreadful concepts with calm and confidence. Kind regards, Ken 22627 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 5:18pm Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Changing the subject just slightly: Something has > happened to make me stop telling non-Buddhists that life > is short and brutal. Rightly or wrongly, I have come to > the conclusion that it doesn't help them. When casual > conversations come around to tragedies that have befallen > neighbours or people on the news, I no longer say; "You > never know when it's going to happen, do you? These > things can happen to any of us, at any time!" > > I have noticed that such comments cause an involuntary > look of dismay on non-Buddhist faces (indicating akusala > reactions). My conclusion is that only a person who > understands the theory of paramattha dhammas can react to > those dreadful concepts with calm and confidence. > > Kind regards, > Ken Ken, If I may kindly suggest, what you are telling those non-Buddhists isn't Buddhism at all, it is pessimism. It doesn't take into account the law of karma where people have some control over their destinies. If life was so haphazard and brutal, there would be no point to Buddhism, there would be no hope. Frankly, I am not sure how you have calm and confidence if you really believe that life is so haphazard and naturally brutal; you must believe that it is haphazard for everyone else but you…you are going to somehow escape and be okay?? The Buddha didn't teach this philosophy, it sounds a bit like Ayn Rand's objectivism. Metta, James 22628 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 5:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Mike, Concerning kamma as concept, I would say kamma is a conditional relation and conditional relations are neither rupa, citta, cetasika, nor nibbana. However, I would go further and say intentionality (the engine of kamma) is usually conceptual because it regards an object as "other" and "otherness" is conceptual, a corollary of self view or conceit. By "middle way" what I had in mind was the middle way between extreme views of kamma (eternalism and nihilism}. This all seems pretty conceptual to me. We could also consider it to be the middle way between worldly desires and extreme asceticism. I don't see how one could go this "way" without concepts. Isn't a "way" a concept? As for the Four Noble Truths, I don't see how a "truth" could be anything other than a concept. You wrote: M: The concepts of these [4 NT] are very profound by conceptual standards but are still just concepts--they can't be the bases of (profound) insight (as opposed to conventional, intellectual insight). L: Why not? Didn't Sariputta have a path insight as a result of hearing the dhamma (certainly words and concepts)? Also, isn't freeing oneself from the bondage of concepts by recognizing them and understanding what they are, isn't that itself an exercise in conceptuality? [just thought I would throw this last point in because I was thinking about it today] Larry 22629 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 5:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > > Changing the subject just slightly: Something has > happened to make me stop telling non-Buddhists that life > is short and brutal. Rightly or wrongly, I have come to > the conclusion that it doesn't help them. When casual > conversations come around to tragedies that have befallen > neighbours or people on the news, I no longer say; "You > never know when it's going to happen, do you? These > things can happen to any of us, at any time!" > > I have noticed that such comments cause an involuntary > look of dismay on non-Buddhist faces (indicating akusala > reactions). My conclusion is that only a person who > understands the theory of paramattha dhammas can react to > those dreadful concepts with calm and confidence. > >_______ Dear ken, I think it all depends. I always say things like that to my mother. Just last night she said something about how she might live to ninety and I replied "No, you're on your way out already". She laughed. I think it is helpful to be open about death even with non-buddhists as otherwise it remains a taboo subject. A step in helping anyone to live examined lives (as Christine says) is to get them to face that they may die this very day. So I think even accepting death conceptually lifts so much fear. Then there is more room to investigate the present moment and learn that actually death is happening right now. BTW your question about arupa brahmas dieing from there and going to hell. No, I think arupa Brahmas cannot go to the lower realms in the next life. Only in subsequent lives. RobertK 22630 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 5:52pm Subject: death Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Dear Ken, While we're on the subject of death I thought I'd add some more. It is one of the meditations recommended for laypeople (as well as monks) suitable for all times. Samyutta i 108 "The life of Humankind is short, a wise man holds it in contempt, ...death will never fail to come." Visuddhimagga "in the ultimate sense the life moment of beings is extremely short, being only as much as the occurence of one single conscious moment.. When that consciousness has ceased the being is said to have ceased"VIII39 It is unpredicatble how one will die: "The span, sickness, time, place, the body will be laid, the living world can never know these things. there is no sign fortells when they will be"Vis. Viii29 Anguttara nikaya iii306 " here bhikkhus a Bhikkhu considers thus: 'In many ways I risk death. A snake may bite me, or a scopion sting.. I might die of that. Or I might fall..Or food I have eaten might disagree....." A very calming subject of meditation- and that supports investigation of the moment. Robertk 22631 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 5:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, You wrote: I fear we may be going round in a circle here - Simply as I understand, citta (consciousness) experiences or is the experiencing of an object at every instant. It may be a reality that is experienced (a nama or rupa), but very often it is a concept such as 'bananas and grammar' or 'yellow'. Regardless of whether the concepts are 'right' conventionally or not, they are never the same as the consciousness and thinking which experience them. They are at that moment the object. L: I disagree. Experience is only consciousness. There are no objects "in" experience which are other than consciousness. The experience of the object of eye consciousness is consciousness. Likewise, the experience of a concept is consciousness. Light is consciousness, hardness is consciousness, taste is consciousness, Sarah is consciousness. That was my only point. I don't know what it means. But whatever it means, the meaning will be a concept and we will experience it as consciousness. Larry 22632 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 6:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 97, Mental Objects Hi Howard, I agree. In fact I think this commentary has been prescriptive throughout and awash in concepts. However, the likelihood of anyone changing his or her mind seems pretty slim. Larry ---------------- Howard wrote: Hi, Larry (and others - like Jon for instance ;-)) I perked up at the following two items, the first from near the beginning of the article, and the second from near the end. In each case, the thoughts went through my mind "Uh, oh - that sure sounds like recommending the exercising of volition! It sure sounds prescriptive, not descriptive! ;-)) 22633 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 3:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi, Ken (and Robert) - In a message dated 6/3/03 7:52:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Dear Howard and Robert K, > > Howard wrote: > ----------- > >Then, it follows that here are examples of the Buddha > being "pedantic and fatuous -- not in the least bit > sagacious" (all taken from ATI): > > ------------- > > Thank you Howard. My fatuous words have backfired on me. > I withdraw them. > > Still with egg on my face, let me make another suggestion > -- close to my previous one but with an important > difference, hopefully: > > You have quoted the following: > ---------------- > >"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, > decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, > weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that > group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing > away, > ------------- > > Whenever those self-evident events of daily life occur, > that is when namas and rupas are arising and falling > away. Ultimate reality is not something separate from > daily life, there is ONLY ultimate reality -- there are > ONLY dhammas -- all else is illusory. > > Ultimate reality is profound, directly knowable to the > extremely wise; however, we should not take this to mean > that right understanding cannot arise here and now. > When there are concepts of bodies -- emerging, aging, > dying -- THEN there are rupas to be known as they truly > are. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree with you completely, Ken, and I think that what you have said here is very well said! ------------------------------------------------------- > > Robert wrote: > ------------- > >I think sometimes the Buddha pointed out the general > impermanence of all things as a initial step to help > those overcome with conceit about body and so on. Once > he conjured a form of a beautiful woman and then let it > decay in front of a queen so that she could have that > reminder - and then go deeper to ultimate impermanence. > > ------------- > > Point taken, thank you very much. > > Changing the subject just slightly: Something has > happened to make me stop telling non-Buddhists that life > is short and brutal. Rightly or wrongly, I have come to > the conclusion that it doesn't help them. When casual > conversations come around to tragedies that have befallen > neighbours or people on the news, I no longer say; "You > never know when it's going to happen, do you? These > things can happen to any of us, at any time!" > > I have noticed that such comments cause an involuntary > look of dismay on non-Buddhist faces (indicating akusala > reactions). My conclusion is that only a person who > understands the theory of paramattha dhammas can react to > those dreadful concepts with calm and confidence. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: And often even Buddhists who have heard the dhamma theory and have heard of the tilakkhana, and understand all of these, and believe all of these, still cannot stand hearing of loss, let alone experiencing it. Intellectual knowledge goes only so far. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards, > Ken > ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22634 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 3:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/3/03 8:58:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > L: I disagree. Experience is only consciousness. There are no objects > "in" experience which are other than consciousness. The experience of > the object of eye consciousness is consciousness. Likewise, the > experience of a concept is consciousness. Light is consciousness, > hardness is consciousness, taste is consciousness, Sarah is > consciousness. That was my only point. I don't know what it means. But > whatever it means, the meaning will be a concept and we will experience > it as consciousness. > > ============================= This is a yogacara/vijnanavada view. But it is not the phenomenalism of Asanga and Vasubandhu, who founded that school. It is closer to the (substantialist, I think) idealism of the Lankavatara Sutra. It is true that what consciousness discerns does not lie in a presumed external world (a world which may or may not exist, but is, in principle, unknowable). But it is not quite correct, as I see it, to say that subject and object are the same - both just consciousness. This gives the picture of a consciousness-substance producing objects out of its own substance, rather like the God of the Kabbalists who withdrew part of his own substance within which he created the world. There is a clear distinction to be made, I believe, between the knowing and the known. They are different in appearance and different in kind. When they occur, they occur as opposing aspects of a single cognitive event. They are mutually dependent, inseparable, but still distinguishable. The awareness of bell-sound and the (heard) bell-sound co-occur, but are not the same. I do agree that there seems to be an "experiential space" within which cognitive events occur. Whether that is a reality or not, I cannot say. But if it is a reality, it wouldn't be correct, I think, to call it consciousness. 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) 22635 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 7:47pm Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Rob M, I am very fortunate to have you and other Abhidhamma teachers so close at hand. Studying it on my own would be next to impossible. Some of the your explanations in this post, did not sink in. They prompted me to do some reading on decisive support condition (upanissaya-paccaya): The result: mental blank :-) What helps me more than anything else, is to be continually reminded of; the present moment, nama and rupa, and anatta. My gratitude for these reminders, makes me only too keen to do the same for others. At some of our local discussion meetings, one good friend of mine has been known to storm out of the room! In my opinion, for what it's worth, the best thing you can do as an Abhidhamma teacher is to impress anatta on your students at every opportunity. What use is a knowledge of the Dhamma if there is the belief in a self who has it? Even more insidious: What use is a 'practice' of the Dhamma if there is a belief in a self who is practising? You write: ------------- > From the Bhumija Sutta (MN126), it is clear that good results come from proper practice, not good intentions. Does it make any difference if "proper practice" happened to be partially motivated (i.e. "decisive support condition") by akusala? I don't think so. > -------------- and later: -------------- > When in the "exhorting mode", I don't think that the Buddha was concerned about propogating a wrong view of self who can change things. When the monks followed the Buddha's exhortations and went to meditate, the monks would recognize the Dhamma through direct experience. > -------------- I'm not sure what to make of the above. The time to practise is here and now -- there can be no other time [for anything]. If there are akusala motives here and now, then that's my world -- akusala. Kind regards, Ken --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Ken H, > > I believe that the Buddha's approach of using a mixture of > conventional and absolute terms to be extremely important. When the > Buddha was in His "analysis mode", He used absolute terms. When the > Buddha was in His "exhorting mode", He used conventional terms. > > Why did I volunteer to teach an Abhidhamma class each Sunday > morning? I must admit that there was 22636 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 9:14pm Subject: Re: Precepts Dear RobM, RobK, KenH and all, Thanks for your posts - I've been thinking about them and following up the sutta refs. I smiled when KenH spoke of his friend who sometimes storms out of the room - I empathise with him.:-) The posts on the Precepts thread have given me a similar desire. :-) For me, it arises out of not being able to understand - to feel there is truth, but not to be able to form the questions to enable you all to elucidate further on what you have already told me. My major difficulty still remains in how is it possible for us to operate in this world if we have absolutely no control. I think we need limited control to be able to make choices, to regulate our lives, to have intentions. What is it that I'm not understanding? Your posts tell me that I, Christine, consist of momentarily existing namas and rupas whose thoughts, feelings and actions are the result of conditions; My understanding of 'no-control' is that my very existence, everything that has happened to me, all the thoughts that occur to me, all the emotions I feel, all the people and things that surround me and exist on this plane, are the result of complicated conditions in the past. But, is there nothing at all that can be done, decisions, plans etc. in the present moment, i.e. from this point looking forward? - even given that all is subject to previous conditions. If not, what is the point of anything? If we are just marionettes dangling on the strings of dosa, moha and lobha, why try to keep sila, why study the tipitaka, why not just helplessly do what arises. And why do we suffer the vipaka of actions that we had no control over? Or (if 'we' die in every moment) why does 'somebody else' suffer the vipaka from the actions that we had no control over? Surely to operate in the world, we must be able to make choices and plans. I seem to make present time decisions, even if my desires and decisions are heavily influenced by past experiences. And, if there is no way 'I' can do anything to make any progress on the path towards liberation why did the Buddha bother teaching and explaining. To listen to Dhamma is a choice. It doesn't just happen. If there is no-one who can create conditions, then it makes enlightenment seem an accident that happens to some and not to others. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" < 22637 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 9:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, By saying all there is in experience is consciousness I wasn't making a philosophical statement. The only implication I was interested in was that concepts have the same reality status as anything else because _as experience_ they are only consciousness and as anything other than consciousness they are not experienced and in that sense "not real". The same could be said of rupa. Cetasikas, and nibbana are seemingly forms of consciousness (right?). I think it is very reasonable to assume there are real objects that are not experienced but from the point of view of consciousness, all there is is consciousness. You wrote: H: There is a clear distinction to be made, I believe, between the knowing and the known. They are different in appearance and different in kind. When they occur, they occur as opposing aspects of a single cognitive event. They are mutually dependent, inseparable, but still distinguishable. The awareness of bell-sound and the (heard) bell-sound co-occur, but are not the same. L: I disagree. If there is an experienced difference between sound and awareness it is just a difference between two consciousnesses. Larry 22638 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 5:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/4/03 12:32:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > By saying all there is in experience is consciousness I wasn't making a > philosophical statement. The only implication I was interested in was > that concepts have the same reality status as anything else because _as > experience_ they are only consciousness and as anything other than > consciousness they are not experienced and in that sense "not real". The > same could be said of rupa. Cetasikas, and nibbana are seemingly forms > of consciousness (right?). I think it is very reasonable to assume there > are real objects that are not experienced but from the point of view of > consciousness, all there is is consciousness. You wrote: > > H: There is a clear distinction to be made, I believe, between the > knowing and the known. They are different in appearance and different in > kind. When they occur, they occur as opposing aspects of a single > cognitive event. They are mutually dependent, inseparable, but still > distinguishable. The awareness of bell-sound and the (heard) bell-sound > co-occur, but are not the same. > > L: I disagree. If there is an experienced difference between sound and > awareness it is just a difference between two consciousnesses. > > Larry > =========================== As I understand the word, consciousness is a knowing. Does a bell-sound know anything? Does hardness know anything? Or an image? Or an odor? A sound? A flavor? 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) 22639 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 6:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi again, Larry - You might be interested in the following site: http://www.human.toyogakuen-u.ac.jp/~acmuller/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-uni.htm 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) 22640 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 10:26pm Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hello Sinweiy, Welcome to dsg. Without having a great deal of theoretical knowledge. I'd like to comment on your questions and remarks: ------------- > Truth itself be it Conventional or Ultimate is Permanent. No? > -------------- As for ultimate truth; yes, that is a profound point. Certainly the Dhamma is eternal truth. Conventional truth? No, I can't see how you can say that. Conventional truth depends on opinions, dogma, cultural differences, etc., etc; it changes all the time. -------------- > But thus i heard(read), there are 3 ultimate permanencies. They are Concepts (ignorant mind), Nirvana (pure mind) and Infinite Space/time (emptiness). But since the first two are Mind, thus it's said Samsara and Nirvana are but One. > -------------- I've seen that suggested before. I don't know where it comes from. To me, it seems entirely wrong that samsara and nirvana are one. --------------- > Buddha had vowed to liberate all sentient beings, but there are but infinite beings, how can it be done. By become the Truth. And Buddha is Truth itself, thus it's said that the Buddha is omniscience. Awaken to Knowing is Permanent. Not knowing and ignorance is Impermanent. > --------------- Yes, that's brilliant, thank you. Kind regards, Ken 22641 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 10:33pm Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hello James (and Robert K), You wrote: --------------- > If I may kindly suggest, what you are telling those non-Buddhists isn't Buddhism at all, it is pessimism. > ------------- Quite right. If I were good and wise, I would have no trouble knowing when to speak, what to say [in order to help others] and when to remain silent. As it is, I'm likely to blurt out something I've read or something that seemed to work on a previous occasion, without really knowing what I'm doing. It's basically a 'hit and miss' affair :-) ------------- > Frankly, I am not sure how you have calm and confidence if you really believe that life is so haphazard and naturally brutal; you must believe that it is haphazard for everyone else but you…you are going to somehow escape and be okay?? > --------------- I think I follow you:- If I am calm in a world I believe to be tumultuous, then I must be thinking I am uniquely above it all. I didn't actually claim to be calm and confident. At any moment of right understanding there will be calm and confidence -- but then there will be no concept of toil and tumult. In the absence of such insight, I draw encouragement from my intellectual understanding of ultimate reality. What I was thinking at the time of writing, was that ordinary folk here in Australia, have never heard of ultimate reality. The only reality they know, is of self and others, people and places, peace and war, feast and famine . . . I'm not sure if you agree with Robert on this, but after reading his response, I concede that people of various persuasions can attain calm and confidence by facing up to their own mortality. (I'm not sure how they do it, though.) Kind regards, Ken 22642 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 11:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, It makes sense to me to say the experience of sound is consciousness but I can see how that wouldn't make sense to everyone. Larry -------------------- Howard wrote: As I understand the word, consciousness is a knowing. Does a bell-sound know anything? Does hardness know anything? Or an image? Or an odor? A sound? A flavor? 22643 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 2:23am Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: I'm not sure if you agree with Robert on this, but after > reading his response, I concede that people of various > persuasions can attain calm and confidence by facing up > to their own mortality. (I'm not sure how they do it, > though.) > > Kind regards, > Ken Ken, Yes, I agree with Robert, but let me add a bit more to what I was trying to say. Let me use an example, I saw this commercial on TV tonight, an anti-drug commercial, that has a father talking about his daughter who has died. She died after taking two Ecstasy pills, the first time she had ever taken them. The father was crying and wiping his eyes and saying, "It isn't right for a parent to outlive his children. It isn't proper." Even though most don't face death with the equanimity of a high practitioner, they accept that it does occur. But what is horrifying to people is if it occurs and it could have been prevented or it occurs as a senseless act of violence. If I was watching TV about the murder of Laci Peterson and said to my mother, "Well, you know, that could happen to you. That could happen to anyone, at any time," of course she is going to be horrified. But my parents plan openly for their deaths and we talk bout the inevitable quite often…I have been given specific instructions. I think there is a difference between keeping others mindful of death and scaring them unnecessarily with death. I am assuming that if you got horrified reactions from people, maybe it was more the later. But, given your level-headedness, maybe not. Maybe they are like Michael Jackson who says that he is never going to die. We all need a little wake-up call every now and then! ;-) Metta, James 22644 From: Andrew Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 2:57am Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Ken, > > If I may kindly suggest, what you are telling those non-Buddhists > isn't Buddhism at all, it is pessimism. It doesn't take into account > the law of karma where people have some control over their > destinies. If life was so haphazard and brutal, there would be no > point to Buddhism, there would be no hope. Frankly, I am not sure > how you have calm and confidence if you really believe that life is > so haphazard and naturally brutal; you must believe that it is > haphazard for everyone else but you?you are going to somehow escape > and be okay?? The Buddha didn't teach this philosophy, it sounds a > bit like Ayn Rand's objectivism. > > Metta, James Hi James (and KenH) Here's a thought from Prof Hiriyanna in his "Outlines of Indian Philosophy". He says that the Dhamma IS pessimistic but "it must not be taken to be a creed of despair". That's probably a vital distinction. Personally, I have always thought of the Dhamma as uncompromisingly realistic. It is not a pessimistic story that can be brightened up, Hollywood-style, to suit the box office! You can't change the ending so that you walk away "feeling good". I know people who have walked away from Buddhism because they feel it is too pessimistic/depressing. I usually don't say anything to them but I do have thoughts that they are just not being realistic. When I was a little lad in a Catholic school, we used to sing "All things bright and beautiful .. the Lord God made them all". But if there was a flood or bushfire, all the priests and nuns would exclaim "Isn't nature cruel!" There was never any mention of the all-powerful God at those times. Well, I'm sorry, but this confused me. As we say in Australia, it was "having two bob each way", a reluctance or refusal to acknowledge the unpleasant consequences of one's accepted premises. I'll stop ranting there and humbly ask one of the Pali experts to expound on the meaning of "domanassa-manopavicara" or mental indulging in sorrow. The dictionary definition is not very fulsome and it strikes me that this teaching may help steer us away from despair. Any ideas? Metta, Andrew 22645 From: sinweiy Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 3:02am Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hello Ken H, all No thankyou for you reply, i'm not that well verse either. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Conventional truth? No, I can't see how you can say that. > Conventional truth depends on opinions, dogma, cultural > differences, etc., etc; it changes all the time. > i agree that convention (without the word truth) are changing all the time and not permanent. And Yes the profound word "dependent". It all depends on ones' view. i'm a Dao/Tao practitioner and of course the Buddhadharma. As you state that convention and ultimate are 2 different views, is not that dualistic? :) Anyway from my understanding, conventions are "mould" or base on the same "law" as the Ultimate do. Convention is base on not knowing, while ultimate is base on all knowing. So one can said in terms of word, they are but 2 different descriptive of the word "Truth". But i don't want to tear them a part either, as they are only the pointing fingers, pointing towards the one moon (Truth). There's the great emptiness. Convention are still as true, but not completely true, as our minds are not complete. Like when i say that the computer in front of me is real and very true. i have no doubt because it's very near to me. But if one were to place it further away from me then i will not be that sure of the object anymore, as my "view" will be bluish. But they are the same computer object. Also (believe you heard it), if 5 Blind men were given to touch and examine an elephant. Each one will come together and tell a different story of the different parts they perceived. And yet actually they are speaking of the one elephant (ie Truth). > -------------- > But since the first two are Mind, thus it's said Samsara > and Nirvana are but One. > > -------------- > > I've seen that suggested before. I don't know where it > comes from. To me, it seems entirely wrong that samsara > and nirvana are one. > i so to speak because samsara is but a block of ice floating in the great ocean of nirvana. Both containing the same substance of the one primordial mind. i'm only follow the saying that All is One and One is All (Avatamsaka Sutra). i was told from a guru that if one is holding a dualistic, desire and attach mind, one is not reach a Bodhi mind. -Amituofo- sinweiy ps: High time the little "wave" understood that it is actually part of the great ocean.:) 22646 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 4:17am Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Christine and all, The idea of "no-control" is not what the Buddha taught. It stems from misunderstanding and leads to confusion, to wrong effort. It is not unreasonable that you questioned the very validity of this idea of "no-control." Here is a reference to the discourse Majjhima Nikaya 20 Vitakkasanthana Sutta The Relaxation of Thoughts http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn020.html that I found relevant. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear RobM, RobK, KenH and all, [snip] > > metta and peace, > Christine 22647 From: m. nease Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 6:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > Hi Mike, > > Concerning kamma as concept, I would say kamma is a conditional relation > and conditional relations are neither rupa, citta, cetasika, nor > nibbana. I don't know what a conditional relation is (I don't mean to be obtuse)--I just think of kamma as action (mental, verbal or physical), speaking conventionally--in terms of abhidhamma, I do think of it as a cetasika, namely cetanaa, or as a condition (kamma-paccaya), also a cetasika. > However, I would go further and say intentionality (the engine > of kamma) is usually conceptual because it regards an object as "other" > and "otherness" is conceptual, a corollary of self view or conceit. When you write, 'intentionality (the engine of kamma), do you mean 'intention' in the sense of 'cetanaa' (intention is the translation of cetanaa)? > By "middle way" what I had in mind was the middle way between extreme > views of kamma (eternalism and nihilism}. > This all seems pretty > conceptual to me. We could also consider it to be the middle way between > worldly desires and extreme asceticism. I see what you mean--I was thinking of the middle path in terms of paramattha-sacca, that is, a moment of the arising of the path-factors. As I see it, the concept of the path is different from the arising of the path. > I don't see how one could go > this "way" without concepts. Isn't a "way" a concept? When you say 'way' do you mean the same thing I mean when I say 'path'? If so, the concept of 'way' certainly can occur but this is different from the arising of the path factors, I think (hope I haven't misunderstood you or equivocated 'way' and 'path' incorrectly). Certainly I agree that right conventional understanding is necessary to begin to understand Buddhdhamma. I don't think it's the same thing as insight, though. In fact, as I understand it, the very difference between paramattha and other dhammas is that the former can be the bases of insight and the latter (including concepts) can't. I think this is consistent with the tipi.taka. > As for the Four Noble Truths, I don't see how a "truth" could be > anything other than a concept. You wrote: There is the conventional concept of the first truth, e.g., but the concept of dukkha is not the same as the experience of dukkha, I think. > M: The concepts of these [4 NT] are very profound by conceptual > standards but are still just concepts--they can't be the bases of > (profound) insight (as opposed to conventional, intellectual insight). > > L: Why not? Didn't Sariputta have a path insight as a result of hearing > the dhamma (certainly words and concepts)? I think most (all?) of the people who became enlightened in the tipi.taka did so after hearing (or reflecting on) the Buddhadhamma--the words and concepts came first, the insight followed, I think. > Also, isn't freeing oneself > from the bondage of concepts by recognizing them and understanding what > they are, isn't that itself an exercise in conceptuality? Maybe so, but I don't think that 'freeing oneself from the bondage of concepts by recognizing them and understanding what they are' is at all the same thing as any of the stages of enlightenment--though it may be a very useful precursor. > [just thought > I would throw this last point in because I was thinking about it today] Thanks for all the throwing in, it's always worth sorting through all of this, I think. mike 22648 From: Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 3:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/4/03 2:13:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > It makes sense to me to say the experience of sound is consciousness but > I can see how that wouldn't make sense to everyone. > > Larry > -------------------- > Howard wrote: As I understand the word, consciousness is a knowing. Does > a bell-sound know anything? Does hardness know anything? Or an image? Or > an odor? A sound? A flavor? > > ========================== I'm trying to grasp your meaning. It *may* be that you are speaking from a nondual perspective, one reflective of a nondual mode of awareness that transcends mine, or one reflective of a language error. I simply don't know. The word 'experience' can have several senses it seems to me. One of these is 1) the operation of knowing something, being aware of something, with the subjective knowing function being referred to rather than what is known. This is a one-sided sense of the word. In this case, the word could be a verb or a noun. The "opposite" one-sided sense is 2) the content of consciousness on an occasion, so that, for example, itchiness could be an "experience" in this sense, or brightness, or love. This, I believe, would only be a noun. A third sense would be 3) the full cognitive event consisting of the knowing and the known, a single event with two distinguishable sides/aspects/poles comparable to the inside and he outside of a cup. This could be either verb or noun. A fourth sense, reflective of a fully nondual event is that of 4) a cognitive event in which there is no distinguishing whatsoever of subjective aspect from objective aspect. It is my experience that the typical mode of consciousness (in sense 3) of worldlings is an extreme of dualized awareness. In this there is the seeming of a self-existent subject relating to a separate, self-existing object. Here, both subject and object are reified, most often to the extent that the psychological subject appears as a self-existent "internal entity", and the psychological object is "projected outwards" as an "object in the world". Here, vi~n~nana is in the realm of "mind", and rupa is "matter" rather than just a "material form" content of consciousness. Now, I had an experience (once) in which this extreme of reification and splitting of subject and object was eradicated. During this, there was completely lost any sense of self. There was no longer any knower as an entity or existent. Along with this, there were no longer any "things" known. But, if attention was put it, it was still possible to be aware that there was content and knowing of that content as inseparable aspects of a single, flowing event. Now, when you say "the experience of sound is consciousness," I can't tell which of senses (1) - (4), or yet another, is being expressed. In sense (1), it is a mere truism. In sense (2), it strikes me as an odd use of language. In senses (3) and (4), it strikes me as true but with a possible substance-feel to it that is problematical, though not easily rectifiable. In any case, I cannot tell whether or not your regular mode of cognition is of type (4). I also cannot tell whether such a mode of cognition is one which sees truly, because subject-object polarity is illusion, or one which simply fails to make a valid distinction, going beyond non-reification of subject and object to a false annihilation of them. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22649 From: m. nease Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 7:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? p.s. ----- Original Message ----- From: m. nease To: Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 6:24 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > > However, I would go further and say intentionality (the engine > > of kamma) is usually conceptual because it regards an object as "other" > > and "otherness" is conceptual, a corollary of self view or conceit. I think of self view and conceit as very specific mental factors. I guess you could say in some philosophical sense that '"otherness" is conceptual, a corollary of self view or conceit' but I don't think this is consistent with the use of those terms in the tipi.taka. From Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary: sakkáya-ditthi 'personality-belief', is the first of the 10 fetters (samyojana). It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of Stream-winning (sotápatti-magga; s. ariya-puggala). There are 20 kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha): (1-5) the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness; (6-10) to be contained in them; (11-15) to be independent of them; (16-20) to be the owner of them (M.44; S.XXII.1). http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_t/sakkaaya_ditthi.htm mána 'conceit', pride, is one of the 10 fetters binding to existence (s. samyojana). It vanishes completely only at the entrance to Arahatship, or Holiness (cf. asmi-mána). It is further one of the proclivities (s. anusaya) and defilements (s. kilesa). " The (equality-) conceit (mána), the inferiority-conceit (omána) and the superiority-conceit (atimána): this threefold conceit should be overcome. For, after overcoming this threefold conceit, the monk, through the full penetration of conceit, is said to have put an end suffering" (A. VI, 49). "Those ascetics and brahman priests who, relying on this impermanent, misera ble and transitory nature of corporeality, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness, fancy: 'Better am I', or 'Equal am I', or 'Worse am I', all these imagine thus through not understanding reality" (S. XXII, 49). In reality no ego-entity is to be found. Cf. anattá. http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/g_m/maana.htm I don't see the concept of 'otherness' to be particularly pertinent to either of these--hope I haven't misunderstood you... mike 22650 From: Michael Newton Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- buddhatrue wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "kenhowardau" > wrote: > I'm not sure if you agree with Robert on > this, but after > > reading his response, I concede that people of > various > > persuasions can attain calm and confidence by > facing up > > to their own mortality. (I'm not sure how they do > it, > > though.) > > > > Kind regards, > > Ken > > Ken, > > Yes, I agree with Robert, but let me add a bit more > to what I was > trying to say. Let me use an example, I saw this > commercial on TV > tonight, an anti-drug commercial, that has a father > talking about his > daughter who has died. She died after taking two > Ecstasy pills, the > first time she had ever taken them. The father was > crying and wiping > his eyes and saying, "It isn't right for a parent to > outlive his > children. It isn't proper." Even though most don't > face death with > the equanimity of a high practitioner, they accept > that it does > occur. But what is horrifying to people is if it > occurs and it could > have been prevented or it occurs as a senseless act > of violence. If > I was watching TV about the murder of Laci Peterson > and said to my > mother, "Well, you know, that could happen to you. > That could happen > to anyone, at any time," of course she is going to > be horrified. But > my parents plan openly for their deaths and we talk > bout the > inevitable quite often…I have been given specific > instructions. I > think there is a difference between keeping others > mindful of death > and scaring them unnecessarily with death. I am > assuming that if you > got horrified reactions from people, maybe it was > more the later. > But, given your level-headedness, maybe not. Maybe > they are like > Michael Jackson who says that he is never going to > die. We all need > a little wake-up call every now and then! ;-) > > Metta, James > > Hello!James; Your response to Ken was very well put and right on the mark.Yes,for a parent it must be hard to deal with a son or daughters death at a young age,especially in a way that might have been prevented.Haveing said this,the ultimate question,would be whether each one of us at our time of death,will put up resistance,or open up to this ultimate fact.One thing is certain,we all will die-but what is uncertain-is when that will happen.thanks,nice to hear from you again. Yours in Dhamma with Metta,Michael > 22651 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 1:40pm Subject: Audio Library - Seattle Insight Meditation Society Dear Group, Some members may be interested in this link to the Seattle Insight Meditation Society - their on-line class library is a good resource - I find it quite valuable: http://www.seattleinsight.org/onlineclasses.htm metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 22652 From: manjushri888 Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 2:28pm Subject: Hello Hello, I just joined this list today. I've been learning about Buddhism for a few year's now but I'm quite new to yahoo group's. The main reason I'm posting is because I would like to read up on a particular subject in the sutra's but I dont know where to look yet. Does anyone here know where in the Buddha's sutra's I can learn about, if a soul in samsara is in the deva realm, can it fall back down to the three lower realm's--animal, hungry ghost, and hell's--again when the good karma run's out? I'm guessing this is the case, but I would love some confirmation on the subject. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank's, Dan 22653 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 2:55pm Subject: Anatta Precepts > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" < Dear Christine, These type of profound questions don't come out of nowhere, they come from conditions - including reflecting on profound Dhamma. --------------------------------------- For me, it arises out of not > being able to understand - to feel there is truth, but not to be able > to form the questions to enable you all to elucidate further on what > you have already told me. My major difficulty still remains in how > is it possible for us to operate in this world if we have absolutely > no control. I think we need limited control to be able to make > choices, to regulate our lives, to have intentions. What is it that Ø I'm not understanding? Ø _______________________ If it is wisdom that is developing then that will mean that life is understood much better and so operating in the world will become easier. Not us making it easier or trying to make it easier– rather simply that wisdom , a dhamma, sees things clearer. Always there are choices – and these are conditioned. Some people believe they have to decide to become enlightened or be aware. This is living in a world of concept revolving around selfview. Because of selfview there will always be movement away from the present moment, no satisfaction with what is here and now. There can be awareness while making choices, as during any moment. ----------------------------------- > > Your posts tell me that I, Christine, consist of momentarily existing > namas and rupas whose thoughts, feelings and actions are the result > of conditions; My understanding of 'no-control' is that my very > existence, everything that has happened to me, all the thoughts that > occur to me, all the emotions I feel, all the people and things that > surround me and exist on this plane, are the result of complicated conditions in the past. _________________________________ Why do you limit to past? Now there is cakkhu vinnana arising and then following mind door processes which think about what was seen. These are new conditions developing right now.____________________________________________ > But, is there nothing at all that can be > done, decisions, plans etc. in the present moment, i.e. from this > point looking forward? - even given that all is subject to previous conditions. If not, what is the point of anything? ________________ Everything can be done! Do you think the present moment disappears when one is walking or talking? ----------------------- If we are just > marionettes dangling on the strings of dosa, moha and lobha, why try > to keep sila, why study the tipitaka, why not just helplessly do what arises. ___________ Can we see that when it is `us' doing something that this is another spin of the wheel. Someone could indeed study the whole Tipitaka, and keep sila, and `believe" in anatta – and yet still miss the point. It is deepening understanding of conditions – as anatta – which leads to a gradual dis-attachment to the five aggregates. Because they are seen to be uncontrollable – no matter how much we thought they are or should be controllable. You write "helplessly do what arises". Is this is an assumption that there was a self before who was in some type of control and now there isn't. When we felt/feel in control there was ignorance of the different complex conditions which arise to have that feeling. When anatta-sannna, perception of anatta, is strong then one will face the moment directly. And then accumulations show themselves as they are and the puppet masters – ignorance and clinging– start to be glimpsed. This is how slowly the difference between sati and tanha is known. ""Therefore, just as a marionette is void, soulless and without curisosity, and while it works and stands merely through the combination of strings and wood yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness, so too this materiality (rupa)- mentality (nama) is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness." Visuddhimagga xviii31 ________________________________________________- And why do we suffer the vipaka of actions that we had no > control over? Or (if 'we' die in every moment) why does 'somebody > else' suffer the vipaka from the actions that we had no control > over? Surely to operate in the world, we must be able to make >choices and plans. ____________ Arahants make choices and plan. It would be unnatural to try to stop making plans. That is self-view that thinks like that. ____________ >>> I seem to make present time decisions, even if my > desires and decisions are heavily influenced by past experiences. > And, if there is no way 'I' can do anything to make any progress on > the path towards liberation why did the Buddha bother teaching and > explaining. To listen to Dhamma is a choice. It doesn't just happen. _____ Of course. Someone else might choose not to listen: And be convinced they made the right decision. Choice is a complex series of different cittas and cetasikas conditioned by past and present conditions. If there are sufficient conditions then saddha cetasika (confidence) in the triple gem develops and this co-arises with viriya(energy) to hear more, reflect more: To not turn away from the present moment; to not be caught in some ritual. It can become a power. ---------------- >>> If there is no-one who can create conditions, then it makes >> enlightenment seem an accident that happens to some and not to others. _____________________- . Someone might marvel at why Angulimala - a bloody murderer – can become enlightened after a few sentences from the Buddha; while Venerable Sunnakkhata – an early attendant to the Buddha , and skilled in genuine jhana – leaves the order to follow the leader of a strange sect. If we don't know of the countless conditions and the way accumulations work it seems all by chance In the deepest sense no others , no us. Just dhammas arising – not by accident- but by conditions. All of these dhammas, the five aggregates, are nothing good. The five khandhas are: "a disease, a boil, a dart, as calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as no protection, as empty, as void, as having no core, as Mara's bait, as not self...."Patisambhidhimagga XXIX8 The khandhas have the appearance of being desirable because of the vipallasa (perversions of view)and because there is usually the taking of a whole - a concept - as object. It is seeing the uncontrollable, impermanent nature of all dhammas that leads to turning away. But this is an incremental process. I am still content to be a child playing with sandcastles, but like a child, realising that slowly maturity is coming and oneday I'll let the tide wash over them and not want to play anymore. So the urgency; "like putting out a fire on ones head" doesn't mean grab whatever's closest and throw on. It might be gasoline one picks up. I think it is the urgency to be so very patient. RobertK [SN XXIII.2]"It's just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles. As long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play. "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness -- because the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding." The characteristic of not-self becomes evident to him through seeing rise according to conditions owing to his discovery that states have no curiosity and have their existence depending upon conditions" Vis.xx102 22654 From: gazita2002 Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 5:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Ken (and Robert) - > Hello Howard, Ken and Robert, I have been following this thread with interest as I work with sick and sometimes dying children. Currently we have been dealing with kids with life threatening diseases and thus the resulant behaviour problems from kids who know their lives are different from their peers. From this, I have often wondered about the following: > You have quoted the following: > > ---------------- > > >"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, > > decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life- force, > > weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that > > group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing > > away, > > ------------- > > > > Robert wrote: > > ------------- > > >I think sometimes the Buddha pointed out the general > > impermanence of all things as a initial step to help > > those overcome with conceit about body and so on. Once > > he conjured a form of a beautiful woman and then let it > > decay in front of a queen so that she could have that > > reminder - and then go deeper to ultimate impermanence. > > > ------------- we talk about aging and death, but sometimes I see the death before the aging, and people talk about 'premature death' or the comment 'died before his time'. Is there something in Buddhist literature that gives humans a certain life span? And now that I've asked this question, I vaguely remember asking this once before, and I think that bec. human life is so precious, that to have a long and healthy life span is probably much better kamma than to have a short and sickly life. However, I would like to hear others comment on this. How could you speak to a child about all this? As you can imagine, some of these children and their families, are difficult to deal with. May we all have patience, courage and good cheer, Azita > 22655 From: Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 5:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Mike, Let's narrow our focus onto one issue: kamma. I don't see kamma or kamma paccaya listed as one of the 52 cetasikas. I imagine you will say volition (cetana) is kamma. I would say volition is only part of kamma. There is also root consciousness, its object, kamma result and several other elements which I don't know. Also we could say kamma is a process which operates dependent on the relationships between these elements and others in the consciousness process and the largely unknowable kamma process. So kamma is a rather complex dog and pony show, to say the least. I believe this qualifies it to be characterized as a concept. What do you say? Larry 22656 From: Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 5:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, I think this is pretty much what I had in mind by saying the experience of sound is consciousness: Howard: "The word 'experience' can have several senses it seems to me. One of these is 1) the operation of knowing something, being aware of something, with the subjective knowing function being referred to rather than what is known. This is a one-sided sense of the word. In this case, the word could be a verb or a noun." L: I think we have to reason our way back to the true object of sense consciousness by means of logic, inference, and lots of data but I don't see any problem with that, except that we usually get it wrong. All I'm saying is everything is as real as the consciousness it IS as experience. I'm not making any claims about accuracy or truth regarding the object that instigated the experience. Larry 22657 From: gazita2002 Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 5:55pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn -again --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michael Newton wrote: > --- buddhatrue wrote: [snip] > I > > think there is a difference between keeping others > > mindful of death > > and scaring them unnecessarily with death. > [snip] > Metta, James > > thank you, James. Your comments have been helpful, esp the above as I think I tend to be a little 'coarse' about death. > Hello!James; > Your response to Ken was very well put and right on > the mark.Yes,for a parent it must be hard to deal with > a son or daughters death at a young age,especially in > a way that might have been prevented.Haveing said > this,the ultimate question,would be whether each one > of us at our time of death,will put up resistance,or > open up to this ultimate fact.One thing is certain,we > all will die-but what is uncertain-is when that will > happen.thanks,nice to hear from you again. > Yours in Dhamma with Metta,Michael > > dear Michael, I think you have helped me a lot here. Yes, we know we will all die and I also think most of us put it out of our minds, until sudden death and not-so-sudden death comes to give us a shake up. Because I see young ones dying, I often wonder how those parents cope later on. Different for everyone, I know, but surely it must be easier when we really understand something about the ultimate realities of life, that there is death at every moment and that the death consciousness - cuti citta- and rebirth moment -patisandhi citta- are just more moments of arising and falling away. However, I still find it scarey, the moment of death, where will 'I' go. Just attachment I guess, to 'me' and 'my life'. Cheers, and wishing you patience and courage. Azita 22658 From: sinweiy Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 8:25pm Subject: Re: Hello Dan Hi, i'm new to this group too. Would like to make my 1 cent comment.:) Commentary, You're right. The answer is yes, if not it will not fit the entire picture of the teachings. Thus i heard, samsara consist of the 3 realm of desire, form and formless. or the Ten Dharma Realms. The lowest six realms are known as the Six Paths or Six Realms of Rebirth. These six states of existence are subjected to birth and death. The upper four realms are known as the Four Holy Realms. These four states of existence are beyond birth and death and liberated from the Samsara. If as we understood Killing generates bad kamma. The lower beings do not know killing is bad as it is for their survival; their bad kamma is slight. But for an intelligent being, like a human being, knowing killing is inflicting suffering, the action of killing will bring him down to one of the lower levels of existence. After suffering the bad effects, he will come up again to one of the higher levels again. Due to this killing and other defilements, a unit of mind will forever be existing up and down in different levels of existence until one day it dawns on it that killing is bad and that he must work hard in doing good and eradicating all defilements. It then climbs to the summit (out of the 3 realms) with purities and wisdom and will not gather or cling to matters, physical or mental. It will stay on the top and will never descend to the lower levels again. -Amituofo- sinweiy --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" wrote: > Hello, > > I just joined this list today. I've been learning about Buddhism for > a few year's now but I'm quite new to yahoo group's. The main reason > I'm posting is because I would like to read up on a particular > subject in the sutra's but I dont know where to look yet. Does anyone > here know where in the Buddha's sutra's I can learn about, if a soul > in samsara is in the deva realm, can it fall back down to the three > lower realm's--animal, hungry ghost, and hell's--again when the good > karma run's out? I'm guessing this is the case, but I would love some > confirmation on the subject. > > Any information would be greatly appreciated. > > Thank's, > > Dan 22659 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 0:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hello Mike, First of all, let me take back that question about jhana masters' going to hell. I'm sure you've seen Robert's answer; I was barking up the wrong tree. DELETE ALL REFERENCE :-) Getting back to aayuuhana v's anusaya, I'm finding this thread very informative and thought-provoking, thank you. You wrote: ------------ > By the way, I don't believe in reincarnation(!), ------------- To digress briefly: I think you mean you don't believe in rebirth. (None of us at dsg believes in reincarnation):-) You continued: --------------- > hells, heavens, world-cycles, devas, petas, . . . . . . . . . I don't think they have physical existence in the same sense or to the same extent that 'a person'--yet another convention--does. > ----------------- Obviously, these opinions don't detract from your confidence in the Dhamma. Personally, I tend to adopt a more compliant attitude but there's no certainty that that makes me any more receptive to right understanding. I'd say we're both wavering as to whether some or all of these unlikely-sounding things are, or are not, integral to right understanding. If I'm right, then I suppose there is vicikicca (sceptical doubt) at these moments? ----------------- > Why is this? Because I'm incapable of believing in them (literally)--it isn't in 'my character' (sankhaarakhandha?) or, to use the popular dsg term, 'my accumulations'. > --------------- I can't argue with that as an over-all, perception of the way things are. However, when we consider the nature of the present moment, I think the only evidence of accumulations is in the actual cetasikas that present themselves. If there is adosa now, then a latent tendency for dosa makes no difference. Getting back to that cetasika that stops us from believing in things like hungry ghosts --whether it's vicikicca or whatever it is -- there is no self who is bound by it's statistical likelihood to arise. So, in the present moment, even you could believe in hungry ghosts :-) Kind regards, Ken 22660 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 0:43am Subject: Re: Hello Dan Hello Dan,and Sinweiy, Welcome Dan, and Sinweiy, nice to have you as members of dsg. Dan - you may find it interesting to go to the Subject Index at Access to Insight and look at the Buddha's suttas under "A" for 'Anatta' - (no soul, no self) ; and "R" for 'rebirth' and then anything else you wish to explore.. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html Sinweiy - I have enjoyed your interesting posts on Sangha list for quite a while. Glad to see you here. :-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sinweiy" 22661 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 1:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi Sinweiy, I’m glad to see you’ve made yourself at home on DSG;-) Do you live in Asia, I wonder? Your name sounds Chinese. (Jon and I live in Hong Kong). You raise many interesting comments in your posts - some of the different understandings may be partly because as you say, you are a Dao practitioner and some other schools have different interpretations about nirvana/nibbana and samsara for example. ..... > i so to speak because samsara is but a block of ice floating in the > great ocean of nirvana. Both containing the same substance of the one > primordial mind. ..... I don’t believe you will find these ideas in the (Pali) Tipitaka, for example. ..... > i'm only follow the saying that All is One and One is All (Avatamsaka > Sutra). > i was told from a guru that if one is holding a dualistic, desire and > attach mind, one is not reach a Bodhi mind. ..... Again I haven’t read the ‘All is One and One is All’ sayings in the (Theravada) suttas and here, the emphasis given by the Buddha is on the 4 Noble Truths and the final goal of arahantship/eradication of defilements rather than the Bodhi mind I think. I appreciate that it’s difficult for those from other traditions to distinguish between suttas and sutras and so on and greatly appreciate your effort and patience to try and understand/fit in with us all in this regard. I’ll leave Ken H to discuss computer - concept/reality - with you further;-) and look forward to more of your reflections. Metta, Sarah p.s. > -Amituofo- > sinweiy > ps: High time the little "wave" understood that it is actually part > of the great ocean.:) ..... would you kindly explain what ‘Amituofo’ means and I’m not sure about the little ‘wave’ being part of the great ocean...: ??? =================================== 22662 From: sinweiy Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 1:56am Subject: Re: Hello Christine Hi Christine ^__^, all Actually, i am glad that you lead me here. Nice to see you doing some wonderful "job" here. :) with metta to all, sinweiy -Amituofo- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html > > metta and peace, > Christine 22663 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 2:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello Hi Dan, --- manjushri888 wrote: > Hello, > > I just joined this list today. I've been learning about Buddhism for > a few year's now but I'm quite new to yahoo group's. ..... Let me add to the other ‘welcomes’ and say I’m glad you’ve joined and are already asking questions. If you’d care to share anything further about yourself, such as where you live or how you became interested in Buddhism, that would be interesting. ..... >The main reason > I'm posting is because I would like to read up on a particular > subject in the sutra's but I dont know where to look yet. Does anyone > here know where in the Buddha's sutra's I can learn about, if a soul > in samsara is in the deva realm, can it fall back down to the three > lower realm's--animal, hungry ghost, and hell's--again when the good > karma run's out? I'm guessing this is the case, but I would love some > confirmation on the subject. ..... This is a complex subject and not an easy one for me either(like Mike). Of course in the Buddhist Teachings, there is no ‘soul’ as such, but that’s another topic. Rebirth can take place in one of many different planes of existence. If you look at this link and go down to ‘planes of existence’, you’ll find one or two past posts (one I remember from RobM in particular) giving more information on these: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Throughout the suttas there are many examples of different rebirths. The Jataka stories are also full of stories of past lives. There are also very interesting texts on the Peta (hungry ghost) Stories and Vimana (Deva mansion) stories. RobK mentioned that it’s not possible for rebirth immediately after a deva realm to be in a lower realm I think and I’d also be interested to hear more about this. In the Peta stories, all the petas discussed have ‘fallen’ from the human plane. This may just be because the stories are deliberately to ‘disturb’ us out of any complacency with regard to unwise actions. There are, however, unusual accounts of petas who are reborn in deva realms, usually as a result of great compassion and assistance of Noble disciples. Let me know if you’d like any more information on this. I’m pretty sure these texts aren’t on line. Certainly, in the course of samsara, there have been numerous rebirths in different planes and the only ‘escape’ is the development of insight and attainment of the stages of enlightenment. Maybe you could also tell us a little more about the reason for your interest in this area too. With metta, Sarah p.s we have another ‘Dan’ on DSG. Perhaps you could add an initial after your name, eg Dan A or even Dan2 if you prefer, to avoid confusion. ============================================= 22664 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 2:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > RobK mentioned that it's not possible for rebirth > immediately after a deva realm to be in a lower realm I think and I'd also > be interested to hear more about this. ________ Dear Sarah, The deva worlds are kama-loka ,like human realms and so , like human realms, many who die from there go to the lower worlds. Some stay in the deva world , some are born as human and some may go to brahma worlds. Only the arupa Brahmas have a breather as they will not go directly to the lower worlds. Robert 22665 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 2:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: How could you speak to a child about all this? As you can > imagine, some of these children and their families, are difficult to > deal with. > May we all have patience, courage and good cheer, > Azita Hi Azita, I would tell the terminally ill child and his family that before the child was born he or she decided to have a short life (through either God or Karma, depending on their faith) and also chose the appropriate parents for this short life. Since this life chosen was so short, there was only one thing to learn about: Love. How to give love and how to receive love in the most selfless way possible. They have been given a great opportunity to learn this lesson…the parents and the child. That is what I would tell them. Metta, James 22666 From: sinweiy Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 3:11am Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi Sarah, Nice to meet you too. Thanks for your reply. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > I'm glad to see you've made yourself at home on DSG;-) Do you live in > Asia, I wonder? Your name sounds Chinese. (Jon and I live in Hong Kong). > S: Are you able to speak cantonese? How's the SARS situation going on? BTW, i'm live in Singapore. > You raise many interesting comments in your posts - some of the different > understandings may be partly because as you say, you are a Dao > practitioner and some other schools have different interpretations about > nirvana/nibbana and samsara for example.> I don't believe you will find these ideas in the (Pali) Tipitaka, for > example. > .....> Again I haven't read the `All is One and One is All' sayings in the > (Theravada) suttas and here, the emphasis given by the Buddha is on the 4 > Noble Truths and the final goal of arahantship/eradication of defilements > rather than the Bodhi mind I think. > > I appreciate that it's difficult for those from other traditions to > distinguish between suttas and sutras and so on and greatly appreciate > your effort and patience to try and understand/fit in with us all in this > regard. S: i'm more incline toward Pureland Mahayanists. :) i'm willing to fit in in terms of Buddhadharma's point of view - be it (Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand )Theravada or (China, Japan and Korea) Mahayana or Zen or Pureland, TienTai Or (Tibet and Mongolia) Vajrayana. You are right that the Mahayana(Great Vehicle)are not known in the Theravada Pali literature. And i'm not well verse in Pali, more toward chinese. Theravadins say that this potential can be realized through individual effort. Mahayanists, on the other hand, believe that they can seek salvation through the intervention of other superior beings called Bodhisattas. According to them, Bodhisattas are future Buddhas who, out of compassion for their fellow human beings, have delayed their own attainment of Buddhahood until they have helped others towards liberation. In spite of this basic difference, however, it must be stressed that doctrinally there is absolutely no disagreement concerning the Dhamma as contained in the sacred Tripitaka texts. Because Buddhists have been encouraged by the Master to carefully inquire after the truth, they have been free to interpret the scriptures according to their understanding. But above all, both Mahayana and Theravada are one in their reverence for the Buddha. The areas of agreement between the two schools are as follows: Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher. The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools. The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools. The Pattica-Samuppada or teaching on Dependent Origination is the same in both schools. Both reject the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world. Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference. > > I'll leave Ken H to discuss computer - concept/reality - with you > further;-) > and look forward to more of your reflections. > S: Thank you. :) > > ps: High time the little "wave" understood that it is actually part > > of the great ocean.:) > ..... > would you kindly explain what `Amituofo' means and I'm not sure about the > little `wave' being part of the great ocean...: ??? > =================================== S: Maybe it's from my Daoism background. Amituofo - Chinese Amitabha Buddha - English Amida Nyorai - Japanese O ni tou fat - Cantonese? Here's The Noble Mahayana Sanghatasutra Shakyamuni Buddha http://lywa.rootr.com/otherteachers/buddha/sanghata.shtml 22667 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 3:57am Subject: Re: Anatta Precepts Dear Robert, I just wanted to quickly say thanks for your excellent post, so calming and reassuring as always. I'll take a little while to read it over some more, look up a few references, and think about it. I wonder who this Ven. Radha was that he has a whole Samyutta - 36 suttas counting the repetitions? Must have been around the Buddha a lot. Probably, I'll have some more comments/questions. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 22668 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 4:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance Hi Lee, I didn’t mean to cut the thread - as Rob Ep used to say, life caught up with me;-) We were discussing the Udana passage about nibbana and I quoted from the commentary. --- Lee Dillion wrote: > 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. ..... No problem and the ‘much later’ness of the commentarial tradition is another topic which I’m always happy to discuss further;-) ..... > 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?): ..... I think the point is that the unconditioned reality does not exist in the conditioned realm. It can only be experienced by the supra-mundane consciousness. Nibbana does not ‘partake’ of any sphere of existence and the Udana commentary makes this clear (see repeated quote at end of post): > (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 ..... The khandhas or upaadaanakkhandha (groups of clinging) consist of the conditioned realities, i.e cittas, cetasikas and rupas. We also read about nibbana as the unconditioned reality. ..... > (b) contrary to the mental outlook of the Buddha to not speculate beyond > > the all. ..... I agree with this. However, the Comy to the Sabba Sutta make it clear that the All (sabba) refers to everything knowable, the all of the sense bases (aayatanasabba), the 12 ayatana which include nibbana in the external mind objects (dhammaayatana). ..... > 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" ..... This passage rather puzzles me in context. I think it is referring to parinibbana also- no conditions for samsara to continue. We need to be careful to see whether nibbana in context is referring to a) kilesa-parinibbana or sa-upadi-sesa-nibbana (nibbana with the khandhas remaining, i.e arahantship) or b) khandha-parinibbana or an-upaadi-sesa-nibbaana (nibbana without the khandhas remaining, i.e parinibbana). Sometimes a) and b) may take place at the same time, at the death of the arahant. I think your passage may be referring to both. I don’t have any Comy;-) ..... > 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. :) ..... Likewise. All we can do is read and consider what makes sense according to other parts of the Tipitaka and our own conceptual understanding. I’m not sure how useful the speculation is, but there has always been a lot of interest in this topic on DSG;-) If you look under nibbana and parinibbana in Useful Posts, you may find in interesting to follow some of the threads. I appreciate your considered comments, Lee. I certainly agree with B.Nanananda’s comment that nibbana is NOT “a nondescript realm in a different dimension of existence”. I don’t believe the comments you quoted from Richard Hayes are in line with the Pali canon for the most part or that any conditioned reality is ‘transformed’ into an unconditioned state or that nibbana is psychological as Nananada suggests. I do like the the description of the ‘magic-show of consciousness’ however. I thought Suan made some useful comments (i.e they accorded with my understanding;-)), but we are here to discuss and explore rather than to just agree. If you have any other texts you’d like to quote and discuss, that would be helpful. Swee Boon may also assist us as he has a lot of ready quotes and wise reflections on nibbana, I think. I’d also be glad to expand further on why the reading in the commentaries (such as the one below and the one I gave last time) seem right to me and accord with what I read elsewhere in the texts. Perhaps you might elaborate further on your own reasoning too. With metta, Sarah ====== ******************** (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’.” “..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 (that of) the earth-element or sensation.....” ================================================= 22669 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 4:25am Subject: Realms (was: Re: [dsg] Hello) Hi RobK, --- rjkjp1 wrote: > The deva worlds are kama-loka ,like human realms and so , like human > realms, many who die from there go to the lower worlds. Some stay in > the deva world , some are born as human and some may go to brahma > worlds. > Only the arupa Brahmas have a breather as they will not go directly > to the lower worlds. ..... Thanks for clarifying - I think I was reading in haste the other day. This makes much more sense, thx. Glad to hear your mother is in good form and able to laugh when you bring up 'death'. Give her our regards. Sometime back I mentioned to my mother (in her mid 70s) something about (her) death to which she retorted "you may well die before me, so there!". Btw, my mother works voluntarily in a hospice and is very used to people dying whilst holding her hand .... I think that even with little or no understanding of paramatha dhammas, such dana and caring for others, rather than being too concerned about oneself, is a wonderful way to overcome fears or apprehensions. metta, Sarah ======= 22670 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 4:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott wrote: > 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. I'm delighted to find we agree on the fundamental and very important point that the teachings do not ask anyone to make any assumptions about the present moment. It seems to me that on this basis, Dreyfus' problem/conundrum simply doesn't arise. I am interested in your reference to working with the apparent regularity of the arising and cessation of what appears to the senses. Do you find this a useful approach? What does it involve exactly? > 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. But only becasue of their particular interpretation of the teachings, an interpretation that neither you or I share ;-)) Jon 22671 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 5:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > 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. It wasn't a good choice of words on my part, since what I had in mind was something general such as 'insight into the present moment as it really is'. I should have avoided that particular expression which, as you say, can be found used in a number of 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 was really wondering whether you see those suttas (such as the Satipatthana Sutta and the Chachakka Sutta) as containing information that is relevant to the development of insight (or however you see the 'practice') and, if not, which sutta(s) you would put in that category. > > 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. I think you are saying have no difficulty understanding the suttas without the aid of supplementary or explanatory materials. As I indicated above, I'd be interested to know which sutta(s) you find most directly descriptive of the development of samatha and/or insight, or generally the most relevant to 'practice'. > 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. Regarding my perceived affinity for the Abhidhamma, this is a very relative thing. To someone born and bred in a Buddhist country and having an affinity for the Abhidhamma, I would be considered a mere novice, a philistine even ;-)). But on the more important point, if you're suggesting that there are indeed contradictions or differences between the Abhidhamma and the suttas, which people like myself tend to overlook, by all means feel free to be specific (I'm sure you'll find you have plenty of support among members here). Jon Jon 22672 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 6:05am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > 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: ...... Thx Mike, I think we’re all looking forward to B.Bodhi’s full translation of AN, hopefully with commentary notes in due course. ..... > Thus, Saa.lha, the Ariyan disciple endowed with > right concentration sees, 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... > > ====== I think we read similar references to right concentration (sammaa samaadhi). Often (here??) it refers to the ‘concentration’ factors of the path, i.e sammaa vaayaama, sammaa sati and sammaa samaadhi. We also read in various places about rt concentration being the proximate condition or footing for insight -a decisive support condition. As we know, the path factors arise together. Always glad to hear any input from you, Mike. Metta, Sarah From my post a while back,: ***** "Immediate occasion (pada.t.thaana.m) means proximate cause. Thus wherever we speak of characteristics, etc, their mutual difference should be understood in this wise." Atthasalini transl PTS p84 For more: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m12994.html ======================================== Weight Age Gender Female Male 22673 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi Sinweiy, --- sinweiy wrote: > Hi Sarah, > S: Are you able to speak cantonese? How's the SARS situation going on? > BTW, i'm live in Singapore. ..... Sik gong siu siu (yes, a little)...... we’re all slowly recovering from the SARS shock.... it was just like being in a war-zone for a couple of months. Pls let me know if you’re visiting anytime. We have a few members living in Sing. In fact your post and background reminded me of our friend KC or Ken Ong who we’ve not heard from in a while. Many thanks for all your explanations and it’s nice to hear how adaptable you are;-) As you mention, there are many teachings in common and some basic differences. I think it’s true that we all ‘interpret the scriptures according to understanding’, but we can also see which aspects and interpretations are supported in the Pali canon as we do here. Thanks again for finding us and enjoy your stay;-) Thx to Chris for leading you here as well;-) Joigin(see you again) & Metta, Sarah ===== > The areas of agreement between the two schools are as follows: > Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher. > The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools. > The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools. > The Pattica-Samuppada or teaching on Dependent Origination is the > same in both schools. > Both reject the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this > world. > Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without > any difference. 22674 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:13 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? > Hello Mike, > > First of all, let me take back that question about jhana > masters' going to hell. I'm sure you've seen Robert's > answer; I was barking up the wrong tree. DELETE ALL > REFERENCE :-) I always find Robert's posts most informative. > Getting back to aayuuhana v's anusaya, I'm finding this > thread very informative and thought-provoking, thank you. > > You wrote: > ------------ > > By the way, I don't believe in reincarnation(!), > ------------- > > To digress briefly: I think you mean you don't believe in > rebirth. Not at all! I meant, 'I don't believe in reincarnation(!)'. 'I believe' in kamma and rebirth quite implicitly--without them, Buddhadhamma makes no sense at all to me. > (None of us at dsg believes in reincarnation):-) You might be surprised... > You continued: > --------------- > > hells, heavens, world-cycles, devas, petas, . . . > . . . . . . I don't think they have > physical existence in the same sense or to the same > extent that 'a person'--yet another convention--does. > > > ----------------- > > Obviously, these opinions don't detract from your > confidence in the Dhamma. Personally, I tend to adopt a > more compliant attitude but there's no certainty that > that makes me any more receptive to right understanding. I'm probably hair-splitting and stating the obvious, but of course no one to adopt a more or less compliant attitude--and no one to be receptive to right or wrong understanding. Attitudes and understandings are the present result of extremely complex conditions and aren't constant, even for a second. > I'd say we're both wavering as to whether some or all of > these unlikely-sounding things are, or are not, integral > to right understanding. If I'm right, then I suppose > there is vicikicca (sceptical doubt) at these moments? Maybe--speaking for myself and the sea of akusala in which 'I'm' perpetually stewing, vicikicchaa doesn't seem to be a part of the mix. Certainly I'm sceptical by nature, but the kind of scepticism I'm habituated to doesn't seem to me at all to match the definition of vicikicchaa* below. Could be I'm wrong, of course... > ----------------- > > Why is this? Because I'm incapable of believing in > them (literally)--it isn't in 'my character' > (sankhaarakhandha?) or, to use the popular dsg term, 'my > accumulations'. > > > --------------- > > I can't argue with that as an over-all, perception of the > way things are. However, when we consider the nature of > the present moment, I think the only evidence of > accumulations is in the actual cetasikas that present > themselves. > If there is adosa now, then a latent > tendency for dosa makes no difference. Even if dosa is absent now, the knowledge that it lies dormant in every citta makes all the difference in the world to (at least conventional) understanding, in my opinion. The same is true, of course, of doubt and the other hindrances. > Getting back to that cetasika that stops us from > believing in things like hungry ghosts --whether it's > vicikicca or whatever it is -- there is no self who is > bound by it's statistical likelihood to arise. So, in > the present moment, even you could believe in hungry > ghosts :-) Certainly any belief can arise in anyone unenlightened, given the right conditions. > Kind regards, > Ken Back at you, Ken, mike *vicikicchá 'skeptical doubt', is one of the 5 mental hindrances (nívarana) and one of the 3 fetters (samyojana), which disappear for ever at Stream-entry, the first stage of holiness (s. ariya-puggala). As a fetter, it refers to skeptical doubt about the Master (the Buddha), the Teaching, the Sangha, and the training; about things past and future, and conditionality (Dhs.1004; cf. A.X.71). It also applies to uncertainty whether things are wholesome or not, to be practiced or not, of high or low value, etc. According to Vis.M. XIV, 177, vicikicchá is the lack of desire to think (things out i.e. to come to a conclusion; vigata-cikicchá, desiderative to [?] cit, to think); it has the nature of wavering, and its manifestation is indecision and a divided attitude; its proximate cause is unwise attention to matters of doubt. It is associated with one of the 2 classes of unwholesome consciousness rooted in delusion (Tab. I, No. 32). - Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/u_v/vicikicchaa.htm 22675 From: Lee Dillion Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance Hi Sarah: > Hi Lee, > > I didn’t mean to cut the thread - as Rob Ep used to say, life caught up > with me;-) :) It does have a way of doing that. > We were discussing the Udana passage about nibbana and I quoted > from the commentary. >> 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?): > I think the point is that the unconditioned reality does not exist in the > conditioned realm. It can only be experienced by the supra-mundane > consciousness. Nibbana does not ‘partake’ of any sphere of existence and > the Udana commentary makes this clear (see repeated quote at end of post): I agree that "Nibbana does not ‘partake’ of any sphere of existence" - that, instead, it is a psychological state whereby we have resolved all fabrications. Thus, to speak of this experience as born, orgiginated, created, etc. is to make a category error. >> (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 > ..... > The khandhas or upaadaanakkhandha (groups of clinging) consist of the > conditioned realities, i.e cittas, cetasikas and rupas. We also read about > nibbana as the unconditioned reality. Again, I agree. >> (b) contrary to the mental outlook of the Buddha to not speculate beyond >> the all. > I agree with this. However, the Comy to the Sabba Sutta make it clear that > the All (sabba) refers to > everything knowable, the all of the sense bases (aayatanasabba), the 12 > ayatana which include nibbana in the external mind objects > (dhammaayatana). I am familiar with the commentary on the word All, but not sure how it allows us to speculate beyong the All. I think I am misunderstanding your point, so any clarification would be helpful. >> 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" > ..... > This passage rather puzzles me in context. I think it is referring to > parinibbana also- no conditions for samsara to continue. We need to be > careful to see whether nibbana in context is referring to a) > kilesa-parinibbana or sa-upadi-sesa-nibbana (nibbana with the khandhas > remaining, i.e arahantship) or b) khandha-parinibbana or > an-upaadi-sesa-nibbaana (nibbana without the khandhas remaining, i.e > parinibbana). > > Sometimes a) and b) may take place at the same time, at the death of the > arahant. I think your passage may be referring to both. I don’t have any > Comy;-) I suspect we could argue this back and forth and that is not my intent - my only purpose is to suggest that there are understandings of the dhamma that are consistent with sutta, mainstream within Theravada, and that minimize ontological speculation about what Nibbana is. Consistent with this are the comments of Bhikkhu Nanananda from his sermons on Nibbana at http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/clm_main1.htm ---- "The cessation of consciousness is none other than Nibbàna. Some seem to think that the cessation of consciousness occurs in an arahant only at the moment of his parinibbàna, at the end of his life span. But this is not the case. Very often, the deeper meanings of important suttas have been obliterated by the tendency to interpret the references to consciousness in such contexts as the final occurrence of consciousness in an arahant's life - carimaka vi¤¤àõa.[10] What is called the cessation of consciousness has a deeper sense here. It means the cessation of the specifically prepared consciousness, abhisaïkhata vi¤¤àõa. An arahant's experience of the cessation of consciousness is at the same time the experience of the cessation of name-and-form." from part 4 of the Nibbana Sermons ----- Whether there is something "more" to Nibbana following the death of the Arahant, I don't know, and to argue about it given the rudimentary place I am on the path seems beyond my current abilities. > ..... >> 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. :) > ..... > Likewise. All we can do is read and consider what makes sense according to > other parts of the Tipitaka and our own conceptual understanding. I’m not > sure how useful the speculation is, but there has always been a lot of > interest in this topic on DSG;-) If you look under nibbana and parinibbana > in Useful Posts, you may find in interesting to follow some of the > threads. > > I appreciate your considered comments, Lee. I certainly agree with > B.Nanananda’s comment that nibbana is NOT “a nondescript realm in a > different dimension of existence”. I don’t believe the comments you quoted > from Richard Hayes are in line with the Pali canon for the most part or > that any conditioned reality is ‘transformed’ into an unconditioned state > or that nibbana is psychological as Nananada suggests. I do like the the > description of the ‘magic-show of consciousness’ however. I thought Suan > made some useful comments (i.e they accorded with my understanding;-)), > but we are here to discuss and explore rather than to just agree. Yes. That is why I like this list. It presents a viewpoint that is often at odds with my own, yet it is a viewpoint that pushes me to think seriously about the dhamma. > > If you have any other texts you’d like to quote and discuss, that would be > helpful. Swee Boon may also assist us as he has a lot of ready quotes and > wise reflections on nibbana, I think. I’d also be glad to expand further > on why the reading in the commentaries (such as the one below and the one > I gave last time) seem right to me and accord with what I read elsewhere > in the texts. Perhaps you might elaborate further on your own reasoning > too. Thanks. As the opportunity arises, I will try to explain myself in more detail. Take care. Lee 22676 From: Lee Dillion Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon: >> --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott wrote: >> 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 was really wondering whether you see those suttas (such as the > Satipatthana Sutta and the Chachakka Sutta) as containing information > that is relevant to the development of insight (or however you see > the 'practice') and, if not, which sutta(s) you would put in that > category. I think both suttas provide a wonderful guide to a practice, especially with their grounding in dependent origination. > I think you are saying have no difficulty understanding the suttas > without the aid of supplementary or explanatory materials. As I > indicated above, I'd be interested to know which sutta(s) you find > most directly descriptive of the development of samatha and/or > insight, or generally the most relevant to 'practice'. I misspoke if I suggested that supplemental materials are not helpful, even necessary for me at times to understand material that I have no ability to read in the Pali. What I meant to suggest by talking of their clarity was a shorthand way of describing the process I have gone through in reading the suttas, testing it against my own experiences, and finding that the suttas are often very helpful, clear ways of verbalizing the mental process I was going through in that experience. So when I come accross two interpretations of the same sutta, one by this commentator and one by another, I tentatively choose the one that resonates with my own experience. A rather "egoistic" way, perhaps, of judging suttas, but I find it a better guide than ignoring my own intuitions in favor of some commentator, no matter how revered, whose interpretation does not square with my own invesigation. When I "come and see" the dhamma, I ultimately use my own experience as the final guide. That said, as I have progressed in my practice and in my understanding of the suttas, I have often changed my mind about which interpretation was "best" for a particular suuta or pasage - for I believe that if I dogmatically hold to the first interpretation I settled on, I would be clinging to a view rather than investigating in an open manner. >> 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. > > Regarding my perceived affinity for the Abhidhamma, this is a very > relative thing. To someone born and bred in a Buddhist country and > having an affinity for the Abhidhamma, I would be considered a mere > novice, a philistine even ;-)). :) > But on the more important point, if you're suggesting that there are > indeed contradictions or differences between the Abhidhamma and the > suttas, which people like myself tend to overlook, by all means feel > free to be specific (I'm sure you'll find you have plenty of support > among members here). That is a discussion that I don't find useful outside of a specific context in which the possible discrepancy is relevant to me personally. To simply argue about the coherence or lack of coherence of the suttas and the Abhidhamma would likely give rise to unproductive debates and hurt feelings. It seems to suggest a debate not much more productive than the many debates among the various sectarians. Let me just end with the observation that I have much to learn and anything I state here, no matter how unqualified I phrase it, is always subject to investigation and change. Life has taught me that one lesson. Lee 22677 From: Lee Dillion Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon; > I'm delighted to find we agree on the fundamental and very important > point that the teachings do not ask anyone to make any assumptions > about the present moment. It seems to me that on this basis, > Dreyfus' problem/conundrum simply doesn't arise. Yes, I agree. > I am interested in your reference to working with the apparent > regularity of the arising and cessation of what appears to the > senses. Do you find this a useful approach? What does it involve > exactly? Let me try to describe this in a pre-theoretical sort of way, free of the pali terminology, and even free of my understanding of Buddhism since this approach was something I was doing long before I understood Buddhist terminology. There are obvious limitations in approaching it this way, but hopefully you will find some value in the description. When I talk of working with the apparent regularity of the arising and cessation of what appears to the senses, I generally mean my internal, psychological state, but not always. Thus, it had been my experience that if I could calm the mind, slow it down and center it so it wasn't dashing all about, I could then direct my thoughts to certain events that occurred during the day. By doing this, over time, several things seemed to be pragmatically true: 1. Certain events or conditions seemed to consistently trigger a particular emotional response from me, especially if I was distracted or otherwise agitated by the day. 2. If I took the time to later reflect on this "consistency" I often was able to develop strategies for minimizing the strength of my reaction the next time the same conditions arise. 3. Again, if I took the time to later reflect on this "consistency", I often found that many of my reactions were grounded in what you would expect - that is, ego, fear, desire, and on that were baseless if I took the time to really understand the situation. As I brought this process forward and then had a chance encounter with Buddhist thought, I was able to refine these observations using the many insights and illustrations contained in the suttas and in the various writings on these suttas. I also explored (perhaps superficially) writings from the many later Buddhist traditions (like the Dreyfus type material), but I have preferred the Theravada emphasis on the earlier material. And, because so much of my pre-Buddhist experience in letting go of these "cravings, conceit, and views" was rather mundane and pragmatic, my attraction within the Theravada materials has been to the more pragmatic elements to be found there. Hope this gives you some idea of what I mean. Take care. Lee 22678 From: manjushri888 Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:53am Subject: Re: Hello Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sinweiy" wrote: > Hi, > i'm new to this group too. Would like to make my 1 cent comment.:) > > Commentary, > You're right. The answer is yes, if not it will not fit the entire > picture of the teachings. > Thus i heard, samsara consist of the 3 realm of desire, form and > formless. or the Ten Dharma Realms. > The lowest six realms are known as the Six Paths or Six Realms of > Rebirth. These six states of existence are subjected to birth and > death. The upper four realms are known as the Four Holy Realms. These > four states of existence are beyond birth and death and liberated > from the Samsara. > If as we understood Killing generates bad kamma. The lower beings do > not know killing is bad as it is for their survival; their bad kamma > is slight. But for an intelligent being, like a human being, knowing > killing is inflicting suffering, the action of killing will bring him > down to one of the lower levels of existence. After suffering the bad > effects, he will come up again to one of the higher levels again. Due > to this killing and other defilements, a unit of mind will forever be > existing up and down in different levels of existence until one day > it dawns on it that killing is bad and that he must work hard in > doing good and eradicating all defilements. It then climbs to the > summit (out of the 3 realms) with purities and wisdom and will not > gather or cling to matters, physical or mental. It will stay on the > top and will never descend to the lower levels again. > > -Amituofo- > sinweiy Thank's for the information! Here's a very useful link I found about samsara http://www.serve.com/cyberkaya/four5.htm > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I just joined this list today. I've been learning about Buddhism > for > > a few year's now but I'm quite new to yahoo group's. The main > reason > > I'm posting is because I would like to read up on a particular > > subject in the sutra's but I dont know where to look yet. Does > anyone > > here know where in the Buddha's sutra's I can learn about, if a > soul > > in samsara is in the deva realm, can it fall back down to the three > > lower realm's--animal, hungry ghost, and hell's--again when the > good > > karma run's out? I'm guessing this is the case, but I would love > some > > confirmation on the subject. > > > > Any information would be greatly appreciated. > > > > Thank's, > > > > Dan 22679 From: manjushri888 Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:54am Subject: Re: Hello Dan Thank's for the link! :) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Dan,and Sinweiy, > > Welcome Dan, and Sinweiy, nice to have you as members of dsg. > > Dan - you may find it interesting to go to the Subject Index at > Access to Insight and look at the Buddha's suttas under "A" > for 'Anatta' - (no soul, no self) ; and "R" for 'rebirth' and then > anything else you wish to explore.. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html > > Sinweiy - I have enjoyed your interesting posts on Sangha list for > quite a while. Glad to see you here. :-) > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sinweiy" 22680 From: manjushri888 Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 10:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Dan, > > --- manjushri888 wrote: > Hello, > > > > I just joined this list today. I've been learning about Buddhism for > > a few year's now but I'm quite new to yahoo group's. > ..... > Let me add to the other `welcomes' and say I'm glad you've joined and are > already asking questions. If you'd care to share anything further about > yourself, such as where you live or how you became interested in Buddhism, > that would be interesting. > ..... > >The main reason > > I'm posting is because I would like to read up on a particular > > subject in the sutra's but I dont know where to look yet. Does anyone > > here know where in the Buddha's sutra's I can learn about, if a soul > > in samsara is in the deva realm, can it fall back down to the three > > lower realm's--animal, hungry ghost, and hell's--again when the good > > karma run's out? I'm guessing this is the case, but I would love some > > confirmation on the subject. > ..... > This is a complex subject and not an easy one for me either(like Mike). Of > course in the Buddhist Teachings, there is no `soul' as such, but that's > another topic. Rebirth can take place in one of many different planes of > existence. If you look at this link and go down to `planes of existence', > you'll find one or two past posts (one I remember from RobM in particular) > giving more information on these: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts > > Throughout the suttas there are many examples of different rebirths. The > Jataka stories are also full of stories of past lives. There are also very > interesting texts on the Peta (hungry ghost) Stories and Vimana (Deva > mansion) stories. RobK mentioned that it's not possible for rebirth > immediately after a deva realm to be in a lower realm I think and I'd also > be interested to hear more about this. In the Peta stories, all the petas > discussed have `fallen' from the human plane. This may just be because the > stories are deliberately to `disturb' us out of any complacency with > regard to unwise actions. > > There are, however, unusual accounts of petas who are reborn in deva > realms, usually as a result of great compassion and assistance of Noble > disciples. Let me know if you'd like any more information on this. I'm > pretty sure these texts aren't on line. > > Certainly, in the course of samsara, there have been numerous rebirths in > different planes and the only `escape' is the development of insight and > attainment of the stages of enlightenment. > > Maybe you could also tell us a little more about the reason for your > interest in this area too. > > With metta, > > Sarah > p.s we have another `Dan' on DSG. Perhaps you could add an initial after > your name, eg Dan A or even Dan2 if you prefer, to avoid confusion. > ============================================= Hello, Sarah. In answer to your question, I have been a seeker of truth for about seven year's now. This has lead me to explore many different path's along the way. I have come to realize that meditation is the only way to understand experientially/directly the true nature of reality. Reality is reality, only when it's grasped non-conceptually. However my interest in the sutra's--the menu--is just to satisfy my curiosity. I alway's keep in mind, however, when reading sutra's, that the menu is not the food. :-) We must practice to fully understand Buddha's teaching's. Best Wishes, Dan 22681 From: manjushri888 Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 3:51pm Subject: sutra reference I still haven't been able to locate any direct sutra reference's on the issue of the consciousness going from the deva realm back down to the three lower realm's. I already know this is the case, I would just love some sutra reference's on the matter. If anyone happen's to stumble across any, give me a holler! Thank's Dan 22682 From: Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 4:07pm Subject: Way 98, 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 Concerning concentration and wisdom it is said as follows: For the worker in concentration -- the man pursuing quietude [samatha] -- strong one-pointedness is met by reason of the fact that concentration is the principal thing in absorption. With strong one-pointedness he reaches full absorption. For the man pursuing the path of insight [vipassana] strong wisdom is met; if strong wisdom exists he arrives at the penetration of the characteristics. By the equalizing of the concentration and wisdom of the worker in concentration, the man pursuing quietude, there is just full absorption. [Tika] Owing to the very great strength of the concentration of the man pursuing quietude, very great strength of wisdom too should be desired. [T] Full absorption is mundane full absorption. Supramundane full absorption also is expected through the equalizing of these. Accordingly the Master said: "He develops quietude and insight yoked together." Strong mindfulness is met everywhere since it protects the mind from falling into restlessness belonging to faith, energy and wisdom and from falling into indolence belonging to concentration. Faith, energy and wisdom have a tendency towards excitement and concentration has a tendency towards sloth. Therefore, mindfulness is to be desired by the yogi always. It is likened to the salt-flavoring which is in all curries, and the minister-of-all-work wanted in every business of the king. And because of this (universality of application of mindfulness) the commentator made the following statement: "And indeed, it was said by the Blessed One thus: 'Mindfulness is to be desired everywhere.' Why? Because mindfulness is the mind's help, because mindfulness has just protection as its manifestation, and because without mindfulness there is no exerting or restraining of the mind." [Tika] Because it is applied always mindfulness is always useful or desirable; and because in all states of elation and depression it should be developed by the man longing for the factors of enlightenment, it is necessary. [T] Mind's help: the help of a wholesome or skillful state of consciousness. It is the support of such a state of mind for attaining the yet unattained. Avoiding the ignorant is keeping away from foolish folk not grounded in the knowledge of the divisions of the aggregates and so forth. Association with wise folk is fellowship with persons possessed of the knowledge of rise and fall through the laying hold of all the fifty characteristics. Reflecting on the profound differences of the profound process of the aggregates and so forth is the analytic reflection according to wisdom of the movement of the hard-to-perceive aggregates and so forth. Inclining towards the enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects is the mental state inclining, tending, and sloping towards the purpose of originating this enlightenment factor in every posture of standing, sitting, walking and lying down. The yogi understands that the culture of this enlightenment factor arisen thus comes to completion through the path of arahantship. 22683 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 4:20pm Subject: Re: sutra reference --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" wrote: > I still haven't been able to locate any direct sutra reference's on > the issue of the consciousness going from the deva realm back down to > the three lower realm's. __________ Dear Dan, http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- Nikaya/Anguttara1/1-ekanipata/016-Ekadhammapali-e.htm CatutthavaggaVagga. "Bhikkhus, in the peninsular of India there are a few pleasant orchards, forests, outstanding sites, stretches of water but many irregular blocks of land, irregular rivers flowing disorderly, forming uneven shapes. In the same manner a few humans who leave the human corpse are born among humans many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. 337. In the same manner a few gods that leave divinity are reborn among gods many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. 338. In the same manner a few gods that leave divinity are reborn as humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. 339.Bhikkhus, in the same manner a few released from hell are reborn human, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. 340.Bhikkhus, a few released from hell are reborn with the gods, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. In the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world are reborn as humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. In the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world are reborn as gods, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. In the same manner a few ghosts are reborn among humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. In the same manner a few ghosts are reborn among gods, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts." Robertk 22684 From: manjushri888 Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 4:44pm Subject: Re: sutra reference --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" > wrote: > > I still haven't been able to locate any direct sutra reference's > on > > the issue of the consciousness going from the deva realm back down > to > > the three lower realm's. > __________ > Dear Dan, > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- > Nikaya/Anguttara1/1-ekanipata/016-Ekadhammapali-e.htm > CatutthavaggaVagga. > "Bhikkhus, in the peninsular of India there are a few pleasant > orchards, forests, outstanding sites, stretches of water but many > irregular blocks of land, irregular rivers flowing disorderly, > forming uneven shapes. In the same manner a few humans who leave the > human corpse are born among humans many more are reborn in hell, in > the animal world and as ghosts. > > 337. In the same manner a few gods that leave divinity are reborn > among gods many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > ghosts. > > 338. In the same manner a few gods that leave divinity are reborn as > humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > ghosts. > > 339.Bhikkhus, in the same manner a few released from hell are reborn > human, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > ghosts. > > 340.Bhikkhus, a few released from hell are reborn with the gods, > many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. In > the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world are reborn > as humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > ghosts. In the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world > are reborn as gods, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal > world and as ghosts. In the same manner a few ghosts are reborn > among humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and > as ghosts. In the same manner a few ghosts are reborn among gods, > many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts." > Robertk Dear Robertk, Thank's so very much! This is what I have been trying to find for two day's now!--a direct sutra reference. Your link however didn't work and I would love to know exactly what sutra this came from if you don't mind. I would greatly appreciate it. Many Thank's, Dan 22685 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 7:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > Hi Mike, > > Let's narrow our focus onto one issue: kamma. I don't see kamma or kamma > paccaya listed as one of the 52 cetasikas. Thanks for the correction--I was thinking of the 24 paccaya as cetasikas. I've never committed the 52 cetasikas to memory and in fact am very weak on all these lists... > I imagine you will say > volition (cetana) is kamma. That is my impression of one of the meanings of kamma in the tipi.taka. > I would say volition is only part of kamma. > There is also root consciousness, its object, kamma result and several > other elements which I don't know. Also we could say kamma is a process > which operates dependent on the relationships between these elements and > others in the consciousness process and the largely unknowable kamma > process. So kamma is a rather complex dog and pony show, to say the > least. I do think that 'kamma' is one of those words (like 'dhamma') whose meaning varies considerably depending on context. > I believe this qualifies it to be characterized as a concept. > What do you say? Despite my faux pas regarding kamma paccaya, I still do think of kamma mainly as cetanaa--a cetasika (this, I think, is what accumulates). In more conventional contexts I think it can have many conceptual meanings. I'm not arguing that there's no such concept as 'kamma', or that the concept is unimportant--just that the concept is less important than the paramattha dhamma. > Larry 22686 From: sinweiy Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 8:49pm Subject: Re: sutra reference http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- Nikaya/Anguttara1/1-ekanipata/016-Ekadhammapali-e.htm Might want to copy the whole thing. :) sinweiy --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" > > wrote: > > > I still haven't been able to locate any direct sutra reference's > > on > > > the issue of the consciousness going from the deva realm back > down > > to > > > the three lower realm's. > > __________ > > Dear Dan, > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- > > Nikaya/Anguttara1/1-ekanipata/016-Ekadhammapali-e.htm > > CatutthavaggaVagga. > > "Bhikkhus, in the peninsular of India there are a few pleasant > > orchards, forests, outstanding sites, stretches of water but many > > irregular blocks of land, irregular rivers flowing disorderly, > > forming uneven shapes. In the same manner a few humans who leave > the > > human corpse are born among humans many more are reborn in hell, in > > the animal world and as ghosts. > > > > 337. In the same manner a few gods that leave divinity are reborn > > among gods many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > > ghosts. > > > > 338. In the same manner a few gods that leave divinity are reborn > as > > humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > > ghosts. > > > > 339.Bhikkhus, in the same manner a few released from hell are > reborn > > human, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > > ghosts. > > > > 340.Bhikkhus, a few released from hell are reborn with the gods, > > many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. In > > the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world are reborn > > as humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > > ghosts. In the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world > > are reborn as gods, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal > > world and as ghosts. In the same manner a few ghosts are reborn > > among humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and > > as ghosts. In the same manner a few ghosts are reborn among gods, > > many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts." > > Robertk > > > Dear Robertk, > > Thank's so very much! This is what I have been trying to find for two > day's now!--a direct sutra reference. > > Your link however didn't work and I would love to know exactly what > sutra this came from if you don't mind. I would greatly appreciate it. > > Many Thank's, > Dan 22687 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:03pm Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 5 Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 5 We should not select a particular time for practice, because any time is the time for practice. We may be forgetful of realities and distracted. Forgetfulness is also a reality that can and should be known. The ³all² should be known as it is. During our discussions we were reminded about wrong practice. When there is a moment of awareness, we should ask ourselves: do I want more? If we try to find ways and means to have more awareness, we engage in wrong practice, and this prevents us to understand anattå, to understand also sati and paññå as non-self. Or we may take thinking of the stages of insight for direct understanding. Then we are led by lobha and we may go into the wrong direction. There are many ways to go into the wrong direction, because we have accumulated ignorance and clinging for aeons. So long as we are not sotåpanna we shall have the inclination to wrong practice all the time. It should be detected as such. Someone may think that he needs to concentrate on the three general characteristics of dukkha, impermanence (aniccå) and anattå so that he can attain enlightenment. Only through the development of insight paññå will realize more that whatever appears is dukkha, impermanent and anattå. These are characteristics inherent in the dhammas that appear. There is no specific practice such as concentration on the three characteristics of realities. In the Katavatthu (Points of Controversy), Ch II, 16, we read: ³May a man by merely repeating the word dukkha induce the four stages of enlightenment, as the Pubbaseliyas (a sect) believed?² We may recite: ³dukkha, dukkha², and concentrate on it, but this will not bring any result. Insight should be developed stage by stage, and we cannot forego the first stage of tender insight, taruna vipassanå: paññå which clearly distinguishes the characteristic of nåma from the characteristic of rúpa. We should first have theoretical understanding that nåma and rúpa are altogether different, otherwise we cannot even begin to develop mindfulness of nåma and rúpa as they appear one at a time, through one doorway at a time. Nåma experiences an object and rúpa does not know anything; it does not feel, it does not remember, it is not attached, it has no aversion. The eye does not know that visible object is impinging on it. Visible object does not know that it is impinging on the eyesense. So long as nåma and rúpa are not clearly distinguished from each other, the arising and falling away of one rúpa at a time and of one nåma at a time cannot be realized. When the impermanence of nåma and rúpa is realized through insight, this will lead to more detachment. We were reminded in Thailand time and again that paññå leads to detachment. Thus, it is not helpful to think, how can I know the three characteristics quickly? One may try very hard to make progress in understanding, but this is clinging and thus counteractive to the development of paññå. In the Scriptures, there is no detailed explanation of the stages of insight knowledge. The stages are mentioned in the ³Path of Discrimination² and the ³Visuddhimagga², but they are only described with a few words. When paññå develops and the stages of insight are reached, paññå can directly realize the true nature of realities and it does not need any words. 22688 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:03pm Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 13 Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 13 When we give things away for the benefit and happiness of someone else but neglect to be intent on the eradication of our defilements at such moments, the determination to eradicate them is not yet firm enough. It is difficult to reach the other shore when we do not have firm determination with regard to the four foundation dhammas, aditthåna dhammas, of truthfulness, relinquishment, calm, and paññå. If someone sees the benefit of the firm determination for relinquishment, cågaditthåna, and he has eliminated defilements, he also has the firm determination for calm, upasamaditthåna; he has calm that is freedom of defilements. This is freedom of involvement with visible object, sound, odour, flavour, tangible object, and this leads to being undisturbed by them. This leads also to the development of the perfection of renunciation, nekkhamma påramí, departing from sense pleasures. Even someone who is a layfollower may gradually abandon clinging to the sense objects and to the married state. He may be a layfollower who is not married because he sees the disadvantage of the strong bond of family life which is a burden. Thus, he sees the benefit of calm and becomes firmly established in the inclination to calm, and this is the foundation dhamma of calm. When someone is firmly established in the foundation dhamma of calm, it is conditioned by the foundation dhamma of paññå. Paññåditthåna is the fourth foundation dhamma. As we have seen, there are four firm foundations, aditthåna dhammas: determination of truthfulness, sacca, of relinquishment, cåga, of calm or peace, upasama, and of paññå. Paññå can be accumulated by listening to the Dhamma, by considering it and testing its meaning by asking questions. In this way we can verify what is kusala, what is akusala, what is wrong, what is right, and we can understand what kamma is and what its result. When we listen to the Dhamma we can investigate the true nature of realities that are cause and that are result. We should use the opportunities we have for listening to the Dhamma during this lifespan. Someone may be negligent in listening to the Dhamma, and he may think that by listening once or only a few times, he can be freed from the cycle of birth and death. Then his determination is not yet firm enough. He should further develop the foundation dhamma of paññå, and in this way the perfection of determination will become accomplished. The perfection of determination is an essential condition for the perfection of paññå that leads to reaching the further shore, that is, the realization of nibbåna. ******** (end of Ch 9) 22689 From: Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Mike, I think I can show that intention (cetana) is a concept but first we have to agree on what is a concept. As I understand it, we are saying concept is not only a name and its meaning but also any whole composed of related parts. Are you agreeable to this? Larry 22690 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 10:42pm Subject: hi from Rob Ep! Hi! I wanted to say hello and thank my old friends on dsg who kindly expressed interest in how I was doing during this last long absence, including Sarah, Howard, Nina and Mike. I've been so busy I've cut back posting quite a bit, and still can't catch up with the flow of life! Hmn....there's a lesson in there somewhere....I've been finishing a book on acting, sort of a combination of philosophy book and guidebook for actors, that's been sitting waiting for the final edit for about eight years. Well I've now promised it to my acting students so I have to produce it -- a good device for getting things done. Still it's awfully difficult. I won't abuse the list with my other tedious responsibilities, although some of them, like taking care of Emily, are actually quite charming. But I will say that Emily is turning five today, and we're very excited. Seems like she snuck up on me, but I expected this! She's quite an amazing spiritual little thing. She's said to me several times: "Dad, is this really happening or am I just dreaming this? How can I tell if we're awake or not?" And things like: "Are we real?" "Is this the only place to live? Why do we have to be here? Are there other places to go instead of this world?" Anyway, I try to keep up with her. I have been enjoying the moments, despite the busyness, and I hope you are all well. I will try to pop in and respond to topics if I can. And thank you for being kind enough to keep me in your thoughts! Best Regards, Robert Ep. 22691 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 10:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard. I'm not sure which category my sense of consciousness in this context would fall into, but to my common sense, Larry's sentence makes sense. When he says "the experience of sound is consciousness", and pending further clarification, it seems like he is saying that "consciousness experiences sound" and therefore when sound is experienced, consciousness is implicated. I always think of consciousness somewhat as you have described it, as something which "tastes" or "knows" that which is its content. It has sentience or awareness to it. It may not matter whether that content is posited as existing independently, as simply being an object of mind that is part of consciousness itself, or if it is not specified what the status of the object of consciousness is, but is simply accepted as part of the "experience" that consciousness is having at that particular moment. Another aspect of the experience of sound as a form of consciousness is very interesting to me: And that is the act of mindfulness of tracing the experience of a worldly object back to the property of mind which "creates" it. I do not mean to say that consciousness creates the object itself, because I do not know this one way or the other, but I think one can experience the fact that when we seem to experience an outside object, that experience can be traced back not only to the sensory door that allows it in, but to the property of mind that experiences it because of its own capacity to do so. Thus in hearing a sound, one can, as I think you imply within the model of duality of hearer and sound, emphasize the sound as real, or the hearing as the experiential actuality. We do not know, since we cannot go beyond the mind in our current state, whether the hearing is dependent upon an actual sound "in the world", but we do know that the apprehension of the sound is completely dependent on hearing. So we don't know if we are "sound collectors" but we do know that we are definitely "hearers." When we go back to the act of hearing and the mind's capacity to "hear", we can experience the mind itself in action, and at the point in the mind where the sound is created as hearing within the mind itself, there is no sound to be posited separte from that hearing. That hearing exists in consciousness alone, at least at that point, and so n the inward-facing mode of hearing, focussed on the hearing, not the sound, then consciousness, hearing and sound are experienced as "one unified experience." I used to think that to have this experience I had to somehow anaesthesize other parts of the mind, like the running commentary, or the sensation of duality, but now I think one can simply turn towards the capacity of the consciousness in question and the other dualistic processes don't go away, but become much more peripheral. Anyway, thanks for a chance to stretch the brain cells. This stuff seems to make my mind wake up. Best, Robert Ep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry - > > In a message dated 6/4/03 2:13:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... > writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > It makes sense to me to say the experience of sound is consciousness but > > I can see how that wouldn't make sense to everyone. > > > > Larry > > -------------------- > > Howard wrote: As I understand the word, consciousness is a knowing. Does > > a bell-sound know anything? Does hardness know anything? Or an image? Or > > an odor? A sound? A flavor? > > > > > ========================== > I'm trying to grasp your meaning. It *may* be that you are speaking > from a nondual perspective, one reflective of a nondual mode of awareness that > transcends mine, or one reflective of a language error. I simply don't know. > The word 'experience' can have several senses it seems to me. One of > these is 1) the operation of knowing something, being aware of something, with > the subjective knowing function being referred to rather than what is known. > This is a one-sided sense of the word. In this case, the word could be a verb > or a noun. The "opposite" one-sided sense is 2) the content of consciousness on > an occasion, so that, for example, itchiness could be an "experience" in this > sense, or brightness, or love. This, I believe, would only be a noun. A third > sense would be 3) the full cognitive event consisting of the knowing and the > known, a single event with two distinguishable sides/aspects/poles comparable > to the inside and he outside of a cup. This could be either verb or noun. A > fourth sense, reflective of a fully nondual event is that of 4) a cognitive > event in which there is no distinguishing whatsoever of subjective aspect from > objective aspect. > It is my experience that the typical mode of consciousness (in sense > 3) of worldlings is an extreme of dualized awareness. In this there is the > seeming of a self-existent subject relating to a separate, self-existing object. > Here, both subject and object are reified, most often to the extent that the > psychological subject appears as a self-existent "internal entity", and the > psychological object is "projected outwards" as an "object in the world". Here, > vi~n~nana is in the realm of "mind", and rupa is "matter" rather than just a > "material form" content of consciousness. > Now, I had an experience (once) in which this extreme of reification > and splitting of subject and object was eradicated. During this, there was > completely lost any sense of self. There was no longer any knower as an entity or > existent. Along with this, there were no longer any "things" known. But, if > attention was put it, it was still possible to be aware that there was content > and knowing of that content as inseparable aspects of a single, flowing event. > Now, when you say "the experience of sound is consciousness," I can't > tell which of senses (1) - (4), or yet another, is being expressed. In sense > (1), it is a mere truism. In sense (2), it strikes me as an odd use of > language. In senses (3) and (4), it strikes me as true but with a possible > substance-feel to it that is problematical, though not easily rectifiable. In any case, I > cannot tell whether or not your regular mode of cognition is of type (4). I > also cannot tell whether such a mode of cognition is one which sees truly, > because subject-object polarity is illusion, or one which simply fails to make a > valid distinction, going beyond non-reification of subject and object to a > false annihilation of them. > > With metta, > Howard > 22692 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 10:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: whoops, apologies for not snipping that last post. I'd say I'm out of practice, but I know I was a bad snipper even before my long break! Sorry! Best, Robert Ep. 22693 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 11:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] hi from Rob Ep! HI!! Rob Ep!! So glad you’ve made it back... I’ll hold my breath (plenty of practice during SARS) and hope you don’t run away again too soon;-) --- Robert Epstein wrote: >and still can't catch up with the flow of > life! Hmn....there's a lesson in there somewhere.... ..... I was just quoting you to Lee with the ‘life’s been catching up with me’....I see now you’re chasing life!! Your book sounds very interesting indeed - I’ll look out for it and hope not to pick up a book by that other Robert Epstein by mistake;-) Very happy birthday to Emily....(You’ve also just reminded me that I need to give my brother a birthday call.) Perhaps your next book could be on Emily’s qus and your responses......do share any. We had a lot of StarKids (a couple only 7yrs old) during the last year asking very interesting and challenging questions. James, Kom and others gave some fine responses - one day look under ‘children’ in Useful Posts for some of these. Emily would have been very at home. Look forward to reading your comments to Howard, Larry and all. With metta, Sarah p.s Newbies - you can find Rob Ep in no1 slot in the Members photo album and Emily in no 1 slot in the Significant Others album. We’d be glad if any of you add your pix as well. =============================== 22694 From: Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 7:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 5 Hi, Nina and all - In a message dated 6/6/03 12:04:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > We should not select a particular time for practice, because any time is > the > time for practice. =========================== It's a good point. However, sometimes "any time" becomes no time, we being fallible human beings. I've heard of monasteries at which a bell is tolled at regular intervals as a reminder to be mindful. Also, people have made a point of regularity of time and place for formal meditation, based on the habit-nature of people. So while the teaching quoted above is a good teaching, it is perhaps not the whole story. 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) 22695 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 0:01am Subject: ....another thought for DSG Newbies Hi Yasa (and anyone new to the list), I think you asked (Nina) about seeing all the past messages on a thread on one page. May I suggest you make use of the escribe back-up list for its search function and following a thread. http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ The posts are presented in order (most recent at the top), but it’s easy to click ‘view posts in the thread’ or ‘other posts by same author’, for example, to see either of these on the page. Also the search function works quite well if you want to look for past posts on a particular topic. Yasa, anytime you want to start a new thread, just click on reply, delete the previous message entirely and change the subject heading and off you go! Metta, Sarah p.s. Rob Ep -thx for your reminder to everyone to TRIM! ===== 22696 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 0:30am Subject: Re: sutra reference --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" <> > Dear Dan, > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- > > Nikaya/Anguttara1/1-ekanipata/016-Ekadhammapali-e.htm > > CatutthavaggaVagga. > > > > 340.Bhikkhus, a few released from hell are reborn with the gods, > > many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. In > > the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world are reborn > > as humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > > ghosts. _________________> > Dear Robertk, > > Thank's so very much! This is what I have been trying to find for two > day's now!--a direct sutra reference. > > Your link however didn't work and I would love to know exactly what > sutra this came from if you don't mind. I would greatly appreciate it. > > _______ Dear Dan, It is toward the end of the Ekakanipata (book of ones)of the Anguttara Nikaya of the Pali Tipitaka. The preceeding sutta has an interesting phrase: Seyyathàpi bhikkhave appamattakampi pubbo duggandho hoti, evameva kho ahaü bhikkhave appamattakampi bhavaü na vaõõemi, antamaso accharàsaïghàtamattampãti. Bhikkhus, just as a little bit of excreta smells and should be got rid of, I do not say any existence is good even for an instant. Robertk RobertK 22697 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 0:25am Subject: Re: ....another thought for DSG Newbies --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Yasa (and anyone new to the list), > > I think you asked (Nina) about seeing all the past messages on a thread on > one page. May I suggest you make use of the escribe back-up list for its > search function and following a thread. > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ > > The posts are presented in order (most recent at the top), but it's easy > to click `view posts in the thread' or `other posts by same author', for > example, to see either of these on the page. Also the search function > works quite well if you want to look for past posts on a particular topic. > > > Yasa, anytime you want to start a new thread, just click on reply, delete > the previous message entirely and change the subject heading and off you > go! > > Metta, > > Sarah > > p.s. Rob Ep -thx for your reminder to everyone to TRIM! > ===== > > Sarah, Thank you very. I have been reading Ninas ADL I want to finish reading it. I have taken down the number of the post(22475) where you had given all the relevent post on discussions about Abhidhamma,so that I can go to it when ever I want. Thank you again , with metta, Yasa 22698 From: Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 8:47pm Subject: The Touchstone Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry (and Mike) - Not many answers here by me - mostly just questions: In a message dated 6/6/03 12:09:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Mike, > > I think I can show that intention (cetana) is a concept but first we > have to agree on what is a concept. As I understand it, we are saying > concept is not only a name and its meaning but also any whole composed > of related parts. Are you agreeable to this? > > ========================== You know, ideas are strange things. Is any whole composed of related parts a concept? If one thinks about it, one may wonder where such a whole composed of parts is to be found. Where is the chariot to be found? In the mind? "Out there"? No where at all? One also might ask whether the beach is really less real than the sand grain. We can walk on the beach, feel the sand's texture, feel its warmth. We cannot walk on a sand grain, nor feel texture from it, nor feel warmth from it (unless it is *very* hot). And even if the sand grain is more real than the beach, is it, itself, truly "real"? For that matter, is hardness truly real, and does it exist in dependence on touch consciousness only and not at all on the mind (conceptual faculty). The standard answer to the last is "yes". But is that so certain? What about the so called kalapa? Is that a concept? Why is it less real than the rupas which comprise it? Perhaps the kalapa is the "reality", and it requires a kind of specific mental analysis to separate it into component rupas. Is it not possible that sometimes the whole is a greater reality than the parts. Why is a musical note more real than than a melody? Is it more real?? And don't both depend on the mind? Also, if a whole composed of related parts is a concept, then is the image that is seen when we open our eyes concept? It is a whole composed of related parts, is it not? Or is that image a simple, indivisible rupa that is the arammana of the current visual citta? Not all that clear, is it? All that is truly clear, I think, except that we don't really see it so well, is that all conditioned dhammas are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and insubstantial, impersonal, and ungraspable, is that not so? I think these can be very clear, and these are very much true, but we really need to look and see. These are the touchstone, as I see it. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22699 From: Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Rob - In a message dated 6/6/03 1:58:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > Hi Howard. > I'm not sure which category my sense of consciousness in this context > would fall into, but to my common sense, Larry's sentence makes sense. > When he says "the experience of sound is consciousness", and pending > further clarification, it seems like he is saying that "consciousness > experiences sound" and therefore when sound is experienced, > consciousness is implicated. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, I guess he is. I thought at first that he was saying that the sound was consciousness. I certainly agree that the experiencing of sound (or of anything else) is consciousness. ------------------------------------------------------------- I always think of consciousness somewhat> > as you have described it, as something which "tastes" or "knows" that > which is its content. It has sentience or awareness to it. It may > not matter whether that content is posited as existing independently, > as simply being an object of mind that is part of consciousness > itself, or if it is not specified what the status of the object of > consciousness is, but is simply accepted as part of the "experience" > that consciousness is having at that particular moment. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. There is the experiencing - that's the consciousness, and there is what is experienced - that is the content or object, of consciousness, and there is the entire, joint, cognitive event, for which we have no good term. Perhaps a good term might be 'act of consciousness'. -------------------------------------------------- > > Another aspect of the experience of sound as a form of consciousness > is very interesting to me: And that is the act of mindfulness of > tracing the experience of a worldly object back to the property of > mind which "creates" it. I do not mean to say that consciousness > creates the object itself, because I do not know this one way or the > other, but I think one can experience the fact that when we seem to > experience an outside object, that experience can be traced back not > only to the sensory door that allows it in, but to the property of > mind that experiences it because of its own capacity to do so. > > Thus in hearing a sound, one can, as I think you imply within the > model of duality of hearer and sound, emphasize the sound as real, or > the hearing as the experiential actuality. We do not know, since we > cannot go beyond the mind in our current state, whether the hearing is > dependent upon an actual sound "in the world", but we do know that the > apprehension of the sound is completely dependent on hearing. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: And also completely dependent on the sound heard. It's like the inside and the outside of box. There isn't one without the other. So the "duality" is also a "unity". In fact, it is neither. It is the middle way. ------------------------------------------------------ So we> > don't know if we are "sound collectors" but we do know that we are > definitely "hearers." > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: There is no "we" who are either of these. There is hearing, there is heard, and they go together. ------------------------------------------------------- When we go back to the act of hearing and the> > mind's capacity to "hear", we can experience the mind itself in > action, and at the point in the mind where the sound is created as > hearing within the mind itself, there is no sound to be posited > separte from that hearing. That hearing exists in consciousness > alone, at least at that point, and so n the inward-facing mode of > hearing, focussed on the hearing, not the sound, then consciousness, > hearing and sound are experienced as "one unified experience." ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that, so to speak, there is "one unified experience," but I think it is actually not-one and not-two. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > I used to think that to have this experience I had to somehow > anaesthesize other parts of the mind, like the running commentary, or > the sensation of duality, but now I think one can simply turn towards > the capacity of the consciousness in question and the other dualistic > processes don't go away, but become much more peripheral. > > Anyway, thanks for a chance to stretch the brain cells. This stuff > seems to make my mind wake up. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What it does to me is make me realize that I really don't know what is what, and makes me less content with many of the standard answers. What I do have exceedingly great confidence in is that the path practice the Buddha taught will, eventually, permit me to really come to see what is what. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Best, > Robert Ep. > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22700 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 3:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Victor Thanks for this passage from the sutta. But it doesn't help explain your understanding of the words spoken by Sister Vajira, regarding the significance of the 5 khandhas. Unless you feel inclined to give that explanation, I guess this is the end of that thread ;-)). Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > 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 22701 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 4:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Hi Jon, Thank you for your reply. You asked me in message #22257 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/22257 the following: 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)? This is how I understand the connection between the five aggregates and the convention 'a being' as what the Buddha taught in the discourse: "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.' Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 Satta Sutta A Being http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn23-002.html Thank you again for your reply. Your comment and feedback is appreciated. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > Thanks for this passage from the sutta. But it doesn't help explain > your understanding of the words spoken by Sister Vajira, regarding > the significance of the 5 khandhas. Unless you feel inclined to give > that explanation, I guess this is the end of that thread ;-)). > > Jon 22703 From: sinweiy Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 4:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Correct me if i'm wrong. Is it to said that concept is a "play toy". Mind is the "playee", and emptiness is the "play ground". The mind is playing with words/concept in the infinite space of emptiness. So to speak? :) Thus may i ask where is the mind? Is it inside, outside or in the middle? regards, sinweiy --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I think I can show that intention (cetana) is a concept but first we > have to agree on what is a concept. As I understand it, we are saying > concept is not only a name and its meaning but also any whole composed > of related parts. Are you agreeable to this? > > Larry 22704 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 4:39am Subject: The dying of children was (Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn) Hello Azita, Regarding grieving parents and dying children: I know that you know that it is really important not to talk 'at' the little ones much at all - but to listen to what they're really saying underneath the words they say. And only when they want you to. They don't have to solve the riddle of life and death - they just need to be as comfortable and peaceful as you are able to make them until they go. I think you'd be very good at that. And I know you know that the little ones don't respond to any 'one size fits all' counselling. Different ages, different comprehension. Often overlooked, is the well-being of paediatric nurses like yourself and medical staff (and perhaps the odd social worker as well :-)) who are constantly supporting others through this unbearable experience that has to be born. If anything could destroy the belief in an all powerful god, it is the dying of children who are barely able to understand what is happening, and the grieving of parents who, if they only could, would take the place of their little one in a second. Your ward team will be there for you as they always are, take the fellowship they offer. And when that's not enough, go home after your shift, lock the bathroom door, get in a steaming hot shower, lean on the wall, and have a bloody good cry. You asked about lifespan in the Tipitaka - I have a vague feeling I read something connecting it with lengthening and shortening world cycles ... There are also a couple of suttas in the Connected Disourses of the Buddha (Bhikkhu Bodhi) Sagathavagga 4 Marasamyutta 9 (9) Life-span (1). Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrel Sanctuary. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus: "Bhikkhus!" "Venerable sir!" those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this: "Bhikkhus, this life span of human beings is short. One has to go on to the future life. One should do what is wholesome and lead the holy life; for one who has taken birth there is no avoiding death. One who lives long, bhikkhus, lives a hundred years or a little longer." Then Mara the Evil One approached the Blessed One and addressed him in verse: "Long is the life span of human beings, The good man should not disdain it. One should live like a milk-sucking baby: Death has not made its arrival." [The Blessed One] "Short is the life span of human beings, The good man should disdain it. One should live like one with head aflame: There is no avoiding Death's arrival." Then Mara the Evil One ... disappeared right there." 10 (10) Life-Span (2) (Opening as in the preceding sutta:) Then Mara the Evil One approached the Blessed One and addressed him in verse: "The days and nights do not fly by, Life does not come to a stop. The life span of mortals rolls along, Like the chariot's felly round the hub." [The Blessed One] "The days and nights go flying by, Life comes to a stop. The life span of mortals is depleted like the water in rivulets." Then Mara the Evil One ... disappeared right there." metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" 22706 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:08 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > Hi Mike, > > I think I can show that intention (cetana) is a concept but first we > have to agree on what is a concept. As I understand it, we are saying > concept is not only a name and its meaning but also any whole composed > of related parts. Are you agreeable to this? I don't personally think of a concept so much as a name, but I think I see what you mean--something like, anything not analysed or reduced to its most basic components (e.g. 'a person')? If so, I think I understand this usage of 'concept' OK, though, for myself, when I think of a concept I usually just think of an idea, a specifically (and exclusively) mental object that can be known but doesn't know--cetanaa knows the the object (of its citta). This is somewhat theoretical but makes sense to me intuitively ('feels right') and is consistent with the texts, I think. So I wouldn't personally define a concept as 'any whole composed of related parts' but think I know what you mean if you'd like to continue. mike 22707 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 6:34am Subject: Sorry.... Dear Kom, I have not written to you for a long bacuse I was quite busy...... Thank you for answering my questions! Here are some new ones: 1. Is there a special Buddha day? 2. Does every Buddhist clelebrate that day or only some of them? Got to go!! Metta Janice 22708 From: Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 3:14am Subject: Re: The Touchstone Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confus... Hi, Larry and all - In a message dated 6/6/03 3:48:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > One also might ask whether the beach is really less real than the sand > grain. We can walk on the beach, feel the sand's texture, feel its warmth. > We > cannot walk on a sand grain, nor feel texture from it, nor feel warmth from > it (unless it is *very* hot). And even if the sand grain is more real than > the > beach, is it, itself, truly "real"? For that matter, is hardness truly real, > > and does it exist in dependence on touch consciousness only and not at all > on > the mind (conceptual faculty). The standard answer to the last is "yes". But > is > that so certain? What about the so called kalapa? Is that a concept? Why is > it less real than the rupas which comprise it? Perhaps the kalapa is the > "reality", and it requires a kind of specific mental analysis to separate it > into > component rupas. Is it not possible that sometimes the whole is a greater > reality than the parts. Why is a musical note more real than than a melody? > Is it > more real?? And don't both depend on the mind? > ============================ Just one more thought along these same lines. What about a processes, cittas, arammanas, and cetasikas? A process, by definition, is a sequence of mindstates with the same object (arammana). Is a process a concept? Are the individual mindstates "realities", but the process, being a collection of related elements, a concept? Or is it possible that the process is the primary "reality" in this context, and we, perhaps artificially, mentally carve it up into individual mindstates? What about the single mindstate? Is that concept-only, with the citta, arammana, and cetasikas, its "components", being the "realities"? Or is the mindstate a "reality", with the citta, arammana, and cetasikas being inseparable aspects of that mindstate? The inclination that Abhidhammika's have, and that I have for the most part as well, is that elementary/indivisible elements of experience have greater reality than composites. The only nagging doubting of that I have pertains to possible cases in which the so-called composite may not truly be a composite, but is, instead, a direct element of experience, and its so-called components are mind-constructed, rather than the other way around. My point is that matters may not be quite as straightforward as we seem to think. For me, there *is* a valid distinction to be made between the directly discerned and the mind-constructed, with the first being relatively real and the second relatively unreal. My caveat is that it is not always so clear which is which! 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) 22709 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 10:07am Subject: Perfections Ch 9, Determination, no 13 Perfections Ch 9, Determination, no 13 When we give things away for the benefit and happiness of someone else but neglect to be intent on the eradication of our defilements at such moments, the determination to eradicate them is not yet firm enough. It is difficult to reach the other shore when we do not have firm determination with regard to the four foundation dhammas, aditthåna dhammas, of truthfulness, relinquishment, calm, and paññå. If someone sees the benefit of the firm determination for relinquishment, cågaditthåna, and he has eliminated defilements, he also has the firm determination for calm, upasamaditthåna; he has calm that is freedom of defilements. This is freedom of involvement with visible object, sound, odour, flavour, tangible object, and this leads to being undisturbed by them. This leads also to the development of the perfection of renunciation, nekkhamma påramí, departing from sense pleasures. Even someone who is a layfollower may gradually abandon clinging to the sense objects and to the married state. He may be a layfollower who is not married because he sees the disadvantage of the strong bond of family life which is a burden. Thus, he sees the benefit of calm and becomes firmly established in the inclination to calm, and this is the foundation dhamma of calm. When someone is firmly established in the foundation dhamma of calm, it is conditioned by the foundation dhamma of paññå. Paññåditthåna is the fourth foundation dhamma. As we have seen, there are four firm foundations, aditthåna dhammas: determination of truthfulness, sacca, of relinquishment, cåga, of calm or peace, upasama, and of paññå. Paññå can be accumulated by listening to the Dhamma, by considering it and testing its meaning by asking questions. In this way we can verify what is kusala, what is akusala, what is wrong, what is right, and we can understand what kamma is and what its result. When we listen to the Dhamma we can investigate the true nature of realities that are cause and that are result. We should use the opportunities we have for listening to the Dhamma during this lifespan. Someone may be negligent in listening to the Dhamma, and he may think that by listening once or only a few times, he can be freed from the cycle of birth and death. Then his determination is not yet firm enough. He should further develop the foundation dhamma of paññå, and in this way the perfection of determination will become accomplished. The perfection of determination is an essential condition for the perfection of paññå that leads to reaching the further shore, that is, the realization of nibbåna. ****** (end of Ch 9) 22710 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 10:07am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 6 Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 6 In the Suttas the development of insight is implied in merely the words ³clear comprehension², or ³full understanding². We read in Kindred Sayings IV, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Ch 3, § 26, Comprehension: Without fully knowing, without comprehending the all, brethren, without detaching himself from, without abandoning the all, a man is incapable of extinguishing Ill... It is explained that the all are: the eye, visible object, seeing, eye-contact, etc. It is then explained that by fully knowing ³the all² dukkha can be extinguished. The Commentary explains: ³In this sutta the three kinds of full understanding, pariññås, are referred to: fully knowing (abhijånam), this word refers to ³full understanding of the known² (ñåta pariññå). Comprehending (parijånam), this word refers to full understanding as investigation (tírana pariññå). Detaching (viråjayam) and abandoning (pajaham) refer to the third kind of full understanding, which is full understanding as abandoning (pahåna-pariññå).² Actually, in these few words all stages of insight are included. The ³Visuddhimagga²(Ch XX,4) explains about the three kinds of full understanding: full understanding of the known (ñåta pariññå) begins at the first stage of insight knowledge (knowing the difference between nama and rupa) up to the second stage (knowing them as conditioned realities). As paññå develops it penetrates the specific characteristics of nåma and rúpa. It comes to know different kinds of nåma and of rúpa. It comes to know the characteristics of all realities that appear and it understands them more clearly as nåma and rúpa. The second kind of full understanding, full understanding as investigation (tírana pariññå): begins at the third stage of tender insight (comprehension by groups, beginning to see rise and fall) until the fourth stage which is the first stage of principle insight (mahå-vipassana ñåna): realizing the arising and falling away of realities. Here paññå comes to penetrate more the general characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattå. The third kind of full understanding, full understanding as abandoning (pahåna pariññå), begins at the contemplation of dissolution (bhangañåna), the second stage of principal insight. We can see from this description that as paññå develops it leads to detachment, to abandoning, but it develops stage by stage. If the specific characteristics of nåma and rúpa are not fully understood, the three general characteristics cannot be penetrated. The development of paññå evolves according to a specific order, according to the stages of insight. The late Bhikkhu Dhammadharo said: "Wisdom, paññå, gets beyond words, beyond thinking about states, positions, ideas about a self or a whole, and it sees reality without thinking. Because the function of panna is not thinking, its function is to see clearly, to penetrate that which we mistake for "sitting". We mistakenly think that a person is sitting. We have the wrong idea of "I am sitting". Anattå is the core of the Buddha's teaching, not attå, self." ******* (end of Ch 3) 22711 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 8:20am Subject: Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sinweiy" wrote: > Hi, > > Correct me if i'm wrong. Is it to said that concept is a "play toy". > Mind is the "playee", and emptiness is the "play ground". > The mind is playing with words/concept in the infinite space of > emptiness. So to speak? :) > > Thus may i ask where is the mind? > Is it inside, outside or in the middle? > > regards, > sinweiy > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > I think I can show that intention (cetana) is a concept but first we > > have to agree on what is a concept. As I understand it, we are > saying > > concept is not only a name and its meaning but also any whole > composed > > of related parts. Are you agreeable to this? > > > > Larry Hello, All that is, seen, heard,smelled, tasted,and felt are concepts, including thoughts. with metta, yasa 22712 From: manjushri888 Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 1:25pm Subject: Re: sutra reference --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" <> > Dear > Dan, > > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- > > > Nikaya/Anguttara1/1-ekanipata/016-Ekadhammapali-e.htm > > > CatutthavaggaVagga. > > > > > > 340.Bhikkhus, a few released from hell are reborn with the gods, > > > many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. > In > > > the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world are > reborn > > > as humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and > as > > > ghosts. > _________________> > > Dear Robertk, > > > > Thank's so very much! This is what I have been trying to find for > two > > day's now!--a direct sutra reference. > > > > Your link however didn't work and I would love to know exactly > what > > sutra this came from if you don't mind. I would greatly appreciate > it. > > > > _______ > Dear Dan, > It is toward the end of the Ekakanipata (book of ones)of the > Anguttara Nikaya of the Pali Tipitaka. > > The preceeding sutta has an interesting phrase: > Seyyathàpi bhikkhave appamattakampi pubbo duggandho hoti, evameva > kho ahaü bhikkhave appamattakampi bhavaü na vaõõemi, antamaso > accharàsaïghàtamattampãti. > Bhikkhus, just as a little bit of excreta smells and should be got > rid of, I do not say any existence is good even for an instant. > > Robertk Thank's, Robertk. You have been an enormous help! :) 22713 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 4:27pm Subject: Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > > Hello, > > All that is, seen, heard,smelled, tasted,and felt are concepts, > including thoughts. > with metta, > yasa _______ Dear Yasa, Do you have any references for this? I haven't heard it before. Is there anything that is not concept? Robertk 22714 From: Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 4:42pm Subject: Re: The Touchstone Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confus... Hi Howard, Nicely ruminated. I share all your questions and eagerly await any answers you or anyone else may come up with. Larry 22715 From: Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 5:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Mike, We could say 'any whole composed of related parts' is either a concept or a paramattha dhamma. The classic example of a whole composed of related parts is a 'person' composed of the 5 khandhas. However, every paramattha dhamma is at least the 'whole' of its characteristic, function, and manifestation. Not only that, but everything that arises arises relationally. Plus every dhamma, even nibbana, depends on 'other' for its identity. So that's my argument on why every dhamma is a concept. However, as Howard pointed out, we still have to find some kind of reality in here somewhere. But at this point, concepts fail me:-)) Larry 22716 From: Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 1:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Yasa - In a message dated 6/6/03 7:09:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, charlesperera@h... writes: > Hello, > > All that is, seen, heard,smelled, tasted,and felt are concepts, > including thoughts. > with metta, > yasa > ========================== Why do you say that? When you feel warmth, are you feeling a concept or are you directly feeling a physical sensation? Of course the felt warmth occurs "in the mind" in the sense that what is *felt* is not some external, separate entity called "warmth" - at least I believe that it is the case. But is there a synthetic or analytic activity of the mind, a constructive function or a carving-out function that produced the warmth from other things? The warmth arises, of course, from causes and conditions among which is the kamma of the mindstream involved, but is it actually created by concept-forming mechanisms? I doubt it. It seems to me that to call everything "concept" is to wipe out all meaning for the word 'concept'. I admit that often it is difficult to tell concepts (or their alleged referents) from what is directly experienced (experienced without the prior activity of constructive, concept forming activities), but that doesn't mean that the distinction is an invalid one. If "we bang our knee", there is a sharp, attention-getting sensation that is responded to immediately with a feeling of bodily displeasure (negative bodily vedana), then our pattern recognition operations (sa~n~na) recognize the sensation as "extreme pain", and we then react (sankhara) with aversion. The original sensation is not concept. The bodily displeasure isn't either. The recognition of the original sensation as "pain" is, in my opinion, the lowest level, perhaps a "proto-level" of concept formation. The primary concept-making machinery, building on sa~n~na, lies within the sankharakhandha, which is also "home" for our thoughts and emotions. The mind indeed engages in all sorts of activities of amazing complexity. These activities operate, ultimately, on basic material, material that is not yet worked over by the mind. That basic material, arising from causes and conditions, including kamma, is not concept. It is what the Abhidhammists call paramattha dhammas. 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) 22717 From: Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 5:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sinweiy, You wrote: "Correct me if i'm wrong. Is it to said that concept is a "play toy". Mind is the "playee", and emptiness is the "play ground". The mind is playing with words/concept in the infinite space of emptiness." Larry: I would say "emptiness is the playground" isn't quite right. Emptiness always needs a container, as for example a cup that is empty. Some Tibetans like to say there are two kinds of emptiness: empty of itself and empty of other. 'Empty of other' means empty of something other than the container. For example, mind is empty of permanence. There is nothing permanent in mind. 'Empty of itself' refers to a whole and its parts. The mind is composed of many inter-related elements, but none of these elements is mind itself. When we look, mind cannot be found. However, mind is not nonexistent. It has kammic viability. It functions through cause and result. So mind is empty of itself but not nonexistent. That is one way of understanding the Middle Way. Larry 22718 From: Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 1:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/6/03 8:36:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Sinweiy, > > You wrote: "Correct me if i'm wrong. Is it to said that concept is a > "play toy". Mind is the "playee", and emptiness is the "play ground". > The mind is playing with words/concept in the infinite space of > emptiness." > > Larry: I would say "emptiness is the playground" isn't quite right. > Emptiness always needs a container, as for example a cup that is empty. > Some Tibetans like to say there are two kinds of emptiness: empty of > itself and empty of other. 'Empty of other' means empty of something > other than the container. For example, mind is empty of permanence. > There is nothing permanent in mind. > > 'Empty of itself' refers to a whole and its parts. The mind is composed > of many inter-related elements, but none of these elements is mind > itself. When we look, mind cannot be found. However, mind is not > nonexistent. It has kammic viability. It functions through cause and > result. So mind is empty of itself but not nonexistent. That is one way > of understanding the Middle Way. > > Larry > > ============================== Larry, Larry, Larry! What HAVE you been reading!! ;-))) With madhyamika 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) 22719 From: Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 7:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, I just made up the "kammic viability" bit. I don't know if it will fly or not. Larry ------------------ Howard wrote: Larry, Larry, Larry! What HAVE you been reading!! ;-))) 22720 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 2:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > ========================== > Why do you say that? When you feel warmth, are you feeling a concept > or are you directly feeling a physical sensation? Of course the felt warmth > occurs "in the mind" in the sense that what is *felt* is not some external, > separate entity called "warmth" - at least I believe that it is the case. But is > there a synthetic or analytic activity of the mind, a constructive function or a > carving-out function that produced the warmth from other things? The warmth > arises, of course, from causes and conditions among which is the kamma of the > mindstream involved, but is it actually created by concept-forming mechanisms? > I doubt it. > It seems to me that to call everything "concept" is to wipe out all > meaning for the word 'concept'. I admit that often it is difficult to tell > concepts (or their alleged referents) from what is directly experienced > (experienced without the prior activity of constructive, concept forming activities), but > that doesn't mean that the distinction is an invalid one. If "we bang our > knee", there is a sharp, attention-getting sensation that is responded to > immediately with a feeling of bodily displeasure (negative bodily vedana), then our > pattern recognition operations (sa~n~na) recognize the sensation as "extreme > pain", and we then react (sankhara) with aversion. The original sensation is not > concept. The bodily displeasure isn't either. The recognition of the original > sensation as "pain" is, in my opinion, the lowest level, perhaps a > "proto-level" of concept formation. The primary concept-making machinery, building on > sa~n~na, lies within the sankharakhandha, which is also "home" for our thoughts > and emotions. The mind indeed engages in all sorts of activities of amazing > complexity. These activities operate, ultimately, on basic material, material > that is not yet worked over by the mind. That basic material, arising from > causes and conditions, including kamma, is not concept. It is what the > Abhidhammists call paramattha dhammas. _________________________________Yasa______________________________ > Hello Howard, Sankhata Dhamma includes all phenomena of existence. They are also sankhara mental formations. " sabbe sankhara anicca" all formations are impermanent.Only Nibbana is unconditioned (asankata). All words used to describe a phenomena of existence are concepts. That is the concepts are to make us understand things in conventional terms. Paramatta dhamma as long as we use that term to signify some thing, is as well a concept. Feeling of warmth, extreme pain they are all concepts. Paramatta dhamma, has to be experienced and what is experienced would be beyond concepts, because you will not be able to explain that experience in known words and terms. You mentioned sanna- Sanna is the store house of our knowledge. When we see something(passa), and feel it by like or dislike(vedana), then we recognize it from a thing we have seen in the past(sanna). All that stored-up information are concepts. With metta, Yasa 22721 From: Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Yasa - In a message dated 6/7/03 7:46:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, charlesperera@h... writes: > Hello Howard, > > Sankhata Dhamma includes all phenomena of existence. They are also > sankhara mental formations. " sabbe sankhara anicca" all formations > are impermanent.Only Nibbana is unconditioned (asankata). > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. -------------------------------------------------- > > All words used to describe a phenomena of existence are concepts. > That is the concepts are to make us understand things in conventional > terms. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree. ------------------------------------------------- Paramatta dhamma as long as we use that term to signify some > > thing, is as well a concept. Feeling of warmth, extreme pain they > are all concepts. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: The *terms* 'paramattha dhamma', 'warmth', and 'extreme pain', and the ideas they express are, indeed, all concepts. But the warmth, pain, sights, sounds, tastes etc, themselves - not the terms naming them or the ideas of them - are *not* concepts. --------------------------------------------------- > > Paramatta dhamma, has to be experienced and what is experienced > would be beyond concepts, because you will not be able to explain > that experience in known words and terms. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: What is directly experienced is certainly different from our idea of it or our name for it. But it is not concept. (Concept and speech is devised and used for communication purposes only.) ----------------------------------------------------- > > You mentioned sanna- Sanna is the store house of our knowledge. When > we see something(passa), and feel it by like or dislike(vedana), then > we recognize it from a thing we have seen in the past(sanna). All > that stored-up information are concepts. > > With metta, > Yasa > ================================= 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) 22722 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 6:04am Subject: The Touchstone Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, You wrote to Larry (and Mike): ------------ > Not many answers here by me - mostly just questions: > --------------- I appreciate these questions Howard. I feel like I'm filling out one of those quizzes in a magazine. If I turn the page upside down, I might find the answers and calculate my score :-) ------------- > You know, ideas are strange things. Is any whole composed of related parts a concept? > -------------- I think so. ------------- > If one thinks about it, one may wonder where such a whole composed of parts is to be found. Where is the chariot to be found? In the mind? "Out there"? No where at all? > --------------- Entirely in the mind. Which, ultimately, means nowhere at all. They have no nature of their own. ---------------- > One also might ask whether the beach is really less real than the sand grain. > ------------------- They are both unreal -- both concepts. Similarly, the wheels, axel, shafts etc., that make up a chariot are concepts. It is only in the metaphor that they represent realities. In the metaphor, 'chariot' stands for the concept of a 'living being,' and the parts stand for the realities of the five khandhas. ------- . . . > is hardness truly real, and does it exist in dependence on touch consciousness only and not at all on the mind (conceptual faculty). > ----------- Yes it is truly real. When it is the object of consciousness, there are no concepts. ------------ > The standard answer to the last is "yes". But is that so certain? -------------- Please explain; certain to whom? ----------- > What about the so called kalapa? Is that a concept? > -------------- I haven't done my homework. Does a kalapa have its own sabhava? If yes, then it's a reality; if no, then the so-called kalapa is a mere concept. I vaguely understand that rupas are interdependent -- just like khandhas -- they arise together or not at all. If they aren't arising together, then there is no living being and no kalapa (so-called) :-) ----------------- . . . > Is it not possible that sometimes the whole is a greater reality than the parts. Why is a musical note more real than than a melody? Is it more real?? And don't both depend on the mind? > --------------- Notes and tunes are concepts. ----------------- > Also, if a whole composed of related parts is a concept, then is the image that is seen when we open our eyes concept? > ----------------- The eye sees visible object, from which the mind creates images (concepts). I don't know if visible object can be divided into parts. Do any of us worldlings [directly] know very much about visible object? ----------------- > Not all that clear, is it? All that is truly clear, I think, except that we don't really see it so well, is that all conditioned dhammas are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and insubstantial, impersonal, and ungraspable, is that not so? > --------------------- This is interesting, Howard. You find (and I think I know what you mean), that anicca, dukkha and anatta are easier to grasp intellectually than are visible object and tactile object etc. Let's not forget that, at the level of vipassana, the three characteristics are the hardest to know (they are the hardest vipassana-nana). After them, the only knowledge to be attained is Nibbana itself. So perhaps the three characteristics are harder to grasp intellectually than we give them credit for. Perhaps we still have them very much confused with conceptual characteristics. Kind regards, Ken PS. I'm a bit behind with my reading. I'm yet to take a close look at your sequel to this post (in 22708). 22723 From: Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 2:55am Subject: Re: The Touchstone Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confus... Hi, Ken - Just a couple responses below. In a message dated 6/7/03 9:07:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > You wrote to Larry (and Mike): > ------------ > > Not many answers here by me - mostly just questions: > > > --------------- > I appreciate these questions Howard. I feel like I'm > filling out one of those quizzes in a magazine. If I turn > the page upside down, I might find the answers and > calculate my score :-) > > ------------- > > You know, ideas are strange things. Is any whole > composed of related parts a concept? > > > -------------- > I think so. > ------------- > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: When it is truly a collection, I agree. What I wonder is whether there are not circumstances in which what is apparently a collection is, in fact, a directly experienced phenomenon, alleged parts of which only emerge as the result of subsequent mental processing. The "sight" example I gave is one which comes to mind. We open our eyes and there is a "sight". The "within that" we carve out areas of differing shades, intensities, and colors. What there is paramattha and what is sankhata (in the sense of constructed)? ------------------------------------------------- > > If one thinks about it, one may wonder where such > a whole composed of parts is to be found. Where is the > chariot to be found? In the mind? "Out there"? No where > at all? > > --------------- > > Entirely in the mind. Which, ultimately, means nowhere > at all. They have no nature of their own. > > ---------------- -------------------------------------------------- Howard: That is my assessment as well. -------------------------------------------------- > > One also might ask whether the beach is really > less real than the sand grain. > > ------------------- > > They are both unreal -- both concepts. Similarly, the > wheels, axel, shafts etc., that make up a chariot are > concepts. It is only in the metaphor that they represent > realities. In the metaphor, 'chariot' stands for the > concept of a 'living being,' and the parts stand for the > realities of the five khandhas. > > ------- ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, hmm. ---------------------------------------------------- > . . . >is hardness truly real, and does it exist in > dependence on touch consciousness only and not at all on > the mind (conceptual faculty). > > ----------- > > Yes it is truly real. When it is the object of > consciousness, there are no concepts. > > ------------ > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. I also think that hardness is a directly experienced phenomenon, without conceptual mediation. --------------------------------------------------- > >The standard answer to the last is "yes". But is > that so certain? > -------------- > > Please explain; certain to whom? > > ----------- > >What about the so called kalapa? Is that a concept? > > -------------- > > I haven't done my homework. Does a kalapa have its own > sabhava? If yes, then it's a reality; if no, then the > so-called kalapa is a mere concept. I vaguely understand > that rupas are interdependent -- just like khandhas -- > they arise together or not at all. > > If they aren't arising together, then there is no living > being and no kalapa (so-called) :-) > > ----------------- > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Given that kalapas do exist (conventionally or ultimately), I think it is a legitimate qustion to ask whether they are concept-only. They are "bundles". The point is, are they mentally constructed from the rupas they subsume? If yes, they are concept-only. -------------------------------------------------------- > . . . >Is it not possible that sometimes the whole is a > greater reality than the parts. Why is a musical note > more real than than a melody? Is it more real?? And don't > both depend on the mind? > > --------------- > > Notes and tunes are concepts. > > ----------------- > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course they are. This question is a matter of analogy. Is the note *more* real than the melody? That is the issue. The main issue being debated here is that of a collection being less real than the elements of that collection. I think that proposition is generally correct, but not clearly always so. ------------------------------------------------------- > >Also, if a whole composed of related parts is a > concept, then is the image that is seen when we open our > eyes concept? > > ----------------- > > The eye sees visible object, from which the mind creates > images (concepts). I don't know if visible object can be > divided into parts. Do any of us worldlings [directly] > know very much about visible object? > > ----------------- > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: About as much as we know about sounds, tastes, etc ------------------------------------------------------ > >Not all that clear, is it? > All that is truly clear, I think, except that we > don't really see it so well, is that all conditioned > dhammas are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and > insubstantial, impersonal, and ungraspable, is that not > so? > > --------------------- > > This is interesting, Howard. You find (and I think I > know what you mean), that anicca, dukkha and anatta are > easier to grasp intellectually than are visible object > and tactile object etc. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I don't doubt any of these for a second. But distinguishing what is conceptual from actual, in some cases, is harder - for me. ------------------------------------------------------ > > Let's not forget that, at the level of vipassana, the > three characteristics are the hardest to know (they are > the hardest vipassana-nana). After them, the only > knowledge to be attained is Nibbana itself. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. Nonetheless, I haven't the slightest doubt, for example, that nothing remains. Not only do I see it in this conventional world, during the course of a lifetime, but I see it from moment to moment during "ordinary consciousness," and I've seen it more "microscopically" during meditation, where it was apparent that nothing remains even for a moment. --------------------------------------------------- > > So perhaps the three characteristics are harder to grasp > intellectually than we give them credit for. Perhaps we > still have them very much confused with conceptual > characteristics. > > Kind regards, > Ken > > PS. I'm a bit behind with my reading. I'm yet to take a > close look at your sequel to this post (in 22708). ========================== 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) 22724 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 6:55am Subject: Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hello Howard, So far so good. We accept (1) All words used to describe a phenomena of existence are concepts. That is the concepts are to make us understand things in conventional terms. (2) The *terms* 'paramattha dhamma', 'warmth', and 'extreme pain', and the ideas they express are, indeed, all concepts. ____________________________________________________________________ We disagree on: Howard: ..the warmth, pain, sights, sounds, tastes etc, themselves - not the terms naming them or the ideas of them - are *not* concepts. Yasa: I still say these ARE concepts. Why ? Because, when you say "warmth", "pain" "sight" or "sound" you are describing a feeling, or an emotion. The movement you "describe it", it becomes a concept. Then how can we see "the ultimate reality" behind the concept ? I say that it can be "EXPERIENCED" by "not describing it." A silent mind "hears". That's it.FULL STOP. Nothing beyond nothing before. ___________________________________________________________________ There is again a disagreement here but I cannot get at what you really mean: Howard: What is directly experienced is certainly different from our idea of it or our name for it. But it is not concept. (Concept and speech is devised and used for communication purposes only.) Yasa: I agree, what we directly experienced is certainly different, and is not a concept, but the fault is in our communication of it. Because the movement we communicate it, the experience is distorted, in your "speech" you are not really describing your experience, but, describing some thing the others will be able to understand. That, therefore, is a concept. With metta, Yasa 22725 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 10:14am Subject: rebirth in hell, to Kom Dear Kom, Rob K and all, Kom, although you are just moving in, I would like some words of advice from you. I read the sutta about rebirth in hell quoted by Rob K and I was so impressed. < In the same manner a few humans who leave the human corpse are born among humans many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. > Before, you wrote about the tortoise and the yoke with the hole, saying that you at first are scared, but then encouraged to develop satipatthana. Well, I am inclined to overlook suttas such as this one, I do not like to hear them. At breakfast I read the sutta to Lodewijk, and he said, he is inclined to give it all up, since the goal seems unreachable, the development too difficult. I think we read the sutta with a concept of self, what will happen to the self. In reality there are only conditioned dhammas. I agree with Howard that we are too imperfect, we are limited as to our possibilities. He said: ( I am coming back to this later on, Howard.) If we worry about our future (it looks grim) why not make the worry object of satipatthana: it is not my worry, only a conditioned dhamma, a nama. If we overlook fear and worry, we are not doing the best we can. And this was the Buddha's objective with this sutta: a reminder not to overlook the present moment. I also read to Lodewijk: each moment of existence is like dung, but, I am not so advanced yet. There are too many things in life I enjoy. The sutta also reminded me of Jåtaka no. 538, Múgapakkha Jåtaka. We read in the series of the perfections, Determination: For myself, it would be forced, unnatural, if I would think all the time, the danger of hell is more fearful, and refrain from pleasant things. Kom, what do you think? Nina. 22726 From: Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 6:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Yasa - In a message dated 6/7/03 10:08:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, charlesperera@h... writes: > > Hello Howard, > > > So far so good. > > We accept > > (1) All words used to describe a phenomena of existence are > concepts. > That is the concepts are to make us understand things in > conventional > terms. > > (2) The *terms* 'paramattha dhamma', 'warmth', and 'extreme pain', > and the > ideas they express are, indeed, all concepts. > ____________________________________________________________________ > > We disagree on: > > Howard: > ..the warmth, pain, sights, sounds, tastes etc, themselves - not the > terms naming them or the ideas of them > > - are *not* concepts. > > > Yasa: > > I still say these ARE concepts. Why ? Because, when you > say "warmth", "pain" "sight" or "sound" you are describing a feeling, > or an emotion. The movement you "describe it", it becomes a concept. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: What I am *saying* and what I am thinking *when* I say it are concepts, but what *led* to the saying, which only can be directly experienced, is *not* concept. My describing something doesn't change that thing. The problem is that what is described cannot actually be the thing intended to be described, but only a conceptual pointer to it (provided, of course, the concept is not unfounded). It seems to me that sometimes you are mixing what Quine referred to as 'word' and 'object'. If I am *talking* to you, I must use words and concepts. They are for thinking and communication. If you have experienced warmth, and I have experienced warmth, and I use the word 'warmth' in communicating with you, there is understanding. This is because we have had the same experience. The experience you and I had was "real" and direct, but the name and idea of it are not.They are mere pointers. -------------------------------------------------- > > Then how can we see "the ultimate reality" behind the concept ? I say > that it can be "EXPERIENCED" by "not describing it." > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: It does not get experienced *by* not describing it. It gets experienced by experiencing it. At the moment it is experienced, I agree there is no concept or description of it. None is needed then. --------------------------------------------------- A silent > > mind "hears". That's it.FULL STOP. Nothing beyond nothing before. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's just a slogan, Yasa. A silent mind may be asleep. A prepared mind, with defilements removed (or perhaps only in abeyanace), can "hear". -------------------------------------------------- > ___________________________________________________________________ > > There is again a disagreement here but I cannot get at what you > really mean: > > Howard: > > What is directly experienced is certainly different from our idea of > it or our name for it. But it is not concept. (Concept and speech is > devised and used for communication purposes only.) > > Yasa: > > I agree, what we directly experienced is certainly different, and is > not a concept, but the fault is in our communication of it. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is no disagreement on this. Taste must be tasted. A dinner cannot be enjoyed by reading the menu. [Speaking metaphorically here, of course.] --------------------------------------------------- Because > > the movement we communicate it, the experience is distorted, in > your "speech" you are not really describing your experience, but, > describing some thing the others will be able to understand. That, > therefore, is a concept. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree completely! What I didn't get, and what I still don't quite get, is your claim that thee is nothing but concept. What you wrote above: "I agree, what we directly experienced is certainly different, and is not a concept, but the fault is in our communication of it." shows that you do *not* say that everything is concept! It seems to me that we are actually in agreement on this matter! ----------------------------------------------------- > > With metta, > Yasa > > ============================= 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) 22727 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 3:18pm Subject: RE: [dsg] rebirth in hell, to Kom Dear Nina, > -----Original Message----- > From: nina van gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 10:15 AM > > Kom, although you are just moving in, I would like some words of > advice from > you. > I read the sutta about rebirth in hell quoted by Rob K and I was so > impressed. > < In the same manner a few humans who leave the > human corpse are born among humans many more are reborn in hell, in > the animal world and as ghosts. > I think these suttas provide me with the urgency to understand dhammas more, to develop all sorts of kusala, according to my understanding, as best as I can. Without hearing about it, I may feel a bit relaxed, not knowing that there is a flame afire on my head. > them. At breakfast I read the sutta to Lodewijk, and he said, he > is inclined > to give it all up, since the goal seems unreachable, the development too > difficult. When I understand that there is no other path, then the goal doesn't seem so difficult. As long as we walk on the right path, one day we must get there. Coming upon the right path is difficult, but walking on the path just takes a long time. If we understand that there is no other way, then it doesn't seem so bothersome. > If we worry about our future (it looks grim) why not make the worry object > of satipatthana: it is not my worry, only a conditioned dhamma, a nama. If > we overlook fear and worry, we are not doing the best we can. And this was > the Buddha's objective with this sutta: a reminder not to overlook the > present moment. I agree that we shouldn't neglect knowing aversion as it is. On the other hand, being sometimes a depressed person like I am, I still think we do our best to avoid it. Strong aversion has not only bad mental effects, but physical effects as well. Attachment, or other kilesa, is not good for the mind, but at least mild attachment doesn't have adverse (I think) physical effects. > I also read to Lodewijk: each moment of existence is like dung, but, I am > not so advanced yet. There are too many things in life I enjoy. I keep getting reminded that only anagami can let go of attachment to the 5 sensualities ;-). I think I heard from a Sutta that the Buddha said, for those not skilled in Jhana, then they are bound to be inclined toward the 5 sensualities. It's inevitable. Even Visakha, a most eminent sotapanna disciple of the Buddha, enjoyed her jewelries and other pleasant things in life. > We read in > the series of the perfections, Determination: > danger of hell. He thought, ³the danger of hell is more fearful, it is a > hundredfold, a thousandfold, even a tenthousandfold more fearful.² The > wetnurses who tested him in these ways did not see any weak point in the > Bodhisatta. > > For myself, it would be forced, unnatural, if I would think all the time, > the danger of hell is more fearful, and refrain from pleasant things. Kom, > what do you think? > The question I ask myself is why do I want to force myself? If the answer (for me) is, because other says it is good (or worse yet, I think letting go in this way is the way to nibbana) or for others' approval, then this may not be all that great to do. But if there are other good reasons, like if I see it as it is (that life is a serie of dung), or if I think that we need to start somewhere to create habits, then we don't have to force anything (or don't have to force as much). It used to be harder for me to give. Did I have to force myself (more) to give at the beginning? Yes, but I did it because I understood that if I didn't start, there would be no inclination to do so in the future. If there is understanding, all the rest come very naturally. This reminds me of a passage from A. Sujin's tape. She asked people if anyone has the inclination to go and fight with kilesa in our daily life. Then she said, if you do, the result is always the same: you always lose. Only panna can truly suppress, and takes us a long the path toward getting rid of kilesa. When we undrstands the true faults of the 5 sensualities (of its being anicca, dukkha, and anatta), then letting go of those come naturally, and eventually, permanently. Only panna (and all its supportive) states will do, not us. kom 22728 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 4:24pm Subject: Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hello Howard Just a little more, if you would permit me/ ______________________________________________________________________ Howard: What I am *saying* and what I am thinking *when* I say it are concepts, but what *led* to the saying, which only can be directly experienced, is *not* concept. My describing something doesn't change that thing. The problem is that what is described cannot actually be the thing intended to be described, but only a conceptual pointer to it (provided, of course, the concept is not unfounded). It seems to me that sometimes you are mixing what Quine referred to as 'word' and 'object'. If I am *talking* to you, I must use words and concepts. They are for thinking and communication. If you have experienced warmth, and I have experienced warmth, and I use the word 'warmth' in communicating with you, there is understanding. This is because we have had the same experience. The experience you and I had was "real" and direct, but the name and idea of it are not.They are mere pointers. ___________________________________________________ Yasa: I think I get what you mean. Your experience remains an experience, but what you say about is a pointer to it. Is it ? Then you are conceptualising your experience. You make a concept of it. We are living in a world of concepts. We are far away from reality, but trying to explain reality we come out with concepts. You have experienced an emotion, another person also experiences the same emotion. For you that emotion is close to a conventional term "warmth" which the other person too understands. What you have done is conceptualising an emotion using a conventional term. But did the other person have the same emotion as you did ? The difference does not matter because the closes word to describe the emotion is "warmth". It is a pointer and a concept (conceptualising the pointer) -------------------------------------------------- A silent mind "hears". That's it.FULL STOP. Nothing beyond nothing before. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's just a slogan, Yasa. A silent mind may be asleep. A prepared mind, with defilements removed (or perhaps only in abeyanace), can "hear". -------------------------------------------------- Yasa: Certainly not. A silent mind, is a meditative mind, in meditation the mind is alert. It does not sleep. Lets leave meditation aside, for the moment. No polemics .....! Let us see it through Abhidhamma: When an object impinges on a sense door say the "eye-door" Atitabhavanga awakens, bhavangacalana, follows it,then bhavangupaccheda, cuts off the bhavanga, and then arises cakkhu dvarvajjana citta, it is only then the object which impinged on the "sense door of eye "comes in to its field of vision, but this citta is a kiriya citta. At that moment before the arising of the Cakku vinnana, there is pure "seeing" without a concept. If you stop at that, you have just experienced "seeing". That is why I said "silent mind "sees". That's it. Full Stop". ___________________________________________________________________ Because the movement we communicate it, the experience is distorted, in your "speech" you are not really describing your experience, but, describing some thing the others will be able to understand. That, therefore, is a concept. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree completely! What I didn't get, and what I still don't quite get, is your claim that there is nothing but concept. What you wrote above: "I agree, what we directly experienced is certainly different, and is not a concept, but the fault is in our communication of it." shows that you do *not*say that everything is concept! It seems to me that we are actually in agreement on this matter! ----------------------------------------------------- Yasa: I say everything is a concept, because we live in a conventional way, and we are blinded by ignorance. When we see, we see only the visual aspect(ruparammana) of the object and immediately conceptualise it. In that, visual experience we ignore the other aspects of the object seen, is it hard or soft(pottabbarammana), smells good or bad (gandharammana) and what taste it has(rasarammana) etc. But these aspects are imagined -and therefore, concepts. We have taken only the visual aspect and categorised it along with other known objects. This is what we do with every thing all the time. With metta, Yasa > 22729 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 7:43pm Subject: Re: Anatta Precepts Dear Robert, and all, A couple of initial thoughts on parts of your last post on Anatta. Lots in it that I'm still thinking over. Funny what gaps there are even in the little intellectual understanding I think I have - I had come to think that no control = no choices whatsoever. I'm much more comfortable now that I see there are choices, though these are conditioned. For example, I presently would not kill myself or another, or sell my home and spend the rest of my life travelling, or become a Catholic nun. Though these things are possible to do, I could not do any of them at this time, because of conditions i.e. I just don't want to because of everything that has gone before into molding my inclinations, and the circumstances of my life.. This may seem such a trivial thing but it has been a big hurdle for me - I feel like someone who was looking at swirling fragments that have for just a brief moment paused and formed a actual picture. Eureka! [Hopefully no-one is going to tell me I'm completely on the wrong track again}. :-) You say: "If it is wisdom that is developing ...." This strikes a chord ... You see, I'm sure I understood the conditionality of choice once before, but then came to hold a different opinion. What exactly is panna? I mean, how does one recognise whether one has it, and can it be lost? I thought accumulations just accumulated and influenced action. Can there be counterfeit panna? This marionette simile we've talked about before - unforgetable, and quite chilling. I begin to feel that anatta means each of us is something very like a set of mechanical processes (nama-rupa) that come into existence because something is wrong (kama -> vipaka, defilements). e.g. the movement sensor system in my house is comatose until a certain stimulus makes it react fairly predictably and set in train fairly predictable actions. If there was no stimulus, it wouldn't 'come to life' (so to speak) i.e. -> note unauthorised movement -> set off siren and blue flashing lights on outside of house -> cause alarm at security centre -> cause telephone message to be sent to nominated people -> initiate sending of armed officer to my address. What I am trying to say is that Anatta is arid and lonely. No-one, nothing personal in it. [No sign of the old "God is Love" (?nibanna is love) of the Christians that is so attractive and comforting.] But no 'curiosity' makes it seem even worse - no interest or awareness - how does nibanna, in the light of anatta, differ from annihilation? Has anyone ever thought that it might be a whole lot less scary to just keep doing good actions with the aim of constant pleasant re- births? metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > <<>> and the way accumulations work it seems all by chance > In the deepest sense no others , no us. Just dhammas > arising – not by accident- but by conditions. All of these dhammas, > the five aggregates, are nothing good. The five khandhas are: "a > disease, a boil, a dart, as calamity, as > an affliction, as alien, as no protection, as empty, as void, as > having no > core, as Mara's bait, as not self...."Patisambhidhimagga XXIX8 > > [SN XXIII.2]"It's just as when boys or girls are playing with > little sand castles. As long as they are not free from passion, > desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand > castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, > enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they > become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for > those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, > demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play. > > "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish > form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving > for form. > > "You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit > for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling. > > "You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit > for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception. > > "You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them > unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications. > > "You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it > unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for > consciousness -- because the ending of craving, Radha, is > Unbinding." > > The characteristic of not-self becomes evident to him through seeing > rise according to conditions owing to his discovery that states have > no curiosity and have their existence depending upon conditions" > Vis.xx102 22730 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 10:17pm Subject: Re: Anatta Precepts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Robert, and all, > I'm much more comfortable now that I see > there are choices, though these are conditioned. For example, I > presently would not kill myself or another, or sell my home and spend > the rest of my life travelling, or become a Catholic nun. Though > these things are possible to do, I could not do any of them at this > time, because of conditions i.e. __________ Dear Christine, Yes, that's right. We might imagine that if there is no self and no control that then anything can happen. Maybe we'll grab a gun and go on a rampage. But no, life is just like before but with gradually less selfview thinking that there is control. And if there is more understanding than there should be gradually less conditions for bad behaviour because akusala depends largely on self view; "how dare he do that: to ME!" "I should go and...". "Why can't THEY undersatand that..." Not so much getting caught up because sati that sees the conditionality of the moment and breaks through the delusions. So we can be patient with others kilesa and our own. _____________ You say: "If it is > wisdom that is developing ...." This strikes a chord ... You see, > I'm sure I understood the conditionality of choice once before, but > then came to hold a different opinion. What exactly is panna? I > mean, how does one recognise whether one has it, and can it be lost? > I thought accumulations just accumulated and influenced action. Can > there be counterfeit panna? ___________ What is that factor that starts to recognize what is Dhamma and what is not? It is panna, it comes in different levels. Counterfeit panna says there is no-self but believes dhammas are under their mastery. I think accumulations reveal themselves slowly once there is less idea of a self who has to do this, don't do that. _______________ > > This marionette simile we've talked about before - unforgetable, and > quite chilling. I begin to feel that anatta means each of us is > something very like a set of mechanical processes (nama-rupa) that > come into existence because something is wrong (kama -> vipaka, > defilements). e.g. the movement sensor system in my house is comatose > until a certain stimulus makes it react fairly predictably and set in > train fairly predictable actions. If there was no stimulus, it > wouldn't 'come to life' (so to speak) i.e. -> note unauthorised > movement -> set off siren and blue flashing lights on outside of > house -> cause alarm at security centre -> cause telephone message to > be sent to nominated people -> initiate sending of armed officer to > my address. > What I am trying to say is that Anatta is arid and lonely. No- one, > nothing personal in it. [No sign of the old "God is Love" (? nibanna > is love) of the Christians that is so attractive and comforting.] > But no 'curiosity' makes it seem even worse - no interest or > awareness - how does nibanna, in the light of anatta, differ from > annihilation? > Has anyone ever thought that it might be a whole lot less scary to > just keep doing good actions with the aim of constant pleasant re- > births? > ___________ Yes, the idea "nibbana", "enlightenment" sounds nice but how many are ready to give up everything. It's exciting to hear of 'stages of insight' but those same stages show absolutely there is only nama and rupa, and no self, no children, no friends. If only the self could be at its own funeral to enjoy the eulogy! It doesn't work that way. Mike said in a post once: ". So, 'I' dont mind giving up the idea of self, just so long as 'I'm' allowed to choose to do so (and receive the credit)...! "" RobertK 22731 From: Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 6:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Yasa - In a message dated 6/7/03 7:31:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, charlesperera@h... writes in part: > Yasa: > > I think I get what you mean. Your experience remains an experience, > but what you say about is a pointer to it. Is it ? Then you are > conceptualising your experience. You make a concept of it. We are > living in a world of concepts. We are far away from reality, but > trying to explain reality we come out with concepts. > > You have experienced an emotion, another person also experiences the > same emotion. For you that emotion is close to a conventional > term "warmth" which the other person too understands. What you have > done is conceptualising an emotion using a conventional term. But did > the other person have the same emotion as you did ? The difference > does not matter because the closes word to describe the emotion > is "warmth". It is a pointer and a concept (conceptualising the > pointer) > ============================= I've only quoted the above portion of your post. I did so because I agree with what you say there (most especially the first paragraph), and I feel like only being positive at the moment! ;-) With positive 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) 22732 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 1:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Howard You suggest that the Buddha used conventional terminology because he wanted to convey to the listener 'truths' in relation to conventional objects, and that the 'techno-speak' of the Abhidhamma was reserved for those who had gone far in meditative investigation of dhammas. To my way of thinking, however, this doesn't account for the fact that many people who heard discourses given in conventional terms attained enlightenment, in some cases on their very first contact with the teachings. Do you not think it possible that the teachings were given in conventional terms to those who were capable of immediately seeing beyond the conventional meaning, while the more detailed discourses that make reference to the ayatanas, khandhas, dhatus were for those without the same degree of accumulated wisdom? Consider the analogy of an expert in a specialist field who wishes to convey a newly discovered 'truth' to 2 people, one of whom is familiar with the field of specialisation and the other of whom is a relative layperson. For the former, a statement of the 'truth' in fairly general terms, e.g. 'mass varies with speed' (pardon my physics ;-)), might be very meaningful, while the latter may need to hear something about basic principles first in order for the 'truth' to have any significance or meaning. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, 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, 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 22733 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 2:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee Thanks for this sharing, and I look forward to more of your contributions. I would like to offer a few thoughts of my own. My sense of the teachings is that the path to the goal of enlightenment lies in the development of insight into presently arising realities (dhammas). It is by the arising of this insight (wisdom/understanding) that the kilesas such as ego, fear, desire and so on that you mention are weakened and, upon attaining enlightenment, finally eradicated. So we could think of the weakening of the kilesas as in a sense a by-product of the development of insight, as something the pace and order of which is not of our choosing. I mention this because I have noticed that many people seem to hold the view that 'practice' has to do with effort directed towards the reduction of kilesas, and that progress in the development of insight is to be measured by the extent to which the kilesas are absent. Now, the eradication of the kilesas is of course something mentioned frequently in the suttas, including as 1 of the benefits/advantages of the development of insight. In terms of the actual path, however, the emphasis to my reading is on knowing all dhammas as they truly are. There is no recipe or technique given for reducing (in the sense of eradicating) the kilesas as such. I suspect that many people would also regard the aspiration to have more kusala and less akusala as itself kusala, but this is not necessarily so; it could just as easily be our old friends conceit (mana) and wrong view (ditthi) popping up again. Well, that's my perspective on things;-)) Jon --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Hi Jon; ... > Let me try to describe this in a pre-theoretical sort of way, free > of > the pali terminology, and even free of my understanding of Buddhism > since this approach was something I was doing long before I > understood > Buddhist terminology. There are obvious limitations in approaching > it this way, but hopefully you will find some value in the > description. ... 22734 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 2:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hello Jon and Howard, This makes sense to me, Jon. I think KenH explained to me on the Cooran weekend that the Abhidhamma was the primary school detailed course of instruction and the Suttas were the concise University lectures. [Sorry if I've misrepresented you KenH - you aren't responsible for what I take out of what you say. :-)) The suttas are so dense with meaning - I have been attempting to re-read Bhikkhu Bodhi's presentation of Brahmajala Sutta and its commentaries. The long sutta takes all of 37 pages - the unpacked explanations take another 301 pages. Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Howard > > You suggest that the Buddha used conventional terminology because he > wanted to convey to the listener 'truths' in relation to conventional > objects, and that the 'techno-speak' of the Abhidhamma was reserved > for those who had gone far in meditative investigation of dhammas. > > To my way of thinking, however, this doesn't account for the fact > that many people who heard discourses given in conventional terms > attained enlightenment, in some cases on their very first contact > with the teachings. > > Do you not think it possible that the teachings were given in > conventional terms to those who were capable of immediately seeing > beyond the conventional meaning, while the more detailed discourses > that make reference to the ayatanas, khandhas, dhatus were for those > without the same degree of accumulated wisdom? > > Consider the analogy of an expert in a specialist field who wishes to > convey a newly discovered 'truth' to 2 people, one of whom is > familiar with the field of specialisation and the other of whom is a > relative layperson. For the former, a statement of the 'truth' in > fairly general terms, e.g. 'mass varies with speed' (pardon my > physics ;-)), might be very meaningful, while the latter may need to > hear something about basic principles first in order for the 'truth' > to have any significance or meaning. > > Jon > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - 22735 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 2:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Hi Jon: ... > I think both suttas provide a wonderful guide to a practice, > especially > with their grounding in dependent origination. I would be interested to hear more on this in due course. ... > So when I come accross two interpretations of the same sutta, one > by > this commentator and one by another, I tentatively choose the one > that resonates with my own experience. A rather "egoistic" way, > perhaps, of > judging suttas, but I find it a better guide than ignoring my own > intuitions in favor of some commentator, no matter how revered, > whose > interpretation does not square with my own invesigation. When I > "come > and see" the dhamma, I ultimately use my own experience as the > final guide. > > That said, as I have progressed in my practice and in my > understanding > of the suttas, I have often changed my mind about which > interpretation > was "best" for a particular suuta or pasage - for I believe that if > I > dogmatically hold to the first interpretation I settled on, I would > be clinging to a view rather than investigating in an open manner. I admire your frankness here. I would only comment that if one accepts that the problem is at root a matter of there being too much ignorance and wrong view and not enough understanding/wisdom, then choosing the option that resonates best may not be such a smart move ;-)). While I can see from what you have said that you are alert to this issue, I wonder if it would not be possible to go a step further than you have and say that there is in fact no wisdom in choosing either interpretation in preference to the other, and that everything has to be considered, pondered over and evaluated not only on the basis one's personal experience to date but also in relation to the rest of the teachings (or at least that part of the teachings that we acknowledge as being authoritative). ... > That is a discussion that I don't find useful outside of a specific > context in which the possible discrepancy is relevant to me > personally. > To simply argue about the coherence or lack of coherence of the > suttas > and the Abhidhamma would likely give rise to unproductive debates > and hurt feelings. It seems to suggest a debate not much more > productive > than the many debates among the various sectarians. Thanks. I agree with your sentiments here (despite the evidence you may have seen to the contrary ;-)) > Let me just end with the observation that I have much to learn and > anything I state here, no matter how unqualified I phrase it, is > always > subject to investigation and change. Life has taught me that one > lesson. And the same goes for me, too. Jon 22736 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 1:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi, Jon - In a message dated 6/8/03 4:45:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > You suggest that the Buddha used conventional terminology because he > wanted to convey to the listener 'truths' in relation to conventional > objects, and that the 'techno-speak' of the Abhidhamma was reserved > for those who had gone far in meditative investigation of dhammas. > > To my way of thinking, however, this doesn't account for the fact > that many people who heard discourses given in conventional terms > attained enlightenment, in some cases on their very first contact > with the teachings. > > Do you not think it possible that the teachings were given in > conventional terms to those who were capable of immediately seeing > beyond the conventional meaning, while the more detailed discourses > that make reference to the ayatanas, khandhas, dhatus were for those > without the same degree of accumulated wisdom? > > Consider the analogy of an expert in a specialist field who wishes to > convey a newly discovered 'truth' to 2 people, one of whom is > familiar with the field of specialisation and the other of whom is a > relative layperson. For the former, a statement of the 'truth' in > fairly general terms, e.g. 'mass varies with speed' (pardon my > physics ;-)), might be very meaningful, while the latter may need to > hear something about basic principles first in order for the 'truth' > to have any significance or meaning. > > Jon > ============================ What you suggest is an interesting and plausible theory. I certainly wouldn't dismiss it as accounting for many cases. Generally, however, sudden awakening might be triggered by many things, even a loud or sharp noise - if the mind is "ripe". A Buddha, of course, by means of his special abilities, was in a perfect position to see the state of people's minds and to determine exactly what they needed. But all that he knew and took into consideration surely included many of the untaught "forest leaves" that were not held in his hand, not being specifically conducive to others' liberation, and so we cannot be certain as to what the facts are on such matters. 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) 22737 From: dwlemen Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 8:14am Subject: importance of Meditation Hi all! I have a quick question... I just finished reading the booklet "Conversations on Buddhism" by Nina (and a big thanks to Sarah and all the others who helped get this and several other books to me!). In it, the question is asked of Meditation and the answer seems to downplay the importance of specific meditation. The conversation moves on and I wasn't sure if I was over-reading the passage or not. I had not heard of a "Buddhism w/o Meditation" before and wanted to get it straight from you all if I'm reading this right or not. Peace, Dave 22738 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 8:15am Subject: TEST QUESTION Attention EVERYONE, The Buddha said, in so many words, we should see as it really is that whatever arises is "not me". The thought of I, me, my is at the heart of conceit. So the question is, why is conceit not me? When the thought of me arises, why is that me not me? What does it mean to say "me" is not me or the "I" thought is not me? I want YOU to think about and post an answer to this question for all the world to see and evaluate. Do not read the replys to this email until you have posted a reply. YOU ARE BEING TESTED. There _are_ wrong answers. Larry 22739 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 4:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/8/03 11:16:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > The thought of I, me, my is at the heart of > conceit. So the question is, why is conceit not me? When the thought of > me arises, why is that me not me? What does it mean to say "me" is not > me or the "I" thought is not me? > > ========================== Such statements as "X is not me" are stated for those folks who have a sense of "me" or even a belief in "me". The point is to get people to look and see the impersonality of all arising dhammas. It's like the parent talking to the child who believes there's a monster in her bedroom. The parent accompanies the child and has her look in all the places that the monster might lurk. But she doesn't find it under the bed, or behind the chest of drawers, or in the closet, and, after a while the child is disabused of her notion. As far as what it means for the thought of 'me' to not be "me", why is a thought any different from other fleeting phantoms? 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) 22740 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 11:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, practice any time. Dear Howard, op 06-06-2003 08:48 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: >>N: We should not select a particular time for practice, because any time is >> the >> time for practice. > =========================== > It's a good point. However, sometimes "any time" becomes no time, we > being fallible human beings. I've heard of monasteries at which a bell is > tolled at regular intervals as a reminder to be mindful. N: You have a point that any time becomes no time. What you are saying here is a good reminder for me just now. The bell: a reminder of what? Mindfulness of what? We have to be very precise here. A foundation knowledge of what nama is, what rupa is, is indispensable. There is also sound without a bell ringing, plenty of it. We should learn that sound is sound, no matter whether you hear it in a monastery or in a crowd. And, any reminder is bound to become stale after a while, you do not notice the bell anymore. H: Also, people have made a > point of regularity of time and place for formal meditation, based on the > habit-nature of people. So while the teaching quoted above is a good teaching, > it is perhaps not the whole story. N: Again, I would like to be precise: meditation on what, mindfulness of what? It depends on the teacher, is he explaining about nama and rupa, about the objects of awareness? If he tells people to concentrate first on breath people may confuse sati-sampajanna and concentration, these are different cetasikas performing different functions. What does one learn by concentrating on breath? What does one understand? Does one understand the present moment? Are there not moments of expectation which pass unnoticed? One hopes, expects to achieve something, but the goal will not be reached by expecting and wishing for progress. One should learn and notice the characteristic of lobha. I just heard on tape the story of Naagasamaala (Theragtha, Canto IV, 186). He was on his round of alms, and saw a girl dancing: He attained arahatship. The beginning is always difficult but, here is a good point of Swee Boon: if we keep on saying I cannot, we obstruct the development of panna. We lack patience, that is our problem. Also, only after the first three beginning stages of insight, insight becomes a power: balava vipassanå. Then sati-sampajanna can arise any time, any place. As you say, . True. The question is, do we have enough endurance and patience to begin again and again inspite of our failings and neglectfulness? I shall come back to your post about the Path of Discr. etc. With appreciation, Nina. 22741 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 2:30pm Subject: Re: TEST QUESTION Dear Larry, As one of the slow ones on this List, I was very tempted to read Howard's reply first before I get the answer wrong. :-) However, I managed to resist the temptation - I've been going over the Bahiya sutta again since Howard mentioned it elsewhere - isn't this a great quote: "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how your should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." My answer is that there is no me there at all - *I* am not the conceit, nor do *I* have the conceit, nor am *I* standing aside and 'watching' something/one with the conceit. Only impermanent dhammas rising and falling away. "When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there." As RobK said yesterday about anatta - "It's exciting to hear of 'stages of insight' but those same stages show absolutely there is only nama and rupa, and no self, no children, no friends." What's the consequences for passing or failing the TEST? :-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Attention EVERYONE, > > The Buddha said, in so many words, we should see as it really is that > whatever arises is "not me". The thought of I, me, my is at the heart of > conceit. So the question is, why is conceit not me? When the thought of > me arises, why is that me not me? What does it mean to say "me" is not > me or the "I" thought is not me? > > I want YOU to think about and post an answer to this question for all > the world to see and evaluate. Do not read the replys to this email > until you have posted a reply. YOU ARE BEING TESTED. There _are_ wrong > answers. > > Larry 22742 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 4:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, This'll have to be a quick one - conceit is just a common mental factor thinking is just thinking and can think about anything. Look f/w to reading the other answers and hope I haven't fallen into a trap. Metta, Sarah ====== 22743 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 5:08pm Subject: Way 99, 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 3. Energy There is the mode (or element) of energy that is inceptive, the mode of energy that is enduring, and the mode of energy that is strong, powerful, courageous; and an abundance of right reflection on these (modes of energy) is the reason conducive to the arising of the non-arisen enlightenment factor of energy, and for the increase, expansion and the completion by culture of that enlightenment factor when it has arisen. Eleven things lead to the arising of the enlightenment factor of energy: Reflection on the fearfulness of states-of-woe [apaya bhaya]; the seeing of the benefits of energy; reflection on the path to be trodden; the honoring of alms, reflection on the greatness of the heritage; the reflection on the greatness of the Master; reflection on the greatness of race; reflection on the greatness of fellows in the holy life; the avoiding of lazy folk; the associating with folk who have begun to exert; and the inclination towards the development of the enlightenment factor of energy. Reflection on the fearfulness of the states-of-woe as stated in the Devaduta[36] and other Suttas produces in the yogi the thought: "Now is the time to rouse energy; it is not possible to be energetic when subject to great suffering." The seeing of the benefits of energy is the appreciation of the fact that only by one who has begun to exert himself (in the development of the enlightenment factors etc.) could the Supramundane Truth be obtained and not by a lazy person. "The path trodden by all the Supreme Buddhas, the Paccekabuddhas, and the Great Disciples, has to be trodden by you," says the yogi to himself, "and that path is impossible for an indolent person." That is the reflection on the path to be trodden. The yogi thinks thus: "Those who support you with alms-food and so forth are not relatives of yours, are not your servants; they do not give you excellent alms thinking: 'We shall (in the future) live depending on you.' But they give expecting from their offerings great fruit. Also the requisites were not allowed to you by the Master so that you may make use of the requisites and live strong-bodied in comfort, but they were allowed to you so that you may do the duty of the recluse and escape the round of suffering whilst using the requisites. The indolent one does not honor the alms; only he who has begun to be energetic honors it." Reflection in this way about honoring the alms permitted by the Buddha produces energy, as in the case of the Thera Maha Mitta (Great Friend). The Thera lived in Kassaka Lena (Cultivator's or Farmer's Cave). In the village to which he resorted for alms there was a certain Maha Upasika (elderly or great female lay devotee) who taking him as a child of hers looked after him. One day she was preparing to go to the forest, and spoke to her daughter thus: "Here is old rice; here, milk; here, ghee; and here, treacle. When your brother the venerable Mitta comes cook the rice and give it to him with milk, ghee, and treacle. You, too, eat of it. I have eaten the cold rice cooked yesterday with gruel." "Mother, what will you take at noon?" "Cook a sour gruel with herbs and broken rice and put it by (for me)." Just as the Thera was taking out the bowl (from the bowl-bag), after he had robed himself to go out for alms, he heard that talk of the mother and daughter through his clairaudient power, at the door of his cave, and thought as follows: "The great lay devotee has eaten stale rice with gruel and will take sour gruel at noon. For you she has given old rice, milk, ghee and treacle. She does not expect field or food or cloth from you. Only expecting the three good attainments of the human, divine and supramundane planes does she give (alms to you). Will you be able to bestow on her those attainments? Indeed her alms is not fit to be taken by you with (heart of) lust, hatred and ignorance." Then, he put back the bowl into the bowl-bag, loosened the robe-knot, refrained from going for alms, and returning to the Cultivator's Cave put the bowl under his bed, the robe on the robe pole and sat down resolved on endeavor thinking, "I will not go from here without attaining arahantship.) 36. Divine messenger 22744 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 1:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 6/8/03 7:25:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Look f/w to reading the other answers and hope I haven't fallen into a > trap. > ============================ I love it, Sarah!! You made me laugh out loud with this one! ;-)) 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) 22745 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 5:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Howard, You wrote: "Such statements as "X is not me" are stated for those folks who have a sense of "me" or even a belief in "me"." L: WRONG. Everyone believes in me but aryans. Try again. Larry 22746 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 1:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/8/03 8:36:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > You wrote: "Such statements as "X is not me" are stated for those folks > who have a sense of "me" or even a belief in "me"." > > L: WRONG. Everyone believes in me but aryans. Try again. > > Larry > > =============================== But Larry, how can I be wrong when it is exactly the non-ariyans whom I had in mind as far as belief is concerned. Those with belief in self are worldlings, and those with sense of self are all non-arahants. These are exactly the people I had in mind, most especially the worldlings. 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) 22747 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 6:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Dear Christine, Although your answer is technically correct you missed the hidden test in the question. That test was to apply your understanding to your experience. I don't see that in your answer. Try again. Why is conceit not "me"? The consequence of passing the test is your wisdom is confirmed. The consequence of failing the test is you won't get ridiculed. No one likes a dummy. Larry 22748 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 6:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Sarah, Your answer is too brief. Try again. What does "'me' is not me" mean? Larry --------------------- Sarah wrote: Hi Larry, This'll have to be a quick one - conceit is just a common mental factor thinking is just thinking and can think about anything. Look f/w to reading the other answers and hope I haven't fallen into a trap. 22749 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 6:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Howard, No talking back! Your answer was inadequate. Try again. Give a full and _convincing_ answer to the question 'why is conceit not self'. You should include various examples of conceit from your own experience, show how you see that they are not self, and explain what you mean by 'not self'. This should have been obvious to someone like you. Larry 22750 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 6:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, Fair go Larry! I feel the Appeals Committee would give me at least half marks for being technically correct. Who set this exam if it's got hidden questions? Is that allowed under the Dhamma Rules?! Give us a clue! Mana (conceit) is three-fold. Equality conceit (mana), inferiority conceit (omana), and superiority conceit (atimana). metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Howard, > > No talking back! Your answer was inadequate. Try again. Give a full and > _convincing_ answer to the question 'why is conceit not self'. You > should include various examples of conceit from your own experience, > show how you see that they are not self, and explain what you mean by > 'not self'. > > This should have been obvious to someone like you. > > Larry 22751 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 5:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/8/03 9:15:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Howard, > > No talking back! Your answer was inadequate. Try again. Give a full and > _convincing_ answer to the question 'why is conceit not self'. You > should include various examples of conceit from your own experience, > show how you see that they are not self, and explain what you mean by > 'not self'. > > This should have been obvious to someone like you. > > Larry > =========================== This could be fun, Larry. However, I'm on vacation from school at the moment - I start again on the 30th - so, you'll forgive me if I sit this one out. 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) 22752 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 9:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Christine, You wrote: " Fair go Larry! I feel the Appeals Committee would give me at least half marks for being technically correct. Who set this exam if it's got hidden questions? Is that allowed under the Dhamma Rules?! Give us a clue!" L: Can you recognize the conceit in this experience? That is a good place to start. Try again. Larry 22753 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 9:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Howard, As you please. No one else seems to be interested in exploring the dynamics of conceit either. Too bad. Larry ----------------- Howard wrote: "you'll forgive me if I sit this one out" 22754 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 9:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Dear Larry, Don't be despondent :-) It is 2.45 p.m. on a Monday here in Oz - most people in much of the world are at work. The Aussie's (monarchists or republicans) have a public holiday for the Queen's Birthday (though it's not really her birthday) - which is why I have the time and inclination to chat. Maybe you could reveal all about conceit now? I'll have to put up with it until I'm an arahat I think, and I've run out of tries. metta and peace, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Howard, > > As you please. No one else seems to be interested in exploring the > dynamics of conceit either. Too bad. > > Larry > ----------------- > Howard wrote: "you'll forgive me if I sit this one out" 22755 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 10:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, Larry: Your answer is too brief. ..... S: This makes a change;-) ..... Larry: What does "'me' is not me" mean? ...... S: OK, last try:- It means you’ve been reading too much of Victor’s book on linguistic games or a preview of the latest Harry Potter book and incorporated touches from ‘Matrix Reloaded’ and ‘the Weakest Link’. Somehow you’ve managed to persuade Howard, Christine and I to join your Madhatter’s tea party whilst the smart members look on in bemusement. Metta, Sarah p.s Chris and Howard, I thought your answers were great and that we should at least get full marks for being good sports (ooops, could be a tad or two of mana creeping in;-))....maybe it’s also the influence of the Non-Duality Salon where Larry’s pic was dropped accidentally....What d’ya reckon? ==================================== 22756 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 10:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi all, I failed this test question if I didn't provoke a vivid, clearly recognizable, experience of conceit in your own personal experience. The answer I was looking for to the question "why me is not me" is because the I, me, my thought/feeling is not a person. It is just a thought and feeling. The first 'me' is an emotion. The second 'me' is a concept. Technically only the thought part is conceit but this is always accompanied by a distinctive feeling, at least in my experience. The idea was not to not experience conceit. Even a sense of confidence and ease could be an expression of conceit. Rather, the idea was to definitely experience this most basic "sense of self" and even seek it out in all its subtle manifestations in ordinary experience and see directly this "sense of self" is not a person. This requires a direct encounter with your own experience. Book learning may help but it isn't enough. I encourage everyone to give this a try. Find your conceit. [Bullying and intimidation are not necessary and may be counterproductive.] Larry 22757 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 0:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] importance of Meditation Hi Dave, I’m glad to hear from you again! --- dwlemen wrote: > Hi all! > > I have a quick question... I just finished reading the booklet > "Conversations on Buddhism" by Nina (and a big thanks to Sarah and all > the others who helped get this and several other books to me!). .... Thx Dave - I’m glad they arrived safely. I just checked at this website, but couldn’t see this very small booklet on line: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ (maybe Chris or RobK can give a link if it’s on another website). ..... >In > it, the question is asked of Meditation and the answer seems to > downplay the importance of specific meditation. .... Let me quote a short extract for others which is probably the part you have in mind: Q.: Do you apply yourself to meditation? A.(A.Sujin): We have to be very careful about what we mean by meditation. I avoid using the word meditation because different people have different ideas about it. Our goal should be the development of right understanding of realities which appear now. We can begin to notice and consider one reality at a time and then there is no need to name it or to think about it. Understanding can be developed in any situation, one does not have to change one’s life or do anything special. Right understanding can develop naturally, at this very moment, one does not have to sit in a quiet place. Thus, this is different from what people generally mean by meditation. The development of right understanding or insight, vipassanaa, is a kind of mental development which can be done no matter where you are. Q.: Don’t you need a quiet place in order to concentrate? A.: Not at all, because the purpose of the Buddha’s teachings is to understand the realities which arise naturally, in daily life. We have to develop understanding of realities such as seeing, visible object, hearing or sound. Sound is a reality, no matter where you are, no matter it is quiet or there is a lot of noise. if we are in a noisy place and we have aversion towards that noise, aversion can be realized as just a conditioned reality, not ‘my aversion’. If we know that understanding can be developed in whatever situation we are there are conditions for its development.”. ..... > The conversation moves on and I wasn't sure if I was over-reading the > passage or not. I had not heard of a "Buddhism w/o Meditation" before > and wanted to get it straight from you all if I'm reading this right > or not. ..... Maybe you can clarify if this was the passage you had in mind and also let me know what you understand by Meditation and how you understand Buddhist meditation to be different from any other kind of meditation before we continue the discussion. Hopefully others will chip in too with any comments. With metta, Sarah p.s. Yesterday I started listening to the tapes from Kaeng Kajang for the first time and I was thinking of you. I fear there is too much Pali and complex subject matter for most people and you may have to just leave them aside for a while. Jon was also editing these tapes as we went along which means they are even more ‘concentrated’ than usual. The others should be somewhat easier to follow. ========================= 22758 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 1:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta Precepts Hi Chris, (RobK and All) --- christine_forsyth wrote:> Funny what gaps there are even in the little intellectual > understanding I think I have - I had come to think that no control = > no choices whatsoever. I'm much more comfortable now that I see > there are choices, though these are conditioned. ...... Just after the passage quoted to Dave, I thought the next part was relevant to this thread: ***** Q.: What do you mean by understanding seeing as only a reality? A. (A.Sujin): One begins to understand that there is not my seeing which can stay on and which is so important. The idea of self cannot be eradicated immediately, but one begins to see that there are realities appearing one at a time. One begins to understand that seeing or visible object can only arise when there are conditions for their arising and that one cannot control them. Realities are beyond control, they cannot arise because of anyone’s wish. Also awareness and understanding are realities which can only arise when there are the right conditions, they are beyond control. Beyond control is another way of saying that there is “only a reality”. The realities of our life are momentary and insignificant. They arise and then disappear forever.” ***** with metta, Sarah ========= 22759 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 1:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] importance of Meditation Hi Sarah (and Dave), Conversations on Buddhism can be found at: http://www.dhammastudy.com/beginner.html metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: 22760 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 2:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] rebirth in hell, to Kom Dear Nina, (Kom, RobK & All), I was just reflecting on the latest installment (on energy) in Way 99. It lists elven things leading to the enlightenment factor of enery. The first is: “Reflection on the fearfulness of states-of-woe (apaya bhaya)”. --- nina van gorkom wrote: > I am inclined to overlook suttas such as this one, I do not like to hear > them. At breakfast I read the sutta to Lodewijk, and he said, he is > inclined > to give it all up, since the goal seems unreachable, the development too > difficult. > I think we read the sutta with a concept of self, what will happen to > the > self. In reality there are only conditioned dhammas. ..... Yes, it depends very much on the kind of reflection. If there is thinking of self rather than a reminder to understand the various mental states/other realities and to see the value of all kinds of kusala, then it may not be wise reflection at all. I was reading a story ‘Contempt for the Relics’ the other day in the PTS ‘Commentary on the Peta-Stories’. I had read it before but at that time had found it too disturbing, dwelling on the foul description of the peta, the enormity of the result of showing contempt for the Buddha’s relics and stupa (boiling intensely in hell and so on). This time, however, there were conditions for me to reflect on the power of good deeds and how -- in spite of a short life which Azita, Chris and others were discussing -- these deeds bring their own results and what may seems sad to us in ignorance may not be sad at all. Briefly, after the Buddha’s parinibbana, King Ajatasattu took some of the relics and conducted a ceremony lasting over seven months. An incalculable number of people showed respect and were reborn in deva realms. A very large number of other people, corrupt and with wrong view, showed no respect and were reborn in the peta realm. The wife, daughter and daughter-in-law of a very wealthy man in Rajagaha went to pay respect. The wealthy man showed contempt and scoffed at their actions, saying ‘What’s the good of honouring bones?”. They continued anyway, but became very sick and all died. However they were reborn in the deva realms on account of these deeds. The rich man was overcome with anger and when he died was reborn in the peta realm on account of trying to obstruct his wife, daughter and daughter-in-law from showing respect with flowers and ‘costly ointments’. MahaKassapa ‘worked his psychic powers in such a way that people could see both petas and devatas’ and questioned the peta. ..... > the Buddha's objective with this sutta: a reminder not to overlook the > present moment. .... Yes, not to underestimate the power of kusala, especially insight and to see the danger of kilesa (defilements), but not ‘my’ kilesa or kusala. .... > I also read to Lodewijk: each moment of existence is like dung, but, I > am > not so advanced yet. There are too many things in life I enjoy. ..... I think that if we tried to stop or change these things it would again be with an idea of ‘self’ and ‘situation’ rather than any detachment and understanding which knows the inclinations and tendencies as they are conditioned now... just like Christine explained when she mentioned she’s not about to become a Catholic nun;-). ..... > The sutta also reminded me of Jåtaka no. 538, Múgapakkha Jåtaka. We read > in > the series of the perfections, Determination: > the > danger of hell. He thought, 3the danger of hell is more fearful, it is a > hundredfold, a thousandfold, even a tenthousandfold more fearful.2 The > wetnurses who tested him in these ways did not see any weak point in the > Bodhisatta. > .... This was natural for the Bodhisatta - to reflect with determination, calm and detachment under any provocation. We can appreciate the qualities without any thought of self, I think. .... > For myself, it would be forced, unnatural, if I would think all the > time, > the danger of hell is more fearful, and refrain from pleasant things. ..... So as you said and Kom said so well, it comes back to knowing the present realities again with understanding. If we’re just accumulating dosa by such reading or considering then it’s not helpful. However, I think the mind-states are so intricate, as Rob M would point out. At the back of the commentary on the Peta-stories under ‘concluding remarks’, it says: “1.those who arise amongst the petas have all been doers of evil deeds; on account of those deeds the fruit for them is evil and severe. 2. Demonstrating and explaining this by means of questions and answers is the teaching that by necessity stimulates beings with agitation.” The agitation when I read some of these stories before was too much for me to continue, but there were conditions to reflect a lot on what I had read and to review some of the tales again more carefully. A little wise reflection amongst the dosa. Actually, I’m even looking for excuses to introduce more of these stories now;-) With metta, Sarah p.s Kom & RobK - good to read your posts;-) ====== 22761 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] importance of Meditation Thanks Chris, Next time I'll ask before I start typing;-) Here's another extract from the end - the word 'decisions' caught my eye;-): ***** Q.: When you work you have no more problems and then you are distracted, is that not so? A.: There is no difference between your working situation and your free time. We have problems when we work and when we don't work, we still have to make decisions. Our problems are caused by attachment, aversion and ignorance and these arise no matter where we are. Only when we develop right understanding of this moment, no matter in which situation we are, there will be less defilements and thus less problems. Q.: I cannot help regretting the lack of awareness. I have desire for the arising of awareness. Can I tell myself not to have desire? A.: When you understand that desire counteracts progress there will be conditions to stop wishing for results. Only intellectual understanding of the teachings, acquired by reading, considering and discussing can condition the arising of direct understanding, now or later on. There will be more patience when we remember that awareness and understanding do not belong to a self which could make them arise. Then we can have courage to begin again and again to find out more about the reality appearing at this moment. ***** Metta, Sarah ===== 22762 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 5:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello Hi Dan, --- manjushri888 wrote: > Hello, Sarah. In answer to your question, I have been a seeker of > truth for about seven year's now. This has lead me to explore many > different path's along the way. I have come to realize that > meditation is the only way to understand experientially/directly the > true nature of reality. Reality is reality, only when it's grasped > non-conceptually. ..... Maybe you could clarify what you understand by ‘reality’ and what it is in ‘meditation’ that leads to understanding experientially. These aren’t meant as tests of any kind;-) ..... >However my interest in the sutra's--the menu--is > just to satisfy my curiosity. I alway's keep in mind, however, when > reading sutra's, that the menu is not the food. :-) We must practice > to fully understand Buddha's teaching's. .... I understand and agree with your point. However, do you think that some familiarity with the suttas might be of assistance to the meditation or not? Perhaps you would explain why ‘yes’ or why ‘no’. With metta, Sarah ====== 22763 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Right Reflection Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > You are mixing truth with pure conjecture. The Buddha only taught > the Four Noble Truths, which, of course, I believe, regardless of the > reality. But he did not describe, in detail, all reality. ..... Do you not understand the Four Noble Truths to be about reality? I may be missing your point. I agree that only a relatively small amount of detail within his omniscience(that which was necessary to be taught) was taught. On the otherhand, we know there was no ‘closed fist’. I can’t really speculate about life on other planets. We know for sure that the Buddha taught about the 31 planes of existence. When he refers to his manifold past lives and the aeons of cosmic or world contraction and expansion, as in your reference below, I take it to be referring to changes in this world over a very long time-scale, but I really don’t know. What I am very sure about, because it is stressed so often, is that what we need to hear was taught. This includes the truth, as I see it, that reality is just the momentary mental and physical phenomena appearing now. No self to create anything. In a sense I agree with you that ‘matter doesn’t really matter’. However, for the various skilful mental states to be developed, the truth about matter (the seen, the heard etc) as well as consciousness (seeing, hearing etc) and mental states needs to be known. Why else would it be stressed in the ‘all’? Your ideas are always interesting, James. Please share any other lines from suttas to discuss with others here too. Others may have further comments on these points too. Your comment about ‘neat and tidy’ is also making me think. I suppose you’re right and I do consider them in this way - like a complete jigsaw if only we could ‘see’ all the parts and how they fit together;-) With metta, Sarah ====== > The > Buddha actually knew and described that the universe expands and > contracts**, over and over again, why wouldn't he describe life on > other planets? I'm sorry Sarah, but I don't believe he described > everything as neat and tidy as you would like to believe. We do > create our own reality...and matter doesn't really matter. > > Metta, James > **I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, > ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of > cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of > cosmic contraction & expansion > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn036.html =========================== 22764 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 2:56am Subject: Subjectivity Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/9/03 12:31:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > As you please. No one else seems to be interested in exploring the > dynamics of conceit either. Too bad. > > Larry > ----------------- > Howard wrote: "you'll forgive me if I sit this one out" > =========================== Perhaps if it were presented differently, more of the kids would like to play, Larry. Probabably, adults would rather choose their own rules of the game, or at least agree to them in advance. That, of course, is a matter of conceit. But we do all have that. There are some matters of subjectivity, however, which do seem very interesting and important to me, and well worth discussing. A basic one is what this whole seeming of the difference of self and other is all about. There seems to be a reality to the distinction between "my" awareness, thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions, etc and those of "others". The latter are "here" and the former are "there". It's hard to grasp what this is about. While the acts of awareness, and the sights, sounds, tastes, touches, odors, and feelings, thoughts, emotions etc that are discerned frequently, almost usually, seem (to me) to be "impersonal" phenomena that occur and then go on their way, so that they are not "me", there is a *sense* in which they appear to be "mine". That sense seems to be, when I try to see what its actual nature is, the fact that these phenomena are "here" rather than "there". What I'm saying, I think, is that the only dhatu, the only sankhata dhamma, that are ever directly experienced, and not just inferred, are (called) ones own. There is no direct, "first-person" experience here, "by me", of your "awareness, thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions, etc" The contents of that namarupic stream called "Larry" (presumed by me, but not directly experienced by me) is only inferred by me. Even if I were to see you and speak to you in person, what would be seen and heard would be part of "my" namarupic stream "here". It seems to me that at least part of our sense of self follows from the fact that there is no actual experience at all except direct, internal, experience, but, at the same time, there is the projecting outwards of that experience to "things in the world" which we then take to be "other". Included in that projecting outwards, is the inferring (correct, I certainly believe) of the existence of similar namarupic streams that also directly experience inwardly but project outwardly. I suspect that all these streams are actually interdependent, existing but not self-sufficiently, and that the consciousness of a Buddha (if not every arahant) is expanded to the point that the distinguishing of various other experiential streams among themselves and from "ones own" stream of experience becomes weakened ('corrected' would be a better term) to the point that these "different" streams become merely aspects of a more general flow, analogous to the inside and ouside surfaces of a cup (in this case, however, there being not just two surfaces, but a vast infinity of them). Meanwhile, however, for the non-arahant, there remains the "here" and the inferred "there", though not with the same strength of separateness at all stages. And so long as this separation remains, there is enforced a "protection" of self, reflected in such things as anger, grasping, fear, suspicion, and embarrassment, along with physical sensations of tightening up in the body (in the shoulders say) or queasiness in the stomach or odd feelings in the knees. Just some thoughts, Larry. I know .. I didn't pass. When liberation comes, we can pass, and, at that time we'll also be in a position to judge who has passed and who has not, but not before. 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) 22765 From: robmoult Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 7:01am Subject: Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, I have been incredibly busy lately and I am behind on a few DSG posts, but your question was interesting. I have followed your instructions and replied without looking at other people's answers. Firstly, I note that you group "I", "me" and "my" together; I see this set as corresponding to the three cetasikas arising with lobha- mula cittas. "I" corresponds to mana (conceit), "me" corresponds to ditthi (wrong view) and "my" corresponds to lobha (attachment). "I" is the heart of conceit. The nature of conceit is to compare (">", "=" or "<"). Comparison requires dividing into two ("I" and "not I"). For example, when one says, "I am smart", one is comparing according to smartness; "I" is part of one group (labeled smart) while others are part of another group (implicitly labeled not smart). "Me" is the heart of one type of wrong view, sakkaya-ditthi (personality belief). The nature of sakkaya-ditthi is not to divide, but rather to make a general statement about the nature of self. There are twenty types of sakkaya-ditthi (note that kaya is the Pali word for body): 1. Body as self 2. Self having body 3. Body being in the self 4. Self as being in the body 5. to 20. The same structure as 1. to 4. above, except with the remaining four aggregates (feelings, perception, mental factors and consciousness) We can see why manna (conceit) and ditthi (wrong view) cannot arise in the same citta; manna has the nature of dividing and comparing whereas ditthi has the nature of generalizing. We can also see why a Sotapanna has eliminated ditthi while mana is not eliminated until one is an Arahant; the Sotapanna, Sakadagami and Anagami know that namas and rupas are not self, but still compare "their namas and rupas" with "others' namas and rupas". Larry, you are correct that the Budda stressed that whatever arises is "not me"; and in so saying, the Buddha was stressing the inaccuracy of sakkaya-ditthi. With this as background, I will attempt the test questions: 1. Why is conceit not me? ========================= If I substitute "conceit" (as a mental factor) in the definition of sakkaya-ditthi above, it is incorrect to state that: 1. Conceit as self 2. Self having conceit 3. Conceit being in the self 4. Self being part of conceit The Visuddhi Magga (XVI, 90) says, "For there is suffering, but none who suffers; doing exists although there is no doer; extinction (death) is but no extinguished person; although there is a path, there is no goer." Expanding on this concept from the Visuddhi Magga, "There is conceit, but there is no self having conceit". 2. When the thought of me arises, why is that me not me? ======================================================== Similar to question 1, except that there is a self-referential portion of the question if not understood properly. The thought of me is sakkaya-ditthi, which is ditthi, another mental factor. If I use the term "me concept" to represent ditthi, it is uncorrect to state that: 1. "Me concept" as self 2. Self having "me concept" 3. "me concept" being in the self 4. Self being part of "me concept" There is "me concept", but there is no self having "me concept". 3. What does it mean to say "me" is not me or the "I" thought is not me? ===================================================================== For the answer to "me" is not me, see answer 2 above. For the answer to "I" thought is not me, see answer 1 above. Larry, did I understand your questions that way that they were intended? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Attention EVERYONE, > > The Buddha said, in so many words, we should see as it really is that > whatever arises is "not me". The thought of I, me, my is at the heart of > conceit. So the question is, why is conceit not me? When the thought of > me arises, why is that me not me? What does it mean to say "me" is not > me or the "I" thought is not me? > > I want YOU to think about and post an answer to this question for all > the world to see and evaluate. Do not read the replys to this email > until you have posted a reply. YOU ARE BEING TESTED. There _are_ wrong > answers. > > Larry 22766 From: robmoult Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 7:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, I followed your rules (don't look at others' answers before answering). If I were to "mark my own test", I think that I would pass. Unfortunately, my answer is pure "book learning" (it even includes some Pali terms and a Visuddhi Magga quote to make it sound even more erudite). My answer does not come from any personal experience. If the purpose of the test were to force us to draw upon our own personal experience, then there was failure ( but no self who fails :-) ). Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > I failed this test question if I didn't provoke a vivid, clearly > recognizable, experience of conceit in your own personal experience. > > The answer I was looking for to the question "why me is not me" is > because the I, me, my thought/feeling is not a person. It is just a > thought and feeling. The first 'me' is an emotion. The second 'me' is a > concept. > > Technically only the thought part is conceit but this is always > accompanied by a distinctive feeling, at least in my experience. The > idea was not to not experience conceit. Even a sense of confidence and > ease could be an expression of conceit. Rather, the idea was to > definitely experience this most basic "sense of self" and even seek it > out in all its subtle manifestations in ordinary experience and see > directly this "sense of self" is not a person. This requires a direct > encounter with your own experience. Book learning may help but it isn't > enough. I encourage everyone to give this a try. Find your conceit. > [Bullying and intimidation are not necessary and may be > counterproductive.] > > Larry 22767 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 7:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] importance of Meditation Sarah, Hi! Great to hear from you as well. I do hope all is well with you and yours. I've dropped my comments into the thread below... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I'm glad to hear from you again! > > --- dwlemen wrote: > Hi all! > > > > I have a quick question... I just finished reading the booklet > > "Conversations on Buddhism" by Nina (and a big thanks to Sarah and all > > the others who helped get this and several other books to me!). > .... > Thx Dave - I'm glad they arrived safely. I just checked at this website, > but couldn't see this very small booklet on line: > http://www.zolag.co.uk/ > (maybe Chris or RobK can give a link if it's on another website). > ..... > >In > > it, the question is asked of Meditation and the answer seems to > > downplay the importance of specific meditation. > .... > Let me quote a short extract for others which is probably the part you > have in mind: > > Q.: Do you apply yourself to meditation? > A.(A.Sujin): We have to be very careful about what we mean by meditation. > I avoid using the word meditation because different people have different > ideas about it. Our goal should be the development of right understanding > of realities which appear now. We can begin to notice and consider one > reality at a time and then there is no need to name it or to think about > it. Understanding can be developed in any situation, one does not have to > change one's life or do anything special. Right understanding can develop > naturally, at this very moment, one does not have to sit in a quiet place. > Thus, this is different from what people generally mean by meditation. > The development of right understanding or insight, vipassanaa, is a kind > of mental development which can be done no matter where you are. > > Q.: Don't you need a quiet place in order to concentrate? > A.: Not at all, because the purpose of the Buddha's teachings is to > understand the realities which arise naturally, in daily life. We have to > develop understanding of realities such as seeing, visible object, hearing > or sound. Sound is a reality, no matter where you are, no matter it is > quiet or there is a lot of noise. if we are in a noisy place and we have > aversion towards that noise, aversion can be realized as just a > conditioned reality, not 'my aversion'. If we know that understanding can > be developed in whatever situation we are there are conditions for its > development.". > ..... > > The conversation moves on and I wasn't sure if I was over- reading the > > passage or not. I had not heard of a "Buddhism w/o Meditation" before > > and wanted to get it straight from you all if I'm reading this right > > or not. > ..... > Maybe you can clarify if this was the passage you had in mind and also let > me know what you understand by Meditation and how you understand Buddhist > meditation to be different from any other kind of meditation before we > continue the discussion. Hopefully others will chip in too with any > comments. > DAVE: That is exactly the passage I had in mind. To me it implies that meditation is not all that important to Buddhism. How do I understand meditaction? Well... I suppose I would say at a basic level, it's when you sit cross legged and focus your attention on watching the breath. It is my understanding that, by doing this, it trains the mind over time to prefer a state of single focus over that of "everywhere at once." And, that having this calm mind creates conditions suitable for proper understanding to arise. How does it differ from other kinds of meditation? I don't know much about other forms. It would seem that the main difference (I'm shooting from the hip here!) is in terms of the "goal." Although we aren't supposed to meditate with a "goal" in mind, there is perhaps an undertanding of the purpose of meditation as leading to proper understanding, and not just relieving stress, getting a "natural high" or whatever else. Now, I do understand that the Buddha said that there should be awareness in everything we do, but I thought he also said that we should specifically do meditation (sitting and watching breath). Hope that provides at least a starting point for where I'm at. > With metta, > > Sarah > > p.s. > Yesterday I started listening to the tapes from Kaeng Kajang for the first > time and I was thinking of you. I fear there is too much Pali and complex > subject matter for most people and you may have to just leave them aside > for a while. Jon was also editing these tapes as we went along which means > they are even more 'concentrated' than usual. The others should be > somewhat easier to follow. I'm not sure which tapes you mean? I've got 2 sets, one "From India" and one "From Sri Lanka". That's all the more they are labelled. Even these do have quite a bit of Pali in them and it is sometimes difficult to understand what they are saying, but I am picking up some from them and perhaps I'm learning some Pali in the process as well! Again, I do thank you so much for facilitating getting this stuff to me. Peace, Dave 22768 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 10:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] rebirth in hell, to Kom Dear Kom, You gave me very good points, thank you very much. I typed your post out for Lodewijk and he liked it very much. See below: op 08-06-2003 00:18 schreef Kom Tukovinit op kom@a...: >> < In the same manner a few humans who leave the >> human corpse are born among humans many more are reborn in hell, in >> the animal world and as ghosts. > > > I think these suttas provide me with the urgency to understand dhammas more, > to develop all sorts of kusala, according to my understanding, as best as I > can. Without hearing about it, I may feel a bit relaxed, not knowing that > there is a flame afire on my head. N: Yes, if we do not hear such suttas we may become over relaxed. Though I felt fear (dosa), the sutta also helped with a sense of urgency. We have to find the balance. > K: When I understand that there is no other path, then the goal doesn't seem so > difficult. As long as we walk on the right path, one day we must get there. > Coming upon the right path is difficult, but walking on the path just takes > a long time. If we understand that there is no other way, then it doesn't > seem so bothersome. N: This is a good point, there is no other Path: awareness and understanding of all realities appearing through the six doors. This reminds me of what A. Sujin said in Kraeng Kacang, we have to keep on walking. She added: this does not mean walking without stopping. She said before: walking, even if we make only a little step. Kom: quote from N: > I also read to Lodewijk: each moment of existence is like dung, but, I am >> not so advanced yet. There are too many things in life I enjoy. > K: I keep getting reminded that only anagami can let go of attachment to the 5 sensualities ;-). It's inevitable. Even Visakha, a most eminent sotapanna disciple of the Buddha, enjoyed her jewelries and other pleasant things in life. N: Good to be reminded of this. K:..... It used to be harder for me to give. Did > I have to force myself (more) to give at the beginning? Yes, but I did it > because I understood that if I didn't start, there would be no inclination > to do so in the future. If there is understanding, all the rest comes very > naturally. N: Howard wrote about habit forming as to awareness and I understand what he means. If one does not begin now, when will there be a beginning? But we have to understand that whatever we do is dependent on conditions, understanding is the most important factor. There were conditions for you to form the habit of giving, panna saw the benefit of dana. Maybe you were inspired by a sutta or the perfection of dana. K: This reminds me of a passage from A. Sujin's tape. She asked people if > anyone has the inclination to go and fight with kilesa in our daily life. > Then she said, if you do, the result is always the same: you always lose. > Only panna can truly suppress, and takes us along the path toward getting > rid of kilesa. When we undrstand the true faults of the 5 sensualities (of > its being anicca, dukkha, and anatta), then letting go of those come > naturally, and eventually, permanently. Only panna (and all its supportive) > states will do, not us. N: This is said very clearly: only panna is the answer. But it has to be developed from this very moment on. Thus, no thought of first concentrating, first doing particular things before panna can be developed. This reminds me of Jon's recent post: <.... I have noticed that many people seem to hold the view that 'practice' has to do with effort directed towards the reduction of kilesas, and that progress in the development of insight is to be measured by the extent to which the kilesas are absent. Now, the eradication of the kilesas is of course something mentioned frequently in the suttas, including as 1 of the benefits/advantages of the development of insight. In terms of the actual path, however, the emphasis to my reading is on knowing all dhammas as they truly are. There is no recipe or technique given for reducing (in the sense of eradicating) the kilesas as such.> Thank you very much, Kom, With much appreciation, Nina. 22769 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 10:10am Subject: RE: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, Why is conceit not self? We can ask this question about all the dhammas, and some will see how these dhammas are not self intellectually. However, as long as we don't see clearly the rising and the falling away of the dhammas, then we will always ask ourselves this question, regarding to all the dhamma, because only by seeing the rising and falling away of the dhamma that we begin to become absolutely sure that all these rising and falling away dhammas can't possibly be a self. Until that time, this is just a very useful intellectual exercise, which will resolve things for some, and not for others. Why is conceit not self? The standard, and most subtle, answer is because of its being anicca, dukkha, and anatta. When I think of "my own" states, comparing them to others' in some way, then it is already a conceit. I don't have to try very hard to do this: I don't even really have to think about it. When the mind mistakenly assigns importance to states that last so infinitesimally briefly, it is a conceit. I may have run into a revelation, or a flash of insight, and already I have conceit. I might like my own posts, reading my own writing very much, and there is already conceit. Conceit is prevalent (for me anyway), and cannot be eradicated until arahatship. It is a conditioned reality that comes about because of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking. Heck, if we have none of those, there wouldn't be any conceit! Well, the conceit I just had, it is now gone. Where is the self in this? I don't see the rising and falling away of the conceit, but intellectually, this can be readily understood. Would you call a house that has just burned down your house (or part of you?)? How about a house that is disintegrating in front of you? kom > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 9:31 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION > > > Hi Howard, > > As you please. No one else seems to be interested > in exploring the > dynamics of conceit either. Too bad. > > Larry > ----------------- > Howard wrote: "you'll forgive me if I sit this one out" 22770 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 0:26pm Subject: Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, Let me rephrase your question as "Why is conceit not self?" To answer your question: Conceit is impermanent. What is impermanent is unsatisfactory. What is unsatisfactory, impermanent, subject to change is not self. Conceit 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." Is conceit fit to be seen thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self?" No. Your feedback and comment is welcome. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Attention EVERYONE, > > The Buddha said, in so many words, we should see as it really is that > whatever arises is "not me". The thought of I, me, my is at the heart of > conceit. So the question is, why is conceit not me? When the thought of > me arises, why is that me not me? What does it mean to say "me" is not > me or the "I" thought is not me? > > I want YOU to think about and post an answer to this question for all > the world to see and evaluate. Do not read the replys to this email > until you have posted a reply. YOU ARE BEING TESTED. There _are_ wrong > answers. > > Larry 22771 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 2:22pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Dear Rob, > -----Original Message----- > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:01 AM > > "I" is the heart of conceit. The nature of conceit is to compare > (">", "=" or "<"). Comparison requires dividing into two ("I" > and "not I"). For example, when one says, "I am smart", one is > comparing according to smartness; "I" is part of one group (labeled > smart) while others are part of another group (implicitly labeled > not smart). > > "Me" is the heart of one type of wrong view, sakkaya-ditthi > (personality belief). The nature of sakkaya-ditthi is not to divide, > but rather to make a general statement about the nature of self. > There are twenty types of sakkaya-ditthi (note that kaya is the Pali > word for body): > 1. Body as self > 2. Self having body > 3. Body being in the self > 4. Self as being in the body > 5. to 20. The same structure as 1. to 4. above, except with the > remaining four aggregates (feelings, perception, mental factors and > consciousness) > > We can see why manna (conceit) and ditthi (wrong view) cannot arise > in the same citta; manna has the nature of dividing and comparing > whereas ditthi has the nature of generalizing. We can also see why a > Sotapanna has eliminated ditthi while mana is not eliminated until > one is an Arahant; the Sotapanna, Sakadagami and Anagami know that > namas and rupas are not self, but still compare "their namas and > rupas" with "others' namas and rupas". > This is one of the best explanations of the differences between mana and dithi I have ever seen. Anomoddhana, kom 22772 From: robmoult Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 5:25pm Subject: Nama & Rupa on the inside vs. Nama & Rupa on the outside Hi Howard, About six months ago, you and I had a very interesting exchange on phenomenological Buddhism. My understanding has evolved a bit since then. I am now hesitant to use the term phenomenological, because the Buddha's way of classifying (i.e. that which is conducive to the holy life) is different from this. At the end of the day, the two ways of defining are quite similar, but there are subtle differences (i.e. "external" rupa mentioned in the suttas as having the characterisitics of anicca, dukkha and anatta). One area where you and I diverged at the time was your idea of a interlinked consciousness (my words, not yours). As I have investigated the nature of mana further, I realize that your perspective may have validity (i.e. Arahant's don't distinguish as your consciousness vs. my consciousness). Please explain your thinking in this area further. Metta, Rob M :-) 22773 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 5:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Rob, Well done. Your understanding and insight are excelent. Far surpassing everyone else. One question. When you recognize conceit in yourself or others, how do you deal with it and what does it mean to you? Larry 22774 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 5:57pm Subject: RE: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Kom, Your answer is the best. Exactly what I was looking for. Conceit is part of everyone's life but seemingly so easily overlooked. It is interesting that conceit is an 'unwholesome occasional'. It comes and goes. It might even be a conceit to think it is always present. I noticed today that conceit can be very pleasurable and even seemingly wholesome, as in a nice, easy going sense of self esteem. I think if you can identify conceit in your experience you will automatically see or understand that it is impermanent. Nice to chat with you again. Larry 22775 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 6:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Victor, You asked, "Is conceit fit to be seen thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self?" L: Conceit is the emotional experience of "I am", not expressed in words. Is "I am" not fit to be seen as "This I am"? No. You and the Buddha are right. "I am" is not fit to be seen as a permanent abiding reality because it is impermanent and we can see that in our own exerience. You are correct as always Victor. Larry 22776 From: gazita2002 Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 6:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, practice any time. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Howard, > > op 06-06-2003 08:48 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > >>N: We should not select a particular time for practice, because any time is > >> the > >> time for practice. > > =========================== > > It's a good point. However, sometimes "any time" becomes no time, we > > being fallible human beings. I've heard of monasteries at which a bell is > > tolled at regular intervals as a reminder to be mindful. > N: You have a point that any time becomes no time. Dear Nina and Howard, I think the comment '--any time becomes no time' is a good one bec. I think a lot of people today think that life is too fast and that to go away from the hustle and bustle is a beneficial thing to do. Last w/e I attended a Vipassana [Buddhist} meditation course, mostly out of curiosity, partly out of desire to have a peaceful time away, and partly to meet up with other 'Buddhists' in my area. Well it was peaceful in that it was quiet, the weather was beautiful as winters in Cairns tend to be, the people were - I don't really know bec we weren't supposed to talk to each other, and the food was delicious. Am I wiser? maybe in that I know Slow, Mindful Walking is NOT the practice of Sati, I felt it was very much wrong practice. I wanted to yell out 'No, this is wrong, this is not the way' and of course I didn't. It defintitely was a reflective w/e for me and I'm glad I attended bec the teacher gave some great talks on compassion,and loving kindness and it has been cause for me to reflect more on the way I treat people. It was a bit disturbing to hear the teacher talk about the 5 aggregates incorrectly, what I perceived to be incorrect. He used form [rupa khandha] to mean just the body, this body that we call us, and sankhara khandha to mean just mind objects, thoughts. My understanding is that rupa khandha means all rupas, not just this body - this body is just a concept anyway - rupas such as hardness, [earth element], hot/cold [fire element], visible object, sound etc. Sankhara khandhas mean all cetasikas other than sanna and vedana. I had a desire to hear true dhamma and what I heard was partly gamin [a Nth.Qld. word for pretend/not real] dhamma. Time away from the hustle and bustle, in a quiet place can be very seductive, esp when one believes one is on the path to enlightenment. I don't mean to be critical, overall it was very pleasant and I was only slightly sad for the others who, I felt weren't hearing the real dhamma. I met a Burmese man there who was unable to return to his country because he was one of the many who are at odds with the military regime in Burma - a student who had fled - and his name is Panna - wisdom. I really liked that!! Patience, courage and good cheer Azita 22777 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 6:26pm Subject: Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, > What does it mean to say "me" is not > me or the "I" thought is not me? It means one of two things; to be running in endless circles or to be taking refuge in the Dhamma. Metta, Ken H 22778 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 2:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nama & Rupa on the inside vs. Nama & Rupa on the outside Hi, Rob - In a message dated 6/9/03 8:26:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Howard, > > About six months ago, you and I had a very interesting exchange on > phenomenological Buddhism. > > My understanding has evolved a bit since then. I am now hesitant to > use the term phenomenological, because the Buddha's way of > classifying (i.e. that which is conducive to the holy life) is > different from this. At the end of the day, the two ways of defining > are quite similar, but there are subtle differences (i.e. "external" > rupa mentioned in the suttas as having the characterisitics of > anicca, dukkha and anatta). > > One area where you and I diverged at the time was your idea of a > interlinked consciousness (my words, not yours). As I have > investigated the nature of mana further, I realize that your > perspective may have validity (i.e. Arahant's don't distinguish as > your consciousness vs. my consciousness). Please explain your > thinking in this area further. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I hesitate a bit to do that, Rob, for a couple reasons. One is simply that I don't have the matter fully thought out - so there is not much detail to give. Another is that my perspective is not directly or explicitly stated, to the best of my knowledge, in the Tipitaka (or in Mahayana either except to some extent in the Avatamsaka Sutra), and I don't want to imply that my take on this issue is anything more than "my take". One thing I suppose I can do, however, is refer you to the post I sent this morning (U.S. time) entitled Subjectivity Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION. The content of that is related to this matter. I'll say a bit more, but emphasize that I am *not* saying this is the perpective of anyone but myself. My view is that of a multitude of namarupic streams, especially in a given realm of experience, interacting with each other, and, rather like Indra's net of mirrors, reflecting each other. From a common-sense, conventional point of view, it is a truism that sentient beings on the planet earth live in "the same world", interacting with each other in a shared, yet not identical environment. In a sense, each "being" lives in his own projected world of concept. But at the same time, person A encounters person B in A's world, and, likewise, person B encounters person A in B's world. Reflections within reflections. (William James had a view much along these lines.) We interact by means of "guest appearances"! ;-)) Of course, all these interacting conventional worlds of concept are, indeed, concept-only. But underlying this cooperatively projected mosaic of harmoniously integrated conventional worlds, created by the kamma of many, is "that" which is true reality, the realm of suchness that is home for an arahant. But that arahant is no longer a "being", no longer has a sense of substantial self and other, and, perhaps, is not different from that very realm of suchness, itself. ============================ With metta, Howard > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22779 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 6:49pm Subject: Re: Subjectivity Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Howard, I am in accord with your thoughts on subjectivity and don't have anything of value to add. As to the pass/fail business, that was just my not very skillful attempt to incite a fear of judgement in you all. How we value ourself and others is fundamental to our belief in a self. I might have had better results, for my purposes, if I had heaped lavish praise on everyone. My aim was for you to recognize conceit in your experience and hopefully see that that recognition could be a worthwhile bhavana. Larry 22780 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 6:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Ken, Two answers for one question? WRONG Try again. Larry ---------------------- Ken wrote: Hi Larry, L: "What does it mean to say "me" is not me or the "I" thought is not me?" It means one of two things; to be running in endless circles or to be taking refuge in the Dhamma. 22781 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 7:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Larry, OK, I'll have another think. But first, I'm going to look at the other entries; that's my reading of the rules :-) Ken --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Ken, > > Two answers for one question? WRONG > > Try again. > > Larry > ---------------------- > Ken wrote: Hi Larry, > L: "What does it mean to say "me" is not > me or the "I" thought is not me?" > It means one of two things; to be running in endless circles or to be > taking refuge in the Dhamma. 22782 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 7:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Ken and Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau To: Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 6:26 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION > Hi Larry, > > > > What does it mean to say "me" is not > > me or the "I" thought is not me? > > It means one of two things; to be running in endless > circles or to be taking refuge in the Dhamma. Same thing--the latter may be more dangerous than the former. Only pa~n~na can figure it out, I think... mike 22783 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 7:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Mike, Why is "I" not me? What is conceit in your experience? Why is it not self? What does 'not self' mean to your ordinary, conventional understanding? Larry 22784 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 8:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, Conceit compares--always, that's what it does. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION > Hi Mike, > > Why is "I" not me? What is conceit in your experience? Why is it not > self? What does 'not self' mean to your ordinary, conventional > understanding? > > Larry > 22785 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 9:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] rebirth in hell, petas Dear Sarah, Thank you for your remarks on reflection of unhappy rebirths, it is very helpful. Yes, I would like more stories and your remarks, Nina. op 09-06-2003 11:01 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > The agitation when I read some of these stories before was too much for me > to continue, but there were conditions to reflect a lot on what I had read > and to review some of the tales again more carefully. A little wise > reflection amongst the dosa. Actually, I’m even looking for excuses to > introduce more of these stories now;-) 22786 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 6:10pm Subject: Re: Subjectivity Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/9/03 9:50:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I am in accord with your thoughts on subjectivity and don't have > anything of value to add. > > As to the pass/fail business, that was just my not very skillful attempt > to incite a fear of judgement in you all. How we value ourself and > others is fundamental to our belief in a self. I might have had better > results, for my purposes, if I had heaped lavish praise on everyone. My > aim was for you to recognize conceit in your experience and hopefully > see that that recognition could be a worthwhile bhavana. > > Larry > ============================ Thank you for the forthright reply. As far as conceit in me is concerned, the sense of self in me is quite strong, and self-centeredness is frequently the major driving force here. I don't believe in"me" or "mine". I really don't believe there is any reality to them at all. But the *emotional* level of mind here doesn't seem to know that! ;-)) I wrote the following in my "subjectivity" post: ******************************************************** Meanwhile, however, for the non-arahant, there remains the "here" and the inferred "there", though not with the same strength of separateness at all stages. And so long as this separation remains, there is enforced a "protection" of self, reflected in such things as anger, grasping, fear, suspicion, and embarrassment, along with physical sensations of tightening up in the body (in the shoulders say) or queasiness in the stomach or odd feelings in the knees. ********************************************************* I didn't write that based on disinterested hypothesis, but on first hand experience. The sense of self is strong in me. I'm quite aware of it, and aware of it as being the basis for our suffering. It is the most perverse fact, I think, that the sense of self and the craving, aversion,and attachment associated with it, constitutes THE cause of dukkha, even IS dukkha, and yet when that sense of self ceases for a while, unless you are suitably prepared you are terrified, terrified by the ground slipping out from under one's feet, and you RUN right back to the very shackles of self that you so much need to escape! I've experienced this first hand as well. This is not an easy business we Buddhists have committed ourselves to. This path is not for the timid. 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) 22787 From: robmoult Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 10:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > When you recognize conceit in yourself or > others, how do you deal with it and what does it mean to you? An imaginary story: Last week, I went to the temple with my head shaved. My friend saw me and looked surprised. "Have you decided to become a monk?", he asked. "No" I replied, "I have decided to take up competitive swimming and I read in a competitive swimming magazine that shaving one's head reduces resistance and can improve one's lap time by 0.04 seconds." My friend shook his head, "Rob, you are 20kg overweight and spend less than an hour a week in the pool. You should focus on the bigger issues first before worrying about 0.04 seconds!" Like desire for continued existence, conceit is something that only an Arahant is able to free themselves from. I study conceit from a theoretical perspective to prepare fertile soil (right conditions) for that point in the future. Until that time comes, I simply note it using my theoretical understanding to apply a label. Metta, Rob M :-) 22788 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 11:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Dear RobM, Reminds me of a quote from Robert Browning: "That's all we may expect of man, this side of the grave: his good is in knowing he is bad" RobertK :- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" , "I have decided to take up competitive swimming and > I read in a competitive swimming magazine that shaving one's head > reduces resistance and can improve one's lap time by 0.04 seconds." > > My friend shook his head, "Rob, you are 20kg overweight and spend > less than an hour a week in the pool. You should focus on the bigger > issues first before worrying about 0.04 seconds!" > > I study conceit from a > theoretical perspective to prepare fertile soil (right conditions) > for that point in the future. Until that time comes, I simply note > it using my theoretical understanding to apply a label. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 22789 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] importance of Meditation Hi Dave, --- dwlemen wrote: > Sarah, > > Hi! Great to hear from you as well. I do hope all is well with you > and yours. .... Thanks, Dave ..... > DAVE: > That is exactly the passage I had in mind. To me it implies that > meditation is not all that important to Buddhism. > > How do I understand meditaction? Well... I suppose I would say at a > basic level, it's when you sit cross legged and focus your attention > on watching the breath. It is my understanding that, by doing this, > it trains the mind over time to prefer a state of single focus over > that of "everywhere at once." ..... I know what you mean having just done a quick “everywhere at once” tidy up. On the otherhand, what you understand by meditation here is also just what my yoga friends would say without ever having considered a word of the Buddha’s teachings, so obviously we don’t need his teachings to understand this meaning. ..... >And, that having this calm mind > creates conditions suitable for proper understanding to arise. ..... three questions here: 1. What makes a ‘single focus’ into a ‘calm mind’ or is every ‘single focus’ by nature ‘calm’ as you understand? 2. Does this mean that those who follow your above definition of meditation, including all my yoga friends, automatically have more suitable conditons ‘for proper understanding’ to arise than the ‘everywhere at once’ runaround friends? 3. What is ‘proper understanding’? ..... > How does it differ from other kinds of meditation? I don't know much > about other forms. It would seem that the main difference (I'm > shooting from the hip here!) is in terms of the "goal." Although we > aren't supposed to meditate with a "goal" in mind, there is perhaps > an undertanding of the purpose of meditation as leading to proper > understanding, and not just relieving stress, getting a "natural > high" or whatever else. ..... ;-) Does this mean the purpose of the present meditation is to lead to a future goal? Does this square with the emphasis in the Teachings on ‘present moment’? ..... > Now, I do understand that the Buddha said that there should be > awareness in everything we do, but I thought he also said that we > should specifically do meditation (sitting and watching breath). ..... I understand the contradiction as it sounds.In a recent installment of the commentary to the Satipatthana Suta (Way 94, Mental Objects) on ‘Mindfulness’ we read, “In explanation it is said: Mindfulness arises through mindfulnes 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.” Near the beginning of the sutta, under the section on ‘Contemplation of the Body’, we also read all about anapanasati or mindfulness of breathing. Is it possible, do you think, that for some people, like my yoga friends, sitting cross-legged and focussing on their breathing may be included in one of the positions and in ‘everywhere’ where ‘through mindfulnes with clear comprehension’, ‘the mindfulness arousing the knowledge’ may develop? In other words, is it possible that according to our different inclinations, we find ourselves in different positions and places, but still there are only the ‘present moment’ realities to be known without necessitating any particular position or location? I think it really comes down to what one considers the right causes and conditions for knowledge or wisdom to develop. I’d like to hear more about what you think. With metta, Sarah p.s tapes - I got confused and forgot what I arranged to be sent to whom. I’m delighted to hear you’re already listening to the sets sent. In the India series, you’ll also be hearing Nina, Kom and Jon as well as K.Sujin. In the Sri Lanka series, you’ll also hear Christine, Jon, Sukin and me and some rather quiet DSG friends from Sri Lanka at the end. Let us know if there’s anything of interest. ================ 22790 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pain As A Signal ( 05 ) Hi Htoo, I was meaning to write and appreciate your “Pain As A Signal” series before now - there are several interesting points you raise. In this extract you clarify that when we refer to bodily pain, the only physical phenomena experienced through the body-sense are hardness/softness, temperature and motion as you detail below: --- htootintnaing wrote: > 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. ..... It’s such a good reminder that only these rupas (physical phenomena) are experienced by the body-sense consciousness and the accompanying unpleasant (bodily) feeling, lasting just an instant. On account of the momentary experience, however, the subsequent processes of consciousness, especially the aversion, unpleasant mental feelings and proliferations arising in the javana processes, ‘magnify’ the pain to an extent that it seems to overwhelm. ..... > 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. .... I’m not sure what ‘thaddha-pathavi’ is? When there is any idea of heat spreading out to structures and organs, isn’t this just thinking? Surely, still only heat is experienced. Perhaps you can clarify these lines. .... > 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. .... I agree that this may be more effective than taking an asprin. However, I’m not sure that it has anything to do with insight. Surely by the time the mind is put anywhere or on any object, that object (in this case a rupa) has long since gone. I tend to see the practical first-aid and insight (vipassana) as quite distinct, though certainly the latter does not exclude the former and there can be the development of insight whilst applying first-aid too, if conditions. I tend to think that for insight to develop, there has to be awareness of whatever appears, rather than any special focus. Otherwise it will be a path of attachment, rather than detachment, I think and will not lead to an understanding of anatta. For example, even at these times of ‘Pain’ there are moments of lobha which of course can be quite subtle. There can be lobha for getting rid of the pain or for another experience, but we may not want to know it. However, the lobha and other realities can be understood and seen as anatta at these times too as they dart in and out. Nina wrote recently: “If one tries to suppress akusala, how can it be known as it is? “The All” should be known, there is no exception. Even the tendency to suppress akusala should be known: it is a conditioned naama.” She also quoted from the ‘All’ in the Path of Discrimination about the 201 dhammas to be directly known, including ‘materiality, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness.....craving for visible objects, sounds, odours, flavours...tangible objects.’...and so on. I understand that you are just considering one set of realities, but I’m not sure why you recommend a special focus. Also in (06) you refer to this as ‘vedanupassana-satipatthana’. Surely, vedana (feelings) accompany every citta and do not include the rupas you discussed here. ..... > May you all can tolerate pains of different kind and have an insight > into pains and real dhamma. .... Thanks Htoo, and an interesting topic - especially when you include the abhidhamma detail into this unfortunately common daily life occurrence. Btw, you mentioned in (04) that ‘actually pain is a signal of disease or sufferings.’ Perhaps it would be helpful if you elaborate further on mental and physical bodily feelings and how these are distinct from the rupas experienced and perceived as pain. I look forward to more of your series or other posts. With metta, Sarah ===== 22791 From: dwlemen Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] importance of Meditation Sarah, I've again dropped my comments throughout our dialog below. As you read through my answers, I do ask that you bear in mind that I am still but a mere learner of all this! :-) > ..... > > DAVE: > > That is exactly the passage I had in mind. To me it implies that > > meditation is not all that important to Buddhism. > > > > How do I understand meditaction? Well... I suppose I would say at a > > basic level, it's when you sit cross legged and focus your attention > > on watching the breath. It is my understanding that, by doing this, > > it trains the mind over time to prefer a state of single focus over > > that of "everywhere at once." > ..... > SARAH: > I know what you mean having just done a quick "everywhere at once" tidy > up. On the otherhand, what you understand by meditation here is also just > what my yoga friends would say without ever having considered a word of > the Buddha's teachings, so obviously we don't need his teachings to > understand this meaning. > ..... > >And, that having this calm mind > > creates conditions suitable for proper understanding to arise. > ..... > three questions here: > > 1. What makes a 'single focus' into a 'calm mind' or is every 'single > focus' by nature 'calm' as you understand? > 2. Does this mean that those who follow your above definition of > meditation, including all my yoga friends, automatically have more > suitable conditons 'for proper understanding' to arise than the > 'everywhere at once' runaround friends? > 3. What is 'proper understanding'? > ..... DAVE: 1.) If I understand your question, my impression is that by meditating, we eliminate all that other stimulation (physical and mental) so the mind will have less opportunity to jump around. So, rather than being everywhere, it only has one thing to look at; the breath. That would be the single focus. Then, from how I understand it, we drop even our attention on the breath and the mind becomes completely calm. 2.) I suppose what I mean is that your yoga friends have some more suitable conditions. It's like growing a plant. You need many things. We could say that your yoga friends have rich soil, but no sunlight. So, some of the conditions needed for understanding are there, but not all of them. 3.) I'm still trying to figure that one out! I can say that it has to do with the nature of us, and how we truly interact with reality. I could say that "proper understanding" is understanding the teachings of the Buddha, but I don't yet truly understand them all so I couldn't detail / defend them, as such. > > DAVE: > > How does it differ from other kinds of meditation? I don't know much > > about other forms. It would seem that the main difference (I'm > > shooting from the hip here!) is in terms of the "goal." Although we > > aren't supposed to meditate with a "goal" in mind, there is perhaps > > an undertanding of the purpose of meditation as leading to proper > > understanding, and not just relieving stress, getting a "natural > > high" or whatever else. > ..... > SARAH: > ;-) Does this mean the purpose of the present meditation is to lead to a > future goal? Does this square with the emphasis in the Teachings on > 'present moment'? DAVE: I knew you would ask this! I wasn't sure how to word myself before. I had hoped putting the word "GOAL" in quotes would be enough to let it slide by! I don't think we can have a "purpose" or a "goal" for meditation. Again, to compare with gardening (can you guess what I did this weekend!?), I can prepare the soil, and plant the seeds, but I can't "will" the plants to grow. I think that the present moment awareness is part one of those conditions that allow right understanding to grow. And, by meditation, we make the mind more fertile, so to speak, for that growth to occur. (again, assuming that the other conditions are there as well, like knowledge/insight, etc.) > > DAVE: > > Now, I do understand that the Buddha said that there should be > > awareness in everything we do, but I thought he also said that we > > should specifically do meditation (sitting and watching breath). > ..... > SARAH > I understand the contradiction as it sounds.In a recent installment of the > commentary to the Satipatthana Suta (Way 94, Mental Objects) on > 'Mindfulness' we read, > > "In explanation it is said: Mindfulness arises through mindfulnes 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." > DAVE: I couldn't have said it any more clearly myself! :-) > SARAH: > Near the beginning of the sutta, under the section on 'Contemplation of > the Body', we also read all about anapanasati or mindfulness of breathing. > > Is it possible, do you think, that for some people, like my yoga friends, > sitting cross-legged and focussing on their breathing may be included in > one of the positions and in 'everywhere' where 'through mindfulnes with > clear comprehension', 'the mindfulness arousing the knowledge' may > develop? In other words, is it possible that according to our different > inclinations, we find ourselves in different positions and places, but > still there are only the 'present moment' realities to be known without > necessitating any particular position or location? > > I think it really comes down to what one considers the right causes and > conditions for knowledge or wisdom to develop. I'd like to hear more about > what you think. DAVE: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that understanding can arise at any place or time. And, I would agree with that, that understanding wouldn't be limited to only those times when we are meditating. And, of course it would be according to our "inclinations" in that I don't think that meditation is any type of "law" but rather a tool. So, if I may ask, how is it that you see meditation? I suppose this part will be hearsay, but it is my understanding that the Buddha did encourage it a lot, for what reason? > > With metta, > > Sarah > > p.s tapes - I got confused and forgot what I arranged to be sent to whom. > I'm delighted to hear you're already listening to the sets sent. In the > India series, you'll also be hearing Nina, Kom and Jon as well as K.Sujin. > In the Sri Lanka series, you'll also hear Christine, Jon, Sukin and me and > some rather quiet DSG friends from Sri Lanka at the end. Let us know if > there's anything of interest. > ================ > DAVE: I did have a couple of questions from what I've heard on the tapes, and read here off and on. I hesitate asking as I may soon get in over my head! But, here goes: 1.) It seems that the theory is that we can only experience one thing at a time (e.g. at a moment, we may experience seeing, but then no touching, hearing, ... occurs). Why? I can see that we do "tune out" stimulus coming at us, but it seems to me that we are able to process multiple senses at once. When I pick up my cup of coffee, I see it, feel it, and smell it, as well as think about it. It seems like the mind would be quite a bottleneck for processing these stimuli if it was a single processing system. 2.) In the tapes, they often talk about "reality." I'm not sure what they mean by that phrase. Do they mean the actual, physical world, our merely our perception of the physical world? (if too much to get into here, that's fine.) As always, thanks for your time in sharing your wisdom Peace, Dave 22792 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:49am Subject: Re: importance of Meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > >__________________________Yasa__________________________ Hello Sarah, After the Parinibbana of the Lord Buddha, there were dissenting groups who finally broke away from the Theravada tradition, to form the Mahayana tradition, which was lead by Ven.Nagarjuna in the second century. In about the 5th century, Ven.Bodhidharma introduced the Chinese Zen Buddhist tradition, and in the 8th century Ven. Shantarakshita and Ven.Padmasambhava introduced Buddhism to Tibet. The basic teachings of the Buddha remain the same in all these traditions. That is they accept the , Noble eight fold Path, the four noble Truth, Paticchasamuppada, and dhana, seela, bhavana. Bhavana is the meditation, which is practiced by all traditions or branches of such traditions. The discourses found in the tripitaka consist mostly of the Buddha's discourses and teachings given to his disciples the Bikkhus. A monastic life provides the correct environment for the practice of meditation, which consisted of sitting meditation, walking meditation. Meditation while standing and lying down is also a part of it. After many discourses explaining his finding of the path and how to proceed to final emancipation, the Buddha made the Maha satipattana sutta, the discourse on four foundations of mindfulness, which contains all the instruction s necessary for meditation to attain Nibbana, in ones very life.( And the Anapanasati sutta is equally the discourse on meditation instructions for the monks.) The heart of Buddha's teaching is "meditatation". In the ancient ruins of many monasteries,in India and in other Buddhist countries, there are small rooms called "kuti" where the monks meditated. In caves found in Sri Lanka and India, there are caves which had been prepared for the monks to meditate. Maha Satipattana Sutta is the main discourse which is still utlised in Buddhist countres in training monks for meditation. It is so now and it had been so since the enlightenment of the Buddha, and before him among the Hindu Yogis. Nowhere, in the tripita, Buddha had asked his disciples to use the Abhidhamma teachings for the purpose of meditation. To use the Abhidhamma now to "be mindful of the moment" to attain Nibbana is like climbing a mountain in search of water, when there is plenty below. Any one is at one's liberty to follow the teachings the way one wants, but to say that meditation is not part of the Buddha's teaching, is not correct and misleading. With metta, Yasa 22793 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:42am Subject: Perfections, Ch 10, Loving-kindness, no 1. Perfections, Ch 10, Loving-kindness, no 1. The Commentary to the ³Basket of conduct² defines the perfection of loving- kindness, mettå, as follows: Loving-kindness has the characteristic of promoting the welfare (of living beings); its function is to provide for their welfare, or its function is to remove resentment; its manifestation is kindliness; seeing the agreeable side of beings is its proximate cause. Among the ten perfections, the perfection of mettå, loving-kindness, follows upon the perfection of determination. A person who is firmly established in the development of kusala with the aim to eradicate defilements has accumulated the perfection of determination and it is natural for him to practise loving-kindness. We can verify for ourselves whether we are firmly established in the development of kusala. When someone is not inclined to anger and when he often practises mettå, it shows that he sees the benefit of non-anger and of the development of the perfections leading to the eradication of the defilements. Someone may believe that life belongs to him, but in reality there are only different dhammas that arise and fall away very rapidly. He should develop more understanding of his life, of his kusala cittas and akusala cittas. Some people who reflect on the perfections that were mentioned before, such as generosity and morality, believe that they have developed them already sufficiently. As to renunciation, nekkhamma, they believe that they are already contented with little, that they have fewness of wishes. As to energy, they find that they are not easily disheartened, that they have diligence and endeavour in their undertakings. They find that they have sufficient patience and endurance. They think that they have truthfulness: they speak the truth and act according to their words. They believe that they have determination, that they are firmly established in their resolutions. However, they should ask themselves whether they have already sufficiently developed the perfection of mettå. They may be forgetful of assisting others with loving-kindness, of developing mettå in this way time and again. They should support others with mettå, also when they are strangers, people they do not know. If one has not yet accumulated all the perfections, none excepted, there are not sufficient conditions for the elimination of defilements. 22794 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:42am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 4, no 1. Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 4, no 1. The Present Moment. All three parts of the Tipitaka we read or study pertain to our life at this moment, to the present moment. The purpose of our study is the understanding of the reality appearing now. This point stressed many times during our discussions in Thailand, was a pertinent reminder for me. The purpose of the Abhidhamma is not theoretical understanding of different classifications, it points directly to realities appearing in our daily life. The Abhidhamma is applied in the development of satipatthåna. Satipatthåna is nothing else but the development of understanding of the characteristics of dhammas which appear through the six doorways. That is why Acharn Sujin explained that the study of Abhidhamma is essential for the development of satipatthåna. If we do not study the Abhidhamma, we do not know what a sense-door process is, what a mind-door process is, what nåma and rúpa are. Intellectual understanding stemming from reading and listening can grow by weighing things up, by considering the realities appearing in our life, and in this way there are conditions for the arising of sati-sampajañña. It is important to understand what the Abhidhamma really is. Not knowing what the Abhidhamma is can cause a great deal of aversion or even anger. People may be confused about the authenticity of the Abhidhamma when they read that the Buddha taught Abhidhamma to his mother in the Heaven of the Thirtythree [1]. We should consider the message this story contains. As to the surroundings, conventional terms are used describing a situation. It is not relevant to try to find out in how far this story is historical in all of its aspects. The Buddha, when he attained Buddhahood, realized the truth of all dhammas. These are contained in the Tipitaka. He gave the nucleus of the Abhidhamma to Såriputta. The textual order of the Abhidhamma originated with Såriputta. The Atthasåliní (Introductory Discourse, 16, 17) states: ³Thus the giving of the method was to the chief Disciple who was endowed with analytical knowledge, as though the Buddha stood on the edge of the shore and pointed out the ocean with his open hand. To the Elder the doctrine taught by the Blessed One in hundreds and thousands of methods became very clear. Thereafter, the Elder passed on what he had learnt to his five hundred disciples.² Further it is said: "The textual order of the Abhidhamma originated from Såriputta; the numerical series in the Great Book (Patthåna) was also determined by him. In this way the Elder, without spoiling the unique doctrine, laid down the numerical series in order to make it easy to learn, remember, study and teach the Law (Dhamma)." We read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (II, Kindred Sayings on Cause, Ch 4, § 32) that the Buddha said concerning Såriputta's mastery of the Dhamma and its exposition: "The Essence of the Dhamma (dhammadhatu) has been so well penetrated by Såriputta, O monks, that if I were to quesion him therein for one day in different words and phrases, Såriputta would reply likewise for one day in various words and phrases. And if I were to question him for one night, or a day and a night, or for two days and nights, even up to seven days and nights, Såriputta would expound the matter for the same period of time, in various words and phrases." Footnote: 1. See Chapter 1, dealing with the ³Baddhekaratta Sutta², Discourse on A Single Excellent Night (³Middle Length Sayings² III, 134) and its Commentary. 22795 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Jacang, Ch 3, no 4, stages Dear Howard, op 01-06-2003 21:27 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > In a message dated 6/1/03 2:30:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... > writes: >> "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 > ============================= > 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. N: There may be a moment that things become clearer, you had not seen them before in such a clear way, for instance the conditionality of things, or non-self. You may be shaken up by an event or an experience: for instance, it never was so clear that kamma arranged for a solution to a problem, you could not have planned it or know it beforehand, it just happened because of unforseeable events, by conditions. But this is not enough. Ignorance that is accumulated for aeons cannot be uprooted by one moment of understanding. If it is not panna that penetrates the true nature of realities, it is still my experience, some subtle clinging to my experience. But we have to be very sincere to recognize this. Even when we believe: I realize this, it is not thinking, it may still be intellectual understanding, not panna that realizes the truth. Only panna which has been developed stage by stage can detache from realities. It cannot be done in one day or by one impressive experience. To me it makes a lot of sense that there are stages of insight: first you have to know what nama is and what rupa, then you understand more: their conditions, their arising and falling away. As to the higher stages: seeing danger, etc. these are names designating panna which detaches more and more, at every subsequent stage of insight, from nama and rupa. The tilakkhana have to be realized of all realities appearing through the six doors, otherwise there will not be detachment. is expounded in the suttas. It is not only in the Path of Discrimination. I can quote part of the Com. to the "Basket of Conduct" about the development of panna, as translated by Ven. Bodhi: < This is an analysis of the sphere of learning: the five aggregates, the twelve sense bases, the eighteen elements, the four truths, the twenty-two faculties, the twelve factors of dependent origination, the foundations of mindfulness, etc., the various classifications of phenomena such as the wholesome, etc., as well as any blameless secular fields of knowledge which may be suitable for promoting the welfare and happiness of beings, particularly grammar. Thus, with wisdom, mindfulness, and energy preceded by skilful means, a bodhisattva should first thoroughly immerse himself in this entire sphere of learning -- through study, listening, memorization, learning, and interrogation; then he should establish others in learning. In this way the wisdom born of learning (sutamayi panna) can be developed. So too, out of his wish for the welfare of others, the bodhisattva should develop the wisdom of ingenuity in creating opportunities to fulfil his various duties to his fellow beings and the skilful means in understanding their happiness and misery. Then he should develop wisdom born of reflection (cintamayi panna) by first reflecting upon the specific nature of the phenomena such as the aggregates, and then arousing reflective acquiescence in them. Next, he should perfect the preliminary portion of the wisdom born of meditation (pubbabhagabhavanapanna) by developing the mundane kinds of full understanding through the discernment of the specific and general characteristics of the aggregates, etc. To do so, he should fully understand all internal and external phenomena without exception as follows: "This is mere mentality-materiality (namarupamatta), which arises and ceases according to conditions. There is here no agent or actor. It is impermanent in the sense of not being after having been; suffering in the sense of oppression by rise and fall; and non-self in the sense of being unsusceptible to the exercise of mastery." Comprehending them in this way, he abandons attachment to them, and helps others to do so as well....> By comprehension there will be detachment. Next time about the Path of Discrimination. Nina. 22796 From: Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Jacang, Ch 3, no 4, stages Hi, Nina - Thank you for the following. There is a saying along the lines that a single swallow does nota summer make. (I'm sure I have that wrong! ;-) But I agree with the sense of it. Certainly no single experience, except the final, ultimate one, leads to full enlightenment. I *certainly* accept that there is a development of wisdom and stages of development. My comment was merely that the business of knowing *all things* is an overstatement.I still believe that. With metta, Howard In a message dated 6/10/03 1:45:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Dear Howard, > op 01-06-2003 21:27 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > > >In a message dated 6/1/03 2:30:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... > >writes: > > >>"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 > > >============================= > >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. > N: sand.> There may be a moment that things become clearer, you had not seen > them before in such a clear way, for instance the conditionality of things, > or non-self. You may be shaken up by an event or an experience: for > instance, it never was so clear that kamma arranged for a solution to a > problem, you could not have planned it or know it beforehand, it just > happened because of unforseeable events, by conditions. But this is not > enough. Ignorance that is accumulated for aeons cannot be uprooted by one > moment of understanding. If it is not panna that penetrates the true nature > of realities, it is still my experience, some subtle clinging to my > experience. But we have to be very sincere to recognize this. Even when we > believe: I realize this, it is not thinking, it may still be intellectual > understanding, not panna that realizes the truth. Only panna which has been > developed stage by stage can detache from realities. It cannot be done in > one day or by one impressive experience. > To me it makes a lot of sense that there are stages of insight: first you > have to know what nama is and what rupa, then you understand more: their > conditions, their arising and falling away. As to the higher stages: seeing > danger, etc. these are names designating panna which detaches more and more, > at every subsequent stage of insight, from nama and rupa. The tilakkhana > have to be realized of all realities appearing through the six doors, > otherwise there will not be detachment. is expounded in the > suttas. It is not only in the Path of Discrimination. > I can quote part of the Com. to the "Basket of Conduct" about the > development of panna, as translated by Ven. Bodhi: > > twelve sense bases, the eighteen elements, the four truths, the twenty-two > faculties, the twelve factors of dependent origination, the foundations of > mindfulness, etc., the various classifications of phenomena such as the > wholesome, etc., as well as any blameless secular fields of knowledge which > may be suitable for promoting the welfare and happiness of beings, > particularly grammar. Thus, with wisdom, mindfulness, and energy preceded by > skilful means, a bodhisattva should first thoroughly immerse himself in this > entire sphere of learning -- through study, listening, memorization, > learning, and interrogation; then he should establish others in learning. In > this way the wisdom born of learning (sutamayi panna) can be developed. So > too, out of his wish for the welfare of others, the bodhisattva should > develop the wisdom of ingenuity in creating opportunities to fulfil his > various duties to his fellow beings and the skilful means in understanding > their happiness and misery. > Then he should develop wisdom born of reflection (cintamayi panna) by > first reflecting upon the specific nature of the phenomena such as the > aggregates, and then arousing reflective acquiescence in them. Next, he > should perfect the preliminary portion of the wisdom born of meditation > (pubbabhagabhavanapanna) by developing the mundane kinds of full > understanding through the discernment of the specific and general > characteristics of the aggregates, etc. To do so, he should fully > understand all internal and external phenomena without exception as follows: > "This is mere mentality-materiality (namarupamatta), which arises and ceases > according to conditions. There is here no agent or actor. It is impermanent > in the sense of not being after having been; suffering in the sense of > oppression by rise and fall; and non-self in the sense of being > unsusceptible to the exercise of mastery." Comprehending them in this way, > he abandons attachment to them, and helps others to do so as well....> > By comprehension there will be detachment. > Next time about the Path of Discrimination. > Nina. > /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) 22797 From: Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 3:40pm Subject: Way 100, 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 3. Energy continued This recluse who had been earnest for a long time, after developing insight, reached the fruit of arahantship even before meal-time, and the great destroyer of the corruptions smiling like an opening lotus went out of the cave. To him the guardian deity of the tree near the cave said this: Hail to thee man-steed of finest strain, Hail to thee the best of mortal kind, Gone are thy cankers, Sorrowless One, and so Worthy art thou to take a gift of faith. Having uttered this appreciation, the tree deity said: "Venerable Sir, after giving alms to an arahant like you wandering for alms, the elderly woman will escape suffering." When the Thera got up and opened the door to observe what the time was he found that it was still quite early. So he took his bowl and robe and entered the village. The young girl, having prepared the rice, sat looking towards the door of her house thinking, "Now my brother will come." And when the Thera arrived she took the bowl, filled it with milk-rice alms mixed with ghee and treacle and placed it in his hands, and he departed after giving thanks with the words: "May there be happiness," and the girl stood there looking at the departing one. The color of the Elder at that time was exceedingly clear, and his controlling faculties especially pure and his face was shining like a ripe palm-fruit freed from the foot-stalk. The mother of the girl on returning from the forest inquired: "Dear, did your brother come?" The daughter told her everything. The Maha Upasika knowing that her son's renunciation work had that day reached its acme, said, "Dear, your brother delights in the Dispensation of the Buddha. He is not dissatisfied." There is reflection on the greatness of the heritage when one thinks thus: "Great, indeed, is the heritage of the Teacher, namely the Seven Real Treasures [Sutta Ariya Dhanani]. These are not to be got by the slothful. The indolent man is like a son disowned by his parents. He does not get this parents' wealth when they pass away. So too it is with the Seven Real Treasures. Only the man of energy gets these." Reflection on the greatness of the Master consists in recalling the great events in the teacher's life, and admonishing oneself thus: "Does it befit you to be slack after entering the Dispensation of such a Teacher?" Reflection on the greatness of race is carried out by way of the fact that in entering the Buddha's Dispensation one has become the Conqueror's son [spiritually], and that for such a one slacking is not fit. Reflection on the greatness of fellows in the holy life consists of admonishing oneself thus: "Sariputta, Maha Moggallana, and the great disciples penetrated the supramundane after much endeavor. Are you following their way of life?" The avoiding of lazy folk is the avoiding of people without physical and mental energy who are like a rock-snake lying inert after a full feed. And the association with folk who have begun to exert themselves is mixing with those whose minds are turned towards and who are endeavoring for the attainment of Nibbana. Inclination towards the development of this enlightenment factor is the inclining, sloping and bending of the mind towards right exertion in all postures of sitting, standing and so forth. The enlightenment factor that arises in this way comes to completion by culture through the path of arahantship. 22798 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 3:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hello Mike, By "same thing," I assume you to be saying that a worldling who takes refuge in the Dhamma is nonetheless trapped in samsara. By "even more dangerous," you might mean that the belief in a self who is taking refuge, is even more insidious than the belief in a self who is not. I can't argue with that. At the time of 'taking the test,' I was thinking that the Dhamma tells us to get out of the circular, "Do I exist; do I not exist" frame of mind. But it doesn't tell US to do anything. It provides conditions for the replacement of wrong understanding (miccha-ditthi), with right understanding (panna). Thanks for the reminder, Ken H > > > > > > > What does it mean to say "me" is not > > > me or the "I" thought is not me? > > > > It means one of two things; to be running in endless > > circles or to be taking refuge in the Dhamma. > > Same thing--the latter may be more dangerous than the former. Only pa~n~na > can figure it out, I think... > 22799 From: Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 3:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Rob, You wrote: Like desire for continued existence, conceit is something that only an Arahant is able to free themselves from. I study conceit from a theoretical perspective to prepare fertile soil (right conditions) for that point in the future. Until that time comes, I simply note it using my theoretical understanding to apply a label. L: I think by simpy noting or recognizing conceit one can easily see what an impermanent flickering thing it is and that it is truely not "me" in any sense. This can help in gradually wearing away the whole idea of "me". What is interesting is that there is a lot more conceit than I was aware of. Larry