26000 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 8:14pm Subject: Bhara sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > The Bhara sutta > Note > 1. This discourse parallels the teaching on the four noble truths, > but with a twist. The "burden" is defined in the same terms as the > first noble truth, the truth of suffering & stress. The taking on of > the burden is defined in the same terms as the second noble truth, > the origination of stress; and the casting off of the burden, in the > same terms as the third noble truth, the cessation of stress. The > fourth factor, however -- the carrier of the burden -- has no > parallel in the four noble truths, and has proven to be one of the > most controversial terms in the history of Buddhist philosophy. When > defining this factor as the person (or individual, puggala), the > Buddha drops the abstract form of the other factors, and uses the > ordinary, everyday language of narrative: the person with such-and- > such a name. And how would this person translate into more abstract > factors? He doesn't say. After his passing away, however, Buddhist > scholastics attempted to provide an answer for him, and divided into > two major camps over the issue. One camp refused to rank the concept > of person as a truth on the ultimate level. This group inspired what > eventually became the classic Theravada position on this issue: that > the "person" was simply a conventional designation for the five > aggregates. However, the other camp -- who developed into the > Pudgalavadin (Personalist) school -- said that the person was neither > a ultimate truth nor a mere conventional designation, neither > identical with nor totally separate from the five aggregates. This > special meaning of person, they said, was required to account for > three things: the cohesion of a person's identity in this lifetime > (one's person's memories, for instance, cannot become another > person's memories); the unitary nature of rebirth (one person cannot > be reborn in several places at once); and the fact that, with the > cessation of the khandhas at the death of an arahant, he/she is said > to attain the Further Shore. However, after that moment, they said, > nothing further could be said about the person, for that was as far > as the concept's descriptive powers could go. > > As might be imagined, the first group accused the second group of > denying the concept of anatta, or not-self; whereas the second group > accused the first of being unable to account for the truths that they > said their concept of person explained. Both groups, however, found > that their positions entangled them in philosophical difficulties > that have never been successfully resolved. > > Perhaps the most useful lesson to draw from the history of this > controversy is the one that accords with the Buddha's statements in > MN 72, where he refuses to get involved in questions of whether a > person has a live essence separate from or identical to his/her body, > or of whether after death there is something of an arahant that > exists or not. In other words, the questions aren't worth asking. > Nothing is accomplished by assuming or denying an ultimate reality > behind what we think of as a person. Instead, the strategy of the > practice is to comprehend the burden that we each are carrying and to > throw it off. That is what will settle all questions. [Go back] > > ______ Dear Christine, The writer of the passage you quote suggests that the Theravada postion is incomplete or even wrong: "their positions[of theravada and puggalavadin] entangled them in philosphical difficulties that have never been succesfully resolved." Is this your conclusion also? I happen to think the Theravada is not at all a philosphical position but simply a descrpition of reality. There is no self. AS the commentary to the sutta says: "By the expression 'the carrier of the burden' he shows the person to be a mere convention." see note 1051 Bodhi. Bhikkhu Bodhi says in his introduction to the Khandha samyutta , where this sutta comes from: "the subject of appropriation and identification with the 'self' is merely a fabrication of conceptual thought woven in the darkenss of ignorance"p.845 The writer further says that "Nothing is accomplished by assuming or denying an ultimate reality > behind what we think of as a person. Instead, the strategy of the > practice is to comprehend the burden that we each are carrying and to > throw it off. That is what will settle all questions" If one is still caught up in self view to the extreme degree of say the puggalavadins - who used the Bhara sutta to try to support their belief in self, then ignoring such ideas means that one will continue on in the wrong direction. One may even say that they don't believe in self but be so caught up in selfview that the suttas which use conventional language cause doubt about anatta to arise. Such doubts should be examined or seen as merely impersonal dhammas arising not to a person but void of all self. RobertK 26001 From: norakat147 Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 8:32pm Subject: This is the one and only path hi, ... just a friendly reminder. ---- from the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta Ekayano ayam, bhikkhave, maggo This is the one and only path. Sattanam visuddhiya To purify individuals... Soka-paridevanam samatikkamaya trancending very deep sorrow, (soka), and its manefestation in crying and lamentation, (parideva). As you practise, it comes to the surface and observing, you pass beyond it, (samatikkamaya). Dukkha-domanassanam atthangamaya. At a subtler level there is still unpleasent feeling in the mind, (domanassa), and unpleasent sensation on the body, (dukkha). These also are eradicated, (atthangamaya). ---- ... and what is this path (practise) ? Kaye kayanupassi viharati. to live witnessing the reality of the body in the body. vedanasu vedananupassi viharati. to live witnessing the truth of bodily sensations/feelings. citte cittanupassi viharati. to live witnessing the reality of mind within mind. dhammesu dhammanupassi viharati. to live witnessing the reality of the mind/mental contents. ---- ... and in what way do we do this ? with atapi - very ardently, diligently with sampajano - with the wisdom of arising and passing away; what was the cause of its arising? What was the cause of its passing away? with satima - awareness, with no imagination ... direct full continuous awareness witnessing them internally (within ourselves), and externally (in/on others) without clinging towards anything in the world, unattached. ---- ... and when do we do this ? as much as we could (when we remember to do so), all day, every day. This is the one and only path. ---- "...People felt satisfied just reciting a discourse, ... or memorizing the entire Tipitaka ... as if the purpose of their life was fulfilled. Then came discussions, debates, arguments about the meaning of words. Confusion prevailed, and without practise there was no understanding." -S.N. Goenka May all beings be happy, nori 26002 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 9:56pm Subject: Re: Bhara sutta Hello Robert, (Victor, Larry) and All, Robert - you say:"The writer of the passage you quote suggests that the Theravada postion is incomplete or even wrong: "their positions [of theravada and puggalavadin] entangled them in philosphical difficulties that have never been succesfully resolved." Is this your conclusion also?" My experience, as always, mostly confirms a feeling of there being a 'me'. When I am reflecting on Dependent Arising, as happens sometimes during the day and I notice the sequence occuring in my relationship to events within and without, I have no doubt about anatta. I concede that mostly I am in delusion, and I trust that, as panna develops I will cease to believe that there is a continuing entity called Christine. I know that I am very far from enlightenment - but the whole of Buddhism doesn't work together on this - some traditions pray to a Buddha who lives 'out there' to intercede in their troubles and to grant wishes, they believe he will lead them to salvation, to be with him eternally in a blissful place. Sometimes it seems the name Buddha has simply been substituted for the name Jesus. The first task for a beginner (which I obviously am) is to find a tradition that seems 'just right', which for me was Theravada. Then to realise that there is an awful lot to learn and understand, and to develop trust in those one regards as teachers. Having done this, one of the most confusing things is then to find divisions within that tradition as to 'what the Buddha REALLY meant', as well as criticism from other traditions. This can range over many subjects, but is most destructive to confidence when it is about one of the very foundations of the Buddha's spiritual path to liberation - anatta. Don't you think it would have been a whole lot easier if the Buddha had just plainly said: "There is no soul, each rebirth is just an automatic inalterable continuing of a wave of energy that either grows stronger or weakens in each 'life' until, or if, it dies out completely. There is no 'person', no 'awareness', no 'knower', no 'watcher' and no form of identity, nothing personal whatsoever that continues. The flux ceases upon the 'using up', 'eradicating', or not 'creating more' of the fuel that nourishes it - lobha, moha, dosa." Surely it would have been simple to just bluntly state the awful truth and say 'Deal with it'. But he doesn't actually say that. He doesn't say that an individual self/soul continues, or merges into a universal self/soul. He doesn't say there isn't such a thing, and he doesn't say there is such a thing. And so we are left trying to follow the teachings, but no-one actually 100% agrees what the teachings mean. Some well-known Bhikkhus say one thing. Others don't agree. If the Sangha hold different views, where do the beginner laypeople put their trust? Were they Arahats who disagreed over the meanings of the Bhara Sutta? and even if not, how can a muddle-headed puthujjana like me figure it out if those Venerables much closer to the Buddha's time, and much more learned, couldn't find consensus? metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 26003 From: Sarah Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Hi Rob M, (Howard, Victor, James, Nina & All), --- robmoult wrote: > Some time ago, I was wrestling with the idea of "free will". Once > I "saw the light", I was "born again" and I > asked, "How could one possibly believe in free will?" > > I can now appreciate the common closing phrase to many > Suttas, "turning upright what had been overthrown". > > The same thing has now happened to me on the subject of intrinsic > properties of rupa. I ask you, "How can you possibly deny that rupa > has intrinsic properties?" :-) ..... ....and there's nothing like a "born again" xyz when it comes to sharing their newfound enthusiasm for turning upright the overthrown;-) ;-) I think you're definitely on the right track (no more 'dots'??), but I'm busy with teaching and doing all the right things for my leg to make sure it's fit for our trip to Thailand and Burma next week, so will have to delay responding to yours and other posts (Howard and all) for a couple of days more.... I will be reading them carefully and responding when I can. Metta and keep 'turning upright' meanwhile....;-) Sarah ====== 26004 From: Sarah Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:15pm Subject: proximate cause, CMA and B.Bodhi's comments Dear Nina, Jim & All, (I’ll bring this to Jim’s attention when he’s back on line) As I mentioned the other day I was sending a note to Bhikkhu Bodhi on a few points people on DSG have suggested I raise with him over the last few months. He responded on some yesterday and I’ll include the relevant parts in 2 or 3 posts. (Note RobM, Nina & Larry- no response on Chinese CMA or Vism tiika comments). ***** Firstly, it’s not good news at all on his health and AN translation work: BB: >Unfortunately, owing to the severity of the headache, I had to discontinue with the translation of the Anguttara Nikaya. In May or June, I found it was getting too difficult for me to push myself into this kind of work when the headache was causing so much discomfort. Whether I will be able to resume work on the translation depends on whether I find relief. Needless to say, the prescription of kind Dr. Ma didn't work. In about ten days I will be going to Ann Arbor, Michigan, to the leading institute for the treatment of headache conditions in the U.S. This seems my last straw of hope.< ***** Secondly on the Qu Jim raised about proximate cause: Sarah: >On the subject of CMA, occasionally qus arise and not fully resolved. One of these recently on proximate cause can be seen at this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/25075 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/25126 ***** BB’s reply: >The information in the Guide to CMA dealing with the characteristics, functions, manifestations, & proximate causes of the various cetasikas was prepared by Ven. U Rewata Dhamma. I simply polished up the English and integrated this information into the body of the work. I notice that in a back note I say that this information has been collected from the Visuddhimagga and Atthasalini. I think it was URD who told me these were the sources he used. I checked the Atthasalini, but could not find there any statement to the effect that yoniso manasikara is the px. cause of pa~n~naa. I also checked the Vibhaavini Tika and Ledi Sayadaw's Tika, but again could not find such a statement in those works. So I don't know the source upon which U Rewata Dhamma drew for this information.< **** [Jim & Nina, I’ve since brought the mistake in the Expositor (transl of Atth.) to his attention] Metta, Sarah ======= 26005 From: Sarah Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] proximate cause, CMA and B.Bodhi's comments Dear Nina & All, (Newcomers may wish to see other posts on this detailed thread in UP under luminous) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Back on this this thread (AN1,49), I gave B.Bodhi the link to your response to his earlier comments here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/16771 ..... B.Bodhi’s reply: >Re-reading my note on pabhassara-citta after one year (it was almost exactly one year ago that we were in Hong Kong), I still agree with it. To me, the idea that 'luminosity' is an intrinsic quality of citta, consisting in its ability to "illuminate" objects, seems more convincing than the idea that pabhassaram cittam refers to the 'bhavanga,' a concept that comes to prominence only in a considerably later strata of Buddhist literature. Still, the fact that the statement is made without elucidation in the Nikaya text may imply that it was intended to be suggestive rather than definitive, and thus should not be pinned down to one exclusive interpretation.< Metta, Sarah ====== 26006 From: Sarah Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:33pm Subject: More on Luminous and B.Bodhi's comments Dear Nina & All, I forgot to change the subject heading for my last post. Pls change it if you reply. --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Nina & All, > > (Newcomers may wish to see other posts on this detailed thread in UP > under > luminous) > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts 26007 From: Sarah Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:35pm Subject: Steve- khandhas, upadaanakkhandhas & B.Bodhi's comments Hi Steve, Your Qu received the most detailed response! Sarah: Qu regarding the obtaining an article of yours referred to in Note 65 of Khandhavagga: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/18775 ***** B.Bodhi: >My paper on "Aggregates and Clinging Aggregates" was published in a defunct journal, The Pali Buddhist Review, in c. 1976. I don't have a copy of the paper. My basic argument there was: (1) the only sutta that explicitly distinguishes between khandhas and upadaanakkhandhas is SN 22: 48. There the latter are defined in the same way as the former *except* that they are each said to be 'saasava upaadaaniya' ("with taints, subject to clinging"). It would follow that there must then be aggregates that are anaasava anupaadaaniya (without taints, not subject to clinging). Intuitively, these would seem to be the aggregates of the arahant. However, no such statement can be found in the Nikayas. I then turned to the Dhammasangani enumeration of 'saasava dhammas' and 'anaasava dhammas', and 'upaadaaniya dhammas' and 'na upaadaaniya dhammas'. I found that Dhs classifies the arahant's ordinary cittas and cetasikas under 'saasava' and 'upaadaaniya'. The only khandhas considered 'anaasava' and 'na upaadaaniya' are the mental khandhas (cittas and cetasikas) of the four maggas and phalas. All rupas are tainted and subject to clinging. I then went on to explore the significance of this for an understanding of the Dhamma; but without the paper I can't recapitulate what I wrote over 25 years ago. The old "Pali Buddhist Review" subsequently merged with another scholarly journal to become the "Buddhist Studies Review". If you can track this down on the web, perhaps they have back issues available and you can find that article. Or perhaps the paper itself is on the web. Just look for the above title.< ***** Metta, Sarah p.s If there is anything anyone would particularly like me to bring to BB’s attention (preferably with no urgency), please post and indicate. ================= 26008 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 0:05am Subject: Re: letter about Egypt --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear James, > It's me again, Janice! I hope you are keeping > well? Well, I have read many of your diaries about > Egypt as well as reply to many letters. Well, I have a > bountiful amount of questions. However, I shall only > ask a few now!!! > Does the Buddha believe in committing > adultery? (This is like, is there a consequence after > you have committed adultery) Is Buddhism only in a > specific area in Egypt or the whole of Egypt? Are > there Egyptian Buddha prayer books? > Metta, > Janice Hi Starkid Janice, Thank you, I am keeping well. No, the Buddha didn't believe in adultery; however, there isn't a specific consequence for committing adultery. I would suppose the consequence would be negative karma. Buddhism isn't a recognized religion in Egypt and there aren't any Egyptian Buddha prayer books (though that would be interesting to see! ;-). Take care. Metta, James 26009 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 0:12am Subject: Re: Bhara sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Robert, (Victor, Larry) and All, > > Robert - you say:"The writer of the passage you quote suggests that > the Theravada postion is incomplete or even wrong: "their positions > [of theravada and puggalavadin] entangled them in philosphical > difficulties that have never been succesfully resolved." Is this your > conclusion also?" > >> The first task for a beginner (which I obviously am) is to find a > tradition that seems 'just right', which for me was Theravada. Then > to realise that there is an awful lot to learn and understand, and to > develop trust in those one regards as teachers. Having done this, > one of the most confusing things is then to find divisions within > that tradition as to 'what the Buddha REALLY meant', as well as > criticism from other traditions. This can range over many subjects, > but is most destructive to confidence when it is about one of the > very foundations of the Buddha's spiritual path to liberation - > anatta. > > And so we are left trying to follow the teachings, but no-one > actually 100% agrees what the teachings mean. Some well-known > Bhikkhus say one thing. Others don't agree. > ____________ Dear Christine, I add comments: If the Sangha hold > different views, where do the beginner laypeople put their trust? > Were they Arahats who disagreed over the meanings of the Bhara > Sutta? and even if not, how can a muddle-headed puthujjana like me > figure it out if those Venerables much closer to the Buddha's time, > and much more learned, couldn't find consensus? > _____ Occasionally the commentaries point out very minor disagreements about some small point, but the ancient Theravada sangha didn't hold different views about anatta. The puggalavadins - who used any conventional speech about person to try to justify their ideas- were not part of the Theravada sangha. They may have originally ordained as Theravada but they rejected the ancient teachings and started a new sect. Naturally today there will be those with similar ideas and indeed as time passes the truth of anatta will become lost and so too the Dhamma. _____ Don't you think it would have been a whole lot easier if the Buddha > had just plainly said: "There is no soul, each rebirth is just an automatic inalterable > continuing of a wave of energy that either grows stronger or weakens > in each 'life' until, or if, it dies out completely. There is > no 'person', no 'awareness', no 'knower', no 'watcher' and no form > of identity, nothing personal whatsoever that continues. The flux > ceases upon the 'using up', 'eradicating', or not 'creating more' of > the fuel that nourishes it - lobha, moha, dosa." ____ As I read hundreds and hundreds of suttas he said essentially this. As for saying there is 'no awareness' I do not think he would say this as awareness is part of sankhara khandha - it is very real. I think even if someone reads such suttas as the fire sutta (II. 3.2.Aggi-vacchagottasutta.m (72),where the Buddha explains what we think of as 'life' is only conditioned phenomena, the one with wrong view will interpret it according to that view. `Vaccha, if you were asked, this fire burning in front of you, on account of what is it burning, how would you reply?''Good Gotama, if I was asked, this fire burning in front of you, on account of what is it burning, I would reply, this fire burning in front of me is burning on account of grass and sticks.' `Vaccha, if the fire in front of you extinguishes, would you know, this fire in front of me has extinguished?' For the one who has begun to understand conditionality this passage is clear. While if one has selfview embedded they will look for some way to explain this in terms of self and permanence. Either view, right or wrong, is conditioned and accumulated. My suggestion, for those who truly fear dukkha and samsara , is to learn what the present moment really is. It is only a conditioned phenomenon, no-self. The "Kindred Sayings"(III, Khandha vagga, Middle Fifty, Ch V, par. 99, The Leash) Just as, monks, a dog tied up by a leash to a strong stake or pillar, keeps running round and revolving round and round that stake or pillar, even so, monks, the untaught many folk... regard body as self, regard feeling, perception, activities, consciousness as self... they run and revolve round and round from body to body, from feeling to feeling, from perception to perception, from activities to activities, from consciousness to consciousness...they are not released therefrom, they are not released from rebirth, from old age and decay, from sorrow and grief, from woe, lamentation and despair... they are not released from dukkha, I declare... " It then says that the ariyan disciple who does not take any khnadha for self is released from dukkha. If selfview is not diminished in this life, when the medicine is liberally available, then when? It will be harder in the future as more wrong views will come in to distort the teachings. So far the councils of monks who recite the teachings wisely followed the ancients. It may be that at the next council it is decided to follow some other way. Already we occasionally hear of some monks who reject the Abhidhamma. So we learn to see the utter voidness of self in every moment. Just elements arising because they are conditioned to arise. It is the way beyond all fear and worry. RobertK 26010 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 0:18am Subject: Re: Buddhism in Egypt --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Hi James, > > It's Hilary. I've read your letters and saw that > you've moved to Egypt. Is the living life style there > quite different? What religion do most people there > believe in? Are the Buddhist temples there built > differently? How does it feels as a BUddhist living in > Egypt? > > Well, hope you have a good time living in Egypt > > > Metta, > Hilary Hi Starkid Hilary! Thank you for your letter. Yes, living in Egypt is quite different than living in the US (or most modern, industrialized cities I would imagine). The official religion of the people is Islam and there are some Christians, in Egypt the Christians are called `Coptic Christians'. There aren't any Buddhist temples in Egypt as far as I know. Officially, Islam is supposed to be open-minded to other religions; unofficially, it really isn't. I have a female student with whom I was discussing religion and she told me that she was interested in a lot of different religions but she really couldn't tell anyone about it. I asked her why and she said that people wouldn't approve. She was born a Muslim and I asked her what would happen if she decided to change her religion and she told me, "My father would have me killed, really killed. He has the right to do that in Islam." So you see, this country really isn't open to other religions. How do I feel being a Buddhist in this Islamic country? Actually I don't feel too different, as far as religion goes. I have always been a bit of an outsider/rebel, even among other Buddhists, so I'm used to it. Thank you for the well wishes and I hope that you do well in school. Metta, James 26011 From: norakat147 Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:05am Subject: Contemplation on sappaya sampajañña (clear comprehension of suitability), desire Hi all, My contemplation and realization on sappaya sampajañña (clear comprehension of suitability), desire/craving and action: I have been contemplating whether or not to quit my job and leave NYC since it causes me much stress and felt it not suitable. My aversion to my job and NYC very often leads me to desire/crave to be elsewhere; preferably somewhere peaceful, warm, with a clear ocean, open space and palm trees, void of the harsh personalities that one often encounters here. Those cravings lead me to experience suffering. In my struggle to decide what to do, whether to overcome my aversion to my job and NYC and to remain here, or to leave and find a more suitable situation, I made some posts to this discussion group and others as well. In one of the replies, (namely made by robertK) he made me aware of a term - Sampajañña (comprehension or clear comprehension) as used in the Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) In the commentary of the Satipatthana Sutta, as he pointed out, it is stated thus: ---- http://www.abhidhamma.org/CommentaryBody.htm#ClearComprehension Clear comprehension [sampajananam] = comprehending clearly [sampajanam]. Both words mean the same thing; their difference is only one of affix. … For the yogi practices only clear comprehension and is nowhere bereft of clear comprehension, in going forwards and going backwards. There are these four kinds of comprehension: 1. Satthaka sampajañña - clear comprehension of purpose 2. Sappaya sampajañña - clear comprehension of suitability 3. Gocara sampajañña - clear comprehension of resort 4. Asammoha sampajañña - clear comprehension of non-delusion … The clear comprehension of purpose in going forwards and backwards is clear comprehension of purpose. The clear comprehension of what is suitable, fit, to oneself is clear comprehension of suitability. … ... ---- What a relief it was to read this. I was under the false impression that eliminating aversion and desire meant tolerating whatever life may throw your way that was not suitable. Verily, the Buddha teaches: "…in going forwards (and) in going backwards, is a person practicing clear comprehension; … in bending and in stretching, is a person practicing clear comprehension; … in regard to what is eaten, drunk, chewed and savored, is a person practicing clear comprehension …in walking, in standing (in a place), in sitting (in some position), … is a person practicing clear comprehension."- Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) …And so it is taught by the blessed one, to sum it up: in acting, one is to always maintain a clear comprehension of, among other aspects of clear comprehension, what is suitable and what is not. If one finds himself in a burning building, he should consider what is suitable-and-what is not and make action/effort to leave it if there is no purpose for him to remain there. One does not remain in the burning building to tolerate the physical pain; one does not remain in the building, making attempt to get over the aversion of the heat from the fire. If one has the option to leave, then he should leave. Likewise, if one finds himself in a room full of people that are unbeloved (such as those that hate you, or cause / intend to cause you harm or suffering), then you should consider what is suitable and what is not, and make action/effort to leave if there is no purpose for you to remain there. One does not remain in the room to tolerate the pain and abuse; one does not remain in the room to make an attempt to get over the aversion of those un-beloved people. If one has the option to leave then he should leave. Every moment, one is making a choice of action (including taking no action at all). Whatever he may be doing, let him do it with clear comprehension (sampajañña): 1. Satthaka sampajañña - clear comprehension of purpose 2. Sappaya sampajañña - clear comprehension of suitability 3. Gocara sampajañña - clear comprehension of resort 4. Asammoha sampajañña - clear comprehension of non-delusion …Let him do what is suitable. and also … If one finds himself in a situation that is not suitable to him, that brings him suffering, and does not have the option to leave it, then he should dissolve his suffering (his aversion and desire) with the awareness that he has chosen the best course of action/situation available to him within his options. He should not crave another situation / have aversion to his current situation, since this will bring him more suffering. His craving and aversion will not help resolve his suffering; with this awareness he should not have craving/aversion. If one finds himself in a situation that is not suitable to him, that brings him suffering, due to a bad choice, or when he had an option to avoid it in the past (whether not taken through - short sightedness, misjudgment, sloth, etc.), then he should not regret not taking that option, since this will bring him more suffering. Regretting will not help resolve his suffering; with the awareness of this he should not regret. … And again, if one finds himself with an option to better his situation to what is more suitable, then, with clear comprehension, let him do so. May all beings be happy, nori 26012 From: Julie, Steve and Kevin Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:55pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: G'day! Thanks Rob, Christine and Nina for your tips and encouragement. Am in the process of reading Nina's "Buddhism in Daily Life" and finding it a bit of a strain on the old brain. Will probably ask some questions when I figure out what to ask! By the way Christine, I live in Melbourne. Have been interested in Buddhism for a while now but haven't really got into the nuts and bolts of it until this year. Can thank having two beautiful babies (3 and 1 year old) for giving me a wake up call. (And that includes the early morning feeds!!!!) See Ya Julie -----Original Message----- From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 8:25 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: G'day! Hi Julie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jhcsks" wrote: > Have recently joined this fascinating group and would like to say > hi. I can pretty much guarantee that I wont be participating all > that often, as most of what you're discussing is well and truly over > my head. It's been really valuable trying to absorb some of what's > been discussed. Didn't just want to be a lurker out in cyber space > without introducing myself. Hope you don't mind me "lurking". Welcome! I take it from your introduction that you are an Aussie. There are quite a number of active Aussies on the list (Christine, KenH, Jon, etc.). If you are interested in Abhidhamma, you might want to download the scripted PowerPoint presentation from the files section, "Introduction to the Abhidhamma". If you are interested in a more general introduction to Buddhism, you might want to download Nina's "Buddhism in Daily Life" as an e-book from: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ I have found that it is introductory questions from ex-lurkers (you now no longer qualify as a lurker!) that raise some of the most interesting exchanges. There are probably some other lurkers out there who are wondering the same things you are. Please post a question or two! Metta, Rob M :-) 26013 From: Sarah Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 3:37am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: G'day! Hi Julie, --- "Julie, Steve and Kevin" wrote: > Thanks Rob, Christine and Nina for your tips and encouragement. Am in > the > process of reading Nina's "Buddhism in Daily Life" and finding it a bit > of a > strain on the old brain. Will probably ask some questions when I figure > out > what to ask! ..... ;-) Welcome from me as well. It may help if you print out the glossary in files and have it by your side when you read: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms Also, I think it may be more helpful to just read a few lines at a time and consider, rather than trying to read it like a novel. Of course Nina and all of us will be very happy if you ask for any clarifications - as the others said, you can be sure you’ll be doing other lurkers a big favour. Nothing is too simple here;-) In U.P. which Christine mentioned, if you scroll down to “New to the list...” and also “Abhidhamma for beginners”, you may find the posts helpful. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts .... >By the way Christine, I live in Melbourne. Have been > interested > in Buddhism for a while now but haven't really got into the nuts and > bolts > of it until this year. Can thank having two beautiful babies (3 and 1 > year > old) for giving me a wake up call. (And that includes the early morning > feeds!!!!) ..... Jon’s from Adelaide orginally and we were there (just 2 or 3 years) before coming to Hong Kong 20 years ago, though I try to distance myself from the Aussie mafia here;-) (Just kidding!). I’ve spent a bit of time sitting around at the Australian consulate here recently getting my Aussie passport renewed in time for our trip next week. I thought I’d cleared all the hurdles when they made a fuss about the photos I took on the run in a photomax booth - not enough head and too much neck & chest..... luckily in the DSG album we’re not so picky otherwise Larry’s extra arm would certainly have caused a few raised eyebrows.... Look forward to having you share more, Julie and a family pic in the album sometime would be very nice. (Christine and Kom can help with any techie probs). See Ya too, Metta, Sarah ====== 26014 From: Sarah Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 3:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Contemplation_on_sappaya_sampajañña_(clear_comprehension_of_suitability),_desire Hi Nori, Very nice to read your comments and quotes again and good to see all your well-considered comments. --- norakat147 wrote: > Hi all, > > My contemplation and realization on sappaya sampajañña (clear > comprehension of suitability), desire/craving and action: > > I have been contemplating whether or not to quit my job and leave NYC > since it causes me much stress and felt it not suitable. > > My aversion to my job and NYC very often leads me to desire/crave to > be elsewhere; preferably somewhere peaceful, warm, with a clear > ocean, open space and palm trees, void of the harsh personalities > that one often encounters here. > > Those cravings lead me to experience suffering. ..... It helps a lot when we can appreciate this even a little (i.e craving -> suffering). I also really hope that life and the physical circumstances work out as you wish or feel would be more conducive. No self of course, as RobK just wrote about. I'm not really writing posts now (!!). Hope others like Mike and RobK add more. Metta, Sarah p.s Look f/w to that pic....;-) ============================== 26015 From: Sarah Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 3:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Clonning, Antibiotic and Kamma Hi Javisens, I was also very glad to read your question and Christine’s reply with the link to RobK’s article. As Rob pointed out, genes may be identical, but consciousness and what we call ‘character’ can never be identical. Even for us now, two moments of consciousness are never exactly the same. The seeing consciousness now is not the same as the hearing consciousness or even the seeing consciousness of a few moments ago. I teach children and sometimes parents find it difficult to understand how their children can be so very different in character and ability and so on. From a Buddhist point of view, there’s no reason why they should be a alike or like the parents at all. I’ve taught many sets of twins, some identical, with very, very different inclinations and propensities. Anyway, I hope you respond further to Christine’s, RobK’s or other comments and look forward to more of your questions. Would you care to share a little about yourself such as where you live or your interest in these questions? There may be other considerations in taking antibiotics, but not the one you mention as Chris clarified, I think. Metta, Sarah p.s Newbies may wish to note that posts can also be seen and searched at this back up site: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ ================================================ --- javisens wrote: > Can someone explain how clonning of an animal will explain in terms > of kamma? 26016 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 4:02am Subject: According to the Buddha, there isn't such thing as luck! Dear James, Thankyou for the reply. So if the Buddha does not believe in luck, did the Buddha do things that are good and not bad? Why do people have to do good things to want good things to happen to themselves? Is this one of the teachings from the Buddha? Yes, I did know that King Tut is actually a boy king! Did you take any photos of his treasures? And what treasures did he have? Metta, Sandy 26017 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 5:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Jon: "As I said before, I think this is important to recognise. > First, > it shows that samatha does not depend on 'being concentrated', and > secondly it means there is a basis in one's daily life as it > already is for samatha to be further developed. > Any problem with this?" > > Hi Jon, > > No problem at all. Onward--> Well, I think we are there already ;-)). Let me try to summarise. The development of samatha begins now, at moments of samatha that occur naturally in our daily life. After all, it is the existing tendency for samatha that must be the foundation upon which samatha is further developed (given of course the other necessary supporting factors). There is no need to development concentration first. Kusala concentration will be developed as samatha itself is developed. To try to develop kusala concentration by focussing on one of the 'samatha' objects is really to mistake the result for the cause. At the very least, it could not bring about the same outcome as an understanding of the moments of samatha that occur naturally in daily life, at which times understanding of the level of samatha can see directly the exact nature of kusala, and how it is different in character from akusala. Any chance of agreement with this conclusion? Jon 26018 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 6:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Nina and Jon, > > Thanks for your answers concerning what kind of cittas have a > tranquility cetasika accompanying it. What I really wanted to know > is > what exactly is tranquility. Is it a kind of mental feeling? If so, > I'm > surprised it would be included with higher jhana cittas and path > and fruition cittas. I would think these cittas would be free of > feeling. Just to supplement Nina's comprehensive answer, are you perhaps trying to fit conventional ideas of tranquility and feeling into the Dhamma? As we know, terms are used in the teachings with very specific meanings and usually those meanings are quite different to the conventional ones. In the teachings, all mental factors (cetasikas) support and lend 'flavour' to consciousness (citta) in expereiencing the object of that moment. Thus tranquility as a cetasika has very little to do with the warm, fuzzy feeling we conventionally associate with tranquility. The tranquillity of kusala citta could arise alternately with akusala cittas accompanied with dosa such that the predominant 'feeling' was one of stress or anxiety. Jon 26019 From: sue Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 6:49am Subject: new member Dear BSG members I also have been 'lurking' like Julie. I have found the posts very helpful, but I have not previously posted because I do not know enough to contribute usefully. I do have a question but I am not sure if it is appropriate for this group. Non-violence or non-harm is very important in buddhism. I myself am vegetarian, and try to avoid harming any beings. What then is the view of self defence according to the Buddha's teachings? Metta Sue Saunders (England) 26020 From: abhidhammika Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 8:58am Subject: Re: The Verse On The Buddha's Last Lunch: Anaadara? To Nina, Derek ... Dear Nina, Derek and all How are you? Nina wrote and asked: "Taking again the sentence: bhutassa ca suukaramaddavena: The -ena ending is instrumentalis, not ablative. As I read in Warder, which does not give many details, ablative would rather give the cause, the reason of something. But Instrumentalis is more general, has more meanings, not so definite. What do you think? it can influence our translation." In the case of the verse on the Buddha's last lunch, we do not even need to think much about it. All we needed to do was to read carefully the Buddha's own request on his choice of lunch as described in Section 189 in the Mahaaparinibbana Suttam of Mahaavaggo in Diighanikaayo. Here is the Buddha's choice. "Evam, bhante"ti kho cundo kammaaraputto bhagavato pa.tissutvaa yam ahosi suukaramaddavam pa.tiyattam, tena bhagavantam parivisi. Section 190, Mahaaparinibbana Suttam, Mahaavaggo, Diighanikaayo "Cundo, the son of goldsmith, agreeing indeed with the Mighty One by replying "As you asked, Lord", fed the Mighty One with the tender pork cuisine which was prepared and cooked." Nina, please pay attention to the predicate "tena bhagavantam parivisi". The pronoun in the instrumental case ( tena ) refers to the terder pork cuisine (neuter noun in nominative case in the sense of being with, i.e, the instrumental case). We could break up the compound statement "yam --- ahosi --, tena --- parivisi" as follows. 1. There was the tender pork cuisine already prepared and cooked. 2. Cunda fed the Buddha with that. Therefore, the Buddha had eaten lunch WITH tender pork cuisine. Nina, please also pay attention to the Buddha's description of the event using the Anaadara (disrespect/ regardless of / despite / no comcern) syntax as follows. Atha kho bhagavato cundassa kammaaraputtassa bhattam bhuttaavissa kharo aabaadho uppajji, .. Section 190, Mahaaparinibbana Suttam, Mahaavaggo, Diighanikaayo "At that time, while (although) the Mighty One had eaten the food of Cunda, of the son of goldsmith, severe disorder did happen anyway, …" As you can spot in the Pali, by looking at the verbal adjectival predicate "bhuttaavissa", we can rewrite the term "bhagavato" as "bhagavassa" and know that the "-to" suffix in "bhagavato" indicates the noun in the genetive case. Therefore, we now know that the line "Bhuttassa ca suukaramaddavena" in the verse is merely a summary perfectly in line with the Buddha's own verbal statements on the event of his last lunch. By the above grammartical analyses of the Buddha's own statements in Section 189 and Section 190 of the Mahaaparinibbana Suttam, Mahaavaggo,in Diighanikaayo, we now know for sure that the tender pork cuisine was not the cause of the Buddha's diarrhoeaic blood loss. The Buddha had taken the tender pork cuisine for the sole purpose of preserving his physical strength. As I have been basing my reasoning and conclusions entirely on the grammartical analyses of Suttam statements and evidences, there is no longer any room left for some uninformed or careless readers to accuse Aacariya Buddhaghosa of creative commenting or inventing stories. Please view the following alternative translations of the line: "Bhuttassa ca suukaramaddavena" "While having eaten lunch with the tender pork cuisine" "Despite having eaten lunch with the tender pork cuisine" "Although having eaten lunch with the tender pork cuisine" The above translations are exact and literal by following the strict grammartical rule for Anaadara syntax with genetive case. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org ______________________________ Derek wrote: "The only way to maintain the orthodoxy would be to claim that Cunda's alms-giving *didn't* cause the death of the Buddha. Hence the commentators and the author of the Milindapanha taking pains to argue this point, and so maintain the consistency of the Buddhist worldview." ___________________________ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: Dear Suan, Thank you very much, I begin to understand. No concern is clearer, we should not take respect literally when it comes to grammar. Taking again the sentence: bhutassa ca suukaramaddavena: The -ena ending is instrumentalis, not ablative. As I read in Warder, which does not give many details, ablative would rather give the cause, the reason of something. But Instrumentalis is more general, has more meanings, not so definite. What do you think? it can influence our translation. Nina. op 09-10-2003 17:51 schreef abhidhammika op suanluzaw@b...: > Anaadara (a verb showing disrespect or no concern) is one of unique > or peculiar technical terms of the traditional Pali grammar texts. > 26021 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 9:25am Subject: Re: Bhara sutta Hi Robert and all, If you think that Theravada is simply a description of reality, then I would say that is a misunderstanding. First of all, I would say that Theravada is a school, sect, or tradition of Buddhism with Pali Canon as its scriptural foundation. Both Theravada Buddhism and the Buddha's teaching that is recorded in the Pali Canon are not simply a description of reality. To see the Buddha's teaching as simply a description of reality is a misunderstanding on what the Buddha's teaching is about. Reading Bhara Sutta did not cause doubt in me on the Buddha's teaching, one way or another. How would reading Bhara Sutta cause doubt in the Buddha's teaching? As I see it, there are at least two ways one could have doubt regarding the Buddha's teaching upon reading Bhara Sutta. First, if the Buddha's teaching in and of itself is incoherent, leads to the unwholesome and not to the wholesome, or not pertaining to dukkha and the cessation of dukkha, then one could have doubt upon reading Bhara Sutta. Secondly, if one misunderstood the Buddha's teaching, partially or fully, regarding what is not the Buddha's teaching as what the Buddha taught, then one could have doubt upon reading Bhara Sutta. Both views "there is self" and "there is no self" are not what the Buddha taught. Both views are to be abandoned. What belief in self or self-view to the extreme degree are you talking about? How would one use Bhara Sutta to try to support one's belief in self? Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear Christine, [snip] > I happen to think the Theravada is not at all a philosphical position > but simply a descrpition of reality. There is no self. AS the [snip] > > If one is still caught up in self view to the extreme degree of say > the puggalavadins - who used the Bhara sutta to try to support their > belief in self, then ignoring such ideas means that one will continue > on in the wrong direction. One may even say that they don't believe > in self but be so caught up in selfview that the suttas which use > conventional language cause doubt about anatta to arise. Such doubts > should be examined or seen as merely impersonal dhammas arising not > to a person but void of all self. > RobertK 26022 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:56am Subject: Egypt Diary: Ruined Country Hi All, In my English classes, we are studying The Tragedy of Macbeth. I had the students do a journal writing on the subject of `Do you know anyone who is obsessed with power and what are/were the consequences?' I got a response from one of my students that I found very revealing. I have tried to say in so many words in my updates that Egypt is a very screwed up country and I just keep getting the response that I am suffering from culture shock. Well, here are the words of a young adult who grew up in Egypt; it can't be culture shock this time: I know a person who is obsessed with power. I did not know him personally, but he is well known where I come from. Egypt. He is Gamal Abdel Nasser. He was president of Egypt from sometime in the sixties up until he got a heart attack and died in the early seventies. He was a terrible leader. His socialist ways of ruling the country drove it down the drain. He believed that all men and women should be equal in all levels and through all perspectives. He believed that no person could have the right to own anything. Everything was owned by the state. People did not have a say on anything. People could not protest. For you see, Gamal Abd-ed Nasser had undeniable Charisma; he had this definite presence. He was tall, handsome, well-built, and had this loud, strident, yet positive and very motivational voice. He'd go up on his stand, before all the people in the country, and shout out things like, "I am one of you," or "all people should be equal"…etc. Of course when 70 to 80% of the actual people living in Egypt were illiterate, what do you expect? They could not read nor write. They were poor, had no jobs, had no hope. He tried to make all people equal, but like all dictators before him, failed. He would take lands, factories, rest-houses, summer-houses, etc of people. He'd have police break into people's houses, take jewelry, any kind of finery, antiques, etc. Then they would all be owned by the state. By him. Rich people became poor. They worked hard for all of their belongings, then some illiterate fool comes in and takes them. What kind of democracy is that? People loved him. Egyptians loved him. And by Egyptians I mean the majority (i.e. the 70% I referred to before). But as for the intelligent, intellectual, educated people…No. They despised him. And guess what happens if anyone dares speak of it? They would mysteriously disappear. Where to? Prison. Never to be heard from again. I'll tell you of a true story. My mother (who is British) moved here to Cairo with her parents and siblings. My grandmother and grandfather got to know this other British couple. They became very good friends. One night that couple went to the movies. Before the film started, the husband made a comment about how he thought that Gamal Abd-el Nasser's system was "a bit too much." That night, at home, the police broke in his house and arrested him. He was thrown into a prison known as the `Citadell Prison.' Could he do anything about it? No. Could his wife do anything about it? No. They could not even prove it. She waited in hope for his return, but he never came. She went back to England and married there. His son and daughter never saw him again until they had children of their own. (After Gamal Abd-el Nasser died). Well, could anyone be trusted then? Could anyone actually say what they felt or thought about their country or its ruler? I know not! Waiters at restaurants, ushers at the movies, teachers at school, everyone seemed to be working as a spy for Gamal Abd-el Nasser. It was a terrible time. To try and show Arab countries that we are all one, with `Islam' in common, he'd send our soldiers, with our weapons, to any country that was in any kind of military trouble. For instance when Yemen was in war, he sent several of our soldiers, weapons, equipment, etc. This used to cost Egypt millions, and millions. Till today we cannot pay off our debts. It's all because of his foolish and selfish decisions. When Israel took over Sinai. He had this speech motivating people and inspiring them, unrealistically telling them "We are strong, we will go in and take Sinai, the west bank all of our land and that of our brothers the Palestinians.." Followed by claps, shouts, screams of happy, hyped-up and highly motivated people. He gives a charming, confident smile, cameras fade out! So many hundreds of thousands of people died during that war of 67. We lost our sons, our weapons, our equipment. But most of all, our dignity, pride, and confidence. Gamal Abd-el Nasser only believed in his way, his rules, his beliefs, and nothing else. He was selfish, and sought power in a very monstrous and savage way. Because of his obsession with power, people died, the country was ruined, the country is in debt, and we are still till this day, trying to fix what he so easily managed to break and ruin. Note from James: I have discussed this with other people and it does explain many of the dysfunctional things I have witnessed in Egypt. Because of Nasser's socialist system, everyone was guaranteed a job...now the work ethic in this country is terrible. I have never seen so many lazy workers! Because of the widespread spying and reporting to officials, the people here are distrustful and untrustworthy. Lying and two-faced behavior is commonplace. And there are also the infrastructure problems and the poverty. Hardly a thing works properly in this country. Honestly, I wasn't aware of all of this before deciding to move here. My 'contacts' in Cairo, Lucille and Mike, purposefully didn't tell me about any of this. They have since told me that they didn't want to be 'too negative'. Frankly, I consider that deception...but that is the Egyptian way. But I am here now; I will try to make the best of it. I guess I am part of the solution for Egypt. Maybe one day when I am old and Egypt is in better shape, I can be proud of the work I did here. 26023 From: Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Hi Jon, Yes! I do agree with everything you said. I would even go further and say, traditionally, sila is developed before concentration. One might ask, why develop concentration at all? How do you see this? Larry Jon: "The development of samatha begins now, at moments of samatha that occur naturally in our daily life. After all, it is the existing tendency for samatha that must be the foundation upon which samatha is further developed (given of course the other necessary supporting factors). There is no need to development concentration first. Kusala concentration will be developed as samatha itself is developed. To try to develop kusala concentration by focussing on one of the 'samatha' objects is really to mistake the result for the cause. At the very least, it could not bring about the same outcome as an understanding of the moments of samatha that occur naturally in daily life, at which times understanding of the level of samatha can see directly the exact nature of kusala, and how it is different in character from akusala. Any chance of agreement with this conclusion?" 26024 From: Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Jon: "Thus tranquility as a cetasika has very little to do with the warm, fuzzy feeling we conventionally associate with tranquility." Hi Jon, What then is the experience of tranquility? Larry 26025 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:33pm Subject: Re: new member Hello Sue, and all, Welcome to dsg, I'm glad you de-lurked to ask this question. :-) I understand how you feel - when you first start on this list it is hard enough just to read the posts. I assure you it gets easier with practise. Just skip anything that is too difficult, has too much Pali or isn't yet of interest. New people ask the most interesting questions - like yours on self- defense. If one values non-harming, then I'm sure other questions on suicide, war, euthanasia, abortion, economic ethics, treatment of nature etc will also arise over time. But there is no 'cut and dried' answer. The living of life is more complicated than the writing of a post or article. :-) My understanding is that Buddhism doesn't have just one overarching unchangeable law against harming other beings with the same consequence for all offenses. The intensity of the offense or crime, as under serious provocation or in self-defense, may be judged differently. If you have a strong interest in ethics - you may be like to read "An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics" by Peter Harvey. (I think he is still a Prof. at Sunderland University in Buddhist Studies). I give an exerpt here on the first precept: non-injury (p.69) ... "Taking the first precept rules out the intentional killing of any living being, human or otherwise. The spirit of this precept is expressed thus: "Laying aside violence in respect of all beings, both those which are still and those which move ... he should not kill a living creature, nor cause to kill, nor approve of others killing. (Sn. 394) "Abandoning onslaught on breathing beings, he abstains from this; without stick or sword, scrupulous, compassionate, trembling for the welfare of all living beings. (M.1.345; cf. D.1.4.) Injuring but not killing a being is clearly against the spirit of the precept, but does not fully break it .....and likewise death accidentally resulting from an attack does not break it. (Uss. 171) The object of this precept is not limited to humans, as all sentient beings share in the same cycle of rebirths and in the experience of various types of suffering. It is, however, worse to kill or injure a human than an animal, or a larger or more hightly developed animal than a lesser one." The Precepts are training rules - in real life when faced with an immediate violent situation, there is no time to think. You will react immediately and do whatever it is that you will do. All behaviour comes from previous conditions. I guess previous reflection on and a way of life that places importance on the concept of ahimsaa (non-harming) will affect your immediate reaction. But no-one can tell in advance how they will react. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sue wrote: > Dear BSG members > > I also have been 'lurking' like Julie. I have found the posts very helpful, but I have not previously posted because I do not know enough to contribute usefully. > > I do have a question but I am not sure if it is appropriate for this group. Non-violence or non-harm is very important in buddhism. I myself am vegetarian, and try to avoid harming any beings. What then is the view of self defence according to the Buddha's teachings? > > Metta > > Sue Saunders (England) 26026 From: robmoult Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:34pm Subject: Re: new member Hi Sue, Welcome! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sue wrote: Non-violence or non-harm is very important in buddhism. I myself am vegetarian, and try to avoid harming any beings. What then is the view of self defence according to the Buddha's teachings? Excellent question! Modern society measures quality of actions predominantly by the impact they have on our surroundings. In Buddhism, we focus on the effect of actions on ourselves (agents of actions). All things start with the mind and it is the quality of the mind at the instant that determines the ethical value of the action: - If the mind is one of attachment or greed, this is unwholesome - If the mind is one of aversion or hatred, this is unwholesome - If the mind is one of delusion, this is unwholesome - If the mind is one of generosity, this is wholesome - If the mind is one of loving-kindness, this is wholesome - If the mind is one of wisdom, this is wholesome "Unwholesome" means that it creates bad kamma; it creates a condition for the arising of something bad for oneself in the future. "Wholesome" means that it creates good kamma; it creates a condition for the arising of something good for oneself in the future. Buddhists have five rules of training (precepts): 1. To avoid killing 2. To avoid stealing 3. To avoid sexual misconduct 4. To avoid lying 5. To avoid intoxicants (drugs and alcohol) Let us consider the first precept in more detail. In order for "killing to occur", the following five conditions must be met: 1. A living being 2. Knowledge that there is a living being 3. Desire to kill 4. Effort to kill 5. Death of a being You have asked about self defence. What is the state of a person practicing self defence?: - If you are practicing judo or karate as a sport of "self defence", this is not necessarily done with an unwholesome mind. - If you are returning fire when somebody is shooting at you, then it is probably done with an unwholesome state of mind and may even meet all the requirements for "killing". - If you accidentially kill somebody because you have raised your hand to defend yourself when somebody attacks you, this is probably done with an unwholsome state of mind, but may not meet the requirements of "killing". Hope that this helps. Please ask for clarifications and/or ask more questions. I am sure that there are more lurkers out there with similar questions. Metta, Rob M :-) 26028 From: robmoult Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 3:08pm Subject: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Hi Howard (and Sarah); --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > As far as I'm concerned, a rupa that is pleasant, unpleasant, or > neutral is, of necessity, an experienced rupa. Any other rupa is unknown, and the > notion of its having an affective flavor is meaningless. It is not yet an > actuality. As I see it, a group of phenomenal conditions that serve as conditions > for the arising of a rupa, when not yet all in place, can be thought of as "the > potential" for that rupa. Until they have all arisen, the rupa, as an > experienced phenomenon does not yet exist - is not yet an actuality, but only a > growing potential. When all the conditions are in place, the rupa, including its > affective characteristic, arises as an actuality. > Now, of course, one can take two positions that, on the face of it, > are contradictory, but are possibly only two alternative ways of decribing the > same set of circumstances. One of these is that the full set of conditioning > phenomena have arisen, and thus the pleasant/unpleasant/neutral rupa determined > arises. The other is that with the arising of the full set of conditions, two > separate phenomena arise, one the rupa, and the other the feeling associated > with the experiencing of that rupa. Thus, one view says the set of conditions > determines the rupa, and the rupa determines the feeling. The other view says > the set of conditions determines the rupa, and the set of conditions also, > separately, determines the associated feeling. These are very close, and possibly > equivalent. What are *not* equivalent, however, are the views that a rupa, a > hardness, say, experienced, at one time (or by one being) is "the same" as a > hardness experienced at another time (or by another being). These are different > rupas, because rupas that are actualities, and just potentialities, are > experienced phenomena, not something independent of experience. Namarupa and > vi~n~nana are mutually dependent (as object and subject). I find the second > interpretation of a rupa having an affective character determinbed by that rupa as the > better view, because it identifies a rupa as a phenomenal reality rather than > as something independent of awareness. ===== Howard, you started this very interesting paragraph with the sentence, "As far as I'm concerned, a rupa that is pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral is, of necessity, an experienced rupa." Pleasant / unpleasant / neutral is, of course, the ways of classifying the cetasika "feeling". Rupa is classified using a different system: undesireable (anittha), moderately desireable (ittha) and extremely desireable (ati-ittha). "Desireableness" is an inherent quality of a rupa, independent of an observer: - It is the "desireableness" of the rupa that determines which sense door consciousness citta arises after the five sense adverting consciousness. An undesireable rupa is a condition for an akusala vipaka citta (citta 13-17). A desireable or extremely desireable rupa is a condition for an kusala vipaka citta (citta 20-24). - It is the "desireableness" of the rupa that determines which receiving citta arises after the sense door consciousness. An undesireable rupa is a condition for an akusala vipaka citta (citta 18). A desireable or extremely desireable rupa is a condition for an kusala vipaka citta (citta 25). - It is the "desireableness" of the rupa that determines which investigating citta arises after the receiving citta. An undesireable rupa is a condition for an akusala vipaka citta (citta 19). A desireable rupa is a condition for an kusala vipaka citta (citta 27). An extremely desireable rupa is a condition for an kusala vipaka citta (citta 26). - It is the "desireableness" of the rupa that determines which registration cittas arise after the javana cittas. An undesireable rupa is a condition for an akusala vipaka citta (citta 19). A desireable rupa is a condition for an kusala vipaka citta (citta 27). An extremely desireable rupa is a condition for an kusala vipaka citta (citta 39-46). When the "desireableness" characteristic of the rupa and the feeling of the citta which experiences this rupa do not match, this is a perversion of perception (sannavipallasa). In the section of the Sammohavinodani that you so ruthlessly :-) cut out of my earlier message, Buddhaghosa gave the example of Nibbana. Nibbana is inherently "extremely desireable". If one has an aversion towards Nibbana, then this is a perversion of perception (sannavipallasa). If this seems obvious for this one type of object (Nibbana), should it not hold true for other types of objects (even if we are unable to perceive the inherent characterisitics)? > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > As I view it, a pleasant taste from the eating of peacock flesh (or of > pig dung) is a different rupa than an unpleasant taste fromthe eating of > peacock flesh (or of pig dung), whether this involves the same being under > differnt circumstances or different beings. There is no independent, self-existent > taste of peacock flesh (or pig dung). > ------------------------------------------------------ Certainly, the flavour of the citta (pun intended: feeling / vedana, is sometimes called the flavour of the citta), of having a pleasant taste and having an unpleasant taste are quite different. However, because the flavour of pig dung and peacock flesh are inherently "undesireable", having a pleasant feeling when tasting is a perversion of perception (sannavipallasa). Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) 26029 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 3:32pm Subject: Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Hi James, Thanks for your reply. --------------- J: > You will have to forgive me if I don't completely know your position on matters. When you use a lot of Pali in your posts, without definitions, I will skip the post. --------------- That's understandable; especially if someone is not completely enamoured by dsg. I like to read every word of every post. If it's not about what the Buddha taught, then I don't try too hard to follow it. If it is Dhamma but too technical for me, then I understand as best I can without expecting to remember much. That way, it's always a pleasure, never a burden. --------------- J;> I don't speak Pali and have no desire to learn it; ---------------- For the time being, I'll be content if I can identify absolute realities by their Pali names. Then it will be easier to distinguish things that are real (paramattha dhammas), from things that only seem to be real, concepts. --------------- J: > I think you have the wrong idea of what the Buddha was like. He wasn't like some kind of guru on the mountain top who people visited to get life's answers. When people traveled to see him they did it for predominately two reasons: to join his Sangha or to venerate him; not to discuss philosophy or dhamma with him. ------------ Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. No doubt, most people learned Dhamma from the Buddha's disciples and formed their own Dhamma-study-groups. But a Buddha is a teacher; not a ruler and not an idol. ------------- J: > He didn't participate in colloquy. Granted, his lay visitors may ask a question or two, and he would give an answer or two, but anything more than that and they would have to ordain to get the answers. ------------- Here, you are very mistaken. For some, joining the order was appropriate; for others, it was inappropriate. But the full teaching was available to all -- as much as they could take. Many noble (ariyan) learners were laymen and many uninstructed fools were monks. ------------- J: > Then he would teach that person the PRACTICE of knowing the difference between sitting and sitting with mindfulness; standing and standing with mindfulness; lying and lying with mindfulness, etc. Words and philosophy of dhamma mean nothing without the practice. ---------------- Any 'Buddhist practice' accompanied by the notion of a self who can practise, is a contradiction in terms. The Middle Way is followed by wisdom (panna), not by the illusion of self (atta-sanna). I know you'll disagree, but it's only when we learn about paramattha dhammas that we begin to see a practice that is without self (anatta). We also realise there can never be a practice that is with self. There can be a practice -- a wrong practice -- with the illusion of self (atta-sanna), but in nothing is there ever a self. ----------------- J: > You know, the problem with you is that you think you need too many things explained. [......] All the explanation in the world isn't going to make you understand. You have to understand on your own, through your own efforts. That is what the Buddha taught. --------------- (In other words, "What the Buddha explained.") What you have said is true as far as it goes but, in between, you added the following: ----------------- J: > To understand, you just need to do it…start paying attention to your body. Granted, you aren't going to do it perfectly to begin with, you will have to monitor and adjust your technique as you go along; and there will be times when you will get tired, or restless, or have doubts (the hindrances), but you just need to keep doing it. Then you will understand…and only then. ------------------ Thanks for that advice which, I realise, is important to you. But is there any record of the Buddha's having taught it? It sounds a bit like jhana meditation [which is appropriate for some], but even so, if it is something that can be controlled -- something independent of conditions (paramattha dhammas) -- then it is definitely not what the Buddha taught. Kind regards, Ken H 26030 From: Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 11:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Hi, Rob - The following comments are in response to a couple points you make in the post of yours I copy at the end. A rupa that is desirable is one which is pleasant. Desire is a (worldling's) reaction to feeling. An arahant will not react with desire (or aversion). It is *feeling* that is determined by a rupa, not desire. Desire for what is pleasant will arise in the presence of defilements, but it is not inherent in the rupa. When a rupa of a sort that is normally pleasant is, instead, unpleasant, it is a rupa perverted by defilements - for example, intense bodily trauma felt as a pleasant phenomenon instead of as pain is a rupa perverted by defilements, perverted because it is not the norm and because it is not useful biologically (in terms of survival value). The pleasant rupa experienced by a masochist when slapped hard in the face is not the same sort of rupa you or I experience when so slapped. The intense stinging due to a slap in the face of a masochist *is* a pleasant, and hence desirable, rupa. Those who are not masochists do not experience such rupas. The stinging sensations they experience are unpleasant ones. Each rupa brings with it an affective flavor which is a characteristic of that rupa, and differences in that characterisic constitute part of what makes the rupas different. This is my take on the matter. With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/11/03 6:08:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Howard (and Sarah); > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > As far as I'm concerned, a rupa that is pleasant, > unpleasant, or > >neutral is, of necessity, an experienced rupa. Any other rupa is > unknown, and the > >notion of its having an affective flavor is meaningless. It is not > yet an > >actuality. As I see it, a group of phenomenal conditions that > serve as conditions > >for the arising of a rupa, when not yet all in place, can be > thought of as "the > >potential" for that rupa. Until they have all arisen, the rupa, as > an > >experienced phenomenon does not yet exist - is not yet an > actuality, but only a > >growing potential. When all the conditions are in place, the rupa, > including its > >affective characteristic, arises as an actuality. > > Now, of course, one can take two positions that, on the > face of it, > >are contradictory, but are possibly only two alternative ways of > decribing the > >same set of circumstances. One of these is that the full set of > conditioning > >phenomena have arisen, and thus the pleasant/unpleasant/neutral > rupa determined > >arises. The other is that with the arising of the full set of > conditions, two > >separate phenomena arise, one the rupa, and the other the feeling > associated > >with the experiencing of that rupa. Thus, one view says the set of > conditions > >determines the rupa, and the rupa determines the feeling. The > other view says > >the set of conditions determines the rupa, and the set of > conditions also, > >separately, determines the associated feeling. These are very > close, and possibly > >equivalent. What are *not* equivalent, however, are the views that > a rupa, a > >hardness, say, experienced, at one time (or by one being) is "the > same" as a > >hardness experienced at another time (or by another being). These > are different > >rupas, because rupas that are actualities, and just > potentialities, are > >experienced phenomena, not something independent of experience. > Namarupa and > >vi~n~nana are mutually dependent (as object and subject). I find > the second > >interpretation of a rupa having an affective character determinbed > by that rupa as the > >better view, because it identifies a rupa as a phenomenal reality > rather than > >as something independent of awareness. > > ===== > > Howard, you started this very interesting paragraph with the > sentence, "As far as I'm concerned, a rupa that is pleasant, > unpleasant, or neutral is, of necessity, an experienced rupa." > > Pleasant / unpleasant / neutral is, of course, the ways of > classifying the cetasika "feeling". > > Rupa is classified using a different system: undesireable (anittha), > moderately desireable (ittha) and extremely desireable (ati-ittha). > > "Desireableness" is an inherent quality of a rupa, independent of an > observer: > - It is the "desireableness" of the rupa that determines which sense > door consciousness citta arises after the five sense adverting > consciousness. An undesireable rupa is a condition for an akusala > vipaka citta (citta 13-17). A desireable or extremely desireable > rupa is a condition for an kusala vipaka citta (citta 20-24). > - It is the "desireableness" of the rupa that determines which > receiving citta arises after the sense door consciousness. An > undesireable rupa is a condition for an akusala vipaka citta (citta > 18). A desireable or extremely desireable rupa is a condition for an > kusala vipaka citta (citta 25). > - It is the "desireableness" of the rupa that determines which > investigating citta arises after the receiving citta. An > undesireable rupa is a condition for an akusala vipaka citta (citta > 19). A desireable rupa is a condition for an kusala vipaka citta > (citta 27). An extremely desireable rupa is a condition for an > kusala vipaka citta (citta 26). > - It is the "desireableness" of the rupa that determines which > registration cittas arise after the javana cittas. An undesireable > rupa is a condition for an akusala vipaka citta (citta 19). A > desireable rupa is a condition for an kusala vipaka citta (citta > 27). An extremely desireable rupa is a condition for an kusala > vipaka citta (citta 39-46). > > When the "desireableness" characteristic of the rupa and the feeling > of the citta which experiences this rupa do not match, this is a > perversion of perception (sannavipallasa). > > In the section of the Sammohavinodani that you so ruthlessly :-) cut > out of my earlier message, Buddhaghosa gave the example of Nibbana. > Nibbana is inherently "extremely desireable". If one has an aversion > towards Nibbana, then this is a perversion of perception > (sannavipallasa). If this seems obvious for this one type of object > (Nibbana), should it not hold true for other types of objects (even > if we are unable to perceive the inherent characterisitics)? > > >--------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > As I view it, a pleasant taste from the eating of peacock > flesh (or of > >pig dung) is a different rupa than an unpleasant taste fromthe > eating of > >peacock flesh (or of pig dung), whether this involves the same > being under > >differnt circumstances or different beings. There is no > independent, self-existent > >taste of peacock flesh (or pig dung). > >------------------------------------------------------ > > Certainly, the flavour of the citta (pun intended: feeling / vedana, > is sometimes called the flavour of the citta), of having a pleasant > taste and having an unpleasant taste are quite different. However, > because the flavour of pig dung and peacock flesh are > inherently "undesireable", having a pleasant feeling when tasting is > a perversion of perception (sannavipallasa). > > Comments? > > 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) 26031 From: robmoult Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 4:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > A rupa that is desirable is one which is pleasant. ===== Rob: I disagree. A given rupa is inherently desireable (ittha). If the citta which experiences this given rupa is accompanied by a pleasant mental feeling, then there is alignment and there is no perversion of perception. If the citta which experiences this given rupa is accompanied by an unpleasant mental feeling, then this is a case of a perversion of perception. ===== > Desire is a > (worldling's) reaction to feeling. An arahant will not react with desire (or > aversion). ===== Rob: An arahant will have no perversion of perception. When a rupa that is inherently disireable is presented to an Arahant, the flavour (vedana) accompanying the citta will always be pleasant. Unlike the worldling, the Arahant will not have craving or clinging to this pleasant feeling. ===== > It is *feeling* that is determined by a rupa, not desire. Desire for what > is pleasant will arise in the presence of defilements, but it is not inherent > in the rupa. ===== Rob: Feeling is only determined by rupa when there is no perversion of perception, desire is attachment to feeling. What is inherent in the rupa is desireableness ("ittha"). Perhaps the translation of the noun ittha as "desireable" causes you to associate it with the verb "desire" (lobha, tanha, etc.) ===== > When a rupa of a sort that is normally pleasant is, instead, > unpleasant, it is a rupa perverted by defilements ===== Rob: Rupa does not get perverted. Perversion of perception is a state of misalignment between the inherent quality of the rupa and flavour of the citta. ===== > for example, intense bodily > trauma felt as a pleasant phenomenon instead of as pain is a rupa perverted by > defilements, perverted because it is not the norm and because it is not useful > biologically (in terms of survival value). The pleasant rupa experienced by a > masochist when slapped hard in the face is not the same sort of rupa you or I > experience when so slapped. The intense stinging due to a slap in the face of > a masochist *is* a pleasant, and hence desirable, rupa. ===== Rob: When a masochist experiences pleasure when being slapped, this is an example of perverion of perception. Being slapped is inherently undesireable (anittha); when the masochist experiences pleasant mental feeling, this is a perversion of perception. ===== > Those who are not > masochists do not experience such rupas. The stinging sensations they experience > are unpleasant ones. Each rupa brings with it an affective flavor which is a > characteristic of that rupa, and differences in that characterisic constitute > part of what makes the rupas different. This is my take on the matter. ===== Metta, Rob M :-) 26032 From: bodhi2500 Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 4:53pm Subject: Re: Steve- khandhas, upadaanakkhandhas & B.Bodhi's comments Thanks Sarah. May Bhikkhu Bodhi gain some relief from his headaches.. May you all have a wonderful,fruitful time in Myanmar.. May all beings be happy.. :0) Mettaya Steve 26033 From: sue Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 4:35pm Subject: re: new member Dear Rob and Christine Thank you so much for answering my question in so much detail. Your answers indicate that self defence is ok provided you do not have the intention to kill and, presumably, try very hard to inflict as little damage as possible. Under English law self defence would include defending another person from harm, but would not include defending an animal. However, I believe that all beings are valuable and would certainly want to defend any animal under threat. Sometimes such a situation might involve breaking the law e.g. deliberately releasing an animal from a trapping cage knowing that the (human) trappers were planning to kill the animal (legally). I would want to follow my 'heart' and release it anyway regardless of consequences to myself. Do you have any thoughts on this. Metta Sue 26034 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 6:04pm Subject: Re: new member Hello Sue, and all, I think sometimes our motives and intentions are much more complex than we realise. For example, it is possible that there is no compassion for the animal in the trap, that we only think we are feeling this. It is possible there is pity (not a wholesome emotion in Buddhism) anger (I've learned very slowly that righteous anger is unwholesome in Buddhism) conceit (thinking one is a much kinder and a more ethical person than the hunter) aversion ( to seeing something harmed - not wholesome) and anxiety/fear (not wholesome). The hunter is what he is because of everything that has gone before (in this life and before) - he is creating new vipaka by his actions. The animal is what and where he is because of past conditions (in this life and before). And you are what and where you are because of past conditions. Complicated, isn't it? Personally, if I saw an animal suffering in a trap and I had the ability to release it, I believe I would do so (probably feeling a mixture of everything above). I'm not sure if that is specifically Buddhist. I believe that whatever presents itself to our sense doors, that should be dealt with ethically and compassionately. One thing I am slowly learning on dsg is that the present moment is all there is. When looked at in the light of the Teachings of anatta (no self/soul) and kamma (actions produce inevitable consequences) it becomes clear that by attaching stories to the momentary arisings, together with our emotional reactions and perceptions, we create more consequences in the future. But still, even if one understands anatta (which I only get an occasional glimmer of - that in reality there is no person, no animal, no hunter, no trap) - how are we to live? I think still with kindness, justice, compassion and ethics. metta and peace, Christine p.s. My Great Dane Cross says g'day to your whippets. :-0 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sue wrote: > Dear Rob and Christine > > Thank you so much for answering my question in so much detail. > > Your answers indicate that self defence is ok provided you do not have the intention to kill and, presumably, try very hard to inflict as little damage as possible. > > Under English law self defence would include defending another person from harm, but would not include defending an animal. However, I believe that all beings are valuable and would certainly want to defend any animal under threat. Sometimes such a situation might involve breaking the law e.g. deliberately releasing an animal from a trapping cage knowing that the (human) trappers were planning to kill the animal (legally). > > I would want to follow my 'heart' and release it anyway regardless of consequences to myself. Do you have any thoughts on this. > > Metta > > Sue 26035 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:02pm Subject: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Very good Rob, One can see this forum is worthwhile when someone comes to see through a past wrongview. This understanding helps to distinguish more between nama and rupa and will support direct insight into the difference. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: >> > Howard, you started this very interesting paragraph with the > sentence, "As far as I'm concerned, a rupa that is pleasant, > unpleasant, or neutral is, of necessity, an experienced rupa." > > Pleasant / unpleasant / neutral is, of course, the ways of > classifying the cetasika "feeling". > > Rupa is classified using a different system: undesireable (anittha), > moderately desireable (ittha) and extremely desireable (ati-ittha). > > "Desireableness" is an inherent quality of a rupa, independent of an > observer: > - It is the "desireableness" of the rupa that determines which sense > door consciousness citta arises after the five sense adverting > consciousness. An undesireable rupa is a condition for an akusala > vipaka citta (citta 13-17). A desireable or extremely desireable > rupa is a condition for an kusala vipaka citta (citta 20-24). > - It is the "desireableness" of the rupa that determines which > receiving citta arises after the sense door consciousness. An > undesireable rupa is a condition for an akusala vipaka citta (citta > 18). A desireable or extremely desireable rupa is a condition for an > kusala vipaka citta (citta 25). > - It is the "desireableness" of the rupa that determines which > investigating citta arises after the receiving citta. An > undesireable rupa is a condition for an akusala vipaka citta (citta > 19). A desireable rupa is a condition for an kusala vipaka citta > (citta 27). An extremely desireable rupa is a condition for an > kusala vipaka citta (citta 26). > - It is the "desireableness" of the rupa that determines which > registration cittas arise after the javana cittas. An undesireable > rupa is a condition for an akusala vipaka citta (citta 19). A > desireable rupa is a condition for an kusala vipaka citta (citta > 27). An extremely desireable rupa is a condition for an kusala > vipaka citta (citta 39-46). > > When the "desireableness" characteristic of the rupa and the feeling > of the citta which experiences this rupa do not match, this is a > perversion of perception (sannavipallasa). > > In the section of the Sammohavinodani that you so ruthlessly :-) cut > out of my earlier message, Buddhaghosa gave the example of Nibbana. > Nibbana is inherently "extremely desireable". If one has an aversion > towards Nibbana, then this is a perversion of perception > (sannavipallasa). If this seems obvious for this one type of object > (Nibbana), should it not hold true for other types of objects (even > if we are unable to perceive the inherent characterisitics)? > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > As I view it, a pleasant taste from the eating of peacock > flesh (or of > > pig dung) is a different rupa than an unpleasant taste fromthe > eating of > > peacock flesh (or of pig dung), whether this involves the same > being under > > differnt circumstances or different beings. There is no > independent, self-existent > > taste of peacock flesh (or pig dung). > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Certainly, the flavour of the citta (pun intended: feeling / vedana, > is sometimes called the flavour of the citta), of having a pleasant > taste and having an unpleasant taste are quite different. However, > because the flavour of pig dung and peacock flesh are > inherently "undesireable", having a pleasant feeling when tasting is > a perversion of perception (sannavipallasa). > > Comments? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 26036 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Larry, > Sukin: "Are you saying that the rise and fall of khandhas is equivalent > to a person rising and falling?" Larry: > I would say there is rise and fall of a person and also continuity of a > person. I think we need to be careful here. Either there is something which continues or there isn't. As you know we are talking about ultimate realities which can be experienced by sati and panna. I think, it is fair to accept `person' as a conventional reality, but then one must also know that this `person' cannot be experience through any doorway except by means of thinking. And thinking is ultimately sanna, vitakka and vichara performing their functions and these can be known one by one by panna, whereas `person' can only be object of citta. I don't see any problem accepting simultaneously both conventional and ultimate reality. But I think it is very important to know that one is real and the other is not and to be clear- cut about it. To keep at the back of the mind, the possibility of a person `in', `apart' or `of' the khandhas, is dangerous. > I was thinking of the dependent arising formula. At the stage of > birth enough khandhas have come together in a particular way to form a > person. A person grows old, gets sick, and dies. Then another person > continuity arises with the whole baggage of the previous person continuity. I find the use of concept of birth, old age, sickness and death of conventional `person' quite OK in normal everyday use and also perhaps when trying to describe Buddhist concepts to the uninitiated. But I think when trying to understand the core of the Buddha's message, this should be seen as just conventional expressions of what takes place unrevealed to ignorance, at the ultimate level. The dependent arising, as it is being so hard to grasp, I think it best to view it in terms of causes and conditions involving ultimate realities. Otherwise it can I fear, crystallize into some implicit belief in something lasting and moving from one life to another. I think especially, in light of the fact that the level that we understand Buddha's teachings in this life is held mostly by the sanna of what has been heard and read. With this gone and rebirth as a new being (conventionally speaking ;-)) takes place, what is left is the accumulated ignorance/understanding, and absolutely *no* memory of what has been heard in this lifetime. So it is imperative that we get it right, not in the future, but NOW! But I guess this is what each one of us is trying to do through the discussions here on DSG. ;-) > The same goes for groups of people but there isn't > necessarily a continuity between the dissolution of one group and the > arising of another. OK, if we see that this person, is in a way no more real than `groups of people' and `government', and that all that really exists, is just the khandhas, then I guess there is little problem. But if governments are seen to be real and one really believes in their arising, then little can be expected that a person will be accepted only as a convention. Larry, I understand that you compare only to illustrate the meaning of arising of `compounds' in response to my original question, that surely you don't believe that `governments' have any objective reality. However, I believe that being as yet so weak in understanding, wrong comparisons can lead to more doubt. And this may be what is behind the comparison with Karma, as you state below. ( I am just speculating, trying to find a solution, hope you don't mind my being presumptive…?! Or maybe I am even creating a situation in order that my own views have better effect :- /) > But this kamma stuff is just conceptual. No one sees > it arising from seed to fruition, one life to another. Right? I think the wonderful thing about Abhidhamma, is that it makes clear the distinction between kamma and vipakka. To me it makes perfect sense that kamma result is just these experience through the five senses, whereas the rest is new kamma (pattha or not). So the concept of kamma, though never experienced directly in terms of one cause producing particular results, is one that I feel very comfortable and at home with. In fact, I find it less of a problem than many of the conventional concepts used to describe experiences in every day life! Vipakka is experienced directly all the time. And kamma being precisely, intention, can be experienced, with the exception of feeling, as more real than any of the concepts you state below. > It's all about what you can see arising and falling. You can see a > feeling arising, a person arising, a building arising, an argument > arising, and a government arising. An argument arising and falling!:-) Metta, Sukin. 26037 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:25pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Victor, > I would say that the Buddha's teaching is not about what concept is > and what reality is, it is not about seeing the dichotomy between > these two. Discussions along those lines of inquiry can be > fascinating; nevertheless, those discussion are irrelevant to the > Buddha's teaching. I think that we can never feel a hundred percent sure what the Buddha really meant. But we do try our best and the important thing is that we do discuss. No discussion, especially those here on DSG are two dimensional, we are always reminded about what really matters, which is the practice of Satipatthana. So sometimes it may seem that a discussion thread is dwelling in mere argument about `concept vs. reality, but I believe that everyone involved knows that the practice is the important part. And though you may not find the Buddha arguing about this (and I don't know for sure), it may be due to the fact of the difference between the panna of the people then and now. Those people I believe *did* have the panna to know their experiences from moment to moment, only they associated all that with a `soul' or `aatman'. Their ability to discern kusala from akusala was already very highly developed. It is for this same reason that I think we all need the Abhidhamma to guide us. I am impressed with people like you, who manage to get so much from the Sutta alone while rejecting the Abhidhamma. I would not have had half the understanding were I to do the same. However with the help of Abhidhamma, I have gradually come to see much limitation even in those people's understanding whom I once admired greatly, including well known Bhikkhus. In the study of Abhidhamma, one comes to realize that every experience can be identified as one ultimate reality or the other performing its function. So Victor, no matter how fascinated one may feel while discussing realities and concepts, even this `fascination' can be identified and known. And this is the practice which everyone on DSG gives top priority. ;-) And as far as relevance to the Buddha's teachings is concerned, I think it is up to each to decide what needs to be clarified and from which perspective one then reads even the Suttas. And here I think, without knowing about the difference between concept and reality, it is an almost impossible task to get the Buddha's teachings right. > Regarding mindfulness, I would refer to the discourses > > Anapanasati Sutta > Mindfulness of Breathing > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn118.html > > Kayagata-sati Sutta > Mindfulness Immersed in the Body > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn119.html > > and > > Satipatthana Sutta > Frames of Reference > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html > > Regarding causal relations in the context of what the Buddha taught, > I would refer to the discourses in > > Nidana Vagga (samyuttas XII-XXI) > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/index.html#Nidana My hard drive conked out since Thursday and I have quite a few posts to catch up, so I didn't bother to read your references. But I did randomly pick out one from the last link, the Kosambi Sutta. This is one small part of it, "Then Ven. Pavittha said to Ven. Musila, "Musila, my friend, putting aside conviction, putting aside preference, putting aside tradition, putting aside reasoning through analogies, putting aside an agreement through pondering views: Do you have truly personal knowledge that, 'From birth as a requisite condition come aging & death'?" All this sounds perfect and I believe in applying the understanding to all situations no matter what. And there is indeed a temptation to consciously *try* to `put aside' conviction, preference, tradition etc. But it would be a mistake to think that this can be done in terms of a `self' trying to do it. It is the function of panna of the appropriate level, which can do it. And this panna must be so keen as to recognize that indeed this is what is going on from moment to moment. Here is one example in my opinion, of where without the Abhidhamma, one might be drawn to wrong practice. I was reflecting yesterday, about how outsiders especially those of other religions, who try to find common ground between religions and conclude that it essence all of them are the same. That with a `self' who is trying to be good or to understand, there is inevitably a `residue' of wrong view accumulated in the consciousness, no matter how well intentioned the person is. And this residue accumulates and can lead the person to all sorts of akusala deeds when conditions allow. And this can happen to Buddhists as much as anyone else. I think therefore that it is very important to view experiences as ultimate realities performing their functions and not be fooled by the appearance of people and things. But I know you are not convinced, and I just keep writing. ;-) Metta, Sukin. 26038 From: Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Steve- khandhas, upadaanakkhandhas & B.Bodhi's comments B. Bodhi: "I then turned to the Dhammasangani enumeration of 'saasava dhammas' and 'anaasava dhammas', and 'upaadaaniya dhammas' and 'na upaadaaniya dhammas'. I found that Dhs classifies the arahant's ordinary cittas and cetasikas under 'saasava' and 'upaadaaniya'. The only khandhas considered 'anaasava' and 'na upaadaaniya' are the mental khandhas (cittas and cetasikas) of the four maggas and phalas. All rupas are tainted and subject to clinging." Hi all, Tilmann Vetter, in his book "The 'Khandha Passages' in the Vinayapitaka and the four main Nikayas" translates upadana as "appropriation". I take this to mean appropriation as me or mine. If so, this makes "self view" an important link in the dependent arising formula. This also makes sense in terms of the above. All of the khandhas are subject to appropriation as me or mine except for the Path and Fruition cittas and cetasikas. Thus, they are upadana khandha. Rupa is tainted because it is subject to being appropriated. Larry 26039 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 8:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Larry, I just realized that I misunderstood your meaning. I think that by the statement below, Larry: > I would say there is rise and fall of a person and also continuity of a person. What you meant was to the effect, that cittas rise and fall, but each citta passes on to the next citta all the accumulated past. So though citta rises and falls,the stream continues. Sorry for the mislead. But of course, my objection about seeing 'person' any where still stands. And I don't want to rewrite a response because I don't have any time right now. :-/ Hope you don't mind. Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Larry, > > > Sukin: "Are you saying that the rise and fall of khandhas is > equivalent > > to a person rising and falling?" > > Larry: > > I would say there is rise and fall of a person and also continuity > of a > > person. > > I think we need to be careful here. Either there is something which > continues or there isn't. As you know we are talking about ultimate > realities which can be experienced by sati and panna. I think, it is > fair to accept `person' as a conventional reality, but then one must > also know that this `person' cannot be experience through any > doorway except by means of thinking. And thinking is ultimately > sanna, vitakka and vichara performing their functions and these can > be known one by one by panna, whereas `person' can only be object of > citta. > I don't see any problem accepting simultaneously both conventional > and ultimate reality. But I think it is very important to know that > one is real and the other is not and to be clear- cut about it. To > keep at the back of the mind, the possibility of a > person `in', `apart' or `of' the khandhas, is dangerous. > > > I was thinking of the dependent arising formula. At the stage of > > birth enough khandhas have come together in a particular way to > form a > > person. A person grows old, gets sick, and dies. Then another > person > > continuity arises with the whole baggage of the previous person > continuity. > > I find the use of concept of birth, old age, sickness and death of > conventional `person' quite OK in normal everyday use and also > perhaps when trying to describe Buddhist concepts to the > uninitiated. But I think when trying to understand the core of the > Buddha's message, this should be seen as just conventional > expressions of what takes place unrevealed to ignorance, at the > ultimate level. The dependent arising, as it is being so hard to > grasp, I think it best to view it in terms of causes and conditions > involving ultimate realities. Otherwise it can I fear, crystallize > into some implicit belief in something lasting and moving from one > life to another. I think especially, in light of the fact that the > level that we understand Buddha's teachings in this life is held > mostly by the sanna of what has been heard and read. With this gone > and rebirth as a new being (conventionally speaking ;-)) takes > place, what is left is the accumulated ignorance/understanding, and > absolutely *no* memory of what has been heard in this lifetime. So > it is imperative that we get it right, not in the future, but NOW! > But I guess this is what each one of us is trying to do through the > discussions here on DSG. ;-) > > > The same goes for groups of people but there isn't > > necessarily a continuity between the dissolution of one group and > the > > arising of another. > > OK, if we see that this person, is in a way no more real > than `groups of people' and `government', and that all that really > exists, is just the khandhas, then I guess there is little problem. > But if governments are seen to be real and one really believes in > their arising, then little can be expected that a person will be > accepted only as a convention. > Larry, I understand that you compare only to illustrate the meaning > of arising of `compounds' in response to my original question, that > surely you don't believe that `governments' have any objective > reality. However, I believe that being as yet so weak in > understanding, wrong comparisons can lead to more doubt. > And this may be what is behind the comparison with Karma, as you > state below. ( I am just speculating, trying to find a solution, > hope you don't mind my being presumptive…?! Or maybe I am even > creating a situation in order that my own views have better effect :- > /) > > > > But this kamma stuff is just conceptual. No one sees > > it arising from seed to fruition, one life to another. Right? > > I think the wonderful thing about Abhidhamma, is that it makes clear > the distinction between kamma and vipakka. To me it makes perfect > sense that kamma result is just these experience through the five > senses, whereas the rest is new kamma (pattha or not). So the > concept of kamma, though never experienced directly in terms of one > cause producing particular results, is one that I feel very > comfortable and at home with. In fact, I find it less of a problem > than many of the conventional concepts used to describe experiences > in every day life! > Vipakka is experienced directly all the time. And kamma being > precisely, intention, can be experienced, with the exception of > feeling, as more real than any of the concepts you state below. > > > It's all about what you can see arising and falling. You can see a > > feeling arising, a person arising, a building arising, an argument > > arising, and a government arising. > > An argument arising and falling!:-) > > Metta, > Sukin. 26040 From: Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 8:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Sukin, I am just following the teaching on "sabhava". "Arising" is the one and only criterion for reality. Arising is impermanence. Impermanence is combining and separating. Without combining into combinations there is no impermanence. Combining and separating is also the basis of cause and condition. A person is a combination, impermanent, not self, ultimately undesirable. You can promote the undesirability of people or governments by denying their existence but there may be a problem with credibility. It depends on what you can believe. How's that? Larry 26041 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 11:53pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Sukin, In terms of the noble eightfold path, the Buddha taught more than satipatthana. While right mindfulness/samma sati matters, it is only part of the Buddha's teaching of the noble eightfold path. In the discourses Satipatthana Sutta*, Anapanasati Sutta**, and Kayagata-sati Sutta***, the Buddha taught the practice and development of mindfulness. The Buddha's teaching on mindfulness is not about what is reality and what is concept. Peace, Victor * http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html ** http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn118.html *** http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn119.html --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] 26042 From: robmoult Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 0:57am Subject: Re: new member Hi Sue, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sue wrote: > Under English law self defence would include defending another person from harm, but would not include defending an animal. However, I believe that all beings are valuable and would certainly want to defend any animal under threat. Sometimes such a situation might involve breaking the law e.g. deliberately releasing an animal from a trapping cage knowing that the (human) trappers were planning to kill the animal (legally). > > I would want to follow my 'heart' and release it anyway regardless of consequences to myself. Do you have any thoughts on this. According to Buddhism, the primarly factor determining the "kammic weight" is the intensity of volition involved. A thought, word or deed with strong intention leaves a deep track in the mind. The commentaries list other factors that determine the kammic weight of killing: large animals more serious than small animals, humans more serious than animals, Virtuous being more serious than non-virtuous being. I expect that the size of the animal relates to the effort to kill it. For example, I doubt any of us could kill an elephant with our bare hands. As you can see, killing animals also produces bad kamma. A job that involves killing of animals is wrong livelihood. Right livelihood is concerned with ensuring that one earns one's living in a righteous way. For a lay disciple the Buddha teaches that wealth should be gained in accordance with certain standards: - Acquired only by legal means, not illegally - Acquired peacefully, without coercion or violence - Acquired honestly, not by trickery or deceit - Acquired in ways which do not entail suffering for others The Buddha mentions five specific kinds of livelihood which bring harm to others and are therefore to be avoided: dealing in weapons, in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), in meat production and butchery, in poisons and in intoxicants. He further names several dishonest means of gaining wealth which fall under wrong livelihood: practicing deceit, treachery, soothsaying, trickery and usury. Any occupation that requires violation of right speech and right action is a wrong form of livelihood, but other occupations, such as selling weapons or intoxicants, may not violate those factors and yet be wrong because of their consequences for others. Of course, moral law (as taught by the Buddha) does not always align with our social system; discussions of kamma will likely have no impact on the traffic cop about to issue you a speeding ticket :-). Sue, Christine and I are intentionally giving you long answers to see if we can prompt more questions. I am sure that your questions are of interest to many of the lurkers. Please keep asking! Metta, Rob M :-) 26043 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 2:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: ... > Yes! I do agree with everything you said. I would even go further > and say, traditionally, sila is developed before concentration. One > might ask, why develop concentration at all? How do you see this? You ask, Why develop concentration at all? Good question. Back to something we discussed earlier. Concentration itself has no specific moral (kusala or akusala) quality. It assumes the moral quality of the mind-consciousness that it accompanies. So for concentration to be kusala, the mind-state (citta) must be kusala first. When the Buddha praised concentration, he was praising the development of kusala (samatha or vipassana, depending on the context). Some people see the development of concentration as a means of developing samatha. I believe the thinking is that concentration leads to calm, and calm to absence of akusala and hence to kusala, and that it's not necessary for the initial concentration to be kusala since, once the mind settles down, calm will follow anyway. I think this view is mistaken. If the initial concentration is not kusala (i.e. is akusala) any calm that results will only be *apparent* calm and will lead only to more akusala. Kusala is not something that arises as a result of a particular practice being followed. But, as we have discussed, kusala can and does arise naturally in our daily lives and at such times there is the opportunity for its further development, given the other necessary supporting factors, and if this occurs then there will be the development of kusala concentration too. Jon 26044 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 2:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Jon: "Thus tranquility as a cetasika has very little to do with the > warm, fuzzy feeling we conventionally associate with tranquility." > > Hi Jon, > > What then is the experience of tranquility? > > Larry In general terms, the experience of any moment of kusala would be the experience of tranquillity, since all moments of kusala are accompanied by tranquillity cetasika. To repeat something from my post of a minute ago, kusala can and does arise naturally in our daily lives and at such times there is the opportunity for the characteristic of tranquillity to be experienced. Is the experience of tranquillity something you aspire to? Jon 26045 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 2:28am Subject: for Purnomo Dear Purnomo, I hope you are reading dsg still. I was thinking of you today with metta and karuna. A year since the Bali Bombing. Just wondering how you, your family and friends are getting on. May you all be safe and protected, May you all be healthy and strong, May you all be happy of heart and mind, May you all live with ease and well-being. metta and peace, Christine 26046 From: monomuni Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 0:46am Subject: Optimizing Invitation ! Dear friends: 'Invitation Day': The Buddhist Paravana Ceremony This recently passed fullmoon Poya day (9-1 oct) marked the end of the rains retreat & is called the 'Invitation Day' = Paravana. There each Bhikkhu after seniority on his knees invites his brothers in the Noble Sangha to mention any seen, heard or suspected errors he may unaware have made during the 3 months rains retreat. He humbly repeats that invitation thrice! That is selfsaid to mutual advantage in any community as all hidden misconduct, then may be thoroughly cleared. Imagine if this sublime habbit spread to other workplaces & even Egroups: To Work focused & composed in silence for 3 months each autum & then ask your colleaques humbly with the forehead touching the floor if you have made any errors, they may have seen, heard or suspected ... Starting with the most senior leader down to the youngest assistant. It would rapidly optimize any organization & stabilize any society. Good is this Noble life: This morning we monks, young as old, helped each other cleaning up after breakfast without a single word. Such a group in smooth & even Harmony lives in sweet Comfort ... Almost organic, open & joyous is being in such ensemble ... Friendship is truly GREATEST The entire Motivation behind all of the Noble Life. Yeah! Bhikkhu Samahita Cypress Hut, Gangamulla Bambarella, Tawalantenna 20838. Central Province. SRI LANKA. Email: monomuni@m... WWW: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct : - ] -- A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/ Ah, happily do we live without hate amongst the hateful; amidst hateful men we dwell unhating. Random Dhammapada Verse 197 26047 From: Sarah Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: new member Hi Sue (& Christine & RobM), I think the others have given very helpful and wise comments to your queeries as in just one extract below. I'm so glad Julie encouraged you out of lurk mode and hope we hear plenty from you both. I think Chris gave lots of other helpful advice about ignoring posts which are too technical (i.e don't seem relevant to your needs for now) and to keep starting your own threads;-) Metta and welcome, Sarah p.s where do you live in England? I grew up in Sussex (mostly). There are a few other Brits around, but they tend to be rathr quiet. ================================= --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello Sue, and all, > > I think sometimes our motives and intentions are much more complex > than we realise. For example, it is possible that there is no > compassion for the animal in the trap, that we only think we are > feeling this. It is possible there is pity (not a wholesome emotion > in Buddhism) anger (I've learned very slowly that righteous anger is > unwholesome in Buddhism) conceit (thinking one is a much kinder and > a more ethical person than the hunter) aversion ( to seeing > something harmed - not wholesome) and anxiety/fear (not wholesome). > The hunter is what he is because of everything that has gone before > (in this life and before) - he is creating new vipaka by his > actions. The animal is what and where he is because of past > conditions (in this life and before). And you are what and where you > are because of past conditions. Complicated, isn't it? 26048 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] luminous mind Dear Sarah, op 11-10-2003 08:23 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > Dear Nina & All, > > B.Bodhi’s reply: >(snipped). To > me, the idea that 'luminosity' is an intrinsic quality of citta, > consisting in its ability to "illuminate" objects, seems more convincing > than the idea that pabhassaram cittam refers to the 'bhavanga,' a concept > that comes to > prominence only in a considerably later strata of Buddhist literature. > Still, the fact that the statement is made without elucidation in the > Nikaya text may imply that it was intended to be suggestive rather than > definitive, and thus should not be pinned down to one exclusive > interpretation.< N: I agree that it can pertain to citta which clearly knows an object, illumines an object. In the text about bhavanga-citta it pertains to that specific citta, but it can certainly pertain to citta in general. However, as I see it, the bhavangacitta is not a concept introduced later on, it is clearly explained in the Abhidhamma and in the commentaries which go back to the ancient sources. Nina. 26049 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism. XIV, 22, 23 Hi Larry, I am so much in the middle of studying and reading these sections, I would rather not answer now. It really is necessary to be very precise, we cannot guess as to the meanings. I try later on, Nina. op 11-10-2003 01:32 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > "When anyone reviews that meaning, any knowledge of his, falling within > the category (pabheda) concerned with meaning, is the "discrimination of > meaning"." 26050 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Verse On The Buddha's Last Lunch: Anaadara? To Nina, Derek ... Dear Suan, Thank you very much for a very convincing, clear and interesting explanation of the sutta with the help of the grammar. I print them all out to keep. Is it a good idea to forward your explanations to Pali yahoo list? Such a help to go deeper into grammar, and also to realize the importance of grammar. Many would be interested, I think. The dedication and conscientiousness of the commentators and teachers of old really is inspiring. It exhorts us to be very precise in the Pali language and its grammar. With great appreciation, Nina. op 11-10-2003 17:58 schreef abhidhammika op suanluzaw@b...: > Nina, please pay attention to the predicate "tena bhagavantam > parivisi". The pronoun in the instrumental case ( tena ) refers to > the terder pork cuisine (neuter noun in nominative case in the sense > of being with, i.e, the instrumental case). > > We could break up the compound statement "yam --- ahosi --, tena --- > parivisi" as follows. > > 1. There was the tender pork cuisine already prepared and cooked. > 2. Cunda fed the Buddha with that. > > Therefore, the Buddha had eaten lunch WITH tender pork cuisine. (snipped) 26051 From: Dan D. Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 7:44am Subject: Re: Optimizing Invitation ! Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, This "invitation day" sounds constructive and helpful -- for bhikkhus. Curiously, the Chinese communists tried this same ritual during the land reform in the 1940's and 1950's. It was a disaster. Millions of people got beaten to a bloody pulp or killed for the sins that their enemies and rivals had the formal, officially sanctioned opportunity to point out. It was enormously damaging to the morale of the Party, one of the few organizations that had the courage [or naïveté] to attempt something like this in a "normal" population rather than a specially-selected one. Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "monomuni" wrote: > Dear friends: > > > 'Invitation Day': The Buddhist Paravana Ceremony > > > This recently passed fullmoon Poya day (9-1 oct) marked the end > of the rains retreat & is called the 'Invitation Day' = Paravana. > There each Bhikkhu after seniority on his knees invites his brothers > in the Noble Sangha to mention any seen, heard or suspected errors > he may unaware have made during the 3 months rains retreat. > He humbly repeats that invitation thrice! > That is selfsaid to mutual advantage in any community as all > hidden misconduct, then may be thoroughly cleared. > Imagine if this sublime habbit spread to other workplaces & even Egroups: > To Work focused & composed in silence for 3 months each autum & then ask > your colleaques humbly with the forehead touching the floor if you > have made any errors, they may have seen, heard or suspected ... > Starting with the most senior leader down to the youngest assistant. > It would rapidly optimize any organization & stabilize any society. > > Good is this Noble life: This morning we monks, young as old, helped > each other cleaning up after breakfast without a single word. > > Such a group in smooth & even Harmony lives in sweet Comfort ... > Almost organic, open & joyous is being in such ensemble ... > > > Friendship is truly GREATEST > The entire Motivation behind > all of the Noble Life. Yeah! > > > > Bhikkhu Samahita > Cypress Hut, Gangamulla > Bambarella, Tawalantenna 20838. > Central Province. SRI LANKA. > Email: monomuni@m... > WWW: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct > > > : - ] > > > > -- > A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/ > Ah, happily do we live without hate amongst the hateful; amidst hateful men > we dwell unhating. > Random Dhammapada Verse 197 26052 From: abhidhammika Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 7:54am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Verse On The Buddha's Last Lunch: Anaadara? To Nina, Derek ... Dear Nina and all Nina wrote: "Is it a good idea to forward your explanations to Pali yahoo list? Such a help to go deeper into grammar, and also to realize the importance of grammar. Many would be interested, I think." Please go ahead with forwarding the post to Pali list. When you do, please kindly correct the spelling mistakes in the following passages. The wrong spelling is < genetive case > The correct spelling is < genitive case > 1. "As you can spot in the Pali, by looking at the verbal adjectival predicate "bhuttaavissa", we can rewrite the term "bhagavato" as "bhagavassa" and know that the "-to" suffix in "bhagavato" indicates the noun in the < genetive case >." 2. "The above translations are exact and literal by following the strict grammartical rule for Anaadara syntax with < genetive case >." When I wrote my posts very late at night, I became sleepy and made spelling mistakes. And as I wanted to go to bed sooner, I did not carefully check spellings again. With regards, Suan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: Dear Suan, Thank you very much for a very convincing, clear and interesting explanation of the sutta with the help of the grammar. I print them all out to keep. Is it a good idea to forward your explanations to Pali yahoo list? Such a help to go deeper into grammar, and also to realize the importance of grammar. Many would be interested, I think. The dedication and conscientiousness of the commentators and teachers of old really is inspiring. It exhorts us to be very precise in the Pali language and its grammar. With great appreciation, Nina. 26053 From: icarofranca Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 8:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] ICARO´S DHAMMA DIARY CHAPTER THREE !!!! Dear Nina: Nina:" Dear Icaro, > I appreciate the truth this diary contains and the very lively style. > Thank you. But it is not yet the real bootcamp? It will be worse, illfitting > boots, disagreeable food, bad climate, etc." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Geeez... it´s good to be appreciate by others!!!! But my free time is too narrow... and yes: the real bootcamp - disaggreable foods, bad climate, Jogging, Fitness and Calisthenics with that terrible military tunes, all the real infantry training are yet to come, perhaps at the November´s second week. But my pistol shooting training was real good! I don´t know if I will get time to my Dhamma Diary´s next chapter... But it will continue, of course!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Nina:" Let me think of something to cheer you up. Metta is the feet of the world, > without metta how could we live? We have to help each other. You wrote about > the wheel of samsara. We are all in the same boat. You and your colleagues > have to depend on one another especially when conditions get worse. So, this > situation has something positive also: it makes you realize the benefit of > metta." ------------------------------------------------------------------ I do feel really good...despite the food!!!! All of us at the barracks are really newbies at military life. The vision and understanding of Metta and mutual help are our goal and many of us are trying really hard to get such standards - but despite this remark right effects sometimes arise easily: I never touched up a Parabellum 9mm shotgun before on my life and my first shooting stand was very good - I was allowed to pass to the advanced shooting school! Samatha, ekagatta, a deep breath, the Parabellum 9mm stands firm at my hands and... bullseye!!!!!!!!!!!!!! With plenty of Metta, Ícaro 26054 From: icarofranca Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 8:53am Subject: ICARO´S DHAMMA DIARY CHAPTER FOUR !!!! Take a deep breath... Samatha...Ekagatta... My finger touches the trigger and... ICARO´S DHAMMA DIARY CHAPTER FOUR !!!! "I´ve been working on the SHEEP road, working night and day..." Indeed!!!! I am overburied to the hat top with tons of work at the barracks! All the ordnances, rules, military law... every aspect of military life demands time to be assimilated. But fortunately the practical training with handguns was excellent!!! The Parabellum 9mm is at my hands. The target is before my eyes and the shooting instructor is shouting his instructions...when an object is presented to the mind through one of the five sense-doors, the course of cognition or thought-process runs as follows: 1. Past Bhavanga 2. Vibrating Bhavanga 3. Arrest Bhavanga 4. Sense-door Consciousness either Pancadvaravajjana or Manodvaravajjana 5. Sense-Consciousness - Santirana 6. Receiving Consciousness - Sampaticchana 7. Investing Consciousness (the beginning of mind consciousness see Santirana) 8. Determining Consciousness (Shooters! Aiming the gun! Fire at will!) 9. Impulsion (Nos. 9 to 15 - where kamma is produced, where moral or immoral consciousness arises - Cf. Javana´s definition)- Bang! 10. Impulsion - Bang! 11. Impulsion - Bang! 12. Impulsion - Bang! 13. Impulsion - Bang! 14. Impulsion - Bang! 15. Impulsion - Bang! 16. Registering Consciousness (see Tadalammana)- (gosh!!! I am firing well, just at the target´s centre!!!!) 17. Registering Consciousness - the doughboy at my side is missing ALL the rounds! I am afraid he will shoot at my target...or at ME!!!! Fortunately I hit all my rounds, and that´s stimulating for my illusory ego: when the mind receives stimulation through one of the sense's the thought proccess runs as above. The mind then rises with a mental impression ( Wow! I succeded to get a good score!!!), this time there is only one bhavanga, and then step 4 jumps to the Javanas or Impulsion and runs for seven moments (corrections are welcome!!! I must confess that this scheme runs a bit mechanically for me: one can get a good analogy for a shooting sequence but at other life´s aspects such remarks must be investigated on) and on to Tadalammana or the Registering Consciousness... the mind then slips into bhavanga and can arise again with a new image ( I had passed from the mental photo of the target to the vision of the gun´s violent recoil, and after this I get the same target mental photo) - this new image is often falsely considered as the old one, but in truth that image is gone and new one has arisen. A good rendition to Heraclius´ philosophical stands: reading about Military Law and ordnances is almost so dull! Let´s check out other buddhistic element classification: Conditions for Pañca-viññaa to arise : Cakkhu 1. visual organ 2. visual object 3. light 4. attention Sota 1. audiory organ 2. sounds 3. space 4. attention Ghaana 1. olfactory organ 2. smells 3. air 4. attention Jivhaa 1. gustory 2. tastes 3. water 4. attention Kaaya 1. tactile organ 2. tactile objects 3. earth 4. attention That´s a good table of correlated ideas, like the Eliphas Levi´s or Aleister Crowley´s. One can get at this issue as far as a good and patient reader can do... but my free time is short! Let´s finish this chapter with the 3 mind-elements: 1. sense-door consciousness which is consciousness 2. moral receiving consciousness (Kusala) 3. immoral receiving consciousness (Akusala). And you all, members of this noble roundtable of Dhamma students, won´t spend better your precious time if you stay tuned for the next chapter of the ICARO´S DHAMMA DIARY!!! ICARO´S DHAMMA DIARY, CHAPTER FIVE: "A black SHEEP among white ones and a white LAMB between black partners don´t change the order of trucks over a highway!" Mettaya, Ícaro 26055 From: sue Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 10:49am Subject: re: new member Dear Christine, Rob, and Sarah Thank you all for your very kind and helpful messages. Christine wrote: "I think sometimes our motives and intentions are much more complex than we realise. For example, it is possible that there is no compassion for the animal in the trap, that we only think we are feeling this. It is possible there is pity (not a wholesome emotion in Buddhism) anger (I've learned very slowly that righteous anger is unwholesome in Buddhism) conceit (thinking one is a much kinder and a more ethical person than the hunter) aversion ( to seeing something harmed - not wholesome) and anxiety/fear (not wholesome). The hunter is what he is because of everything that has gone before (in this life and before) - he is creating new vipaka by his actions. The animal is what and where he is because of past conditions (in this life and before). And you are what and where you are because of past conditions. Complicated, isn't it? " I understand most of what you say and accept that one should not be angry towards the hunter and neither should one be conceited. But I am confused as to the difference between aversion to the animal being harmed (unwholesome), pity for the animal (unwholesome) and compassion (wholesome). I hope I feel the latter but am not sure. By the way, my whippets would like to say hi to your great dane also! Rob's explanation of right livelihood was very interesting. If someone is, say, a butcher, does he or she continue to pile up bad kamma throughout their working lives even if they really do not understand the 'wrong' in what they do? (I myself am a teacher, not a butcher, I hasten to add) Sarah - I live in South Norfolk, and when I can I go to the Cambridge Buddhist Centre for meditation. Are you in England? Many thanks to all Metta Sue 26056 From: robmoult Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 3:33pm Subject: Re: new member Hi Sue, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sue wrote: But I am confused as to the difference between aversion to the animal being harmed (unwholesome), pity for the animal (unwholesome) and compassion (wholesome). I hope I feel the latter but am not sure. ===== Fanstastic question! I will interested in reading others' replies. ===== > If someone is, say, a butcher, does he or she continue to pile up bad kamma throughout their working lives even if they really do not understand the 'wrong' in what they do? (I myself am a teacher, not a butcher, I hasten to add) ====== Yes, unfortunately, butchers do accumulate bad kamma throughout their lives. However, it is more serious if they are ignorant of the 'wrong' in what they do. To illustrate this point, consider who gets burned more seriously when touching a hot iron rod; he who knows in advance that it is hot or he who has no idea that it is hot. One of my friends had a comfortable administrative position in a large distillery. Once she learned the dhamma, she felt uncomfortable with her livelihood. She has since changed jobs and is working in another industry. Metta, Rob M :-) 26057 From: robmoult Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma -akusala citta, akusala kamma Hi Sarah; --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > back to my old dilemma: is every akusala citta akusala kamma? Did you find > something in Milinda? > I still wonder about Atthasalini: who gives the different requirements for > akusala to be akusala kamma patha. He is very definite here. Even when I > take up glass thoughtlessly: already akusala kamma? Looking out of the > window? I doubt about this, would this not give rise to undue fears and > scruples? Some time back, Nina raised this question to which I still don't have a definitive answer. Specifically, does an action have to be compelted before it creates kamma? In discussions, I have heard both positions (yes and no). I would be interested in hearing Bhikkhu Bodhi's comment. Metta, Rob M :-) 26058 From: robmoult Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 3:50pm Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 27-30 for comment Classifying Cittas Slide Contents ============== 1.0 Citta: Consciousness (89 or 121 Cittas) 1.1 Sense Sphere (54 Cittas) 1.1.1 Unwholesome (12 Cittas) These cittas create "bad kamma" - Greed-Rooted - Hatred-Rooted - Delusion-Rooted 1.1.2 Rootless (18 Cittas) These cittas sense what happens to us (seeing, hearing, etc.) Note: slightly simplified - Resultant 1.1.3 Beautiful (24 Cittas) Wholesome create "good kamma"; Resultant acts as "subconscious" - Wholesome - Resultant 1.2 Fine Material Sphere (15 Cittas) 1.3 Immaterial Sphere (12 Cittas) 1.4 Supramundane (8 or 40 Cittas) Speaker Notes ============= Many people's first impression of Abhidhamma is that there are long lists of complicated Pali terms to be memorized. The Abhidhamma does contain many lists. The Abhidhamma lists the 89 or 121 possible mental states, which can be broken into four categories: - Sense Sphere Mental States; these are the mental states we experience in our day to day lives - Fine-Material Sphere Mental States; these are the mental states of experienced meditators when they meditate on objects - Immaterial Sphere Mental States; these are the mental states of experienced meditators when they meditate on concepts - Supramundane Mental States; these are the mental states of those who are approaching enlightenment In our discussion today, we will only focus on the sense sphere mental states. The first group are the unwholesome mental states. The unwholesome mental states are further broken into greed-rooted, hatred-rooted and delusion-rooted. All unwholesome mental states create bad kamma. The "weight" of the kamma created depends on the intensity of the volition, or will, behind the mental state. Strong will means strong kamma. The second group are the rootless mental states. They are called rootless because they do not have bad roots (greed, hatred, delusion), nor do they have good roots (non-greed or generosity, non- hatred or loving kindness, non-delusion or wisdom). These mental states are called resultants, (vipâka in Pali). According to Buddhism, things happen to us because of our past kamma. The mental state associated with an instant of seeing or hearing is, in fact, the result of some past kammic action. The third group are the beautiful mental states. The wholesome beautiful mental states are the opposites to the unwholesome mental states. These mental states create good kamma for us. There is also a type of beautiful resultant mental state, which acts as our subconscious. The subconscious is what the mind is doing when it is not doing anything else. In Pali, this is called a "bhavanga" mental state. Because being born as a human is very fortunate, the subconscious mental state is beautiful. 26059 From: Michael Newton Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 0:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Egypt Diary: Ruined Country Hello!James; Thank you very much your in depth account of Gamal Abder Nassers rule as you see it.I wanted to ask you, and I suppose you visited the pyrammids at Giza?I was wondering if you've been there,that you can give me a account of your experience there?I've always been fascinated by the Pyramids and wanted to go there,but so far haven't made it.There are so many interpretations of the historical source of these pyramids.I'm fascinated by the area.It's good your there,but sounds like you have mixed feelings being there.Yours in the Dhamma,Michael --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi All, > > In my English classes, we are studying The Tragedy > of > Macbeth. I had the students do a journal writing on > the subject of `Do you know anyone who is obsessed > with power and what are/were the consequences?' 26060 From: gazita2002 Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 4:31pm Subject: Re: Steve- khandhas, upadaanakkhandhas & B.Bodhi's comments Dear Sarah and other dsg-ers Perfect timing for this qu. I have been contemplating the 5 Khandhas over the last few days and wonder why vedanak. and sannak. have been singled out from the other sankharak.? I think I understand about vk. as feelings seem to send us hurrying and hastening all over the place. Why sk. and not phassak? I guess 'memory' as a momentary nama can cause all sorts of avija, but I'd like to hear more on this. It's very sad to hear that B.Bodhi is so unwell. I do hope his treatment in USA is successful. See you next week, Azita ps. thank you Steve, for the Myanmar well-wishes; maybe you can make one of these trips one day. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Steve, > > Your Qu received the most detailed response! > [snip] > Sarah: Qu regarding the obtaining an article of yours > referred to in Note 65 of Khandhavagga: [snip] > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s If there is anything anyone would particularly like me to bring to > BB's attention (preferably with no urgency), please post and indicate. > ================= > > > 26061 From: Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 4:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Jon: "Is the experience of tranquillity something you aspire to?" Hi Jon, The experience of tranquility is something I aspire to identify as a quality distinct and different from the other "Beautiful Universals". Also, I still don't have a clear idea why the Buddha recommended samma samadhi or what is the exact relationship between tranquility and concentration in samma samadhi. Larry 26062 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 8:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Hi Larry, Jon, and all, Perhaps the way to have a clear idea why the Buddha recommended right concentration/samma samadhi or what is the exact relationship between tranquility and concentration in samma samadhi is to develop right concentration/samma samadhi itself. Why did the Buddha teach right concentration/samma samadhi? As a factor of the Noble Eightfold Path, it leads to the cessation of dukkha. Specifically, "I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana... the second jhana... the third... the fourth... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness. I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an09-036.html Let me quote from MN14 Culadukkahkkhandha Sutta* the following passage: "Mahanama, there is still a state unabanddoned by you internally, owing to which at times states of greed, hate, and delusion invade your mind and remain; for were that state already abandoned by you internally you would not be living the home life, you would not be enjoying sensual pleasures. It is because that state is unabandoned by you internally that you are living the home life and enjoying sensual pleasures. "Even though a noble disciple has seen clearly as it actually is with proper wisdom how sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering, and much despair, and how great is the danger in them, as long as he still does not attain to the rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states, or to something more peaceful than that, he may still be attracted to sensual pleasures. But when a noble disciple has seen clearly as it actually is with proper wisdom how sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering, and much despair, and how great is the danger in them, and he attains to the rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states, or to something more peaceful than that, then he is no longer attracted to sensual pleasure. How does one attain to the rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states, or to something more peaceful than that? With right concentration/samma samadhi. Without right concentration/samma samadhi, one would still be attracted to sensual pleasures. Peace, Victor * Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans., _The Middle Length Discourses fo the Buddha: a new translation of the Majjhima Nikaya_, p. 186-7. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Jon: "Is the experience of tranquillity something you aspire to?" > > Hi Jon, > > The experience of tranquility is something I aspire to identify as a > quality distinct and different from the other "Beautiful Universals". > Also, I still don't have a clear idea why the Buddha recommended samma > samadhi or what is the exact relationship between tranquility and > concentration in samma samadhi. > > Larry 26063 From: norakat147 Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 8:50pm Subject: Re: ICARO´S DHAMMA DIARY CHAPTER FOUR !!!! > The Parabellum 9mm is at my hands. The target is before my eyes > and the shooting instructor is shouting his instructions...when an > object is presented to the mind through one of the five sense- doors, > 10. Impulsion - Bang! > 11. Impulsion - Bang! > 12. Impulsion - Bang! > 13. Impulsion - Bang! > 14. Impulsion - Bang! > 15. Impulsion - Bang! Hi icaro, Please don't take offence to my question but ... Why would a Buddhist put himself in the position to possibly (very possibly), in the future, kill another being (or many, many other beings) at the orders of a superior ??? ...mind you the motives for having to kill could be rooted in the most unwholesome nature (if not always unwholesome), i.e. not for the reason for self defence of a country. what about sila ? metta, nori 26064 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Hi Larry, We shall know only when it arises. It has its own characteristic (sabhava lakkhana), and when sati and panna arise this characteristic can be understood. As Jon said,< In general terms, the experience of any moment of kusala would be the experience of tranquillity, since all moments of kusala are accompanied by tranquillity cetasika.> But such moments are very short and pass away rapidly, thus it is hard to know the characteristic of this cetasika. We should not try. It all depends on the degree of panna and who can control this? Nina. op 11-10-2003 19:59 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Jon: "Thus tranquility as a cetasika has very little to do with the > warm, fuzzy feeling we conventionally associate with tranquility." > > Hi Jon, > > What then is the experience of tranquility? 26065 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: new member Dear Sue, Rob M has explained different types of consciousness, citta, wholesome and unwholesome. They change so rapidly, we have no time to plan anything. It depends on character, inclination, habits in the past, what will happen at a particular moment. It has happened already before we can plan anything. The Buddha teaches us to understand different moments. Understanding is the most important. Nina. op 12-10-2003 01:35 schreef sue op sueandwhippets@y...: > > I would want to follow my 'heart' and release it anyway regardless of > consequences to myself. Do you have any thoughts on this. > 26066 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Dear Rob and Howard, I would like to add something. Whenever the citta is akusala there are perversions. When the rupa is desireable and the citta which experiences this given rupa (at the moments of javana) is accompanied by a pleasant mental feeling there may be attachment and then there is perversion. Nina. op 12-10-2003 01:48 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > A given rupa is inherently desireable (ittha). If the citta which > experiences this given rupa is accompanied by a pleasant mental > feeling, then there is alignment and there is no perversion of > perception. If the citta which experiences this given rupa is > accompanied by an unpleasant mental feeling, then this is a case of > a perversion of perception. 26067 From: Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 10:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Victor: "Without right concentration/samma samadhi, one would still be attracted to sensual pleasures." Hi Victor, This is a good answer to the why cultivate samma samadhi. MN 14: "the rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states, or to something more peaceful than that" Larry: And maybe this is a hint at what tranquility is in itself. MN 14: "when a noble disciple has seen clearly as it actually is with proper wisdom how sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering, and much despair, and how great is the danger in them," L: And this is the insight that is the foundation. Even if someone doesn't feel that cultivating samadhi is within the range of his or her accumulations, just sitting quietly for a period every day creates accumulations of pleasure apart from sensual pleasures. Disillusionment with sensual pleasures is the element of wholesomeness Jon was talking about. Thanks. Larry 26068 From: monomuni Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 8:24pm Subject: The Absolute Calm! Friends: The Absolute Calm: (Paramattha-samatha) The Absolute Calm is the object of any such state, that is ending, cessation, termination, extinction, stopping, … Nibbana … With such object this absolute calm are seen, known, touched directly experienced, attained, realized, through the understanding of penetrative insight gradually gained by repeated practice. This object should thus be cultivated, sustained, made the vehicle, made the basis, established, well undertaken, increased & perfected until non-excess of any other state, until a single unshakable taste of the converged & undistracted mental abilities is obtained. Such self-taming is, such withdrawal is, such tranquilization is ultimately Advantageous, quite blameless and culminates in the Complete Comprehension, Direct Knowledge & Deathlessness of Enlightenment ... Whose Awareness of in-&-out Breathing Is well developed & gradually perfected Just as the Buddha explained, will surely Illuminate this world, like the full moon All freed from cloud. Friendship is truly GREATEST The entire Motivation behind all of the Noble Life. Yeah! Bhikkhu Samahita. SRI LANKA. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct : - ] -- A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/ Good is restraint of the eye; good is restraint of the ear; good is restraint of the nose; good is the restraint of the tongue. Random Dhammapada Verse 360 26069 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 0:14am Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi Howard, Sorry for the delays. I’m hoping to get up to date today with several posts and will then probably have to delay any further replies to anyone until after our return two weeks later or so. Hope everyone continues the threads in my absence;-) .... --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Howard: > To the best of my knowledge, I've only written of concepts (i.e. > ideas) as namas. When I may say something to the effect that > such-and-such is > "concept-only," my meaning is that the alleged such-and-such doesn't > truly exist, > but that all there is is the concept of it (applied to a particular > sequence of > mentally unconstructed, directly observed phenomena). .... OK, and we can use these terms in anyway. However, why would one want to use a Pali term like ‘namas’ in a different way to that used in the texts, where it clearly doesn’t include concepts? .... Howard: > As I think about this issue a bit further, a thought occurs to > me: > Concepts/ideas are mental objects which are mind-constructed. They are > actually > constructed by mental activity and actually observed via the mind door, > and > they are not rupas, and so I count them as namas. .... Again, I think it’s confusing to use namas for this correct definition of concepts. (see the definition of nama which Dan gave from Nyantiloka dict and also, RobM’s slides showing namas as being equivalent to the realities of cittas, cetasikas and nibbana). As Jon said to Larry on their topic: “Well it depends on whose definition of ‘tranquillity’ we are working with -- our own or the Buddha’s ;-))As I read the texts, the Buddha goes to some lengths to explain why conventional ideas of qualities or values such as understanding, worthiness, wealth,importance, desirability, effort, achievement, concentration and the like (and tranquillity) do not conform to the model of those qualities or values as they need to be understood for the purpose of developing the path. Besides, we each have different ideas as to what these things mean in their conventional sense (ideas that are of course coloured by our own particular ignorance and wrong view). ..... Howard: >If, however, a nama > must, > itself, take an actual object, then many ideas/concepts fail that test. > But I'm not > at all sure that is a good test. Feelings do not take objects, though > they > are *associated* with objects. .... Feelings are cetasikas (mental factors) which take the same object as the cittas and other cetasikas they accompany. Let’s say there is attachment to the (concept of) computer at this moment. Pleasant feeling accompanies the attachment and also experiences the same object. ..... H: >In fact, very often a feeling is arises > from the > cognizing of an object which is a concept (idea)! .... Exactly so! .... H: >Also, nibbana is > classified > as a nama, and it takes no object. So I'm not persuaded that the > object-taking > test is a valid one for what constitutes namas - it is sufficient, but > not > necessary. ..... As Dan pointed out, nibbana is an exception to many rules;-) A nama by default we might say. (Btw, Dan, supramundane doesn’t mean ‘beyond the field of’ nama and rupa. Lokuttara cittas are supramundane, but are still namas, so I don’t think we can use that line to disqualify nibbana. .... ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Grasping stories is exactly how we begin to understand the > Dhamma. > Thank goodness we can grasp and analyze stories! Mundane understanding > is an > important support (among several) for wisdom. (Note to Sukin: I don't > deny that! > ;-) > ----------------------------------------------------- As long as it is ‘right’ mundane theoretical view I think. I’m not sure about all this grasping though;-) (Sukin, you may wish to quote this back to Howard sometime;-)). > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Unless I'm mistaken, I do believe I have read you to say in the > past > that pa~n~na cannot take concepts as objects. > --------------------------------------------------- We have to be clear about which kind of panna we’re referring to. As it says in the Vism, there are many kinds of panna. Panna in satipatthana development cannot take concepts as objects, but other kinds of panna can and do. .... > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Then there would no way to know with transformative wisdom that > concepts have no actual references! As I see it, vipassana pa~n~na can > "penetrate" > concepts to see how they are fabricated, to see the paramattha dhammas > from > which they are fabricated, and to see their illusive nature, their being > empty of > the actual reference they *seem* to have. > ---------------------------------------------------- Only by thinking. In your example in another post about the noticing of someone being missing, the same applies. As you rightly said, there is a ‘long chain of phenomena’ including much mind door activity and thinking of concepts. This does not make the concepts namas however (i.e because inevitably they have to be experienced through the mind door). The cittas and cetasikas which cognize or ‘take’ these objects are namas. Likewise when the DSG member sees the light and agrees with us - however great the concepts;-). As I said, I hope everyone keeps discussing these important topics, but I’ll have to leave all replies til I get back. (Glad we’re on the same page on the internal/external comments;-);-)) .... Metta, Sarah p.s I was very sorry to hear the news about your mother in law’s return to hospital, Howard and again apologise for not responding. Our best wishes for her comfort and good care and also to you and Rita. Pls keep us posted. ================================ 26070 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 1:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Hi RobM, You’ve written many excellent posts recently including those on this subject. I thought the one on the citta moments was very good and clear and I’m fascinated to see how engineers (you and Icaro) read the Abhidhamma logical sequences and other details to help come to your own understanding. I’ve meanwhile been doing my research obseving toddlers and fireworks;-) Last night, I went up onto our roof top for the second week running to watch a firework display. Before the fireworks started, my companion --a sweet little 21 month-old Chinese boy called Tim -- explained graphically and excitedly about the “boom, boom” we’d soon be hearing and the accompanying flutters in the chest which make one feel ‘ho geng’ (very scared). As the fireworks started, true to his word, there were the ‘booms’ which for most average people like those of us there, are presumably sounds experienced by akusala vipaka cittas, followed by different processes with aversion and then attachment. In between the ear door processes are the eye door processes, seeing the visible objects (presumably kusala vipaka) with lots more attachment. For most of us, the attachment outweighs any aversion otherwise we wouldn’t watch. For little Tim, we all had to encourage him to enjoy the show and not be scared;-) As you’ve rightly shown (saving me lots of work;-)), the sounds and visible objects are inherently pleasant/desirable or unpleasant/undesirable already. As we read in B.Bodhi’s Guide in CMA: “According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, this distinction in the quality of objects pertains to the intrinsic nature of the object itself; it is not a variable determined by the individual temperament and preferences of the experiencer.” These rupas are conditioned by temperature and have their own particular characteristics regardless of whether they are heard or not. For most (average) people, hearing undesirable sounds is akusala vipaka and so on. There are exceptions. For example, for someone who is almost deaf, hearing the ‘boom, boom’ might be kusala vipaka. We cannot know for sure at any moment what objects experienced are desirable and undesirable and it’s not of consequence. Only the sight of a live Buddha is definitely kusala vipaka for all. As you’ve also pointed out, there can be any kind of response in subsequent javana cittas while watching the fireworks or at any other time. For example, there can be attachment, aversion or indifference to the ‘boom, boom’. There can even be wise consideration or understanding that it is merely sound that is experienced. No fireworks at all;-) Usually after experiences of seeing and hearing, the subsequent javana cittas are unwholesome and there is perversion of citta and sanna at all these moments. So, I’d put more emphasis on the ‘unwholesome’ nature and less on the ‘matching’ and ‘alignment’. (See vipallasa in UP). Also, I think the pleasant or unpleasant feelings accompanying the ‘perverted’ cittas are not at the actual moments of seing, hearing and tasting, but with the subsequent javana cittas. A pleasant visible object may be followed by equanimity and indifferent feeling (especially for an anagami or arahant), but no perversion. For us, desire may be not just to the feeling on account of what is seen or heard, but for the sound or visible objects themselves or to the concepts about them. Desire can be to anything (other than nibbana or lokuttara cittas). I hope your original qu is now clear, Rob, thanks to your own careful and wise reflections. I’ve just added one or two details here. Sometimes just formulating the question does the trick! I see Nina has also written on the thread, but I haven’t read recent posts yet as I'm trying to catch up on replies. Hopefully you, Howard and Nina can continue with any loose ends or any corrections to anything I’ve said:-) I will certainly draw yr other qu on kamma, Nina’s response on ‘luminous’ and anything further to BB when I next write. Metta and much appreciation for all your support and help to newcomers as well. Sarah ====== --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > When we last met in HK, you asked me if there were any points in the > Dhamma / Abhidhamma that I was still wrestling with. I forgot to > mention at that time that I am still very uncomfortable with > the "inherent pleasantness / unpleasantness" aspects of rupa. Can > you try and explain to me how rupa can have these "inherent" > characteristics? I have a hard time accepting the explanation on > P172 of CMA, "It is distinguishable according to what is found > desireable at one time and undesireable at another time by average > (men such as) accountants, government officials, burgesses, land > owners and merchants". 26071 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 1:19am Subject: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > . As we read in B.Bodhi's Guide in CMA: > "According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, this distinction in the quality > of objects pertains to the intrinsic nature of the object itself; it is > not a variable determined by the individual temperament > and preferences of the experiencer." > > These rupas are conditioned by temperature and have their own particular > characteristics regardless of whether they are heard or not. For most > (average) people, hearing undesirable sounds is akusala vipaka and so on. > There are exceptions. For example, for someone who is almost deaf, hearing > the `boom, boom' might be kusala vipaka. _____ Dear Sarah, Could you provide a reference for this: that a sound may be intrinsically undesirable and yet the hearing of it is kusala vipaka. ____ > > We cannot know for sure at any moment what objects experienced are > desirable and undesirable and it's not of consequence. Only the sight of a > live Buddha is definitely kusala vipaka for all. _____ The Atthasalini says: "dung eating pigs on smelling the odour of dung become joyful, thinking;'we shall get something to eat' nevertheless their eye-consciousness (a vipaka) in the seeing of the dung, nose consciousness (a vipaka) in smelling its odour and tongue consciousness (a vipaka)in tasting its flavour is only unprofitable result."" endquote Do you disagree with this? RobertK 26072 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 1:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Hi RobK, Thx for your prompt feedback;-) --- rjkjp1 wrote: S:>> most > > (average) people, hearing undesirable sounds is akusala vipaka and > so on. > > There are exceptions. For example, for someone who is almost deaf, > hearing > > the `boom, boom' might be kusala vipaka. > _____ R:> Dear Sarah, > Could you provide a reference for this: that a sound may be > intrinsically undesirable and yet the hearing of it is kusala vipaka. .... S: This was my understanding of the passage RobM asked about in the post, i.e: .. RobM: > P172 of CMA, "It is distinguishable according to what is found > desireable at one time and undesireable at another time by average > (men such as) accountants, government officials, burgesses, land > owners and merchants". .. S: I’d be glad to hear any other interpretations you or others might have. ..... S:> > We cannot know for sure at any moment what objects experienced are > > desirable and undesirable and it's not of consequence. Only the > sight of a > > live Buddha is definitely kusala vipaka for all. > _____ RobK:> The Atthasalini says: "dung eating pigs on smelling the odour of dung > become > joyful, thinking;'we shall get something to eat' nevertheless their > eye-consciousness (a vipaka) in the seeing of the dung, nose > consciousness (a vipaka) in smelling its odour and tongue > consciousness (a vipaka)in tasting its flavour is only unprofitable > result."" endquote > Do you disagree with this? .... S: A good point. I’ve asked Khun Sujin about this particular point before and will perhaps raise it again with the Atth quote if you like. What I wrote above (about seeing the live Buddha) was as she explained it to us. At such a time it is kusala vipaka for everyone regardless. At all other times, she said, we cannot be sure. Perhaps in the Atth quote these are general examples, just like we might refer to the hearing of ‘booms’ or thunder as akusala vipaka. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean that at every moment of seeing the dung and so on (for every pig)that it is akusala vipaka, just as we cannot say that at every moment of hearing ‘booms’ it is. There are so many sense door processes. What do you think? I need to press on with some other promised replies before signing off but will of course be following any further discussion and responding to any other qus on return. Metta, Sarah ======== 26073 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 2:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Victor, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Who directly knows?? Sati and panna?? .... What do you think of this quote given recently by Larry from Nyantiloka’s dictionary: “Now, the Buddha neither teaches a personality which will continue after death, nor does he teach a personality which will be annihilated at death, but he shows us that 'personality', 'ego', 'individual', 'man', etc., are nothing but mere conventional designations (vohára-vacana) and that in the ultimate sense (s. paramattha-sacca) there is only this self-consuming process of physical and mental phenomena which continually arise and again disappear immediately. - For further details, s. anattá, khandha, paticcasamuppáda.” Also, what did you think about the views attributed to the Puggalavadins which I quoted from the Katthavatthu? Did you agree with the Theravadin’s comments? What did you think about the following commentary note and B.Bodhi’s comment which RobK gave in a post on the Bhara Sutta? RobK: “AS the commentary to the sutta says: "By the expression 'the carrier of the burden' he shows the person to be a mere convention." see note 1051 Bodhi. Bhikkhu Bodhi says in his introduction to the Khandha samyutta , where this sutta comes from: "the subject of appropriation and identification with the 'self' is merely a fabrication of conceptual thought woven in the darkenss of ignorance"p.845” ***** Victor: > > "A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations -- who > has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, > attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is > released through right knowledge -- directly knows earth as earth. > Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about > earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things > coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not > delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I > tell you. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn001.html > > How do you know reality is nama and rupa? ..... Does the Buddha talk about the khandhas, the ayatanas and the dhatus in the suttas? What is the ‘All’ that is to be understood or the burden to be relinquished? Are these any different from nama and rupa? When Rahula (see Nina’s series of translations) is urged to see the impermanence of rupas and also the unsatisfactoriness, foulness and non-selfness (itipi ruupa.m anicca.m, itipi dukkha.m, itipi asubha.m, itipi anattaa), is there any doubt that these are ‘realities’? When RobM’s slide (post 25939) shows ultimate realities to consist of cittas (consciousness), cetasikas (mental factors), rupas (physical phenomena) and nibbana, (i.e namas and rupas) is this not exactly as we read in the Tipitaka? You quoted from the Mulapariyaya Sutta. As B.Bodhi writes in his introduction, p18: “To be sure, the arahat is at perfect liberty to make use of such terms and designations as “I” and “mine”. Freedom from the bondage of concepts does not imply a stricture prohibiting their use. But the arahat deploys them only as expedients for the purpose of communication. He is no longer deceived by them; he no longer takes them as springs to unjustified assumptions. He sees them as convenient expressions, not as labels for substantial realities.” We read in the same sutta about the worldling: >He perceives beings as beings, Having perceived beings as beings, he conceives beings; he conceives (himself) in beings; he conceives (himself apart) from beings; he conceives ‘beings are mind’; he delights in beings. What is the reason? Because they have not been fully understood by him, I declare.< The commentary adds detail to this passage including “the defining of mentality-materiality (naamaruupavavatthaana) is the full understanding of the known.” Later we read about what is meant by the various wrong self-conceivings. “He perceives beings as beings” and so on. I’m also reminded of the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 recently referred too and in particular the teaching given by the Buddha to Pukkusati in the potter’s workshop. After reading that “this person consists of six elements” and so on, later we read that “One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve the truth, should cultivate relinquishment, and should train for peace”. > “Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving (ma~n~nussavaa); ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a concieving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace....< Metta and look forward to further discussions after a well-needed break, Victor;-) Meanwhile I'll enjoy your ones with Sukin and others. Metta, Sarah p.s you may like to review all the posts on 'anatta' and 'concept and reality' in UP while I'm away too;-) Also 'Satipatthana -meanings'. ======= 26074 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 3:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Sarah, > > You still haven't answered my original question. Could you please be > serious for a moment and give your reaction/analysis of the post in > question without all of the wisecracks and laughter? (I wouldn't ask, > but you brought it up in the first place). Thank you. .... I'll try (right, straight face)! I’ve just found it: James: “I think it is interesting that the suttas describe the meal as 'tender pork cuisine'; hmmmm...I wonder why it was so tender? A good guess would be that it was probably undercooked. Here is an entry from encyclopedia.com that parallels the symptoms of the Lord Buddha after he ate this meal of tender (undercooked?) meat:...” I thought it was a well-written an interesting post with support that would convince most and a good counter-balance to Suan’s post with lots of Pali detail just before it. I was glad to read it. Hence my response. I also personally thought it was off-track in terms of the ‘tender pork’. Not only do I read and see no reason not to accept the Commentary explanation to the contrary, I also don’t think there is any evidence that we can consider the ‘tender’ in ‘tender pork cuisine’ to be referring to undercooked. We have, as I understand: suukara (pork) and maddava ((soft) flesh or meat). The same word is used throughout the Vinaya, for example, when referring to rules about eating meat without any suggestion of being bad in anyway. I’m sure one of the Pali experts will add more if you’re interested;-) James, your initial comments have led to some really interesting discussion. As I’ve told the others, I’ll be glad to read any more posts, but am taking a break myself. I have a few more outstanding posts which I’ll try to respond to before I go, but am hoping others will take up any other threads. Metta, Sarah p.s Thank you for all your replies to the challenging qus from the children. (Newbies, the Starkids are mostly 10-13 year olds that I teach). ======= 26075 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: new member Hi Sue, --- sue wrote: > Dear Christine, Rob, and Sarah > Thank you all for your very kind and helpful messages. .... Christine has already left Australia and we'lls oon be leaving Hong Kong to join friends in Thailand for a trip to Burma. That leaves RobM for you to talk to meanwhile and a chance to 'meet' others;-) .... > I understand most of what you say and accept that one should not be > angry towards the hunter and neither should one be conceited. But I am > confused as to the difference between aversion to the animal being > harmed (unwholesome), pity for the animal (unwholesome) and compassion > (wholesome). I hope I feel the latter but am not sure. .... I'm sure Chris will add more when she can. I think her point was that we all have many changing good and not so good mental states. .... > Rob's explanation of right livelihood was very interesting. If someone > is, say, a butcher, does he or she continue to pile up bad kamma > throughout their working lives even if they really do not understand the > 'wrong' in what they do? (I myself am a teacher, not a butcher, I hasten > to add) .... Again, many good and bad mental states whatever our livelihood I think. Yes, even for teachers . .... > Sarah - I live in South Norfolk, and when I can I go to the Cambridge > Buddhist Centre for meditation. Are you in England? .... No, not for a long time (We've been in Hong Kong for 20 yrs), but all my family live in England. As children we used to stay on an aunt and uncle's farm in South Norfolk. It was a beautiful area with a very large duck pond and lots of dairy cattle that we used to get to know. I was thinking about it and the cows (I can still remember some of their names) when Ken H was recently talking about his farming days in a previous thread on 'right livelihood' which you may like to track down. Like Ken H, my uncle used to treat all his animals very kindly. Enjoy the list, ask for help and look forward to chatting more in a couple of weeks or so. Metta, Sarah ======== 26076 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 4:30am Subject: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > Sarah, > > > > You still haven't answered my original question. Could you please be > > serious for a moment and give your reaction/analysis of the post in > > question without all of the wisecracks and laughter? (I wouldn't ask, > > but you brought it up in the first place). Thank you. > .... > I'll try (right, straight face)! I've just found it: > > James: "I think it is interesting that the suttas describe the meal as > 'tender pork cuisine'; hmmmm...I wonder why it was so tender? A good > guess would be that it was probably undercooked. > Here is an entry from encyclopedia.com that parallels the symptoms of the > Lord Buddha after he ate this meal of tender (undercooked?) meat:..." > > I thought it was a well-written an interesting post with support that > would convince most and a good counter-balance to Suan's post with lots of > Pali detail just before it. I was glad to read it. Hence my response. Hi Sarah, Thank you for the respons. I hope you enjoy your trip. Metta, James 26077 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 4:34am Subject: Re:_[dsg]_ICARO´S_DHAMMA_DIARY_CHAPTER_THREE_!!!! Hi Icaro (& Nina). I really enjoy your Dhamma Diary entries;-) Icaro: >I do feel really good...despite the food!!!! All of us at the barracks are really newbies at military life. The vision and understanding of Metta and mutual help are our goal and many of us are trying really hard to get such standards - but despite this remark right effects sometimes arise easily: I never touched up a Parabellum 9mm shotgun before on my life and my first shooting stand was very good - I was allowed to pass to the advanced shooting school! Samatha, ekagatta, a deep breath, the Parabellum 9mm stands firm at my hands and... bullseye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!< ...... We certainly see the concentration at these moments (kusala? akusala?. You’ll have to talk to Jon about the samatha;-) In the commentary to the Parinibbana Sutta, I so enjoyed reading the details about the Vajjis and harmonious living in a military context and for the Sangha afterwards. We read about how when they acted and worked in ‘solidarity’ and without ‘internal dissension’ they could not be destroyed. We read all the details about the importance of living in harmony and meeting for discussion and sharing of news. Please keep up all your good charts such as the one showing the conditions for the sense-door consciousness to arise and zany commentary;-);-). Nina, I keep coming across notes in the comy about changes in gramma. Comy to parinib. Sutta p.15 Of a battle (yuddhassa) -genitive with instrumental meaning. Also thx for the qu which I’ve printed to take. metta, Sarah p.s Icaro, I'm thinking of you as I pack - also having trouble trying to stick to the basics;-) ====== 26078 From: monomuni Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 1:33am Subject: The 3 Final Freedoms ... Friends: The 3 Final Freedoms: Outlet 1: (animitta-vimokkha) Seeing all constructions as a transient exhaustion is entering the Signless Liberation through the door of Determination opened by Faith. This is an exit from this world. Such one is freed by Trust. Outlet 2: (apanihita-vimokkha) Seeing all constructions as a disappointing misery is entering the Desireless Liberation through the door of Tranquility opened by Concentration. This is an exit from this world. Such one is a BodyWitness. Outlet 3: (sunnata-vimokkha) Seeing all phenomena as an impersonal empty no self is entering the Voidness Liberation through the door of Understanding opened by Insight. This is an exit from this world. Such one is attained to Vision. Their final state is very sameness even though arrived at this peak by 3 different routes. Source: The path of Discrimination (Canonical) Patisambhidamagga; [i 49]. Essay on Liberation V. By Sariputta. Friendship is truly GREATEST The entire Motivation behind all of the Noble Life. Yeah! Bhikkhu Samahita, SRI LANKA. WWW: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct : - ] -- A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/ Whosoever, by a good deed, covers the evil done, such a one illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds. Random Dhammapada Verse 173 26079 From: javisens Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 6:09am Subject: Hello - Clonning and Antibiotics Dear Everyone I do apologise for not introducing myself before. First thanks very much for Christine and Sara for their response and clarifying my questions. Rob's article is quite revealing and I would recommend that to several people who asked me the same question. I myself a buddhist from Sri Lanka(working in UK presently), but honestly I am no match (and somewhat ashamed of myself that how mush little I know about buddhism)to what is being discussed by all of you. In order to get answers to my questions I surf through the web and happened see DSG and mailed it to you. I will visit DSG as much as I can and hope to contribute with some qusetions more of laymen would have. May the Triple Gem Bless all of you, Javisens 26080 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 8:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Larry, > I am just following the teaching on "sabhava". "Arising" is the one and > only criterion for reality. But Nibbana also has sabhava, and it does not arise. I think sabhava has more to do with `nature' and `existence' than with arising. But I do like that you look at conditioned dhammas from the standpoint of `arising'. I usually look at it from existence, and then think about arising and falling away. It's good I think, to always remember that any one of these implies the other two. > Arising is impermanence. Impermanence is > combining and separating. Without combining into combinations there is no impermanence. I am a bit uncomfortable with this connection. A rupa kalapa is not a result of `combination' as such. The four primary elements, though they condition one another, is not like they `come together', but more like they arise together because there can never be one without the other. In the same way, though conditionality and impermanence go together, it is not like the former is the sole cause for the latter. So I think it better to keep them separate as being different characteristics of realities… What do you think? > Combining and separating is also the basis of cause and condition. Yes, but I think it is good to remember that dhammas condition one another by many ways. They condition one another from the fact that they come together, but also I think they come together due to other conditions. But I am not so clear about this, what do you think? > A person is a combination, impermanent, not self, ultimately undesirable. This may be the kind of `self view' that Victor often reminds us about. I see no point in positing a `person' and then describing what that might be in terms of what we learn about dhammas. It is good to know what goes on in the ultimate level, part of which is the process of `thinking' about persons. And it is also good to know that a `person' does not exist and have any sabhava. So what comes together are citta, cetasika and rupa, and it is these that have sabhava and are impermanent and ultimately undesirable. > You can promote the undesirability of people or governments > by denying their existence but there may be a problem with credibility. > It depends on what you can believe. ?? Don't follow you here. Metta, Sukin. 26081 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 8:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Victor, > In terms of the noble eightfold path, the Buddha taught more than > satipatthana. While right mindfulness/samma sati matters, it is > only part of the Buddha's teaching of the noble eightfold path. I think you have read many times here, what the Eightfold Path means in terms of them being factors arising and conditioning each other. These are not conventional ideas to be taken separately and developed one by one. They are in fact, ultimate realities arising either five together or all eight depending on them being mundane or supramundane. We read about concentration for example, as arising with *all* cittas. And we also read about sati as being exclusively kusala and that this too is differentiated between on the one hand, those associated with dana, sila, and development of samatha, and on the other, with sati of the level of satipatthana. Also, we differentiate between samma and miccha Ditthi. So we see that there cannot be say, samma sati without the samadhi being samma too, and since we are concerned with vipassana here, these two cannot arise without samma ditthi. So isn't it sensible not only to view the factors of the path as arising together to perform a particular function based on the above reasoning, but also to note that if taken separately, there is bound to be a belief that each can be developed exclusive of the other, through some conventional activity. Such as meditating or `reading'? ;-) The Buddha did teach more than satipatthana. He taught about the development of Parami and other kusala which support the development of wisdom. However, without satipatthana, nothing can lead to real knowledge of the way things are, which is what leads to liberation. I think that "View" being that which drives us to any decision we make with regard to deeds through body, speech and mind, `Right View' is the leader when it comes to the Eightfold Path. And I believe also, that the Right View of the intellectual level is accompanied by an appropriate level of samma sati and samadhi. Which is why, this too is considered kusala. And in light of the importance of samma ditthi as being the leader, it is also good to know what are the realities which can be the object of satipatthana. Without making this distinction, worldlings like you and I will mistake the unreal for real and so accumulate ignorance. The connection here, though is between `intellectual knowledge' and `satipatthana' in that the former *leads* to the latter and not about both sati and panna arising together and having the same object, shows nevertheless that they are closely connected. The difference is when sati does occur to apprehend a paramattha dhamma, the panna then not only understand intellectual meaning, but `directly knows' one characteristic or the other of that reality. So we see that in the practice of satipatthana, is the development of other factors as well. No need to considering them separately and certainly no point in trying to develop one at the exclusion of the other. Because the development is not in `trying', or any kind of `conscious effort', but rather understanding what samma magga is and knowing that without this knowledge, invariably miccha magga will be developed. Recognizing what is not the path and intellectually understanding what it might be, is I believe the main condition for the latter to be developed. > In the discourses Satipatthana Sutta*, Anapanasati Sutta**, and > Kayagata-sati Sutta***, the Buddha taught the practice and > development of mindfulness. The Buddha's teaching on mindfulness is > not about what is reality and what is concept. But mindfulness of what? Like I said above, if we do not know what the object of samma sati might be, then invariably the object would be that which makes it `miccha sati', or lobha. If we insist on seeing the fault in making this distinction at the intellectual level, no matter what, then I believe we are bound to take the wrong path. Victor, I would like to hear your answer to the following questions. What is ignorance? What it is to be ignorant now? What does wisdom know? Metta, Sukin 26082 From: Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 5:58am Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/13/03 3:16:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Sorry for the delays. I’m hoping to get up to date today with several > posts and will then probably have to delay any further replies to anyone > until after our return two weeks later or so. Hope everyone continues the > threads in my absence;-) > .... > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Howard: > > To the best of my knowledge, I've only written of concepts (i.e. > >ideas) as namas. When I may say something to the effect that > >such-and-such is > >"concept-only," my meaning is that the alleged such-and-such doesn't > >truly exist, > >but that all there is is the concept of it (applied to a particular > >sequence of > >mentally unconstructed, directly observed phenomena). > .... > OK, and we can use these terms in anyway. However, why would one want to > use a Pali term like ‘namas’ in a different way to that used in the texts, > where it clearly doesn’t include concepts? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: My entire life I have used 'concept' to mean a thought of a certain general type, and not the alleged object it refers to. Everybody I ever knew before coming on DSG understood 'concept' that way as well. Trees, cars, circles, and my kindergarten teacher were never considered to be concepts. But there *were* the *ideas* of trees, cars, circles,and my kindergarten teacher, and these were concepts. Of course, I always thought the intended references of these concepts were actual existences. I was even a mathematical Platonist who thought that such alleged things as uncountable ordinals were real things! Now I do not believe in the actual existence, even fleeting, of trees, cars, circles, my kindergarten teacher, and transfinite ordinals. These are concept-only, meaning that they are the *conventional* referents of certain thoughts (it is a *convention* to treat these as existents). But what of the *thoughts*?? Are there no thoughts? When I seem to see a tree through the window, is there no thought that arises? I say there is a thought that arises and is discerned (vi~n~nanized) just as there are sights and sounds and tastes and feelings and inclinations that arise. The alleged *referents*, however, the trees, and cars etc, do not arise. It is *these* nonexistences that you and others seem to mean when you use the Pali word 'pa~n~natti'. I have no problem with using 'pa~n~ntti' in this manner, and when so using it, I would then most readily say that pa~n~natti are not namas, nor are they rupas, nor are they anything at all - they are nonexistent, pretend-entities. But *concepts* in the sense of "thoughts," which I believe is the sense in which most American speakers of English use the word 'concepts', are not non-existent, pretend-entities, but phenomena that arise via the mind-door, and are apprehended by mind-consciousness, just as sounds are phenomena that arise via the ear-door and are apprehended by ear-consciousness. The difference is that thoughts are fabricated by mental construction in a way that sounds are not, though both are, of course, conditioned, and both arise in part as kamma vipaka. --------------------------------------------------------------- > .... > Howard: > > As I think about this issue a bit further, a thought occurs to > >me: > >Concepts/ideas are mental objects which are mind-constructed. They are > >actually > >constructed by mental activity and actually observed via the mind door, > >and > >they are not rupas, and so I count them as namas. > .... > Again, I think it’s confusing to use namas for this correct definition of > concepts. (see the definition of nama which Dan gave from Nyantiloka dict > and also, RobM’s slides showing namas as being equivalent to the realities > of cittas, cetasikas and nibbana). ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I have no problem with that definition, which goes as follows: > náma: (lit. 'name'): 'mind', mentality. This term is generally used as a > collective name for the 4 mental groups (arúpino khandha), viz. feeling > (vedaná), perception (saññá), mental formations (sankhára) and consciousness > (viññána). Within the 4th link (náma-rúpa) in the formula of the paticcasamuppáda > (q.v.), however, it applies only to karma-resultant (vipáka) feeling and > perception and a few karma-resultant mental functions inseparable from any > consciousness. As it is said (M. 9; D. 15; S. XII, 2): "Feeling (vedaná), perception > (saññá), volition (cetaná), impression (phassa), mental advertence > (manasikára): this, o brother, is called mind (náma)." With the addition of 2 more > mental factors, namely, mental vitality (jÃvita) and concentration (samádhi), > here 'stationary phase of mind' (cittatthiti), these 7 factors are said in the > Abhidhammattha Sangaha to be the inseparable mental factors in any state of > consciousness. I count thoughts/ideas/concepts as falling within the sankharakkhandha. They are mental formations. Their alleged referents, however, are not - they are nothing at all. Even the alleged referent of the idea of hardness is nothing at all, because the referent of the *idea* of hardness, while intended to correspond to a hardness, is, in fact, *not* an experienced hardness! A "hardness" thought of is *not* an actual experienced hardness - it, in fact, is nothing at all. ----------------------------------------------------------- As Jon said to Larry on their topic: > > “Well it depends on whose definition of ‘tranquillity’ we are working with > -- our own or the Buddha’s ;-))As I read the texts, the > Buddha goes to some lengths to explain why conventional ideas of qualities > or values such as understanding, worthiness, wealth,importance, > desirability, effort, achievement, concentration and the like (and > tranquillity) do not conform to the model of those > qualities or values as they need to be understood for the purpose of > developing the path. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: So? What does that have to do with this issue? ------------------------------------------------------ Besides, we each have different ideas as to what> > these things mean in their conventional sense (ideas that are of course > coloured by our own particular ignorance and wrong view). ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Then they are different concepts. So what? ------------------------------------------------------ > ..... > Howard: > >If, however, a nama > >must, > >itself, take an actual object, then many ideas/concepts fail that test. > >But I'm not > >at all sure that is a good test. Feelings do not take objects, though > >they > >are *associated* with objects. > .... > Feelings are cetasikas (mental factors) which take the same object as the > cittas and other cetasikas they accompany. Let’s say there is attachment > to the (concept of) computer at this moment. Pleasant feeling accompanies > the attachment and also experiences the same object. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What do you mean by "experience an object"? It is vi~n~nana that experiences the object. The coming together of object, sense door, and vi~n~nana is contact, and *that* is the "experiencing of the object". Feeling arises as a *result* of the contact. That is part of the statement of dependent origination. Because feeling arises *due* to the contact with a particular object, we properly associate it with that object. But feeling doesn't experience the object, conciousness does. Abhidhamma seems to present the feeling of an object simultaneous with the apprehending of that object (as part of the same citta), but I do not believe this. I believe that paticcasamupada teaches that feeling arises as a *result* of contact. First there is the coming together of object, sense door and consciousness that is contact, contact being that experiential event, then follows feeling, and with that as condition, along with ignorance-influenced fabrication as condition, tanha arises. These are *not* simultaneous features of a single mind state. That is not how it is taught in the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination, and it is not how one observes it to occur in one's own mindstream, at least not *this* one. ------------------------------------------------------- > ..... > H: >In fact, very often a feeling is arises > >from the > >cognizing of an object which is a concept (idea)! > .... > Exactly so! ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, exactly so. The object is the thought, what grasps the thought is subject-object discernment (vi~n~nana), the medium is the mind door, and the cognitive event, the coming together of the three is contact. The feeling arises conditioned by that experiential event. ---------------------------------------------------- > .... > H: >Also, nibbana is > >classified > >as a nama, and it takes no object. So I'm not persuaded that the > >object-taking > >test is a valid one for what constitutes namas - it is sufficient, but > >not > >necessary. > ..... > As Dan pointed out, nibbana is an exception to many rules;-) A nama by > default we might say. (Btw, Dan, supramundane doesn’t mean ‘beyond the > field of’ nama and rupa. Lokuttara cittas are supramundane, but are still > namas, so I don’t think we can use that line to disqualify nibbana. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I wasn't looking to disqualify nibbana as a nama, but to qualify thoughts in general as namas. Of *course* thoughts are namas! They are mental phenomena. And as far as nibbana is concerned, it is a nama because it is an absence. Absences are known exclusively through the mind door, that, as I see it it, is what makes a phenomenon nama (mental). ------------------------------------------------------ > .... > ---------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Grasping stories is exactly how we begin to understand the > >Dhamma. > >Thank goodness we can grasp and analyze stories! Mundane understanding > >is an > >important support (among several) for wisdom. (Note to Sukin: I don't > >deny that! > >;-) > >----------------------------------------------------- > As long as it is ‘right’ mundane theoretical view I think. I’m not sure > about all this grasping though;-) (Sukin, you may wish to quote this back > to Howard sometime;-)). > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I, of course, do "grasp" your play on words here. While we are talking about grasping, though, I must tell you that Abhidhamma is loosening its hold on me, not that it ever was so tight. My perusing the Dhammasangani and the Guide to Conditional Relations hasn't helped matters in that respect. (Sorry to disappoint! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------- > >---------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Unless I'm mistaken, I do believe I have read you to say in the > >past > >that pa~n~na cannot take concepts as objects. > >--------------------------------------------------- > We have to be clear about which kind of panna we’re referring to. As it > says in the Vism, there are many kinds of panna. Panna in satipatthana > development cannot take concepts as objects, but other kinds of panna can > and do. > .... > >--------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Then there would no way to know with transformative wisdom that > >concepts have no actual references! As I see it, vipassana pa~n~na can > >"penetrate" > >concepts to see how they are fabricated, to see the paramattha dhammas > >from > >which they are fabricated, and to see their illusive nature, their being > >empty of > >the actual reference they *seem* to have. > >---------------------------------------------------- > Only by thinking. In your example in another post about the noticing of > someone being missing, the same applies. As you rightly said, there is a > ‘long chain of phenomena’ including much mind door activity and thinking > of concepts. This does not make the concepts namas however (i.e because > inevitably they have to be experienced through the mind door). The cittas > and cetasikas which cognize or ‘take’ these objects are namas. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sorry. To use a phrase of mine that has been noted before, I don't buy it. Thoughts do arise, and they are namas. They are not nothing, and they are not rupas. ----------------------------------------------------- Likewise> > when the DSG member sees the light and agrees with us - however great the > concepts;-). > As I said, I hope everyone keeps discussing these important topics, but > I’ll have to leave all replies til I get back. (Glad we’re on the same > page on the internal/external comments;-);-)) > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Yep! ;-) ----------------------------------------------- > .... > Metta, > > Sarah > > p.s I was very sorry to hear the news about your mother in law’s return to > hospital, Howard and again apologise for not responding. Our best wishes > for her comfort and good care and also to you and Rita. Pls keep us > posted. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Thanks, Sarah. At present, the situation is disappointing. I appreciate your caring. ========================= 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) 26083 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:07am Subject: Re: Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Sarah, So you know that reality is nama and rupa because you read from the sutta that Buddha talk about the khandhas, the ayatanas and the dhatus and you see that they are no different from nama and rupa. Now, let's go back to my original question to you. In the following passage, who directly knows? Sati and panna? or the monk? "A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations -- who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge -- directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn001.html The Buddha claimed himself as the Buddha. However, it does not mean that he conceived being awakened, conceived in being awakened, conceived from being awakened, conceived being awakend to be 'mine', delighted in being awakened. Likewise, directly knowing oneself as a human being does not mean that one conceives human beings, conceives in human beings, conceives from human beings, conceives human beings to be 'mine', delights in human beings. Regarding Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140, I would refer to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta An Analysis of the Properties http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn140.html A person has six properties/dhatu. However, the view that one is composed of or made up of these six properties is a self-view. Each of the six properties should be seen as it actually is with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is I am not, this is not my self.' Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] 26084 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:38am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Sukin, You asked: Being mindful of what? I would rather ask: How to develop right mindfulness? But for both questions, I would refer to Satipatthana Sutta*, Anapanasati Sutta**, and Kayagata-sati Sutta***. Peace, Victor * http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html ** http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn118.html *** http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn119.html --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] 26085 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:48am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Sukin, Larry, and all, The view "a person does not exist", or more generally, "being does not exist" is a wrong view. (9) "Again, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, the Tathagata sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions thus: 'These worthy beings who were ill-conducted in body, speech and mind, revilers of noble ones, wrong in their views, giving effect to wrong view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body,[*p.71] after death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in a bad destination, in perdition, even in hell; but these worthy beings who were well-conducted in body, speech and mind, not revilers of noble ones, right in their views, giving effect to right view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a good destination, even in the heavenly world.' Thus with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions. That too is a Tathagata's power... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn012.html Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Larry, And it is also good to know > that a `person' does not exist and have any sabhava. So what comes > together are citta, cetasika and rupa, and it is these that have > sabhava and are impermanent and ultimately undesirable. [snip] 26086 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 11:50am Subject: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi Howard and all, I largely agree with you in what the term "concept" means. And in terms of name and form, I also see that concept belongs to the category of nama/name. Both name and form are dukkha/unsatisfactory/imperfect. Nibbana, the cessation of dukkha/the unsatisfactory/the imperfect, is neither nama/name nor rupa/form. However, the idea about Nibbana is nama, is dukkha/unsatisfactory/imperfect. Body is impermanent, dukkha, not self. So is the concept about body. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah - [snip] 26087 From: Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 9:04am Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 10/13/03 2:53:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard and all, > > I largely agree with you in what the term "concept" means. And in > terms of name and form, I also see that concept belongs to the > category of nama/name. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: I suspected we would be in agreement on this. There are several areas in which we are in agreement. Where we seems to disagree is in the claimed distinction between conventional speech and literal speech, and on the related issue of whether or not the Buddha taught no-self or only not-self. I do believe that there is at least one sutta in which the Buddha says something to the effect that he uses terms such as "I" but is not fooled by them. I do believe it is a sutta that is the source of that. Also, it has been my impression that the distinction between conventional and ultimate truth has its basis in the suttas. However, I am unable to give exact references for either of these. (I'm not very good at sutta references.) I do agree with you that the actuality/concept-only dichotomy is not the primary thrust of the Dhamma. (BTW, the Tibetans make much of the distinction, and some even go so far as to maintain that everything is concept-only.) The primary thrust of the Dhamma, as I see it, are the four noble truths, the tilakkhana, dependent arising, and, above all, the *practice* - the training in (or cultivation of) sila, samadhi, and pa~n~na. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Both name and form are dukkha/unsatisfactory/imperfect. Nibbana, > the cessation of dukkha/the unsatisfactory/the imperfect, is neither > nama/name nor rupa/form. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: As I see it, the five khandhas afflicted by clinging are dukkha. The second noble truth shows dukkha to be adventitious, that it is caused by craving. The third noble truth shows that the removal of dukkha is possible, and the 4th noble truth provides the means. ----------------------------------------------------- However, the idea about Nibbana is nama, > > is dukkha/unsatisfactory/imperfect. > > Body is impermanent, dukkha, not self. So is the concept about body. > > Peace, > Victor > ======================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 26088 From: Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:34am Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi Howard In a message dated 10/13/2003 1:09:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > I do believe > that there is at least one sutta in which the Buddha says something to the > effect that he uses terms such as "I" but is not fooled by them. I do > believe it > is a sutta that is the source of that. Also, it has been my impression that > the distinction between conventional and ultimate truth has its basis in the > > suttas. I agree that conventional speech is laid out in the suttas much as you state. But I can't think of any instance where a distinction between conventional truth and ultimate truth is made. From what I gather, the suttas point out truths and point out non-truths, but I can't remember them pointing out things that are conventionally true. At least I don't believe it is ever spoken about in those terms. I think that is a notion that develops later. TG 26089 From: Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 5:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Sukin, Although Victor disagrees, if it makes sense to you to think that people don't exist, I think it is okay. It makes more sense to me to think people do exist as impermanent processes, also governments or anything else that arises. I don't see any problem in understanding that a person is not a self (soul). As long as one's undersanding cuts through self clinging (upadana) then that is all to the good. Larry 26090 From: robmoult Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 5:39pm Subject: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > I can't think of any instance where a distinction between conventional > truth and ultimate truth is made. From what I gather, the suttas point out > truths and point out non-truths, but I can't remember them pointing out things > that are conventionally true. At least I don't believe it is ever spoken about > in those terms. I think that is a notion that develops later. Here is a quote from DN 9 (Potthapada Sutta): "Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them." Thanissaro Bhikkhu comments on this quote as follows: "The Commentary takes this is as the Buddha's affirmation of the idea -- which in later centuries became current in all schools of Buddhism -- that he spoke truth on two levels: conventional and ultimate. In context, though, the Buddha seems to be referring merely to the fact that he has adopted the linguistic usages of his interlocutors simply for the sake of discussion, and that they should not be interpreted out of context." Metta, Rob M :-) 26091 From: Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 2:27pm Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi Rob M. I'm not sure what you meant to demonstrate by the below quote, but it backs up the part I was agreeing with Howard on that the Buddha used conventional language without being fooled by it. "The quote says nothing regarding "conventional and ultimate truths." The point I was making was that I didn't recall the Buddha speaking about conventional and ultimate "truths." I could be wrong, but will need a more pertinent quote to be shown that. :-) This is another one of those subtle yet important distinctions. The distinction is between 'language' and 'truth.' TG In a message dated 10/13/2003 5:41:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Here is a quote from DN 9 (Potthapada Sutta): > > "Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, > the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which > the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them." > > Thanissaro Bhikkhu comments on this quote as follows: "The > Commentary takes this is as the Buddha's affirmation of the idea -- > which in later centuries became current in all schools of Buddhism -- > that he spoke truth on two levels: conventional and ultimate. In > context, though, the Buddha seems to be referring merely to the fact > that he has adopted the linguistic usages of his interlocutors > simply for the sake of discussion, and that they should not be > interpreted out of context." > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > 26092 From: Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 3:18pm Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi, TG - In a message dated 10/13/03 5:38:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Howard > > In a message dated 10/13/2003 1:09:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > upasaka@a... writes: > > >I do believe > >that there is at least one sutta in which the Buddha says something to the > >effect that he uses terms such as "I" but is not fooled by them. I do > >believe it > >is a sutta that is the source of that. Also, it has been my impression that > > >the distinction between conventional and ultimate truth has its basis in > the > > > >suttas. > > I agree that conventional speech is laid out in the suttas much as you > state. > But I can't think of any instance where a distinction between conventional > truth and ultimate truth is made. From what I gather, the suttas point out > truths and point out non-truths, but I can't remember them pointing out > things > that are conventionally true. At least I don't believe it is ever spoken > about > in those terms. I think that is a notion that develops later. > > TG > ======================== You may well be right. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if I were wrong on this issue. I am fairly certain, though, about the business of the Buddha saying something to the effect that he uses concepts but is not fooled by them. I wish I, or someone, could recall the reference. 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) 26093 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 9:12pm Subject: tipitaka.org Dear Rob K. and other Pali students, I tried < http://www.tipitaka.org/tipitaka/booklistframe2.html. > several times. Not so long ago I got the connection, no problem. But now they say: not listed. Did they change anything? Can anyone help me? In a month time I will have to get the Tiika texts of the Visuddimagga. Nina. 26094 From: Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 5:40pm Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) In a message dated 10/13/2003 7:19:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > You may well be right. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if I > were wrong on this issue. I am fairly certain, though, about the business of > the > Buddha saying something to the effect that he uses concepts but is not > fooled > by them. I wish I, or someone, could recall the reference. > > With metta, > Howard > Hi Howard That is indeed a quote almost perfectly put from the suttas. Although the Buddha might have said 'language' rather than 'concepts.' I just recently read it but can't remember where it is off the top of my head. TG 26095 From: monomuni Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 8:33pm Subject: Muni = Silenced & Solitary Friends: The Solitary Sage (Muni = Silenced One) Conquering all Understanding all Seeing all Knowing all Detached from all Withdrawn from all Released by eliminating All Craving for the sensible And even for being itself! So silenced in mind So stilled in speech So calmed in body Such One the Wise know as a Sage ... Friendship is truly GREATEST The entire Motivation behind all of the Noble Life. Yeah! Bhikkhu Samahita, SRI LANKA. WWW: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct : - ] -- A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/ Some are born in a womb; evildoers (are born) in woeful states; the well-conducted go to blissful states; the Undefiled Ones pass away into Nibbana. Random Dhammapada Verse 126 26096 From: monomuni Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 9:27pm Subject: What is Impersonality ? Friends: ANATTA Not Anyone, Anything, Anywhere … The Lord Buddha once pointed out: “All is void of a self or what belongs to a self! Within me is thus not anything belonging to anyone, anywhere, nor is there anything belonging to me in anyone nor anywhere …” Majjhima Nikaya sutta 106 [ii 106] The Way to the Imperturbable … --- Passing processes: The is no creator but only creation The is no agent but only actions The is no observer but only seeing The is no mind but only thinking The is no walker but only walking The is no stable entity but only a process Of change, never the same, always new. --- Corelessness: As nothing lasts & all is being momentary it cannot be neither “I”, “Me”, “Ego” nor “Mine”. All phenomena – whether internal or external – are really ownerless, impersonal, lacking all identity, passing, without a self, void of soul or any other lasting core. --- The Mirror: Hold up a mirror in front of your self and say: Is there anybody inside this mirror ? No! Nobody is inside the mirror ! Is there anybody behind this mirror ? No! Nobody is behind the mirror ! There is only this mirror !!! There is only this reflected image !!! Though void of a self, empty of stable entity, impersonal, lacking any fixed identity this fascinating changeable phenomena may be named, pointed to, designated & labeled. Still it remains only an image with nothing Behind it … There is only this mirror !!! --- Anatta: This doctrine of universal impersonality is the core & particular of Buddha’s teachings. It is subtle, difficult to comprehend yet most rewarding as it disables all destructive egoism. All detrimental states are rooted in this false theory of a persisting & autonomous self! All real freedom is absent of this assumption. Friendship is truly GREATEST The entire Motivation behind all of the Noble Life. Yeah! Bhikkhu Samahita Cypress Hut, Gangamulla Bambarella, Tawalantenna 20838. Central Province. SRI LANKA. Email: monomuni@m... WWW: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct : - ] -- A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/ Should a person commit evil, he should not do it again and again; he should not find pleasure therein: painful is the accumulation of evil. Random Dhammapada Verse 117 26097 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi RobK, > > > > S:>> most > > > (average) people, hearing undesirable sounds is akusala vipaka and > > so on. > > > There are exceptions. For example, for someone who is almost deaf, > > hearing > > > the `boom, boom' might be kusala vipaka. > > _____ > R:> Dear Sarah, > > Could you provide a reference for this: that a sound may be > > intrinsically undesirable and yet the hearing of it is kusala vipaka. > .... > S: This was my understanding of the passage RobM asked about in the post, > i.e: > .. > RobM: > P172 of CMA, "It is distinguishable according to what is found > > desireable at one time and undesireable at another time by average > > (men such as) accountants, government officials, burgesses, land > > owners and merchants". > .. > S: I'd be glad to hear any other interpretations you or others might have. ______ I wrote to Dan and RobM about this several times. The sammohavinodani explains this about average people so that it can be roughly understood. It then goes on to explain that in the ultimate sense it only depends on the kamma - not on anyones judgement, (not even English teachers). ________ > ..... > S:> > We cannot know for sure at any moment what objects experienced are > > > desirable and undesirable and it's not of consequence. Only the > > sight of a > > > live Buddha is definitely kusala vipaka for all. > > _____ > RobK:> The Atthasalini says: "dung eating pigs on smelling the odour of > dung > > become > > joyful, thinking;'we shall get something to eat' nevertheless their > > eye-consciousness (a vipaka) in the seeing of the dung, nose > > consciousness (a vipaka) in smelling its odour and tongue > > consciousness (a vipaka)in tasting its flavour is only unprofitable > > result."" endquote > > Do you disagree with this? > .... > S: A good point. I've asked Khun Sujin about this particular point before > and will perhaps raise it again with the Atth quote if you like. What I > wrote above (about seeing the live Buddha) was as she explained it to us. > At such a time it is kusala vipaka for everyone regardless. At all other > times, she said, we cannot be sure. > > Perhaps in the Atth quote these are general examples, just like we might > refer to the hearing of `booms' or thunder as akusala vipaka. However, it > doesn't necessarily mean that at every moment of seeing the dung and so on > (for every pig)that it is akusala vipaka, just as we cannot say that at > every moment of hearing `booms' it is. There are so many sense door > processes. What do you think? > ________ It is irrelavant how many sense door processes occur. While seeing the Buddha there can be processes that take the visible object of Buddha and others that take something else. It is not a matter of trying to pinpoint at any moment whether there is akusala vipaka or kusala vipaka, but that some objects if seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelt are intrinsically undesirable. In the case of sound let us leave aside a 'boom boom' and take the case of the sound produced by someone who is angry. One may be almost deaf and hearing the shout or scream may please them, but is absolutely akusala vipaka. The fact that the sotapassada - the special rupa produced by kamma which is the basis for hearing - is produced by kusala kamma is a different matter. You say that for some pigs, some of the time, seeing the same dung is kusala vipaka and sometimes akusala vipaka. No, not unless someone scuptures the dung into some artistic masterpiece. The same with smelling the dung, unless the extreta of the dung had been feeding on perfume. RobertK 26098 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:15pm Subject: Re: tipitaka.org --Dear Nina, Tipitaka.org is currently down. Hopefully they will come back sooner or later. If you have access to windows computer you can order the disc from them which has the whole tipitika, commentaries in a much easier to search format that on the web.It saves time in the long run. with respect robertK - In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob K. and other Pali students, > I tried < http://www.tipitaka.org/tipitaka/booklistframe2.html. > several > times. Not so long ago I got the connection, no problem. But now they say: > not listed. Did they change anything? Can anyone help me? In a month time I > will have to get the Tiika texts of the Visuddimagga. > Nina. 26100 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 11:18pm Subject: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi Howard, I largely agree with TG's posts to you, although I am rather reluctant to ascribe the term "conventional" to speech. The Buddha taught the four noble truths. He did not call them the four conventional truths, nor did he call them the four ultimate truths. And I have not seen anywhere in the discourses where the Buddha or anyone else used the dichotomy of the so-called conventional and the so-called ultimate. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - [snip] 26101 From: peterdac4298 Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 0:19am Subject: Greatings from Vientiane Hi Everyone This is coming from Vientiane, Laos. I'm having to renew my visa and this requires leaving Thailand and reentering. But it does make for an interesting excursion from the wat pa at Baan Taad. Travel broadens the mind and seeing a culturally similar location with a different colonial history makes for some interesting reflections. The roads here are appalling compared to Thailand, but the internet connection is better than I was getting in Watford, UK. Well, it seems that way after months of painfully slow connections in Udonthani. As usual, it is most refreshing to read your posts and see the Dhamma flourishing online. I don't expect to ordain for another month or so, at least that is what I'd like, which is precisely why it will be something else, Dhamma training being what it is. It is so nice practicing in Thailand, and even Laos for that matter. The so called inscrutable Orient only seems so from the point of view of anyone totally unfamiliar with practice. But I find I can get around OK if I assume everyone is picking me up on lapses of mindfulness, it seems to explain almost all the interactions I have with people in this part of the world. This also applied to some Chinese people that I was getting to know in Watford during the last couple of years before coming out here, though some minor differences in style were apparent: hence this amazing insight!) Ajahn Maha Boowa is an amazing person, and incredibly active for 90 years old/young. I am currently reading his translated biography of Ajahn Munn, to be followed by the translation of his analysis of Ajahn Munn's techniques and practices, the "Patipadha". It is rather wacky and spooky but marvelous reading by candle light in ones kuti amidst all the noise of the jungle at evening time. But each inspiring story is followed by some very clear and instructive Dhammic analysis. Much emphasis is placed on understanding the nature of the 'heart' or Citta, (what I like to think of as the right hemisphere of the brain, (though am told that this itself would not explain rebirth)). It is the kind of (for me) fresh approach to Dhamma that I was looking for. The entire structure of the Dhamma seems to concern the mind in its deluded state. When the mind is free of defilements it is not describable in coherent terms, though clearly knowable. I needed to find a new source of saddha/faith and this approach certainly provides it for me. In combination with the 'Budho' mantra, for developing samadhi, my practice is becoming much fresher. Rob Moult's post #23712 to Peter_V was a significant inspiration for seeking a fresh approach to the question of faith, and I even made a hard copy of it, thanks Rob. And in turn, an opportunity to post on dsg is a further inspiration for maintaining wholesome states in mind. Don't know when I'll get the chance to post again, but will certainly grasp it when ever it arises!) Cheers Peter Peter Da Costa 26102 From: Purnomo . Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 1:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] for Purnomo I am fine. I always read dsg. Don't worry. Can you help me? Now, I am searching a article about 'building a business the buddhist way' or ' how do we get be a rich the Buddhist way' metta, purnomo >From: "christine_forsyth" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] for Purnomo >Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:28:21 -0000 > >Dear Purnomo, > >I hope you are reading dsg still. I was thinking of you today with >metta and karuna. A year since the Bali Bombing. Just wondering how >you, your family and friends are getting on. >May you all be safe and protected, May you all be healthy and strong, >May you all be happy of heart and mind, May you all live with ease >and well-being. > >metta and peace, >Christine 26103 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 2:10am Subject: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > ---> In the case of sound let us leave aside a 'boom boom' and take the > case of the sound produced by someone who is angry. One may be almost > deaf and hearing the shout or scream may please them, but is > absolutely akusala vipaka. The fact that the sotapassada - the > special rupa produced by kamma which is the basis for hearing - is > produced by kusala kamma is a different matter. > >. > > RobertK ______ Dear Sarah, In a 'tilt to your direction' (as Howard says)I like to also bring up the case of temperature. Take the case of a man with a fever. Someone places a cool cloth on his head and this brings relief. To someone not feeling hot this might be akusala vipaka while to the sick man perhaps not. Hard to know about these when it comes to temperature in particular. On the other hand a medicine has a bitter , foul taste . It is akusala vipaka by tongue but gives good benefit. While another food may be genuinely delicious and kusala vipaka through tongue but causes illness, slowly. Temperature, though, is harder to specify . RobertK 26104 From: robmoult Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 2:30am Subject: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > Hi Rob M. > > I'm not sure what you meant to demonstrate by the below quote, but it backs > up the part I was agreeing with Howard on that the Buddha used conventional > language without being fooled by it. "The quote says nothing regarding > "conventional and ultimate truths." The point I was making was that I didn't recall > the Buddha speaking about conventional and ultimate "truths." I could be wrong, > but will need a more pertinent quote to be shown that. :-) This is another > one of those subtle yet important distinctions. The distinction is between > 'language' and 'truth.' > > TG > > In a message dated 10/13/2003 5:41:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > rob.moult@j... writes: > > > Here is a quote from DN 9 (Potthapada Sutta): > > > > "Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, > > the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which > > the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them." > > > > Thanissaro Bhikkhu comments on this quote as follows: "The > > Commentary takes this is as the Buddha's affirmation of the idea -- > > which in later centuries became current in all schools of Buddhism -- > > that he spoke truth on two levels: conventional and ultimate. In > > context, though, the Buddha seems to be referring merely to the fact > > that he has adopted the linguistic usages of his interlocutors > > simply for the sake of discussion, and that they should not be > > interpreted out of context." > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) > > I guess I should have made my point clear and I should not have assumed that you could read my mind :-) I found that Thanissaro Bhikkhu's comment that this section of this Sutta as being the source of the commentaries delineating "conventional" and "ultimate" as interesting and relevant. I don't mean to take a position on this issue. Sorry for the confusion. Metta, Rob M :-) 26105 From: Sukin Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 2:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Larry, > Although Victor disagrees, if it makes sense to you to think that people > don't exist, I think it is okay. It makes more sense to me to think > people do exist as impermanent processes, also governments or anything > else that arises. I don't see any problem in understanding that a person > is not a self (soul). As long as one's undersanding cuts through self > clinging (upadana) then that is all to the good. So are you saying that 'clinging' is the only problem and no matter what is the experience, all that really matters is that one should not cling to experiences? Is panna the activity of making a decision not to cling? Or is it that because panna understands conditioned realities, that this in itself is accompanied by detachment? I don't think the Buddhadhamma is about 'attitude of mind' in the sense that with this in mind, one can deal with experiences appropriately. There is no self. The practice of satipatthana is not the matter of deciding what to think of experiences. But because panna has been gradually developed through knowing more and more clearly the nature of conditioned reality, avijja correspondingly becomes weak. And avijja is what leads to sankhara, through clinging, to birth and death and back again. So I think it is very important that the distinction is made, as you have briefly discussed elsewhere, that panna of the level of satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas and not concepts as object. What do you think? Metta, Sukin. 26106 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 2:36am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Victor, > You asked: Being mindful of what? I would rather ask: How to > develop right mindfulness? But for both questions, I would refer to > Satipatthana Sutta*, Anapanasati Sutta**, and Kayagata-sati Sutta***. > I wish I had the energy and time to go sentence by sentence, word by word with you in reading these suttas. But patience is not something I am known for. ;-/ Perhaps in Myanmar Sarah and I will together think of 'a way how to get Victor to understand!!' Just kidding ;-). So you see I am busy these days too, getting ready for my trip to Myanmar and at the same time, arranging for my wife and kids to go to India. I'll make a few general comments here though. As you have seen here, there is the view that sati is conditioned, which means it arises only when the appropriate conditions arise. So when someone *tries* to have sati and directs the mind to any object, that is seen *not* as sati. Sati being kusala and wanting and purposeful (conventionally speaking) direction of mind is not, there is the understanding that the latter can not lead to the former. As Jon has been trying to show in his discussion on the 'samatha' thread, that only this moment of samatha arising and known as such, can be the foundation of samatha in the future and so be said to be the development of it. The same applies to sati. So the texts may be talking about being mindful of the 'body in the body', 'mind in the mind' etc. but this is all descriptive. But I know that you don't think so. ;-) Moreover, what *is* meant by 'body in the body' etc.? Before the Abhidhamma, I used to struggle with this idea. I would feel like I 'got it', but then this would slip away. In any case, what I 'got' is now understood as being the 'general feeling of body', only without mental proliferation. But now my understanding is this: 'observer', 'observed', 'part', 'location'(as in case of sensation from around the hand being different from one coming from the forehead), is all *thinking*. In actual moments of satipatthana, there is no idea of me, or other, or hand, or feet, 'nor here nor there' as Howard likes to remark. Any such idea only increases atta sanna. Which is also the reason why I do not think it a good idea to 'go sit under a tree and practice vipassana' specifically! ;-) Unless of course, this is something I do normally anyway. I think, if mindfulness was simply the matter of attention made upon this mind and body, *as us worldlings know it*, it would not be such a great and rare event for the Buddha and the Teachings to come to be in this world. The probability of attaining enlightenment would not be so rare. We all since childhood perceive this gross body fairly clear, and from being driven by thoughts and feelings to observing them objectively is not such a great step forward. The problem is not that we have not learnt to observe, but that there is so much avijja that we are fooled even by our best intentions. That all that arises is conditioned and conditioning other dhammas. That if this moment is dictated by avijja, then *that* is what is being accumulated. And if indeed we view the Teachings with Wrong View and be lead to wrong practices, then we are moving in a direction other than the correct way. I am short of time, so I have to end here. Metta, Sukin. 26107 From: robmoult Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 2:38am Subject: Re: Greatings from Vientiane - Lurkers take note! Hi Peter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "peterdac4298" wrote: > Rob Moult's post #23712 to Peter_V was a significant inspiration for > seeking a fresh approach to the question of faith, and I even made a > hard copy of it, thanks Rob. You are more than welcome! I had no idea that anybody read that message; it was quite long and I did not get any replies. To hear that it was a significant inspiration to you as you become a monk is quite uplifiting for me. This drives home the point that one can never fully understand or appreciate the impact that we have on the rest of the world. Lurkers take note: your question could easily prompt an answer that is of interest to many people and your question could really help another person with a similar concern. Metta, Rob M :-) 26108 From: Samahita Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 2:06am Subject: Re: Optimizing Invitation ! Dear Dan D > Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, > This "invitation day" sounds constructive and helpful -- for bhikkhus. > Curiously, the Chinese communists tried this same ritual > It was a disaster. So is it! Many if not all things done within the fanatic mentality are disasters. Even good things turns bad! So is the results of a fanatic mind ... Samahita 26109 From: robmoult Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 3:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] for Purnomo and others Hi Purnomo (and others); If you are looking for simple, easy to digest articles about how to lead a Buddhist life, the best source that I know of is Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda. His articles have been published in many languages (including Malay and Indonesian). I suggest that you visit the following website and download one or more articles (some translations can also be downloaded here). http://www.ksridhammananda.com/ Here is a list of English language articles available for download from this website: - Are Buddhists Idol Worshippers? - Buddhism and Astrology - Buddhism and Modern Society - Buddhism and the duties of a lay Buddhist - Buddhism and The Free Thinkers - Buddhism as a Religion - Buddhism For The Future - Buddhist Attitude Towards Other Religions - Buddhist Principles for Human Dignity - Can Religion Bring Peace? - Celebration of Wesak - Day to day Buddhist Practices - Flower of Mankind - Great Virtues of The Buddha and the Dhamma - How to Choose a Religion? - How to Overcome Your Difficulties? - How To Practise Buddhism? - Human Dignity in Buddhism - Is Buddhism Practical Today? - Is it Wrong to be ambitious? - Leading a Buddhist Life - Let Peace Prevail on Earth - Life is Uncertain, Death is Certain - Moral And Ethical Conduct Of a Buddhist - Noble Living - Practical Buddhism - Problems and Responsibilities - Religion in a Multi Religious Society - Religion in a Scientific Age - Sayings of The Buddha - Sri Lanka's Contribution To Buddhism - Status of Woman in Buddhism - The Aim and Way of Life - The Buddhist concept of heaven and hell - The Buddhist Way - The Purpose of Life - What is this Religion? - Who creates problems? - Why Buddhism? - Why Religion? - Why religious tolerance? - Why we should Practice Buddhism? - You are Responsible I hope that this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Purnomo ." wrote: > Now, I am searching a article about 'building a business the buddhist way' > or ' how do we get be a rich the Buddhist way' PS: I think that Christine is on her way to Thailand, so she might not reply so quickly. This is why I jumped in. 26110 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 3:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Hi RobK (& Rob M), Thanks for your additional comments. I’m having a little break from must-do chores, so I can’t resist following this a little further (in spite of other intentions;-)), especially in case I have made any mistakes or careless comments. ..... --- rjkjp1 wrote: > > I wrote to Dan and RobM about this several times. The > sammohavinodani explains this about average people so that it can be > roughly understood. It then goes on to explain that > in the ultimate sense it only depends on the kamma - not on anyones > judgement, (not even English teachers). .... Agreed. I don’t think there’s ever be any question that anyone’s judgement can be relied on (especially not the latter;-)). ..... > It is irrelavant how many sense door processes occur. While seeing > the Buddha there can be processes that take the visible object of > Buddha and others that take something else. It is not a matter of > trying to pinpoint at any moment whether there is akusala vipaka or > kusala vipaka, but that some objects if seen, heard, tasted, touched > or smelt are intrinsically undesirable. .... Agreed - IF seen, heard etc. The point I was trying to make with the fireworks (obviously not at all clearly), was that if the noises are not heard or heard just a little/infrequently, then there isn’t the same akusala vipaka to hear the undesirable sounds. .... > In the case of sound let us leave aside a 'boom boom' and take the > case of the sound produced by someone who is angry. One may be almost > deaf and hearing the shout or scream may please them, but is > absolutely akusala vipaka. The fact that the sotapassada - the > special rupa produced by kamma which is the basis for hearing - is > produced by kusala kamma is a different matter. .... Yes, the sotapassada rupas produced by kusala kamma that make it possible for the akusala vipaka to arise is an interesting diversion. We also agree that being pleased at what is heard is irrelevant. However, I think that being almost deaf or being far away from the noise is likely to be a condition for fewer moments of /less akusala vipaka to hear the undesirable sounds. This was simply the point I was trying to make. We both agree that undesirable sounds can only be heard by akusala vipaka. ..... > You say that for some pigs, some of the time, seeing the same dung is > kusala vipaka and sometimes akusala vipaka. No, not unless someone > scuptures the dung into some artistic masterpiece. The same with > smelling the dung, unless the extreta of the dung had been feeding on > perfume. .... When I wrote ‘there are so many sense door processes’, I meant that even whilst (from an outward appearance) looking at the dung, there is seeing, hearing and so on. So it depends on the experience at the time whether there is any smelling and so on. I agree we don’t need to count or calculate cittas or processes or doorways, but I do think it’s impossible to say at any moment whether (from an appearance) a particular kusala or akusala vipaka citta is arising for any pig or person as Dan would say. I am sure that some of my comments were carelessly written and I appreciate your pointing this out. RobM, I think (that as pretty average people) we can all say that this or that is a desirable/undesirable object and have a fair idea (though as someone pointed out before, when it comes to music tastes, many average people lose this fair idea;-)), but actually the agreeable/disagreeable objects can only be discerned by the vipaka cittas experiencing them. Please let me know if either of you still have other ideas. RobK, this reminds me of a discussion we had before about the blob on the page of a Dhamma text. We might say as a general rule that seeing the text is kusala vipaka experiencing the desirable visible object, but I think that only a Buddha can really be sure of this at any given moment. I think it’s an incredibly complex area and I’m very glad it’s still being discussed and any mistakes I make are being checked. Hopefully I can leave you both to discuss further. I think these discussions between us (even if we don’t agree in the end) are a very good thing;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 26111 From: monomuni Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 3:44am Subject: Equanimity (Upekkha) Friends: Equanimity (Upekkha): Unaffected On-looking, Neutral Indifference Mental Balance Impartiality Non-preference Non-opposition Is of 9 kinds: 1: Six-factored Equanimity when sensing: Whenever seeing an agreeable or disagreeable object with the eye; Whenever hearing an agreeable or disagreeable sound with the ear; Whenever smelling an agreeable or disagreeable smell with the nose; Whenever tasting an agreeable or disagreeable taste with the tongue; Whenever touching an agreeable or disagreeable thing with the body; Whenever thinking an agreeable or disagreeable thought with the mind; The monk freed of mental fermentation becomes neither glad nor sad, but remains just mindful & aware within equanimity. 2: Equanimity as an infinite Divine State: With a mind absorbed in equanimity he pervades the first direction with this noble indifference, then a second one, then a third one, then the fourth one, just so above, below and all around. Everywhere identifying himself with all beings, he is pervading the whole world with mind full of impartiality, with a great mind, refined & endless, all freed from hate and ill-will. 3: Equanimity as a link to Enlightenment: Dependent on relinquishment of all states, he gradually develops the 7th link to Enlightenment that is Equanimity. (M i 11) 4: Equanimity as Effort: Neither straining nor lax he regularly focuses attention & brings forward on-looking equanimity in all situations. (A i 257) 5: Equanimity regarding all Constructions: Whether the object is a mental, verbal or physical construction, He is neither attracted nor repulsed, yet remains just aware. 6: Equanimity as neutral Feeling: Equanimity is the often neglected feeling of neither physical pain nor pleasure, neither mental joy nor distress. It is disagreeable, when one is unaware of it, yet quite agreeable, when one is aware of it! 7: Equanimity by Insight: If it had not been accumulated, it would not now be mine. Whatever is not now accumulated, will never become mine in the future. What exists now, what has already come into being, all that I leave behind … !!! (M ii 264-65) 8: Equanimity as functional mental Balance: Equanimity is here in the sense of non-excess resulting in the feeling of even & equal taste of the mental states & abilities born together & associated with it! 9: Purifying Equanimity: The stilling of all interest & opposition, the cooling of all pleasure & pain, the silencing of all gladness & sadness in the unified absorption of the 4th Jhana meditation. Source: The Path of Purification. IV 156-170 Visuddhimagga I [160-1] By Buddhaghosa (5th Century) Friendship is truly GREATEST The entire Motivation behind all of the Noble Life. Yeah! Bhikkhu Samahita Cypress Hut, Gangamulla Bambarella, Tawalantenna 20838. Central Province. SRI LANKA. Email: monomuni@m... WWW: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct : - ] -- A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/ Hard to find is a man of great wisdom: such a man is not born everywhere. Where such a wise man is born, that family thrives happily. Random Dhammapada Verse 193 26112 From: peterdac4298 Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 5:56am Subject: Re: Greatings from Vientiane - Lurkers take note! Hi Rob To be very honest, I have yet to read the post in its entirety. I will be doing just that latter this evening as I await my visa issue tomorrow. Once I had read your account of the way saddha affected the other faculties I became so enthused I did not have the cool to read through the remainder. Such is the kamma of this dyslexic!) But it does go to show how much good stuff us slow readers miss, especially in a group like this when brilliant posts appear on a daily basis. I am sorry to hear that there was no response to the original, it at least deserved some commendation. But then even I did not read it at the time of its original appearance. It came up as I was doing a random brows some good while latter. However, I won't let that stop my further reflection on its contents. The impact of the Dhamma on the rest of the world is an excellent topic for discussion in its own right. It is something that Bhikkhus are encouraged to reflect upon on a regular (ie daily) basis, and certainly something that the committed posters of dsg should do too. Thanks again Peter. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Peter, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "peterdac4298" > wrote: > > Rob Moult's post #23712 to Peter_V was a significant inspiration > for > > seeking a fresh approach to the question of faith, and I even made > a > > hard copy of it, thanks Rob. > > You are more than welcome! I had no idea that anybody read that > message; it was quite long and I did not get any replies. To hear > that it was a significant inspiration to you as you become a monk is > quite uplifiting for me. This drives home the point that one can > never fully understand or appreciate the impact that we have on the > rest of the world. > > Lurkers take note: your question could easily prompt an answer that > is of interest to many people and your question could really help > another person with a similar concern. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 26113 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 6:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Greatings from Vientiane - Lurkers take note! Hi PeterD (Manu & RobM), Great to read your news and best wishes. Exactly what we're all interested to hear. Thank you so much for thinking of us and all your positive feedback on the posts here. I'm very glad you reminded everyone of RobM's very detailed and inspiring post on saddha and that it was so inspiring: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m19577.html How nice if you could meet us (and several other DSGers)in Bangkok this weekend or the following one.....any chance??? (we could help with the ticket). Also, another lurking member, Manu who also has keen interest, lives in Vientiane. We recently sent him some tapes and Sukin has contact. I don't know if he's reading posts or around, but let Sukin or me know off-list if you'd like to contact him. Metta, Sarah ====== 26114 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 6:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: ... > The experience of tranquility is something I aspire to identify as > a quality distinct and different from the other "Beautiful > Universals". Any reason why that particular cetasika/quality? What about the other "Beautiful Universals", or all the unwholesome cetasikas, or citta, or ruupa? Do you see these as less worth identifying? If it's samatha you aspire to then as I've mentioned I think it would be useful to get to recognise kusala moments as they occur in your daily life at present. > Also, I still don't have a clear idea why the Buddha recommended > samma > samadhi or what is the exact relationship between tranquility and > concentration in samma samadhi. If you could give a particular passage/context that would help. As you know, in the teachings the same term can have different meanings, depending on the context. This is the case with samma samadhi. In general terms, samma samadhi means samadhi (concentration; ekaggataa cetasika) that is kusala, that is, that accompanies a kusala mind-state. Depending on the context, this may be a reference to samadhi of the level of samatha or samadhi of the level of vipassana, or both. As a factor of the Noble Eightfold Path, samma samadhi means the ekaggataa cetasika that accompanies a moment of path consciousness (mundane or supramundane), that is, is always to the samadhi that accompanies moments of vipassana. I don't know if this helps. Jon 26115 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 6:23am Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi TG, --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > "The quote says nothing regarding > "conventional and ultimate truths." The point I was making was that I > didn't recall > the Buddha speaking about conventional and ultimate "truths." I could > be wrong, > but will need a more pertinent quote to be shown that. :-) This is > another > one of those subtle yet important distinctions. The distinction is > between > 'language' and 'truth.' ..... Perhaps the references and comments in this old post of Robert Eddison's will help: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m5899.html Rob Edd: >I am puzzled as to just what you mean by this, since the term 'paramattha' most definitely does occur in the Suttas, though not in the sense in which it is used in the Commentaries. Are you perhaps referring to paramattha sacca (truth in the highest sense)? If so, I would agree that this term is absent in the Suttas, though I would suggest that the notion is present. That is to say, the idea that something may be true conventionally but not ultimately is inferrable from the Suttas, even though it is expressed in different terms. What the Commentaries call conventional truth (sammuti-sacca), the Suttas call 'worldly consensus' (lokasamañña), 'worldly language' (lokanirutti), 'worldly usage' (lokavohaara), or 'worldly convention' (lokapaññatti). What the Commentaries call truth in the highest sense (paramattha-sacca) is indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most unambiguously when the Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and reality..." (saccato thetato). E.g. "....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self...." (Alagadduupama Sutta ) "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." (Yamaka Sutta)< ***** Metta, Sarah ====== 26116 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 6:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Victor, and Larry and All --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Larry, Jon, and all, > Why did the Buddha teach right concentration/samma samadhi? As a > factor of the Noble Eightfold Path, it leads to the cessation of > dukkha. > > Specifically, > > > "I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the > first jhana... the second jhana... the third... the fourth... the > dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the > infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness. I tell > you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the > dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an09-036.html In a note to his translation of this passage (NDB, p309, n. 13), Bhikkhu Bodhi says: 'In what follows the Buddha will show the attainment of arahantship (or the state of non-returning) through a method that employs tranquillity as a basis for insight.' In other words, on his reading, the sutta is about developing insight. Regarding your comments on the extract from MN 14 below, I agree with what you say as far as it goes, but would like to add something about right concentration/samma samadhi. To be 'right/samma', the concentration/samadhi must be kusala of the level of either samatha (this would lead to 'the rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states' mentioned in the text) or vipassana (leading to the 'something more peaceful than that'). So it comes back agaain to the question of what these 2 forms of mental development comprise. To my understanding, concentration developed for its own sake cannot be kusala/right/samma concentration. Jon > Let me quote from MN14 Culadukkahkkhandha Sutta* the following > passage: > > > "Mahanama, there is still a state unabanddoned by you internally, > owing to which at times states of greed, hate, and delusion invade > your mind and remain; for were that state already abandoned by you > internally you would not be living the home life, you would not be > enjoying sensual pleasures. It is because that state is > unabandoned > by you internally that you are living the home life and enjoying > sensual pleasures. > "Even though a noble disciple has seen clearly as it actually is > with proper wisdom how sensual pleasures provide little > gratification, much suffering, and much despair, and how great is > the danger in them, as long as he still does not attain to the > rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart > from unwholesome states, or to something more peaceful than that, > he may still be attracted to sensual pleasures. But when a noble > disciple has seen clearly as it actually is with proper wisdom how > sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering, and > much despair, and how great is the danger in them, and he attains > to the rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, > apart from unwholesome states, or to something more peaceful than > that, then he is no longer attracted to sensual pleasure. > > > How does one attain to the rapture and pleasure that are apart from > sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states, or to something > more peaceful than that? > > With right concentration/samma samadhi. > > Without right concentration/samma samadhi, one would still be > attracted to sensual pleasures. 26117 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 9:41am Subject: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi Sarah and all, I would be interested to learn where in the discourses the Buddha or anyone else used the dichotomy of the so-called conventional and the so-called ultimate. Specifically, I would like to learn where in the discourses the Buddha or anyone else designated something as ultimate in contrast to something as conventional. If the idea that something may be true conventionally but not ultimately is inferrable from the Suttas, how? Where in the discourses did the Buddha or anyone else claim something as conventionally true but ultimately not true? Given that the Buddha prefaced the statement "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." with the phrase "In truth and reality," in Yamaka Sutta, did the Buddha ever say that conventionally speaking, the Tathagata is to be found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]? Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi TG, > [snip] > What the Commentaries call truth in the highest sense (paramattha- sacca) > is > indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most unambiguously when the > Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and reality..." (saccato > thetato). > > E.g. > > "....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what > belongs > to self...." > (Alagadduupama Sutta ) > > "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found > [i.e. > in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." > (Yamaka Sutta)< > ***** > Metta, > > Sarah 26118 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Hi Jon and all, Regarding your comment to the passage from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an09-036.html could you explain more about what you wanted to say with Bhikkhu Bodhi's reading? Regarding your comment To be 'right/samma', the concentration/samadhi must be kusala of the level of either samatha (this would lead to 'the rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states' mentioned in the text) or vipassana (leading to the 'something more peaceful than that'). how did you get that idea? Is that idea based your reading or personal experience or personal understanding? Also, where did you get the idea that vipassana is what leads to 'something more peaceful than that'? You also said that concentration developed for its own sake cannot be kusala/right/samma concentration. I am not sure what your point is. Are you trying to define what right concentration is? I know for myself that the Buddha taught what right concentration is, and that right concentration is necessary in realizing the cessation of the dukkha. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor, and Larry and All [snip] 26119 From: Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 5:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Sukin: "So I think it is very important that the distinction is made, as you have briefly discussed elsewhere, that panna of the level of satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas and not concepts as object." Hi Sukin, Why is this important? Larry 26120 From: Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 5:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Jon: "To be 'right/samma', the concentration/samadhi must be kusala of the level of either samatha (this would lead to 'the rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states' mentioned in the text) or vipassana (leading to the 'something more peaceful than that')." Hi Jon, I took this "something more peaceful than that" to refer to the higher jhanas, the ones without rapture and pleasure. I would say to be "right" concentration has to have the hindrances suppressed or at least there has to be the understanding that hindrances are unwholesome and unprofitable. I think one could make a good faith effort without being especially proficient. If a person thinks they can't attempt to suppress the pursuit of sense pleasures for even a half hour they could at least recognize and identify this attachment. That would do something. Larry 26121 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:41pm Subject: Re: Greatings from Vientiane - Lurkers take note! Hi Peter, Rob M, James and all, Peter wrote to Rob M: -------------------- > The impact of the Dhamma on the rest of the world is an excellent topic for discussion in its own right. It is something that Bhikkhus are encouraged to reflect upon on a regular (ie daily) basis, and certainly something that the committed posters of dsg should do too. > ---------------------------------- My thoughts keep coming back to the Muslim student James wrote about; If she were to change her religion her father would have her killed, actually killed. There is no self, no living being, who is a Buddhist or a Muslim. So there is no need for any conversion, let alone any sign of conversion from Islam to Buddhism. All that really exists is a group of momentary, mental and physical phenomena. They were caused by the momentary mental and physical phenomena that immediately preceded them. They, in turn, will condition another group of momentary mental and physical phenomena to arise immediately after them (in less than a billionth of a second). This process has continued for countless aeons and, [provided nothing is done about it], it will continue for countless aeons to come. At the level of conventional, everyday life there is no pressure, no obligation, to do anything to stop the process of phenomena. After all, since all else is illusion, what harm is being done? The point of the Buddha's teaching is to simply understand this ultimate reality in which there are no living beings and in which there is no help or harm that can be done to living beings. This reality can only be understood right now. There is no time and no need for any kind of 'Buddhist' rite or ritual. (Rite and ritual are part of the illusion.) Even formal meditation is part of the illusion. The real meditation -- the one that puts an end to suffering -- is the momentary mental phenomenon, 'panna' (right understanding). So simply understand right now, the nature of the present conditioned reality, its cause, its cessation and the Path leading to its cessation. There is no reason to do anything else -- there is no reason to do anything that would differ, in any way, from normal, everyday life (whether it be Muslim or non-Muslim). Kind regards, Ken H 26122 From: Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 8:48pm Subject: Vism. XIV, 24 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV [Regarding the discriminations of attha ("meaning") and dhamma ("law")...] 24. This same meaning is shown in the Abhidhamma by the following analysis: (a) 'Knowledge about suffering is the "discrimination of meaning". Knowledge about the origin of suffering is the "discrimination of law". [Knowledge about the cessation of suffering is the "discrimination of meaning". Knowledge about the way leading to the cessation of suffering is the "discrimination of law]... (b) 'Knowledge about cause is the "discrimination of law". Knowledge about the fruit of a cause is the "discrimination of meaning"... (c) 'Knowledge about whatever things are born, become, brought to birth, produced, completed, made manifest, is the "discrimination of meaning". Knowledge about the things from which those things were born, became, were brought to birth, produced, completed, made manifest, is the "discrimination of law"... (d) 'Knowledge about ageing and death is the "discrimination meaning". Knowledge about the origin of ageing and death is the "discrimination of law". [Knowledge about the cessation of ageing and death is the "discrimination of meaning". Knowledge about the way leading to the cessation of ageing and death is the "discrimination of law". Knowledge about birth ... becoming ... clinging ... craving ... feeling ... contact ... the sixfold base ... mentality-materiality ... consciousness ... knowledge about formations is the "discrimination of meaning". Knowledge about the origin of formations is the "discrimination of law".] Knowledge about the cessation of formations is the "discrimination of meaning". Knowledge about the way leading to the cessation of formations is the "discrimination of law" ... (e) 'Here a bhikkhu knows the Dhamma (Law)--the Discourses, Songs, [Expositions, Stanzas, Exclamations, Sayings, Birth Stories, Marvels, and] Answers to Questions--this is called the "discrimination of law". He knows the meaning of whatever is said thus : "This is the meaning of this that was said; this is the meaning of this that was said"--this is called the "discrimination of meaning" ... (f) 'What states are profitable? On an occasion when profitable consciousness of the sense sphere has arisen [that is accompanied by joy and associated with knowledge, having a visible datum as its object ... or a mental datum as its object, or contingent upon whatever it may be, on that occasion there is contact ... (for elision see Dhs. 1) ... there is non-wavering]--these things are profitable. Knowledge about these things is the "discrimination of law". Knowledge about their result is the "discrimination of meaning:' ... (Vbh. 293-95). (8) ------------------- (8) This quotation has been filled out from the Vibha.nga text for clarity. 26123 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 9:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: tipitaka.org Dear Robert, I have an iMac, no windows. I am lost. Is there another web that has the Vis Tiika? Can you let me know if and when Tipitaka org comes back? I can use any presentation, because I have my own system to put it into Velthuys. Nina. op 14-10-2003 07:15 schreef rjkjp1 op rjkjp1@y...: > Tipitaka.org is currently down. Hopefully they will come back sooner > or later. If you have access to windows computer you can order the > disc 26124 From: Manu Wadhwani Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Greatings from Vientiane Dear Peter, Let me introduce myself, my name is Manu Wadhwani and I live in Vientiane. I read the posts regularly and judging by the content, admire the commitment and deep understanding of the members here. Therefore it will be pleasure meeting you. Since I have no other way of contacting you, please call me at 451157 (office) or at 216214 (res). I will be more than happy to show you around. I only hope you get this message while still in Vientiane. Warmest regards, Manu 26125 From: peterdac4298 Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Greatings from Vientiane Hi Manu Will reply to your personal email address, as is consistant with dsg policy. Many thanks Peter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Manu Wadhwani" wrote: > Dear Peter, > > Let me introduce myself, my name is Manu Wadhwani and I live in Vientiane. > I read the posts regularly and judging by the content, admire the commitment > and deep understanding of the members here. Therefore it will be pleasure > meeting you. > > Since I have no other way of contacting you, please call me at 451157 > (office) or at 216214 (res). I will be more than happy to show you around. > I only hope you get this message while still in Vientiane. > > Warmest regards, > Manu 26126 From: monomuni Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 9:30pm Subject: Views (Ditthi) Friends; The mistaken & misguiding Views: All views are wrong views. All views are based on a biased opinion. All views are rooted in preferred attractions. All views are construing an imaginary self. All views are so based on a false EGO theory. All views are thereby individuality views. All views are assuming a fixed finiteness. All views are setting up an unreal boundary. All views are based on mental clinging. All views are thereby mental chains. All views are not direct knowledge. Source: The path of Discimination II (699) Patisambhidamagga I [158-9] Essay on Views by Sariputta. BUDDHA-HOOD: Buddha-hood is like ash: Extinguished, Quenched, Cool, Still & Ultra-light !!! Bhikkhu Samahita http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct : - ] -- A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/ Realising that this body is (as fragile) as a jar, establishing this mind (as firm) as a (fortified) city, he should attack Mara with the weapon of wisdom. He should guard his conquest and be without attachment. Random Dhammapada Verse 40 26127 From: monomuni Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 9:01pm Subject: Analytical Anarchism !!! Friends; Always Otherwise than the Appearance: There exist no final authority except direct Experience itself! Since it is Always otherwise than one imagine, construe or conceive it to be … Phenomena are Never as they appear! But they can be rightly perceived by means of the analytical insight of true understanding ... Phenomena appear to be constant, yet they are really not so! Phenomena appear to be pleasant, yet they are really not so! Phenomena appear to be beautiful, yet they are really not so! Phenomena appear as having either a core substance or an inherent identity, yet they do really not possess neither! This one have to come & see for oneself by means of repeated rational reflection. The effect of such penetration is diminished craving leading to reduced clinging, relinquishment & finally mental release. The taste of all of the oceanic Buddha-Dhamma is only one: That of Freedom ... !!! For the gladening of good people. Friendship is truly GREATEST The entire Motivation behind all of the Noble Life. Yeah! Bhikkhu Samahita, SRI LANKA. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct : - ] -- A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/ Monks, meditate! Do not be heedless, pursue not the pleasure of sense to sway your heart lest the passions will toss you about and you will suffer. Random Dhammapada Verse 371 26128 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 11:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Greatings from Vientiane Hi Manu (& Peter, Sukin, Azita), --- Manu Wadhwani wrote: > Dear Peter, > > Let me introduce myself, my name is Manu Wadhwani and I live in > Vientiane. > I read the posts regularly and judging by the content, admire the > commitment > and deep understanding of the members here. Therefore it will be > pleasure > meeting you. .... Manu, good to hear from you again! Do write more often - even if it's just a kind comment or encouragement to others;-) Hope you guys meet for a Vientiane (Laos) DSG meeting! Pls let us know if it works out and any topics of discussion. I know others like Nina will be keen to hear. Sorry you won't be able to get to Bkk to meet us all this time - hopefully at the end of Jan when you may be able to meet Nina & RobK too. Metta, Sarah p.s Sukin - delighted to hear you'll also be joining the Myanmar trip..see you very soon. Azita, I think we attach such great importance to vedana and sanna....we'll chat more in Myanmar. ======= 26129 From: Sukin Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 3:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Larry, > Sukin: "So I think it is very important that the distinction is made, as > you have briefly discussed elsewhere, > that panna of the level of satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas > and not concepts as object." > > Hi Sukin, > > Why is this important? Ask panna! Lol. But seriously, I was thinking today how avijja asks a question (I am not referring to your question here.) and avijja gives the answer. And lobha attaches to the answer and there is clinging. I was thinking how so easily we are satisfied with answers, and the question and answer are both of the same process. So it seems that 'asking' must also be done with panna, only then will the answer have any positive effect.... Just rambling. Now to the question why it is so important that one makes the distinction between concept and reality. I compare the process to analyzing what the taste of 'sugar' might be based on the experience of sweetness from other foods. No matter how much we try to estimate the taste of sugar based on the experience of no matter how many other objects, 'doubt' will never be eliminated. And once sugar has been tasted, then there is no more doubt. In the same way, we may *think* anicca, dukkha and anatta with respect to no matter how many conceptual realities, doubt will always remain. In fact, I think I have heard that a person must understand the experience through all the doorways quite thoroughly. It is not possible to become enlightened only from say, knowing hearing, tasting, touching and not knowing anything about seeing for example. It seems that if we don't know 'seeing' as just an element, then doubt will continue to arise with regard to seeing. And this is probably why, a person born blind, can never become enlightened. And even in the above comparison with 'sugar', the confidence of 'taste' is based on sanna vipallasa and this is no condition for subduing doubt. In the case of direct experience of the tilakkhana how ever, the "sati" is very strong and firm in that the 'knowledge' acquired has a permanent effect. In attributing the tilakkhana to conceptual realities, one does not even know at that time, that 'visible object' is just an element. And this knowledge occurs well before namarupa parichedannana, and the knowledge of the tilakkhana comes even after this. So it is *impossible* to come to realize what the Buddha taught through concepts! And this being so, I think we should at least acknowledge the importance of making the distinction. Not only because 'pariyatti' is the basis for 'patipatti' and this for 'pativedha', but *not seeing the importance*, will condition the belief that the tilakkhana can be realized in non-existent concepts. And this may condition a corresponding wrong practice. But of course, *believing* in the Abhidhamma position is also no guarantee for right practice. A lot more is involved I think. Does this make any sense? Metta, Sukin. 26130 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:06am Subject: Tiika Vis. 21 Vis. text: 21. 12. In the second tetrad, the four kinds of knowledge classed as that concerned with meaning, etc., are called the "four discriminations". For this is said: 'Knowledge about meaning is the discrimination of meaning (attha-pa.tisambhidaa). Knowledge about law is the discrimination of law (dhamma-pa.tisambhidaa). Knowledge about enunciation of language dealing with meaning and law is the discrimination of language (nirutti-pa.tisambhidaa). Knowledge about kinds of knowledge is discrimination of perspicuity (pa.tibhaana-pa.tisambhidaa)' (Vbh. 293). 21. dutiyacatukke catasso pa.tisambhidaa naama atthaadiisu pabhedagataani cattaari~naa.naani. vutta~nheta.m -- ``atthe ~naa.na.m atthapa.tisambhidaa. dhamme~naa.na.m dhammapa.tisambhidaa. tatradhammaniruttaabhilaape ~naa.na.m niruttipa.tisambhidaa. ~naa.nesu ~naa.na.m pa.tibhaanapa.tisambhidaa''ti (vibha0 718). Tiika 21: words: pabheda (m); variety, classification, category sa²nkepa: abridgement abhilaapa: speech, utterance. pa.tibhaana: perspicuity, intelligence, promptitude sallakkha.na (n) discernment, consideration vivarati: analyse, explain vibhaavana (n); explanation vavattheti: analyse, define samattha: capable, skilful bheda (m): division bhindati: break, divide tibbisaya (tad+visaya): having that as object Tiika text: 21. ``atthaadiisu pabhedagataani ~naa.naanii''ti The words, the knowledges classified as that concerned with meaning and so on, refer to the following: sa"nkhepena vuttamattha.m paa.livaseneva vivaritu.m ``vutta~nheta''ntiaadi vutta.m. The words, ³For this is said, etc.² * were expressed in order to explain the meaning stated in brief by the text. tattha atthe~naa.na.m atthapa.tisambhidaati Thus, understanding concerning meaning is discrimination of meaning. ya.m atthappabhedassa sallakkha.navibhaavanavavatthaanakara.nasamattha.m atthe pabhedagata.m~naa.na.m, aya.m atthapa.tisambhidaa naama. The knowledge classified as concerned with meaning that is capable of effecting the discernment, the explanation, the definition of the meaning category **, that is called discrimination of meaning. sesapadesupi eseva nayo. The same method applies for the remaining expressions. dhammappabhedassa hi sallakkha.navibhaavanavavatthaanakara.nasamattha.m dhamme pabhedagata.m ~naa.na.m dhammapa.tisambhidaa. The knowledge classified as concerned with dhamma that is capable of effecting the discernment, the explanation, the definition of the dhamma category, that is called discrimination of dhamma. niruttippabhedassa sallakkha.navibhaavanavavatthaanakara.nasamattha.m niruttaabhilaape pabhedagata.m ~naa.na.m niruttipa.tisambhidaa. The knowledge classified as concerned with enunciation of language, capable of effecting the discernment, the explanation, the definition of the language category, that is called discrimination of language. pa.tibhaanappabhedassa sallakkha.navibhaavanavavatthaanakara.nasamattha.m pa.tibhaane pabhedagata.m~naa.na.m pa.tibhaanapa.tisambhidaa. The knowledge classified as concerned with perspicuity, capable of effecting the discernment, the explanation, the definition of the perspicuity category, that is called discrimination of perspicuity. niruttipa.tibhaanappabhedaa tabbisayaana.m atthaadiina.m paccayuppannataadibhedehi bhinditvaa veditabbaa. The categories of language and perspicuity are to be known by means of meaning and so on, which have these as object, after having analysed them by the classifications of what is conditionally arisen ***. ***** English: The words, the knowledges classified as that concerned with meaning and so on, refer to the following: The words, ³For this is said, etc.² * were expressed in order to explain the meaning stated in brief by the text. Thus, understanding concerning meaning is discrimination of meaning. The knowledge classified as concerned with meaning that is capable of effecting the discernment, the explanation, the definition of the meaning category **, that is called discrimination of meaning. The same method applies for the remaining expressions. The knowledge classified as concerned with dhamma that is capable of effecting the discernment, the explanation, the definition of the dhamma category, that is called discrimination of dhamma. The knowledge classified as concerned with enunciation of language, capable of effecting the discernment, the explanation, the definition of the language category, that is called discrimination of language. The knowledge classified as concerned with perspicuity, capable of effecting the discernment, the explanation, the definition of the perspicuity category, that is called discrimination of perspicuity. The categories of language and perspicuity are to be known by means of meaning and so on, which have these as object, after having analysed them by the classifications of what is conditionally arisen ***. --------------- *For this is said: 'Knowledge about meaning is the discrimination of meaning¹, and so on for the other three categories. ** Further on it will be explained that there are five things falling under the category of meaning and five under the category of dhamma. *** What has arisen by conditions falls under the category of meaning. ****** Nina. 26131 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:06am Subject: FW: Co to Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, 17 B FW: Co to Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, 17 B tattha pa.tisallaanaati ekiibhaavato. As to the words, tattha pa.tisallaanaa, then, from solitude, this means, then, from being alone. ya.mki~nci raahulaati kasmaa? As to the words, ya.mki~nci raahulaa, whatever, Rahula (is internal, etc.), why is this said? bhagavaa aanaapaanassati.m pu.t.tho ruupakamma.t.thaana.m kathetiiti. When he asked the Blessed One about Mindfulness of Breathing, why did the Blessed One speak about the meditation subject of materiality? ruupe chandaraagappahaanattha.m. He spoke so that he (Rahula) would abandon his attachment to materiality. eva.m kirassa ahosi -- ``raahulassa attabhaava.m nissaaya chandaraago uppanno, It must have occurred to him thus: ³Since attachment has arisen in Rahula on account of his body, he.t.thaa cassa sa"nkhepena ruupakamma.t.thaana.m kathita.m, and the meditation subject on materiality was explained to him before in brief, idaanissaapi dvicattaaliisaaya aakaarehi attabhaava.m vibhajetvaa visa"nkharitvaa ta.mnissita.m chandaraaga.m I shall now also make him dissect the body in fortytwo ways and thus cause him to get rid of attachment that is dependent on it anuppattidhammata.m aapaadessaamii''ti. and to understand the truth of Dhamma.² atha aakaasadhaatu.m kasmaa vitthaaresiiti? Why did he then explain in detail the element of space? upaadaaruupadassanattha.m. In order to point out the derived material phenomena. he.t.thaa hi cattaari mahaabhuutaaneva kathitaani, na upaadaaruupa.m. Before he had spoken about the four great Elements, not about the derived physical phenomena *. tasmaa iminaa mukhena ta.m dassetu.m aakaasadhaatu.m vitthaaresi. Therefore, in order to point these out in that way, he explained in detail the element of space. apica ajjhattikena aakaasena paricchinnaruupampi paaka.ta.m hoti. He also made known the matter that is delimitated by the internal space **. ³aakaasena paricchinna.m ruupa.m yaati vibhuutata.m. He proceeds to clarify matter that is delimitated by space. tasseva.m aavibhaavattha.m, ta.m pakaasesi naayako. The Guide explained this so that it was clear to him in that way. ² ettha pana purimaasu taava catuusu dhaatuusu ya.m vattabba.m, ta.m mahaahatthipadopame vuttameva. But here what had to be said previously with regard to the four (great) elements, that was said in the ³Discourse on the great Elephant¹s Footprint². ****** English: As to the words, tattha pa.tisallaanaa, then, from solitude, this means, then, from being alone. As to the words, ya.mki~nci raahulaa, whatever, Rahula (is internal, etc.), why is this said? When he asked the Blessed One about Mindfulness of Breathing, why did the Blessed One speak about the meditation subject of materiality? He spoke so that he (Rahula) would abandon his attachment to materiality. It must have occurred to him thus: ³Since attachment has arisen in Rahula on account of his body, and the meditation subject on materiality was explained to him before in brief, I shall now also make him dissect the body in fortytwo ways and thus cause him to get rid of attachment that is dependent on it and to understand the truth of Dhamma.² Why did he then explain in detail the element of space? In order to point out the derived material phenomena. Before he had spoken about the four great Elements, not about the derived physical phenomena *. Therefore, in order to point these out in that way, he explained in detail the element of space. He also made known the matter that is delimitated by the internal space **. ³He proceeds to clarify matter that is delimitated by space. The Guide explained this so that it was clear to him in that way.² But here what had to be said previously with regard to the four (great) elements, that was said in the ³Discourse on the great Elephant¹s Footprint². ______ *The four great Elements (solidity, cohesion, heat and motion) are the principle material phenomena. All other material phenomena are derived materiality, they are dependent on the four great Elements. ** Material phenomena arise in groups or units and each unit is surrounded by infinitely tiny space so that the groups of material phenomena are delimited, clearly distinct. This is the internal space. **** 26132 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism. XIV, 22, 23 Hi Larry, op 11-10-2003 01:32 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > "When anyone reviews that meaning, any knowledge of his, falling within > the category (pabheda) concerned with meaning, is the "discrimination of > meaning"." > Do we have a commentary on this "anyone"? It seems to contradict Vism. > XIV, 27 regarding trainers and non-trainers. N: The Pali has: for the person who considers that meaning, ta.m attha.m paccavekkhantassa. It does not say, everybody. L: Generally, here are a few speculative ideas on the 4 patisambhida: > > We might regard this as a description of the experience of an arahant > and the path of trainers. N: Yes, it is very high wisdom. We can only begin to have some notion of them intellectually, but that is all. L:As such, we could possibly divide it into > body, speech, and mind; "attha" and "dhamma" being the 'body' of that > experience, speech being highly evocative, and mind being transparent. N: I do not see it that way. You just quoted about the four truths. That makes it clearer. Meaning is the fruit of a cause and dhamma is cause. This is more fully explained in the next issues of the Tiika. Nina. 26133 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 4:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Co to Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, 17 B Nina Thanks for this. Another very illuminating explanation. This and your Vism tika series are much appreciated. I'm only sorry I don't have time to contribute more, but I always enjoy reading. Jon Hong Kong airport en route to Bangkok --- nina van gorkom wrote: > FW: Co to Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, 17 B > > tattha pa.tisallaanaati ekiibhaavato. > As to the words, tattha pa.tisallaanaa, then, from solitude, this > means, > then, from being alone. > > ya.mki~nci raahulaati kasmaa? > As to the words, ya.mki~nci raahulaa, whatever, Rahula (is > internal, etc.), > why is this said? > > bhagavaa aanaapaanassati.m pu.t.tho ruupakamma.t.thaana.m > kathetiiti. > When he asked the Blessed One about Mindfulness of Breathing, why > did the > Blessed One speak about the meditation subject of materiality? > > ruupe chandaraagappahaanattha.m. > He spoke so that he (Rahula) would abandon his attachment to > materiality. > > 26134 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 4:31pm Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi Howard, A very short note from the airport thanks to Samsung computers: Thx for all your other comments. Just one follow-up for now: --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Howard: > I have no problem with that definition, which goes as follows: > > > > náma: (lit. 'name'): 'mind', mentality. This term is generally used > as a > > collective name for the 4 mental groups (arúpino khandha), viz. > feeling > > (vedaná), perception (saññá), mental formations (sankhára) and > consciousness > > (viññána). Within the 4th link (náma-rúpa) in the formula of the > paticcasamuppáda > > (q.v.), Howard >I count thoughts/ideas/concepts as falling within the > sankharakkhandha. They are mental formations. Their alleged referents, > however, are not - they > are nothing at all. .... Can you give any further support for this, i.e thoughts/ideas/concepts being inc. in sankharakkhandha? Metta, Sarah =========== 26135 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 4:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Greatings from Vientiane - Lurkers take note! Peter Hello again from me, and thanks for dropping in. --- peterdac4298 wrote: > Hi Rob > The impact of the Dhamma on the rest of the world is an excellent > topic for > discussion in its own right. It is something that Bhikkhus are > encouraged > to reflect upon on a regular (ie daily) basis, and certainly > something that > the committed posters of dsg should do too. I wasn't quite sure what you meant by the impact of the Dhamma on the rest of the world. Would be interested to hear more. Is this something you are considering at Wat Pa? Jon 26136 From: Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 4:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism. XIV, 22, 23 Hi Nina, I'm having doubts about the exclusivity of patisambhida. In XIV 22 we have "the person who considers etc.", in XIV 24 (e) we have "Here a bhikkhu knows". This doesn't seem to be special knowledge or special people. It is what we have been studying all along about causes and effects. I wonder if we are misunderstanding XIV 27 (about trainers and nontrainers). Perhaps the "advanced" (aryan) quality has to do with the 'language' and 'comprehensive' discriminations. When is everyone going away? I don't want to start something we can't finish. Larry 26137 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 4:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Victor Wow! So many questions from such a short post! I'll have to be brief, since I don't have the texts with me now. --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon and all, > > Regarding your comment to the passage from > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an09-036.html > > could you explain more about what you wanted to say with Bhikkhu > Bodhi's reading? Since you quoted the sutta without comment, I thought it might be useful to indicate how the sutta might be read. That is, it is not so much about the development of concentration as such (as a superficial reading might suggest), as about the development of insight. Any thoughts of your own on that? > Regarding your comment > > > To be 'right/samma', the concentration/samadhi must be kusala of > the level of either samatha (this would lead to 'the rapture and > pleasure > that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome > states' > mentioned in the text) or vipassana (leading to the 'something more > peaceful than that'). > > > how did you get that idea? Is that idea based your reading or > personal experience or personal understanding? My best reading of the passage you quoted (and the notes to Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation) plus my general (intellectual) understanding of the texts as a whole. If you have a different idea, feel free to share. Also, where did you > get the idea that vipassana is what leads to 'something more > peaceful than that'? The 'peace' of insight and enlightenment is, I believe, regarded as a higher peace than the peace of jhana. > You also said that concentration developed for its own sake cannot > be kusala/right/samma concentration. > > I am not sure what your point is. Are you trying to define what > right concentration is? I was trying to say that, in my view, it would be a mistake to think that simply focussing on one of the 'meditation subjects' would be any kind of right concentration. Concentration can only be kusala if it is the concentration that arises with kusala citta. > I know for myself that the Buddha taught what right concentration > is, and that right concentration is necessary in realizing the > cessation of the dukkha. Agreed. But what is right concentration? Jon 26138 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 5:32pm Subject: nibbana Dear Group, A letter Htoo wrote that I think dsg will appreciate: Once I talked to a person off-line on the topic of Nibbana. I used the analogy mentioned by Swan about the turtle. Strangely, that person thought that ' There are many possible different ways to Nibbana. As the turtle reached the land, fish, sprawn, lobster, oyster, squibb and many other can reach the land.' This is totally wrong. Another thought unit of his is ' Why did the turtle come back to the water and meet the fish? I think he was thinking that Arahats come back to the old place and meet Puthujana and teach their findings about the land. Nibbana before defining it it an object of attention. It is an Arammana. It is an object. That is an object of Citta. Nama have the characteristic of bending towards objects. Nama can bend towards Nibbana. So called Nibbana is Nama Dhamma. But Nibbana cannot bend to any other Paramattha Dhamma. The above analogy is to show unreachablility or inaccessibility of Nibbana by Puthujana. Life is continuum of pieces of Paramattha Dhamma. When Nibbana is ready to be realized the Puthujana ascends up through six purification and at Guttarabhu he releases his Puthujanaship and at the very first Magga ( Sotapatti Magga ) he directly see Nibbana and he is no more Puthujana. As Puthujana never see Nibbana, he will not fully understand Nibbana and will not realize it. As he is bound to his environment he will not be liberated unless he tries delibrately with diligent effort. The way to Nibbana is one way. There is no other way. Whoever Sammasambuddhas or Pacchekabuddhas or Aggasavakas or Mahasavakas or Jhanalabhi Arahats or simple Arahats or anyone who enters Nibbana has to take that one-way tract to Nibbana. Nibbana is not a place. It is not related to time. It is devoid of Nama and Rupa. It is a state of complete peace. Peace in this mean in comparison with Samsara dwellers who are ever in shaking stirring up states. Analogy of extinguishment of fire also has this essence. Once the Samsara traveller has entered the stream ( got Sotapatti Magga ), he has tasted Nibbana and he may try to achieve an absolute peace that is to complete all stages of realization. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 26139 From: Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 5:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Sukin, One problem with reducing external objects to non-things (what you would call non-concepts, i.e. visible form, sound, smell etc.) is that these non-things are not really objects of appropration as me or mine. As such they are not upadanakkhandha. Nor are they kamma vipaka because they have no value. This seems to be a contradiction within the abhidhamma system. How do you explain it? Larry 26140 From: Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 3:40pm Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/15/03 7:34:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Howard > >I count thoughts/ideas/concepts as falling within the > >sankharakkhandha. They are mental formations. Their alleged referents, > >however, are not - they > >are nothing at all. > .... > Can you give any further support for this, i.e thoughts/ideas/concepts > being inc. in sankharakkhandha? > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========================== Well, what, for example is sankappa? Is that not thought? And doesn't it fall under sankhara? For example, I have found the following at the web site http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/N/Nyanatiloka/WOB/wob4nt07.htm ***************************************** Right Thought (Sammaa-sankappa) D. 22 What, now, is Right Thought? Thought free from lust (nekkhamma-sankappa). Thought free from ill-will (avyaapaada-sankappa). Thought free from cruelty (avihimsaa-sankappa). This is called Right Thought. Mundane And Supermundane Thought M. 117 Now, Right Thought, I tell you, is of two kinds: 1. Thought free from lust, from ill-will, and from cruelty-this is called `Mundane Right Thought' (lokiya sammaa-sankappa), which yields worldly fruits and brings good results. 2. But, whatsoever there is of thinking, considering, reasoning, thought, ratiocination, application-the mind being holy, being turned away from the world, and conjoined with the path, the holy path being pursued-these `verbal operations' of the mind (vacii-sankhaaraa) are called the `Supermundane Right Thought' (lokuttara-sammaa-sankappa), which is not of the world, but is supermundane, and conjoined with the path. Conjoined with Other Factors Now, in understanding wrong thought as wrong, and right thought as right, one practises Right Understanding (1st factor); and in making efforts to overcome evil thought and to arouse right thought, one practises Right Effort (6th factor); and in overcoming evil thought with attentive mind, and dwelling with attentive mind in possession of right thought, one practises Right Mindfulness (7th factor). Hence there are three things that accompany and follow upon Right Thought, namely: Right Understanding, Right Effort, and Right Mindfulness. ************************************************* There is also the following from Nyanatiloka's dictionary entry on vitakka (and some people equate vitakka with sankappa): *********************************************** > vitakka: 'thought', 'thought-conception', is one of the 'secondary' (not > constant) mental concomitants (s. Tab. II), and may be either karmically > wholesome, unwholesome or neutral. - "There are 3 karmically unwholesome (akusala) > thoughts: sensuous thought (káma-vitakka), hating thought (byápáda-v.), and > cruel thought (vihimsa-v.). There are 3 karmically wholesome (kusala) > thoughts: thought of renunciation (nekkhamma-v.), of hatelessness (avyápáda-v.), of > not harming (avihimsá-v.) " The latter three constitute 'right thought', the > 2nd link of the 8-fold Path (s. magga 2).On the 'Removal of Distracting > Thoughts' (vitakka-santhána), s. M. 20 (tr. in WHEEL 21). ********************************************* In any case, Sarah, are you saying there are no such things as thoughts? I certainly believe there are. And whatever they are, they fall under one of the five khandhas, for there are only the khandhas and nibbana, isn't that so? There is nothing else. If thoughts are not mental formations, I fail to see what in the world else they could be. They are not acts of consciousness (vi~n~nana) or feelings (vedana) or acts of recognition (sa~n~na), and they are neither rupas nor nibbana. Thus, they are mental formations (sankhara/sankhata). 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) 26141 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 9:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Dear Victor, I am butting in case Jon has no more time, almost on his way. op 14-10-2003 19:31 schreef yu_zhonghao op yu_zhonghao@y...: > > To be 'right/samma', the concentration/samadhi must be kusala of the > level of either samatha (this would lead to 'the rapture and pleasure > that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states' > mentioned in the text) or vipassana (leading to the 'something more > peaceful than that'). > > > how did you get that idea? Is that idea based your reading or > personal experience or personal understanding? Also, where did you > get the idea that vipassana is what leads to 'something more > peaceful than that'? N: Vipassana leads to the greatest peace: the extinguishment of defilements. Also people who are inclined to jhana cannot forego the development of vipassana. By samatha defilements are temporarily subdued, and only through vipassana wrong view and all defilements can be completely eradicated. Nina. 26142 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 9:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: paramattha dhammas Dear Larry, also Sukin is going away, so I butt in. op 15-10-2003 02:38 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Sukin: "So I think it is very important that the distinction is made, as > you have briefly discussed elsewhere, > that panna of the level of satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas > and not concepts as object." L: Why is this important? N: through satipatthana the three characteristics of paramattha dhammas, namely impermanence, dukkha and anatta are realized. Seeing is a paramattha dhamma. It is a long way to realize seeing as arising and falling away. First, as is often stated here, you have to know exactly what seeing is: a nama, different from visible object. An experience, it experiences what appears only through the eyes. Seeing is not thinking about what you see, and it is not a concept. It is a citta. Citta, cetasika (mental factors accompanying citta) and rupa are the paramattha dhammas appearing in our life, as Sukin also pointed out. Concepts such as person or thing are objects of thinking, but they are not citta, cetasika and rupa. They are not impermanent, that is arising and falling away in splitseconds; they are not dukkha and anatta. Does this answer your question? Nina. P.S. I just see Sukin answered and I like his post. I send this one all the same. 26143 From: Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: paramattha dhammas Hi Nina, What if you are not sure whether the object you are contemplating is a concept or a reality? If it seems to be impermanent, what is the difference as far as your beliefs are concerned? Vism. XIV 24 (c) seems to say panna is concerned with persons (whatever things are born), carriages (produced), and governments (become): "`(c) 'Knowledge about whatever things are born, become, brought to birth, produced, completed, made manifest, is the "discrimination of meaning". Knowledge about the things from which those things were born, became, were brought to birth, produced, completed, made manifest, is the "discrimination of law"..." Larry 26144 From: Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 7:37pm Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi Sarah In a message dated 10/15/2003 4:35:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Can you give any further support for this, i.e thoughts/ideas/concepts > being inc. in sankharakkhandha? > > Metta, > > Sarah > Hi Sarah I thought I'd take a shot at this through deductive logic; trying to incorporate Abhidhamma point of view... Anything that arises would be conditioned and that would include, in total, the 5 aggregates. Consciousness is bare awareness of an object and its dominant activity would not be thoughts/ideas/concept but merely awareness of them. Rupa is physicality and its dominant activity would not be thoughts/ideas/concept. Feeling is presumably too rudimentary to be the primary group associated with thoughts/ideas/concept. Perception is perhaps also too rudimentary but getting close to thoughts/ideas/concept and perhaps early stages of thoughts/ideas/concept development. (Maybe perceptions incorporate the full development?) That pretty much leaves mental formations as the aggregate most closely linkable to thoughts/ideas/concept. There is at least one Sutta where it is stated that feeling, perception, and cognizance are not things that can be separated, (but are merely separated for purposes of analysis.) (See below) If looked at in that light, thoughts/ideas/concept are aspects of all those aggregates. Also, abhidhamma indicates that feeling and perception are aspects of the mental formations aggregate anyway. In that case, its a 'no-brainer' that thoughts/ideas/concept are part of the mental formations aggregate. And since rupa and nama are interdependent, they all can be seen as supporting factors of thoughts/ideas/concept. Conceptual proliferation, thinking, imagination, thoughts, etc. are discussed often in the suttas. They are discussed as things that arise and cease based on conditions. I don't think a case that they don't exist is tenable. The only other possibility I could see is that one might consider them principally perceptions and falling primarily in that group. I could probably live with that. ;-) Sutta -- Majjhima # 43... "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend -- these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from the others in order to describe the difference between them. For what one feels, that one perceives; and what one perceives, that one cognizes. That is why these states are conjoined and not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states form the others in order to describe the difference between them." (Above: 'cognizes' appears to include both the mental formations and consciousness aggregate.) I'm curious as to how you see it? TG 26145 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 0:01am Subject: Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Larry, > One problem with reducing external objects to non-things (what you would > call non-concepts, i.e. visible form, sound, smell etc.) is that these > non-things are not really objects of appropration as me or mine. As such > they are not upadanakkhandha. I think the problem is 'thinking'. It is true that we start with intellectual understanding, however this must be seen as just that. I believe that analyzing helps, but there is a big difference between 'thinking about' and even a glimpse of what it is like in actual experience. Satipatthana is not reductionism, though when we try to understand it intellectually, it might seem like it. It may be that ultimate realities are not objects of appropriation as me or myself (I am not sure though), but it seems that they are taken as 'mine' all the time. I think clinging can happen right from the experience through the five sense doors. That it is then conceptualized and clung upon is a different matter. Besides, when 'clinging' is understood, what do you think is the object if not a paramattha dhamma? > Nor are they kamma vipaka because they have no value. This seems to be a contradiction within the abhidhamma > system. How do you explain it? Ultimately *all* dhammas have no value ;-). I am following with interest Nina's postings on 'discrimination of meaning and law', though I have yet to read the latest installment. I think this may be relevant here. Seeing, hearing etc. being vipaka, may be the foundation of knowledge based on 'discrimination of meaning', while kamma may be 'discrimination of law'??! Nina, am I off track? Anyway, I don't think we have to go so far. Seeing, hearing, smelling is nama, whereas visible object, sound and smell is rupa, and this is all we need to know at this point. Without this knowledge I don't think there can be any discriminative wisdom of the level I think that is being talked about. Does this make any sense? Is there a contradiction now? Metta, Sukin. 26146 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 0:40am Subject: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi Howard, Am I right in thinking you are on the verge of capitulating? :-) When you were asked to suggest which nama a concept (or a thought), could possibly be, you wrote: --------------- Well, what, for example is sankappa? Is that not thought? And doesn't it fall under sankhara? -------------- There is thought conception (sankappa, vitakka), and there is discursive thinking (vicara). These realities are different from the [illusory] thoughts they create. ------------- H: > In any case, Sarah, are you saying there are no such things as thoughts? I certainly believe there are. -------------- If Sarah wants to go gallivanting around the world, she can't complain when people answer her questions for her :-) There are only 52 cetasikas, none of which is a thought. If we are going to count thoughts, [starting with Robert's flying purple elephant], the number will be infinitely large. Perhaps that, in itself, doesn't mean they can't be real but, according to the Tipitaka, they aren't. (For what it's worth, it all seems perfectly logical to me.) --------------- H: > And whatever they are, they fall under one of the five khandhas, --------------- As I see it, the significance of the five khandhas is that they are *not* concepts. They are realities. Before the Buddha's teaching, no one knew exactly what was real and what was concept. Now they do: nibbana, citta, cetasika and rupa are real; concepts are . . . concepts. ----------------- H: > for there are only the khandhas and nibbana, isn't that so? There is nothing else. If thoughts are not mental formations, I fail to see what in the world else they could be. They are not acts of consciousness (vi~n~nana) or feelings (vedana) or acts of recognition (sa~n~na), and they are neither rupas nor nibbana. Thus, they are mental formations (sankhara/sankhata). ------------------ Or, they are concepts. (also known as illusions, mere conventional designations, a number of parts taken as a whole, pannatti.) Give up? :-) Kind regards, Ken H 26147 From: monomuni Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 9:08pm Subject: Great Understanding ! Friends: Great Understanding ! Bhikkhus & friends, these 4 states, when developed & made much of leads to the fruition of the state of Stream-Entry (sottapatti-phala)! What four ? Meeting, frequenting & waiting on good men. Hearing & reading the true idea of the Dhamma. Practice in accordance with this genuine Dhamma. Careful & rational Attention. These 4 states, when developed & made much of leads to the fruition of Once-Return (sakadagami-phala)! These 4 states, when developed & made much of leads to the fruition of Non-Return (sakadagami-phala)! These 4 states, when developed & made much of leads to the fruition of Arahat-ship (arahatta-phala)! Bhikkhus & friends, these 4 states, when initiated, developed, cultivated, refined & made much of leads To reaching, attaining & realizing Direct Understanding; To the state of Awakening of Understanding; To the state of Wealth of Understanding; To the state of Great Understanding; To the state of Open Understanding; To the state of Wide Understanding; To the state of Profound Understanding; To the state of Deep Understanding; To the state of Extensive Understanding; To the state of Universal Understanding; To the state of Unequalled Understanding; To the state of Quick Understanding; To the state of Instant Understanding; To the state of Acute Understanding; To the state of Light Understanding; To the state of Penetrative Understanding; To the state of Laughing Understanding ... What four ? Meeting, frequenting & waiting on good men. Hearing & reading the true idea of the Dhamma. Practice in accordance with this genuine Dhamma. Careful & rational Attention ... --oo0oo-- Source: The Path of Discrimination XXI The canonical Patisambhidamagga [ii 189] The Essay on Great Understanding. By Sariputta. See also: Samyutta Nikaya [V 410] Friendship is truly GREATEST The entire Motivation behind all of the Noble Life. Yeah! Bhikkhu Samahita. SRI LANKA. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct : - ] -- A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/ Maghava, the king of gods, attained such great supremacy over the gods through heedfulness. Heedfulness is always praised and heedlessness is always blamed. Random Dhammapada Verse 30 26148 From: monomuni Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 2:44am Subject: The 36 conceits Friends; The 36 deep conceits of ‘I’ and ‘Mine’ leading to the Hells or an Animal Womb: Misapprehension by misinterpreting, misunderstanding by assuming, mistaking by construing the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind to be ‘I’ or ‘Self’ or belonging to or be part of an ‘I’ or a ‘Me’ is a view associated with, bound up with & linked to the conceit: “I Am”. Misapprehension by misinterpreting, misunderstanding by assuming, mistaking by construing the form, sound, smell, taste, touch or thought to be ‘I’ or ‘Self’ or belonging to or be part of an ‘I’ or a ‘Me’ is a view associated with, bound up with & linked to the conceit: “I Am”. Misapprehension by misinterpreting, misunderstanding by assuming, mistaking by construing the visual, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling or mental consciousness to be ‘I’ or ‘Self’ or belonging to or be part of an ‘I’ or a ‘Self’ is a view associated with, bound up with & linked to the conceit: “I Am”. Any such view is a jungle of views, a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a clash of views, a fetter of views, a chain of views, a prison of views, a dart of views, a pitfall of views, a latent tendency to views, a knot of views, a burning fever of views, an endless speculation rooted in views, a clinging to views, a misinterpretation by views, a misapprehension by views, a misunderstanding by views, an obscuration by views, an obsession by views, a delight in views. Such wrong views as “I”, “Me”, “Ego”, “Self” & “Mine” are infectious and contaminates any individual who frequents, meets & cultivates persons of such deeply mistaken views. Such person of Wrong View, has only two destinations, at the breakup of the body: Hell or Animal Womb … !!! Why ? Because all of his or her mental actions, interests & wishes, all his or her verbal actions & all his or her bodily actions are planned, performed & completed according to that wrong & egoistic view, which has possessiveness, fear of loss, guarding, defending, painfull conflict & suffering as harmful effects. The result (vipaka) of such actions (kamma) is downfall & reapparance in the subhuman states exactly at the last conscious moment of this very life ... So Be Aware & Careful ! Avoiding all Evil, Doing only Good, & Purifying Mind. That is the Teaching Of all Buddhas. Dhammapada 183 Samahita : - ] -- A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/ He who is purged of all stain, is well-established in morals and endowed with self-control and truthfulness, is indeed worthy of the yellow robe. Random Dhammapada Verse 10 26149 From: Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 1:10am Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/16/03 3:42:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Am I right in thinking you are on the verge of > capitulating? :-) > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Simple answer: NO. More complicated answer: 1) I'm not in a battle, and 2) From the rest of your post, it is clear to me that you and I do not mean the same thing by 'thoughts'. ---------------------------------------------------- > > When you were asked to suggest which nama a concept (or a > thought), could possibly be, you wrote: > > --------------- > Well, what, for example is sankappa? Is that not thought? > And doesn't it fall under sankhara? > -------------- > > There is thought conception (sankappa, vitakka), and > there is discursive thinking (vicara). These realities > are different from the [illusory] thoughts they create. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: They are different from the illusory, nonexistent *references* intended by the thinking. The thoughts, themselves, are mental phenomena, discernible by vi~n~nana, but different from vi~n~nana. A thought is a mental event/occurrence/happening. When I speak of thoughts, I'm speaking, I suppose, of the various acts of vitakka and vicara that occur, and not their nonexistent referents. ------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------- > H: >In any case, Sarah, are you saying there are no such > things as thoughts? I certainly believe there are. > -------------- > > If Sarah wants to go gallivanting around the world, she > can't complain when people answer her questions for > her :-) > > There are only 52 cetasikas, none of which is a thought. > If we are going to count thoughts, [starting with > Robert's flying purple elephant], the number will be > infinitely large. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Robert's flying purple elephant doesn't exist. But the *thought* of it is an event that can and does arise in the mind. It is an event that just occurred after reading the phrase "Robert's flying purple elephant". The event was a kind of mental process composed of simpler events including such things as mental pictures, recollections of "Dumbo the elephant", thoughts of trunks and fanning ears etc. There are many simpler thoughts which, together, are summed up by the thought of "Robert's flying purple elephant". All of them are actual mental phenomena that arise and cease. The intended referent, the so called flying purple elephant, however, does not exist. I believe that you consider Robert's flying purple elephant to be a thought, and you then point out that this flying purple elephant isn't an actually, a paramattha dhamma. Indeed. It is not an actuality. It is not a thought, either! It is not ANYTHING!! There is no such thing. But the *thought* of it does arise in the mind and *is* an actuality. Or are you telling me that you do not ever have a thought of a flying purple elephant, or, for that matter of trees, cars, and people? Trees, cars, and people don't exist either except figuratively (i.e., in a manner of speaking), but the *thoughts* of trees, cars, and people do indeed occur, else we would never think about trees, cars, and paople, and we would never seem to experience them. The thoughts occur - it is the referents that do not actually occur. --------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps that, in itself, doesn't mean> > they can't be real but, according to the Tipitaka, they > aren't. (For what it's worth, it all seems perfectly > logical to me.) ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: First of all, I am under no obligation of accepting the standard inventory of cetasikas provided by the Abhidhamma, particularly because, as I recall, the Dhammasangani includes a hedge-clause allowing for other cetasikas than specifically enumerated. Moreover, it is not encumbant on one to identify the phenomena included in the sankharakkhandha with a subclass of the cetasikas. The whole citta-cetasika scheme never appears in the suttas. What is more, even buying that scheme, it may well be that vitakka and vicara are exactly what constitute thoughts, at least what *I* mean by thoughts. One more thing - a question: Are you another person who doesn't have thoughts?! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------------- > > --------------- > H: >And whatever they are, they fall under one > of the five khandhas, > --------------- > > As I see it, the significance of the five khandhas is > that they are *not* concepts. They are realities. Before > the Buddha's teaching, no one knew exactly what was real > and what was concept. Now they do: nibbana, citta, > cetasika and rupa are real; concepts are . . . concepts. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: First of all, I will go with the five khandhas plus nibbana. I haven't adopted the Abhidhamma scheme provided by the monk-scholars; I go with what the Buddha directly taught. And the Buddha taught about thought! Please reread the material I quoted in my post in which it could hardly be clearer that the Buddha was talking about mental phenomena when he talked about thoughts. If thoughts can be affected by the three poisons (or not), if there can be right thoughts and wrong thoughts, if there can be sensuous thoughts and thoughts free from sensuality, then thoughts do occur - they are not nothing!! I believe that your thoughts are trapped, circumscribed, and limited by Abhidhammic categories to such an extent that you are missing what is right before you. Sorry, but that's how I see it. (No doubt you see me as being even more seriously in error! Fun, isn't it?? ;-)) ---------------------------------------------------------- > > ----------------- > H: >for there are only the khandhas and nibbana, isn't > that so? There is nothing else. If thoughts are not > mental formations, I fail to see what in the world else > they could be. They are not acts of consciousness > (vi~n~nana) or feelings (vedana) or acts of recognition > (sa~n~na), and they are neither rupas nor nibbana. Thus, > they are mental formations (sankhara/sankhata). > ------------------ > > Or, they are concepts. (also known as illusions, mere > conventional designations, a number of parts taken as a > whole, pannatti.) > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: All so called conventional objects are illusions and merely conventional designations so-to-speak. More precisely: There are no conventional objects. There are just thoughts of such and terminology that is used subject to the convention, purely fictitious, that these are existent things. When I speak of the tree in my garden, that speech is a convention, a shorthand for a complex of visual and mental phenomena, designating no actual thing "out there", but seeming to. The thought of "the tree in my garden" does, however, actually occur. If you think not, well, wait .. how could you think one way or the other, there being no thoughts at all! --------------------------------------------------------- > > Give up? :-) > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Not close! ;-)) ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards, > Ken H ============================= With (well thought out) 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) 26150 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 10:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism. XIV, 22, 23 Dear Larry, op 16-10-2003 01:42 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I'm having doubts about the exclusivity of patisambhida. In XIV 22 we > have "the person who considers etc.", in XIV 24 (e) we have "Here a > bhikkhu knows". N: This is a wellknown quotation from the sutta where the Buddha says: Here a bhikkhu knows sutta, geyya, etc. I also quoted this in my "Meanings of Dhamma." It is just an example of knowing pariyatti, the scriptures. Actually, one of the meanings of Dhamma is pariyatti. See my "Meanings of Dhamma". L: This doesn't seem to be special knowledge or special > people. It is what we have been studying all along about causes and > effects. I wonder if we are misunderstanding XIV 27 (about trainers and > nontrainers). N: about trainers and nontrainers, this shows that there are different degrees of the patisambhidas. The Buddha had the highest degree of them. For us: we just begin to grasp them intellectually, and even that is difficult. L: Perhaps the "advanced" (aryan) quality has to do with the > 'language' and 'comprehensive' discriminations. N: I think we have to take all four of them together. With the decline of the teachings there are no longer in this world arahats with the four patisambhidas. L: When is everyone going away? I don't want to start something we can't > finish. N: Already gone, but now Sarah, Jon, Christine are in Bgk first, and then on to Myanmar, I believe Monday. Until 27th. As for me, I have to go quietly, it is getting more and more difficult! Tiika 22, and then 23 is quite long. I do not think of having to finish something, but will do as usual. Only when I do not understand something, I leave dots. Also in The Dispeller I find passages I do not get. The transl in the Book of Analysis: dhamma is translated as origin and meaning (attha) is here: consequence. We have to keep in mind: dhamma: a cause; meaning: fruit or consequence of a cause. Then we shall understand the different items which fall under these. Nina. 26151 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 11:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] nibbana Dear Htoo, Thank you for this post on nibbana. I find it very clear and useful. With appreciation, Nina. op 16-10-2003 02:32 schreef rjkjp1 op rjkjp1@y...: > Dear Group, > A letter Htoo wrote that I think dsg will appreciate: > Once I talked to a person off-line on the topic of Nibbana. I used > the analogy mentioned by Swan about the turtle. 26152 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 11:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: paramattha dhammas Hi Larry, op 16-10-2003 07:14 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > What if you are not sure whether the object you are contemplating is a > concept or a reality? N: Then there is no panna but doubt. at such a moment we should realize doubt as only a nama, conditioned, not my doubt. Yes, this is very important, we should not overlook doubt. It is real. L:If it seems to be impermanent, what is the > difference as far as your beliefs are concerned? N: If there is panna no "seems to be". But, a long way to go! L: Vism. XIV 24 (c) seems to say panna is concerned with persons (whatever > things are born), carriages (produced), and governments (become): N: No, see the beginning:< This same meaning is shown in the Abhidhamma by the following analysis.> Not the word at the beginning of this para. Abhidhamma only deals with paramattha dhammas. L: "`(c) 'Knowledge about whatever things are born, become, brought to > birth, produced, completed, made manifest, is the "discrimination of > meaning". N: again: meaning attha: effect or result of a cause or condition. Now the pali has what is translated as : dhammaa: dhammas or realities. Makes it clearer. Do not be misled by the translation: things. L:Knowledge about the things from which those things were born, > became, were brought to birth, produced, completed, made manifest, is > the "discrimination of law"..." N: again: the cause or condition which produces or from which other dhammas are born etc. is dhamma (transl as law). It is difficult, but by repeating it now it helps and becomes clearer, don't you think? Nina. 26153 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 11:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Dear Sukin, op 16-10-2003 09:01 schreef Sukinderpal Singh Narula op sukinder@k...: > Seeing, hearing etc. being > vipaka, may be the foundation of knowledge based on 'discrimination > of meaning', while kamma may be 'discrimination of law'??! Nina, am > I off track? Seeing is vipaka, it is produced by a cause, thus, seeing falls into the category of attha, meaning or fruit, or outcome. Kamma is under the category of cause, hetu, thus, it falls under dhamma (transl as law). S: Anyway, I don't think we have to go so far. Seeing, hearing, > smelling is nama, whereas visible object, sound and smell is rupa, > and this is all we need to know at this point. Without this > knowledge I don't think there can be any discriminative wisdom of > the level I think that is being talked about. N: Very good, excellent reminder. We can only try to grasp part of these difficult texts, but we should not forget that what is first must come first. Nina. 26154 From: Anatta Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 11:35am Subject: The Ajahn Sumedho Project "Some of you might have the desire to become the Buddha of the age, Maitreya, radiating love throughout the world – but instead, I suggest just being an earthworm, letting go of the desire to radiate love throughout the world. Just be an earthworm who knows only two words – 'let go, let go, let go'." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AjahnSumedho 26155 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 1:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Hi Jon, It seems to me that we are talking about different questions. Let's go back to the original question that I asked: Why did the Buddha teach right concentration/samma samadhi? To that question, I answered: As a factor of the Noble Eightfold Path, it leads to the cessation of dukkha. Now, to realize the cessation of dukkha right concentration alone is not sufficient. However, to realize the cessation of dukkha, right concentration, as a factor of the Noble Eightfold Path, is necessary. Specifically, as the Buddha taught, "I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana... the second jhana... the third... the fourth... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness. I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an09-036.html I quoted that passage to illustrate that right concentration leads to the cessation of dukkha. However, to make it clear, I should have said that to realize the cessation of dukkha, right concentration is necessary. What is right concentration/samma samadhi? "And what, monks, is right concentration? (i) There is the case where a monk -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. (ii) With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance. (iii) With the fading of rapture, he remains in equanimity, mindful & fully aware, and physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' (iv) With the abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This, monks, is called right concentration." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn45-008.html Regarding tranquillity/samatha and insight/vipassana, I think the following discouse illustrates their relation to clear knowing: Anguttara Nikaya II.30 Vijja-bhagiya Sutta A Share in Clear Knowing Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- "These two qualities have a share in clear knowing. Which two? Tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana). "When tranquillity is developed, what purpose does it serve? The mind is developed. And when the mind is developed, what purpose does it serve? Passion is abandoned. "When insight is developed, what purpose does it serve? Discernment is developed. And when discernment is developed, what purpose does it serve? Ignorance is abandoned. "Defiled by passion, the mind is not released. Defiled by ignorance, discernment does not develop. Thus from the fading of passion is there awareness-release. From the fading of ignorance is there discernment-release." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an02-030.html Now, let's go back to the passage from MN14 Culadukkahkkhandha Sutta*: "Mahanama, there is still a state unabanddoned by you internally, owing to which at times states of greed, hate, and delusion invade your mind and remain; for were that state already abandoned by you internally you would not be living the home life, you would not be enjoying sensual pleasures. It is because that state is unabandoned by you internally that you are living the home life and enjoying sensual pleasures. "Even though a noble disciple has seen clearly as it actually is with proper wisdom how sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering, and much despair, and how great is the danger in them, as long as he still does not attain to the rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states, or to something more peaceful than that, he may still be attracted to sensual pleasures. But when a noble disciple has seen clearly as it actually is with proper wisdom how sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering, and much despair, and how great is the danger in them, and he attains to the rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states, or to something more peaceful than that, then he is no longer attracted to sensual pleasure. Seeing clearly as it actually is with proper wisdom how sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering, and much despair, and how great is the danger in them is insight. The state of calm through attaining to the rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states, or to something more peaceful than that is tranquillity. Without this insight, it is impossible for one to give up sensual pleasures and the home life. However, this insight is not sufficient. Without tranquillity, one would still be attracted to sensual pleasure. Only with both insight and tranquillity can one give up sensual pleasures and not to be attracted to them. For those who are reserved about developing right concentration because of the fear to pleasure in connection with right concentration, I would quote the following: "Now, there is the case where a monk -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains in equanimity, mindful & fully aware, and physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called renunciation-pleasure, seclusion-pleasure, calm-pleasure, self-awakening-pleasure. And of this pleasure I say that it is to be cultivated, to be developed, to be pursued, that it is not to be feared. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn066.html#jhana Have a good time. Peace, Victor * Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans., _The Middle Length Discourses fo the Buddha: a new translation of the Majjhima Nikaya_, p. 186-7. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > Wow! So many questions from such a short post! I'll have to be [snip] 26156 From: Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 3:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: paramattha dhammas Hi Nina, What paramattha dhamma is born? Death, foulness, and the breath are always contemplated as impermanent, and therefore realities, never as mere concepts. There is a mix, even in the abhidhamma, of paramattha dhammas and what you would call concepts. Larry 26157 From: Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 4:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Sukin: "I think the problem is 'thinking'. It is true that we start with intellectual understanding, however this must be seen as just that. I believe that analyzing helps, but there is a big difference between 'thinking about' and even a glimpse of what it is like in actual experience. Satipatthana is not reductionism, though when we try to understand it intellectually, it might seem like it." Hi Sukin, This I agree with. Satipatthana *can* be analytical but analysis breeds clinging to that analysis for most people. The best satipatthana is just looking at what arises without comment. Larry 26158 From: robmoult Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 5:07pm Subject: 31 Planes (long message) for comments Hi All, Worlds, Planes and Spheres ========================== Buddhist cosmology divides the universe into three types of worlds, also called planes (buhmi) of existence: 1. Sensuous Worlds (kama-loka): Generally, beings in these worlds have all five physical senses. The sensuous worlds are further split into the four Woeful Planes (apayabuhmi) and Happy Destinations (sugati). Human existence is a happy destination. 2. Fine-material Worlds (rupa-loka): Generally, beings in these worlds have only the "fine" physical senses of sight and hearing; they do not have the "coarse" senses of smelling, taste or touch. 3. Immaterial Worlds (arupa-loka): Beings in these worlds have only mind, they have no physical senses. Mental states (citta) are divided into four spheres (avacara); sense- sphere (kamavacara), fine-material sphere (rupavacara), immaterial sphere (arupavacara) and supramundane (lokuttara). Beings in the sensuous worlds (kama-loka) tend to have mental states belonging to the sense sphere (kamavacara) because they are caught up in their senses. However, under special circumstances, it is possible for beings in the sense worlds to have thoughts belonging to the fine-material sphere (rupavacara), immaterial sphere (arupavacara) and supramundane (lokuttara) mental states. Similarly, beings in the fine-material worlds (rupa-loka) tend to have mental states belonging to the fine-material sphere (rupavacara) and beings in the immaterial worlds (arupa-loka) tend to have mental states belonging to the immaterial sphere (arupavacara). Fine-material sphere mental states (rupavacara citta) are associated with high levels of concentration (jhana) focusing on a physical object. Immaterial sphere mental states (arupavacara citta) are associated with jhana using a concept as an object. Supramundane (lokuttara) mental states are associated with the Noble Ones (ariyas); stream-enterers (sotapanna), once-returners (sakadagami), non-returners (anagami) and liberated ones (Arahant). The word lokuttara is derived from loka (world) and uttara (beyond). Destruction of the Worlds ========================= All things are impermanent, including worlds. Worlds may be destroyed by fire, water or wind: - When they are destroyed by fire, all of the worlds up to the three first-jhana planes are burnt out. - After being destroyed seven times consecutively by fire, the worlds will be destroyed by water on the eighth time when all of the worlds up to the three second-jhana planes will be destroyed. - After being destroyed in regular cycles seven times by fire and one time by water, the world will be destroyed by wind on the 64th time when all the world up to the three third-jhana planes will be destroyed. Duration of Lifespan in a World =============================== There are four modes of birth (see MN12): - Moisture born – smaller animals - Egg born – certain animals - Womb born – animals, peta, asura, human, earth born deva - Spontaneous birth – all beings (humans experience spontaneous birth only at the beginning of a world) The amount of time that a being spends in the four woeful planes or the duration of a human lifetime depends upon: - The strength of the productive kamma that caused the being to be reborn in that world - The influence of both supportive kamma and obstructive kamma on the productive kamma that caused the being to be reborn in that world - The arising of a destructive kamma that supplants the productive kamma that caused the being to be reborn in that world For example, Devadatta had favourable productive kamma that allowed him to be born as the cousin of the Buddha. The supportive kamma of becoming a monk would have strengthened his productive kamma while the obstructive kamma of plotting against the Buddha would have weakened his productive kamma. The destructive kamma of causing a split in the Sangha caused Devadatta to be reborn in hell. The lifetime of other beings (those in worlds above the human realm) is fixed. The lifetime in the world immediately above the human realm (Catumaharajika Heaven) is nine million years and the lifetime of the realm immediately above this realm is 36 million years. Lifetimes increase as we move up through the sensuous worlds; beings in the highest sensuous world have a lifetime of more than nine billion human years. Lifetimes of beings in the fine-material worlds and the immaterial worlds are so long that it does not make sense to express them in terms of human years, but in terms of eons. In the Suttas, the Buddha defined an "eon" as longer than the time it would take to wear away a mountain of solid granite that was seven miles tall if one were to stroke it with a silk cloth once every hundred human years. In the heavenly realms, time flows at a different rate than in the human realm. For example, in the world immediately above the human realm (Catumaharajika Heaven), one celestial day is equivalent to fifty human years. In Tavatimsa Heaven, the world immediately above Catumaharajika Heaven, one celestial day is equivalent to one hundred human years. During the seventh rainy retreat (vassa) after His enlightenment, the Buddha went to Tavatimsa Heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to an assembly of Gods. This teaching took three months of human time but was equivalent to only 3.6 minutes of time in Tavatimsa Heaven. When the senses are not operating (no sense door citta process) and there are no thoughts arising in the mind (no mind door citta process), a series of life-continuum (bhavanga) cittas arise and fall away. These bhavanga cittas are the same from the moment of birth to the moment of death. In fact, the very first citta (patisandhi citta) and the very last citta (cuti citta) are both bhavanga cittas. Only certain cittas can play the role of bhavanga cittas: - Citta 19 – unwholesome resultant (akusala vipaka) with no roots (does not include non-greed, does not include non-hatred and does not include non-delusion): plays the role of bhavanga citta for beings in the four woeful planes. These beings cannot achieve a jhana state, they cannot become sotapanna and they will always be reborn in the sensuous worlds. - Citta 27 – wholesome resultant (kusala vipaka) with no roots (does not include non-greed, does not include non-hatred and does not include non-delusion): plays the role of bhavanga citta for humans born blind, deaf, dumb, etc. and certain earth-bound Gods from Catumaharajika Heaven. These beings cannot achieve a jhana state, they cannot become sotapanna and they will always be reborn in the sensuous worlds. - Cittas 41, 42, 45, 46 – beautiful resultant (mahavipaka) with two roots (includes non-greed and non-hatred, does not include non- delusion): plays the role of bhavanga citta for certain beings in happy destinations (humans and Gods in the sense-sphere). These beings cannot achieve a jhana state, they cannot become sotapanna and they will always be reborn in the sensuous worlds. - Cittas 39, 40, 43, 44 – beautiful resultant (mahavipaka) with three roots (includes non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion): plays the role of bhavanga citta for certain beings in happy destinations (humans and Gods in the sense-sphere). These beings are able to achieve a jhana state and they are able to become sotapanna. If they are worldlings (not yet sotapanna), they can be reborn into any world except the pure abodes. If they are a Noble One (sotapanna, sakadagami, anagami or Arahant), they can be reborn into any world except the four woeful planes or the Asatta satta realm. - Cittas 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 74, 75, 76, 77 – fine-material sphere resultant (rupavacara vipaka) and immaterial sphere resultant (arupavacara vipaka) with three roots: plays role of bhavanga citta for beings in fine-material worlds and immaterial worlds. Woeful Planes (Apayabuhmi) ========================== There are four woeful planes: - Hell (Niraya), the worst possible plane - Animal (Tiracchani Yoni) - Hungry Ghost (Peta) - Demon / Titan (Asura) After their kamma has expired, beings from the four woeful planes are reborn into one of the sensuous worlds (Kama-loka); one of the four woeful planes (again) or one of the Happy Destinations. Noble Ones (sotapanna, etc.) are never born into the woeful planes. Rebirth into one of the four woeful planes is the kammic result of one of the ten unwholesome actions: 1. Killing: Constituent factors are A living being / consciousness that there is a living being / intention of killing / effort of killing / consequent death (Note: Large animals more serious than small animals, humans more serious than animals. Virtuous being more serious than non-virtuous being.) 2. Stealing: Constituent factors are Another's property / awareness that it is so / thieving mind / effort / consequent removal (Note: Higher value objects more serious than smaller value objects. Stealing from a virtuous being more serious than stealing from a non- virtuous being.) 3. Sexual Misbehaviour: Constituent factors are the mind to enjoy the forbidden object / effort to enjoy / devices to obtain / possession (Note: Married women and women under guardianship are forbidden. Seriousness of the sin increases with the virtue of the woman (keeping precepts). 4. Lying: Constituent factors are an untrue thing / intention to deceive / corresponding effort / communication of the matter to others (Note: Seriousness of the sin depends on the amount of welfare destroyed; lying to protect oneself is less serious than lying to get another into trouble) 5. Slandering: Constituent factors are other persons to be divided / the purpose, "they will be separated" or the desire to endear oneself to another / corresponding effort / communication (Note: Seriousness of the sin depends on the virtue of the person being slandered) 6. Idle Talk: Constituent factors are inclination towards useless talk / narration of such themes (Note: seriousness of the sin depends on the frequency with which it is practiced.) 7. Rude Speech: Constituent factors are another to be abused / angry thought / abuse (Note: Seriousness of the sin depends on the virtue of the person to whom the speech is directed) 8. Covetousness: Constituent factors are another's property / bending over of oneself (Note: High value objects more serious than small value objects. Coveting from a virtuous being more serious than coveting from a non-virtuous being.) 9. Ill Will: Constituent factors are another being / thought of doing harm (Note: Seriousness of the sin depends on the virtue of the person to whom the ill will is directed) 10. Wrong View: Constituent factors are perversion of the manner in which an object should be taken / its manifestation according to the contrary view held of it (Note: Seriousness of the sin depends on the frequency with which it is practiced; temporary or permanent). Hell (Niraya) ============= Being reborn in Hell is a natural result from previous actions; bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, mental misconduct, reviling noble ones, wrong views and actions under the influence of wrong views. Hell beings have no happy moments; they suffer the painful results of their unwholesome kamma throughout their lives in that realm. There are eight great hells of increasing intensity of torment: 1. Satjiva ("reviver"): This is the least severe type of hell. The guardians of this hell chop and cut the hell beings with glowing weapons. As long as their evil deeds remain unexhausted, the hell beings regain their lives after the punishment is over. 2. Kalasutta ("black thread"): Hell beings are placed on a floor of heated iron, marked with a black thread and made red hot. The guardians of this hell then plane the hell beings with adzes along the markings. 3. Sanghata ("crushing"): Hell beings are constantly being crushed by huge fiery rocks coming from all four directions. 4. Roruva: Hell beings have noxious gases blown into their bodies. 5. Maha Roruva: Hell beings have flames blown into their bodies. 6. Tapana ("burner"): Hell beings are pierced by red-hot stakes and remain motionless as long as the results of their evil deeds last. 7. Maha Tapana ("great burner"): The guardians of this hell force the hell beings to climb up a burning iron mountain. Strong winds force the hell beings to fall from the mountain and be impaled on the red-hot stakes below. 8. Avici ("without intermission"): This is the most terrible type of hell. There is no space between the hell beings and the flames. Those who have committed the five heinous acts (patricide, matricide, killing an Arahant, wounding a Buddha or causing a schism in the Sangha) are destined for Avici. Each of the eight great hells is square with a door on each side. Each door from the great hell leads to five minor hells (for a total of 168): - Gutha (excrement) hell - Kukkula (ember) hell - Simpalivana (silk-cotton tree) hell - Asipattavana (sword-leafed forest) hell - Vettarani (river of caustic water) hell Each of the 32 doors leading from a great hell to the minor hells is guarded by a Yamadeva. The duty of the Yamadeva is to consider the case of each hell being and direct the guardians of the hell (Niraya- pala) to inflict the punishment. Yamadeva and Niraya-pala are from Catumaharajika Heaven; these beings sometimes enjoy the fruitions of their meritorious kamma in heaven and sometimes suffer the results of their evil deeds in hell. On very rare occasions, one of the doors on the four sides of the great hell will open and a few hell beings will be allowed to pass into the minor hells. Only from a minor hell can a being with good past kamma experience rebirth. Animal (Tiracchani Yoni) ======================== In SN XLII.3, the Buddha is asked if a brave warrior can expect rebirth in heaven. The Buddha explained that if a warrior's mind was filled with hate at the time of death, then rebirth would be in hell. If the warrior's mind were filled with wrong view at time of death, then rebirth could be in hell or in the animal realm. In many other Suttas, the Buddha stressed that wrong view resulted in rebirth in hell or as an animal. In MN 57, the Buddha explained that humans who behave as animals are destined for rebirth in the animal realm. Life as an animal is not pleasant as they are exposed to the elements. Animals live most of their lives in fear and craving food. Because of past actions, some animals suffer more and some animals suffer less. In many cases, humans are reborn as animals with a natural affinity for that which they craved as humans. For example, the Elder Tissa was reborn as a flea in his old robe and the Brahman Todeyya's was reborn as a dog in his previous household. Hungry Ghost (Peta) =================== These beings are tormented by intense hunger, thirst and other afflictions to which they can find relief. The petas have no world of their own; they live in the same world as humans, in forests, bogs, cemeteries, etc.. They remain invisible to humans except when they choose to make themselves visible or are perceived by humans who have developed the "divine eye" through meditation. There are four kinds of Peta: 1. Paradattupajivika-peta: This sort of Peta lives on the dakkhina (sacrificial gifts) of others. Buddhism encourages dakkhina or merit- making by offering food, clothing, shelter, etc., to virtuous persons such as a Bhikkhu and then dedicating the merit acquired to deceased relatives. If the deceased relatives are this type of Peta, they will appreciate the dakkhina dedicated to them and they will be reborn in a better world. Only the Peta of this sort are able to enjoy the outcome of dakkhina dedicated by their relatives. Other types of Petas are not affected by such a dedication. The dakkhina will become fruitful to the Peta only when three conditions are met: - The dakkhina or sacrifice is given to a virtuous person - The performer of the dakkhina dedicates the merit to his deceased relative - His deceased relative has been born as a Paradattupajivika-peta, the Peta knows and appreciates the dakkhina dedicated to him If any of these three conditions is lacking, the deceased relative will not be able to enjoy the outcome of the dakkhina. Nevertheless, the performer of the dakkhina will still receive the good result of his meritorious action. 2. Khuppipasika-peta: This sort of Peta suffers from hunger and thirst and will suffer as a Peta as long as his evil kamma lasts. 3. Nijjhamatanhika-peta: This Peta's suffering is caused by his own craving (tanha). Fire burns in his mouth as long as his evil kamma lasts. 4. Kalakancika-peta: This sort of Peta has a very tall body that appears to be like a dry leaf with only skin covering the skeleton. His eyes protrude like those of the crab and his mouth is extremely small. He suffers from hunger and thirst like other types of Peta. Demon / Titan (Asura) ===================== The term "asura" is applied to three types of beings: - A group of Devas from Tavatimsa Heaven led by Vepacitti - Another name for the Kalakancika-peta already described - Titan residents of the Lokantarika-niraya realm The Lokantarika-niraya realm is situated between the human world, the hell world and the heaven world. The Lokantarika-niraya realm is a dark sea of acid water surrounded by rocky mountains; no light can reach this place. The Asuras hang themselves on cliffs like bats. They are tortured by hunger and thirst as there is no food for them. While moving along the cliff they sometimes come across each other. Thinking that they have come across food, they jump upon each other and start fighting. As soon as they start fighting, they let loose their grip on the cliff and as a result they fall into the sea below and their bodies melt away just like salt melting away in water. Happy Destinations (Sugati) =========================== Generosity and abstinence from the ten unwholesome actions lead to rebirth in a happy destination. The bases for wholesome actions are: 1. Dana – giving charity or generosity 2. Sila – morality; observing precepts 3. Bhavana – meditation, both tranquility and insight 4. Appacayana – reverence to elders and holy persons 5. Veyavacca – service in wholesome deeds 6. Pattidana – transference of merit 7. Pattanumodana – rejoicing in others' merit 8. Dhamma-savana – listening to the Doctrine 9. Dhamma-desana – expounding the Doctrine 10. Ditthijjukamma – straightening one's right view Human Plane of Existence ======================== The Pali word manussa (human) literally means those who have sharp or developed minds. As the human mind is very sharp, this makes man much more capable of weighty moral and immoral action than any other class of being. The human being is capable of development of up to Buddhahood and also of serious crimes such as killing of one's parents. The human realm is a mixture of pain and pleasure, suffering and happiness. The main reason that the realm of human beings is regarded as a happy destination (sugati) is that human birth is the result of meritorious kamma. Although the human world is the lowest of all of the happy realms of existence, it possesses significant characteristics which make it the most important ream of existence: - It is the realm situated between the Woeful Planes (Apayabuhmi) and the higher realms of happiness or Devaloka. In this sense, it may be seen as the "centre" of all realms. - It is the only realm where the life of a recluse, an ethical life that leads directly to the realization of the ultimate truth, is possible. - It is where the fulfillment of the Ten Perfection (Dasa-parami) of the Buddha-to-be (Bodhisatta) is made possible. - It is the only realm where the Bodhisatta attains Buddhahood and preaches the ultimate truth to the world. Charity (dana) and virtue (sila) are the determining factors in bringing about rebirth in the realm of human beings: - One who only on a small scale performs meritorious action founded on charity (dana), only on a small scale performs meritorious action founded on virtue (sila) and does not perform meritorious action founded on mind-development (bhavana) is reborn among men of ill luck. - One who performs meritorious action founded on charity to a medium degree, performs meritorious action founded on virtue to a medium degree and does not perform meritorious action founded on mind- development is reborn among men of good luck. Being born as a human is a rare event and the Buddha encouraged us to capitalize on this extraordinary opportunity. The four woeful planes are packed with beings while the realms above the human realm are sparsely populated. There is a Buddhist legend of the "age of materiality" where the population of the world increases dramatically because many beings are reborn from the four woeful planes into the human realm. Because these beings have spent so much time in the woeful planes, they have accumulated some bad habits; they are quarrelsome, rebellious, selfish and greedy. Heaven of the Four Great Kings (Catumaharajika) =============================================== This heaven has four divisions, each ruled over by its own guardian deity and inhabited by a different class of demiGods: - East – Dhatarattha rules over gandhabbas (celestial musicians) - South – Virulhaka rules over kumbhandas (gnomic caretakers of forests, mountains and hidden treasures) - West – Virupakkha rules over nagas (dragon-like creatures) - North – Vessavana rules over yakkhas (spirits) Distinctions are made among the three types of Gods of the Catumaharajika heaven according to the nature of their residences: - Bhummattha-deva (Gods living on the ground): reside on mountains, in pagodas, in public houses like temples, etc. They do not particularly have palaces (vimanas) of their own. The lifespan of these beings is of indefinite length. - Rukkhattha-deva (Gods living in trees): some have palaces of their own on the tops of trees and others have no palaces but reside in the trees. Since their residences are in connection with trees, when those trees are chopped down they have to shift to other unoccupied ones. The lifespan of these beings is of indefinite length. - Akasattha-deva (Gods living in the sky): they have vimanas of their own. The magnificence of their palaces varies depending on the karmic results of the owners. The lifespan of these beings is of fixed length. One day and night in this realm is equivalent to 50 human years. Thirty such days and nights make up a month, twelve such months make up a year and beings of this realm live for 500 of these years (9 million human years). Heaven of the 33 Gods (Tavatimsa) ================================= According to legend, there was a group of thirty-three men who collectively dedicated their efforts to the happiness and well-being of other people. They built and repaired roads, dug wells and ponds, built rest houses at cross-roads, etc. They passed their whole life with such wholesome actions and after death they were reborn in this realm. The leader of the group (Sakka or Indra) became the ruler of this heaven. His thirty-two friends were reborn as high ranking Gods. Since the thirty-three friends were born in this realm, it is called Tavatimsa or the heaven of the Thirty-Three Gods. Gods of the higher heavens are invisible to the Gods of the lower ones but not vice versa. This is because the bodies of the Gods of the higher realms are more subtle than those of the Gods in the lower realms. The Gods of the higher heavens are visible to the Gods of the lower realms only when they want themselves to be seen by transforming their subtle bodies into grosser bodies. Gods cannot travel to realms higher than their own but they can go to a realm that is lower than their own at will. These two general characteristics, i.e. the invisibility of the higher Gods to the lower Gods and the incapability of the lower Gods to travel to the higher realms, are common to all the heavens except the Catumaharajika and the Tavatimsa heaven which are closely related. The Gods of the Catumaharajika heaven can go to Tavatimsa heaven, even though Tavatimsa is a higher realm. The Four Great Kings of Catumaharajika are among the God-retinue of Sakka. The Buddha taught the Abhidhamma in Tavatimsa Heaven in gratitude to his mother (who had died seven days after giving birth to the Buddha and then was reborn in Tusita Heaven). The Buddha chose Tavatimsa to teach the Abhidhamma because Tavatimsa is accessible to the Gods of all realms; lower as well as higher heavens. The Buddha wanted his sermon to benefit not only his mother, but also Gods of other realms who were interested in his teachings. If he chose to preach to his mother in Tusita, only the Gods of the same realm and of the higher heavens could attend his sermon but not the Gods of lower realms since Tusita is inaccessible to them. One day and night in this realm is equivalent to 100 human years. Thirty such days and nights make up a month, twelve such months make up a year and beings of this realm live for 1000 of these years (36 million human years). The three months of human time that the Buddha spent teaching Abhidhamma was equivalent to 3.6 minutes of time in Tavatimsa Heaven. Heaven of the Yama Gods (Yama) ============================== This realm is the abode of the Gods whose lives are without hardship. There is very little description of this realm in the texts, other than it is the realm above Tavatimsa Heaven. One day and night in this realm is equivalent to 200 human years. Thirty such days and nights make up a month, twelve such months make up a year and beings of this realm live for 2000 of these years (144 million human years). Heaven of the Contented Gods (Tusita) ===================================== Every Bodhisatta is born here before the human birth in which he attains Buddhahood. From this realm, the Bodhisatta is reborn as a human and becomes enlightened. One day and night in this realm is equivalent to 400 human years. Thirty such days and nights make up a month, twelve such months make up a year and beings of this realm live for 4000 of these years (576 million human years). Gods Delighting in Creation (Nimmanarati) ========================================= The Gods of this realm enjoy the objects of the senses that they themselves create. In the lower heavens, the objects of sensuous enjoyment exist by their own nature. In Nimmanarati heaven, the beings of the realm create for themselves the objects of sense and enjoy them as they like. The Nimmanarati Gods can enjoy the pleasures of life at will. One day and night in this realm is equivalent to 800 human years. Thirty such days and nights make up a month, twelve such months make up a year and beings of this realm live for 8000 of these years (equivalent to 2304 million human years). Gods Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (Paranimmitavasavatti) ====================== Unlike the gods of Nimmanarati heaven, the Paranimmitavasavatti gods themselves have nothing to do with the creation of the objects for sensuous enjoyment. Their duty is only to enjoy such ready-made objects of others' creations. It is said that their God-attendants who realize their desires do such services for them. Mara, the personification of delusion and desire lives in this realm. He has no faith in the Buddha and Buddhism. He tried many times to create obstacles for the Buddha, but he always met with failure. His power, however, surupasses that of the gods in the lower heavens. One day and night in this realm is equivalent to 1600 human years. Thirty such days and nights make up a month, twelve such months make up a year and beings of this realm live for 16000 of these years (9216 million human years). The Lower Nine Fine-Material Worlds (rupa-loka) =============================================== These are the destination of those who have developed, during their life, the first, second or third fine-material jhana and at the time of death, still have potential access to that jhana. One who develops the jhana and then loses access to it due to negligence or obsession with destructive states will not be reborn here. Beings born into these realms tend to remain in the jhana state. These beings do not have any desire to enjoy sense pleasures and do not have the faculty of smell, taste or touch. These beings are able to see and hear as they desire to witness the appearance of Buddhas and Arahants and listen to them preach. In these planes (and the planes above), all Gods are male. When a worldling reborn into these planes dies, they are reborn in another plane, not including the woeful states or the pure abodes. When a Noble One reborn into these planes dies, they are reborn in the same plane or higher (except the Asatta satta realm). Great Brahmas (Maha Brahma), Ministers of Brahma (Brahma-purohita) and Retinue of Brahma (Brahma-parisajja) ======================================== Those who have mastered the first fine-material jhana are reborn in realm of the Great Brahmas for one eon. Those who have developed the first fine-material jhana to a medium degree are reborn in the realm of Ministers of Brahma for half an eon. Those who have developed the first fine-material jhana to a minor degree are reborn in the realm of Retinue of Brahma for a third of an eon. After gaining enlightenment, the Buddha's first inclination was to remain silent. Sensing this, Sahampati from the Great Brahma realm appeared before the Buddha and implored Him to teach the Dhamma, "… as there are beings with little dust in their eyes who will understand the Dhamma". In the Great Brahma realm, there is a deity who believes that he is the all-powerful, all-seeing creator of the universe. In the Kevatta Sutta (DN11), a monk in search of the answer to a philosophical question approaches this deity. The deity takes the monk aside and scolds him, "The Gods in my retinue believe that there is nothing that I do not know. That is why I could not tell you in their presence that I did not know the answer to your question. You have acted wrongly in bypassing the Buddha. Go directly to the Buddha for your answer." Gods of Streaming Radiance (Abhassara Deva), Gods of Unbounded Radiance (Appamanabha Deva) and Gods of Limited Radiance (Parittabha Deva) ==================================================================== The beings from these planes, the radiant Gods, are usually referred to as the representatives of supreme love (piti and metta). Those who have mastered the second fine-material jhana are reborn in realm of the Gods of Streaming Radiance for eight eons. Those who have developed this jhana to a moderate degree are reborn in the realm of Gods of Unbounded Radiance for four eons. Those who have developed this jhana to a minor degree are reborn in the realm of Gods of Limited Radiance for two eons. The numbering of jhana states are defined differs in the Suttas and in the Abhidhamma. When discussing planes of existence, we use the Sutta method; the 2nd Jhana of the radiant Gods does not have initial application nor sustained application as jhana factors. Gods of Refulgent Glory (Subhakinna Deva), Gods of Unbounded Glory (Appamanasubha Deva) and Gods of Limited Glory (Parittasubha Deva) =================================================================== Those who have mastered the third fine-material jhana (fourth fine- material jhana when using the Abhidhamma system) are reborn in realm of the Gods of Refulgent Glory for sixty-four eons. Those who have developed this jhana to a moderate degree are reborn in the realm of Gods of Unbounded Glory for thirty-two eons. Those who have developed this jhana to a minor degree are reborn in the realm of Gods of Limited Glory for sixteen eons. The Seven Fine-Material Realms Associated with the Fourth Jhana =============================================================== The seven fine-material realms associated with the fourth jhana are: - Fruitful Gods (Vehapphala) - Unconscious Beings (Asatta satta) - The Pure Abodes (Suddhavasa): Peerless Gods (Akanittha), Clear- Sighted Gods (Sudassi), Beautiful Gods (Suddassa), Untroubled Gods (Atappa), Durable Gods (Aviha) The three realms associated with the first jhana (Great Brahmas, Ministers of Brahma and Retinue of Brahma) share the same space; the beings in these three planes interact with each other. The three realms associated with the second jhana share the same space. The three realms associated with the third jhana share the same space. The first two realms associated with the fourth jhana (Fruitful Gods and Unconscious Beings) share the same space and each of the five Pure Abodes has their own space. Fruitful Gods (Vehapphala) =========================== This is the plane or rebirth for those who have achieved and maintained the fourth jhana but do not desire to be reborn without a mind. One remains in this realm for 500 eons. When a worldling reborn into this plane dies, they are reborn in another plane, not including the woeful states or the pure abodes. When a Noble One reborn into these planes dies, they are reborn in the same plane or higher (except the Asatta satta realm). Unconscious Beings (Asatta satta) ================================= The Asatta satta is the particular type of rebirth for one who develops meditation with the feeling of dispassion (viraga) in perception (satta). As a result of this, if he dies when his mind is absorbed in the fourth stage of jhana, he is born as an unconscious being in the world of form. He is actually a one-aggregate being, i.e., a being who possesses only the rupa-kkhandha, with the absence of all the other four aggregates, namely, feeling (vedana), perception (satta), disposition (sankhara) and consciousness (vittana). The Asatta satta is a being without any mental activities. He remains like a motionless stone in the realm from the beginning up to the end of his life (500 eons). At the end of their time in this realm, worldlings (Noble Ones are never born here) will be reborn in a happy destination (Sugati) according to the past kamma from the existence prior to the time as an Unconscious Being. The Pure Abodes (Suddhavasa): Peerless Gods (Akanittha), Clear- Sighted Gods (Sudassi), Beautiful Gods (Suddassa), Untroubled Gods (Atappa), Durable Gods (Aviha) ============================== Only those who attain the third holy stage (Anagami; non-returner) will be reborn, after death, in these realms. After death in a Pure Abode, the Anagami will be reborn into another Pure Abode (same level or higher); Anagami born into the Akanittha realm will definitely parinibbana from this realm (no rebirth). Once born in the Pure Abodes, the Anagami will attain Arahantship and parinibbana from one of these realms. All beings reborn into this realm are Anagami with the fourth jhana but the controlling principle or the directive force (indriya), which is the predominant character of each individual, will determine the realm where he is to be reborn: - One whose directive force is saddha (faith) will be reborn in the realm of Aviha for 1000 eons - One whose directive force is viriya (energy) will be reborn is the realm of Atappa for 2000 eons - One whose directive force is sati (mindfulness) will be reborn in the realm of Sudassa for 4000 eons - One whose directive force is samadhi (concentration) will be reborn in the realm of Sudassi for 8000 eons - One whose directive force is patta (knowledge or reason) will be reborn in the realm of Akanittha for 16000 eons According to the Mahapadana Sutta, the Pure Abodes were the only planes of existence where the Buddha, in his long wandering in Samsara before attaining Buddhahood, had never been born. The Buddha thought of this one day and appeared among the gods of the Suddhavasa. Many gods of the realm came to him and told him of the important events which had occurred in the periods of many previous Buddhas, beginning from the time of the Buddha named Vipassi who enlightened the world with his teachings ninety-one eons before the present one. Immaterial Worlds (Arupa-loka): Neither Perception nor Non- perception (N'evasatta-n'asattayatana), Nothingness (Akitcattayatana), Infinite Consciousness (Vittanatcayatana) and Infinite Space (Akasanatcayatana) ================================= The last planes of existence where living beings are born according to the result of their kamma are the immaterial worlds (arupa-loka). Beings in these worlds are pure mind and have no body. Similar to the rupa-loka, the arupa-loka is closely connected with the arupa jhana. This jhana can be developed only when a person has experienced and then abandoned all the four stages of rupa jhana. There are four stages of arupa jhana and the four realms of the arupa-loka correspond to the stage of arupa jhana maintained: 1. Akasanatcayatana: Having obtained and then abandoned the fourth stage of rupa jhana, the meditator applies his mind to the infinity of space. He thereby attains the first stage of arupa jhana. 2. Vittanatcayatana: Having obtained the first stage, the meditator switches his concentration to the infinity of consciousness. He thereby attains the second stage of arupa jhana. 3. Akitcattayatana: Having obtained the second stage, the meditator switches his concentration to nothingness. He thereby attains the third stage of arupa jhana. 4. N'evasatta-n'asattayatana: Having obtained the third stage, the meditator's mind enters a state in which cognition is so extremely subtle that it cannot be said whether it is or not. At this point he is regarded as having attained the fourth stage of arupa jhana. The lifespan of Arupa-loka Gods is as follows: - Infinite Space (Akasanatcayatana): 20,000 eons - Infinite Consciousness (Vittanatcayatana): 40,000 eons - Nothingness (Akitcattayatana): 60,000 eons - Neither Perception nor Non-perception (N'evasatta-n'asattayatana): 84,000 eons Alara, the ascetic who was the first teacher abandoned by the Buddha, was reborn in the Nothingness (Akitcattayatana) realm after dying one week before the Buddha decided to teach the Dhamma. Udaka, the ascetic who was the second teacher abandoned by the Buddha, was reborn in the Neither Perception nor Non-perception (N'evasatta- n'asattayatana) realm after dying on the night before the Buddha decided to teach the Dhamma. When a worldling reborn into these planes dies, they are reborn in another plane; one of the happy destinations (sugati) or in the same plane or higher. When a Noble One reborn into these planes dies, they are reborn in the same plane or higher. To explain the concept of a mind existing without a body, the texts use an analogy of an iron bar flung into the air. For a certain period, depending on the energy with which it is flung, the bar remains in the air without any support. Because these are the "highest" realms, one might mistakenly conclude that these are the "objective" of Buddhism. In fact, beings are propelled into these realms because of the delusion that the body is the source of suffering and a desire to be without body. Beings remain in this state for an incredibly long time but they are unable to hear the Dhamma or see a Buddha, so they do not improve themselves. Once their kammic force expires, they return to samsara. References ========== Baptist, Egerton C. – "31 Planes of Existence" Bodhi, Bhikkhu – "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" Mon, Dr. Mehm Tin – "Buddha Abhidhamma – Ultimate Science" Na-Rangsi, Sunthorn – "Existence: Rebirth and Planes of Existence" Suvano Mahathera, Ven. – "31 Planes of Existence" Metta, Rob M :-) 26159 From: Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 5:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 31 Planes (long message) for comments Hi Rob, Well done. What was your source? Are worlds, planes, and spheres concepts or realities? Larry 26160 From: robmoult Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 5:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 31 Planes (long message) for comments Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Well done. What was your source? Are worlds, planes, and spheres > concepts or realities? Principal sources are listed at the end: - Baptist, Egerton C. – "31 Planes of Existence" - Bodhi, Bhikkhu – "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" - Mon, Dr. Mehm Tin – "Buddha Abhidhamma – Ultimate Science" - Na-Rangsi, Sunthorn – "Existence: Rebirth and Planes of Existence" - Suvano Mahathera, Ven. – "31 Planes of Existence" Worlds, planes and spheres are concepts. The only four ultimate realities are citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana. Metta, Rob M :-) 26161 From: robmoult Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 6:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 31 Planes (long message) for comments Hi Larry (and all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Are worlds, planes, and spheres > > concepts or realities? > > Worlds, planes and spheres are concepts. The only four ultimate > realities are citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana. Two monks were arguing. The first monk said, "There is no use studying rebirth. We are supposed to focus on understanding the present moment and rebirth is a concept far removed from the present moment." The second monk said, "The Buddha talked a lot about rebirth in the Suttas. The Buddha would not have paid so much attention to rebirth if it were not worth studying." Unable to resolve the issue, the monks agreed to take the question to the Abbot. The first monk presented his case to the Abbot and the Abbot said, "You are correct." The second monk presented his case to the Abbot and the Abbot said, "You are correct." The two monks complained to the Abbot, "We can't both be correct!" The Abbot replied, "That is also correct!" How do I interpret this Zen-like parable? Based on our accumulations, each of us has our own path. For some people (such as myself), Abhidhamma is very satisfying. Abhidhamma is the right path for me. Others may find meditation practice to be very satisfying. For them, meditation is the right path. Yet others find strength in rites and rituals. Faith is the right path for them. At the end of the story, when the Abbot agreed that they can't both be correct, the Abbot is saying that there is no *one* right path for everybody. I anticipate that some may reply to my 31 planes message with, "This sounds like fairy tales." Others may reply with, "This helps me to better understand some of the Buddha's comments in the Suttas." A third group may have great faith in the accuracy of these descriptions because they were taken from the Suttas (and commentaries). All three groups are correct! Metta, Rob M :-) 26162 From: Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 31 Planes (long message) for comments Rob: "Worlds, planes and spheres are concepts. The only four ultimate realities are citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana." Hi Rob, Then worlds are not impermanent, are they? Larry 26163 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:20pm Subject: Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Sukin, If we can go over the suttas in DSG, that would be helpful. But I think it is more important to spend time in practice, even starting with 5-10 minutes a day. In a sense, these three discourses are like how-to manuals. To know what it is talking about, one has to verify it oneself with his or her own experience in practice. It is like learning how to ride bicycle. With or without help from other, the only way to learn how to ride a bicycle is to get on a bike and try to ride it. Have a good time in Myanmar! Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > You asked: Being mindful of what? I would rather ask: How to > > develop right mindfulness? But for both questions, I would refer > to > > Satipatthana Sutta*, Anapanasati Sutta**, and Kayagata-sati > Sutta***. [snip] 26164 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Hi Nina, I tend to understand the phrase "something more peaceful than that" as higher meditative state more peaceful than the rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states. Thank you for your comments. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Victor, > I am butting in case Jon has no more time, almost on his way. [snip] 26165 From: monomuni Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:54pm Subject: The 18 Principal Insights Friends: The 18 Principal Insights: 1: Transience is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 2: Misery is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 3: No Self is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 4: Disgust is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 5: Disillusion is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 6: Ending is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 7: Relinquishment is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 8: Decay is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 9: Vanishing is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 10: Change is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 11: The Sign-less is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 12: The Desire-less is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 13: The Emptiness is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 14: The Supreme Ideas is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 15: Direct Knowledge is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 16: The Danger is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 17: Careful Contemplation is to be directly known by repeated reflection. 18: Turning Away is to be directly known by repeated reflection. These 18 Principal Insights are to be Directly Known. Source: Path of Discrimination by Sariputta. Only the Smile of Buddhas are Eternal … Friendship is truly GREATEST The entire Motivation behind all of the Noble Life. Yeah! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct : - ] -- A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/ Random Dhammapada Verse 26166 From: bodhi342 Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 9:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] nibbana Hello Nina and All, Hope all goes well with you. A dsg friend forwarded your response to Htoo's letter on Nibbana. Htoo's letter refers to questions strikingly similar to those I asked him way back in February right here on dsg. Since there never was any response from Htoo, either on- or off-line, I am glad to see the subject revisited. There seem to be several changes in his current version - it could very well be that someone else came up with similar questions about nibbana. Such a coincidence would be very interesting indeed! However, should it refer to my earlier questions, for the sake of accuracy, we ought to revisit Htoo's original turtle story message, and the actual questions in response to it. I will also try to more explicitly spell out what I was trying to get at with the use of analogy. [Subtlety does not always find its mark!] Following are Htoo's message, and then my questions: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Date: Tue Feb 18, 2003 10:07 am Message# 19727 Subject: (5) Nibbana As Absolute Peace Dear Dhamma Friends, It is totally impossible to describe Nibbana. It is unthinkable,unimaginable but it can surely be experienced by an individual who has enough Parami and has passed through the necessary path at least three stages. There were a turtle and a fish.They met in an ocean.They both knew well about the water they experienced.One day,the turtle reached the shore and he crept up to the land.Then he learned well about the land.When he return to the ocean met again with the fish and he told all about the land he experienced to the fish. As the fish never experienced the land all he heard from the turtle were all impossible and unthinkable and unimaginable but the land did exist and the turtle really experienced it but the fish could not understand about the land what it meant, what it really was,and so on.He asked the turtle that whether the land was wet,the land could be swun through,the land was clear enough so that the light could pass through and so on.And he could not accept what the turtle said and he assumed the land as impossible thing.Actually the fish weighted the knowledge of the land with his own knowledge of the water he was in. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:17 pm Message# 19734 Subject: Re: (5) Nibbana As Absolute Peace Dear Htoo and All, I found your excellent analogy to explain why Nibbana is indescribable, very interesting. All descriptions that try to encompass or capture the essence of the ultimate unconditioned reality necessarily fail. I would like to extend your analogy by considering the following possibilities: That turtle would 'know' the land from its own experience, and would likely go back there by the same route. That is completely natural, understandable, and indeed, expected. So is its own assumption that only it knows the way to the land. Is it possible for other turtles, or even other animals, say crocodiles, penguins etc. to also have experienced both land and ocean? And if so, could they have got on to the same land at different locations, at different times, using different means? I would encourage calm consideration of the implications of these possibilities because they have both practical application and lend themselves to the type of testing that the Buddha recommended. metta, dharam ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NB: 1. 'land' is the analogy for Nibbana / ultimate reality; 2. 'turtle' is the analogy for a teacher who has repeatedly experienced the ultimate reality; 3. 'other animals' is the analogy for other teachers who may have a different understanding of the actual path, traveled at other times in history, yet describing the same ultimate experience. 4. Nothing to suggest that nibbana was actually related to space, time or other dimensions. The primary intent of my questions was to explore the possibility of multiple paths to the same 'destination'. We should reasonably expect that same ultimate reality to be described in subtly different terms depending on the teacher experiencing and later describing, ...........in so far as description is possible at all.... A valid question sometimes asked is why do 'true believers' have such an absolute certainty that theirs is the only path to the ultimate unconditioned reality? All the more surprising because few if any have actually made the journey! Yet, there is a degree of conceit and arrogance that sustains such a (self?) view, disguised as 'confidence'. Could it be that 'true believers' have to exclude other possibilities just to gain that very confidence in the first place? metta, dharam 26167 From: robmoult Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 10:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 31 Planes (long message) for comments Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Rob: "Worlds, planes and spheres are concepts. The only four ultimate > realities are citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana." > > Hi Rob, > > Then worlds are not impermanent, are they? > > Larry Concepts (such as worlds or beings) are impermanent because they are conditioned. They only exist as long as the supporting conditions exist. Nama (citta and cetasika) exists for one citta-moment. Rupa exists for 17 citta-moments. It is my understanding that there is no fixed limit for the life of a concept, but that a concept will fall away when the supporting conditions no longer exist. The only unconditioned reality is Nibbana. Nibbana is "not impermanent"; Nibbana is permanent. Of course, the citta that takes Nibbana as its object is conditioned / impermanent. Metta, Rob M :-) 26168 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 10:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 31 Planes (long message) for comments Larry (and Rob M) As Howard is fond of pointing out (helpfully), any question of the form, Are worlds this or that?, already assumes the reality of a world, in a certain sense. This reflects our view of things as being with self. It is part of our inherent make-up. It makes it hard to grasp that paramattha dhammas are all there really is. Jon --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Rob: "Worlds, planes and spheres are concepts. The only four > ultimate > realities are citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana." > > Hi Rob, > > Then worlds are not impermanent, are they? > > Larry 26169 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 10:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 31 Planes (long message) for comments Larry (and Rob M) As Howard is fond of pointing out (helpfully), any question of the form, Are worlds this or that?, already assumes the reality of a world, in a certain sense. This reflects our view of things as being with self. It is part of our inherent make-up. It makes it hard to grasp that paramattha dhammas are all there really is. Jon --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Rob: "Worlds, planes and spheres are concepts. The only four > ultimate > realities are citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana." > > Hi Rob, > > Then worlds are not impermanent, are they? > > Larry 26170 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 10:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 31 Planes (long message) for comments Larry (and Rob M) As Howard is fond of pointing out (helpfully), any question of the form, Are worlds this or that?, already assumes the reality of a world, in a certain sense. This reflects our view of things as being with self. It is part of our inherent make-up. It makes it hard to grasp that paramattha dhammas are all there really is. Jon --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Rob: "Worlds, planes and spheres are concepts. The only four > ultimate > realities are citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana." > > Hi Rob, > > Then worlds are not impermanent, are they? > > Larry 26171 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 10:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 31 Planes (long message) for comments Larry (and Rob M) As Howard is fond of pointing out (helpfully), any question of the form, Are worlds this or that?, already assumes the reality of a world, in a certain sense. This reflects our view of things as being with self. It is part of our inherent make-up. It makes it hard to grasp that paramattha dhammas are all there really is. Jon --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Rob: "Worlds, planes and spheres are concepts. The only four > ultimate > realities are citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana." > > Hi Rob, > > Then worlds are not impermanent, are they? > > Larry 26172 From: Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 7:10pm Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) In a message dated 10/16/2003 12:42:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Or, they are concepts. (also known as illusions, mere > conventional designations, a number of parts taken as a > whole, pannatti.) > > Give up? :-) > > Kind regards, > Ken H > Hi Ken H Conepts are not illusions. They are mental states that arise and cease. Being befuddled by concepts in thinking that their referent has an intrinsic nature is the illusion! Thinking that physicality, mental formations, consciousness, and nibbana are ultimate realities with their own intrinsic natures is the illusion/delusion along with any other view that sees things as having their 'own nature.' If concepts (alone) were illusions, the Buddha would not have been able to communicate without being under the spell of illusion. A distinct impossibility. TG 26173 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:18am Subject: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi Howard, ------------- H: . . . > I will go with the five khandhas plus nibbana. I haven't adopted the Abhidhamma scheme provided by the monk-scholars; I go with what the Buddha directly taught. ------------- Can you really follow the suttas without help? How can you know what the Buddha meant by "the five khandhas?" When you look for help, isn't the Abhidhamma-pitika the first resort? And then the ancient commentaries? Even Bhikkhu Thanissaro uses the Abhidhamma where it suits him. If he, or any other modern-day scholar, interprets some suttas in a way contrary to the ancient texts, why should we believe him? (For the benefit of any newcomers who may be reading; it is not accepted by all dsg members that the Abhidhamma is a forgery.) -------------- H: > And the Buddha taught about thought! Please reread the material I quoted in my post --------------- 'material about sankappa (vitakka), which, according to Nyanaponika, is "the laying hold of a thought, giving it attention. Its characteristic consists in fixing the consciousness to the object." ('Buddhist Dictionary') But then, Nyanaponika used the Abhidhamma and commentaries. Otherwise, we could be left with conventional understanding of thought. We might never know that the absolute realities, vitakka and vicara, as taught by the Buddha, are very different. ------------- H: > I believe that your thoughts are trapped, circumscribed, and limited by Abhidhammic categories to such an extent that you are missing what is right before you. Sorry, but that's how I see it. ------------- No need to apologise, I get a bit frustrated by the 'other side' too. Where is the confusion (point-missing), that Abhidamma categories are supposedly causing? Are Abhidhamma scholars confused people? The little bit I have learnt seems perfectly logical and consistent. ------------- H: > The thought of "the tree in my garden" does, however, actually occur. If you think not, well, wait .. how could you think one way or the other, there being no thoughts at all! ------------- No one is claiming not to have thoughts. 'A thought' is different from 'thought' (thinking). And vitakka, as found in the Pali Canon, is virtually unknowable without a lot of help. Kind regards, Ken H 26174 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] 31 Planes (long message) for comments Dear All My apologies for the multiple copies of this post. A problematic hotel computer, I'm afraid. This morning Sarah and I met up with Christine at our hotel, and this afternoon we had discussion with Ajarn Sujin at the Foundation, along with Betty and also (surprise) Jack and Oi from California. Topics discussed included, in addition to 'the ususals' (seeing and visible object of the present moment etc), kalayana mitta, inherent nature of sense-door object, mana (conceit), akusala citta vs. akusala kamma as bringing result in the form of sense-door experience, various kinds of condition esepcially pakata-upanissaya, the precepts, balancing of faculties, etc. Jack and friends have just set up a webcast facility at the Foundation with a view to broadcasting the Thai talks and later the English ones too. Take care. Jon --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Larry (and Rob M) > > As Howard is fond of pointing out (helpfully), any question of the > form, Are worlds this or that?, already assumes the reality of a > world, in a certain sense. This reflects our view of things as > being > with self. It is part of our inherent make-up. It makes it hard > to > grasp that paramattha dhammas are all there really is. > > Jon > > > 26175 From: Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:10am Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/17/03 6:50:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > ------------- > H: . . . >I will go with the five khandhas plus nibbana. > I haven't adopted the Abhidhamma scheme provided by the > monk-scholars; I go with what the Buddha directly taught. > ------------- > > Can you really follow the suttas without help? How can you > know what the Buddha meant by "the five khandhas?" When > you look for help, isn't the Abhidhamma-pitika the first > resort? And then the ancient commentaries? > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Answering specifically for myself: For the most part, I study the suttas, our best record of what the Buddha taught, and, following the Kalama Sutta, I do my best in attempting to understand - but more importantly, I make must best effort in attempting the follow the Budhha's taught practice. (Of course, at times, elements of Abhidhamma and commentarial material are useful to me - at times Mahayana "sutras" are also useful. BTW, I do understand reasonably well what the five khandhas are. The Buddha was a wonderful expositor. ---------------------------------------------------- Even Bhikkhu > > Thanissaro uses the Abhidhamma where it suits him. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, we all use Abhidhamma and whatever else we like when it "suits" us. We particularly run to parts of the Abhidhamma and suttas that seem to support our already extant preconceptions! When I, for example, pick up what might be phenomenalism in parts of Abhidhamma or in certain suttas, why they immediately become the "best"! We are nearly hopeless, Ken! ;-)) It helps, at least, for us to be aware of our doing this. This is an example of how important guarding the mind door is. --------------------------------------------------- If he, > > or any other modern-day scholar, interprets some suttas > in a way contrary to the ancient texts, why should we > believe him? > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The only basis for our coming to believe anything is its making sense to us based on our own careful inspection and the relating it to our direct experience especially as grows out of the practice. We can *consider* anything: the original writings, alleged additional original material (Abhidhamma of a particular school), ancient commentaries from a particular school, modern commentaries etc. --------------------------------------------------------- > > (For the benefit of any newcomers who may be reading; it > is not accepted by all dsg members that the Abhidhamma is > a forgery.) ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Absolutely. It is orthodox Theravadin belief that the Buddha taught all of what eventually became, over a couple hundred years, the Abhidhamma Pitaka, that he taught it to shining beings in the Tavatimsa heaven (I believe) and, on each return from that heaven realm, to his first lieutenant, Sariputta. I consider this to be a pleasant legend, created to attempt to give authority to the Abhidhamma Pitaka in much the same way as Mahayanists attempted to validate their very-late-appearing scriptures by saying that they were taught early on to nagas (serpent-like beings) who provided safekeeping for them until humans were "ready" for such "higher" teaching. ------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- > H: >And the Buddha taught about thought! Please reread > the material I quoted in my post > --------------- > > 'material about sankappa (vitakka), which, according to > Nyanaponika, is "the laying hold of a thought, giving it > attention. Its characteristic consists in fixing the > consciousness to the object." ('Buddhist Dictionary') > > But then, Nyanaponika used the Abhidhamma and > commentaries. Otherwise, we could be left with > conventional understanding of thought. We > might never know that the absolute realities, vitakka and > vicara, as taught by the Buddha, are very different. > > ------------- > H: >I believe that your thoughts are trapped, > circumscribed, and limited by Abhidhammic categories to > such an extent that you are missing what is right > before you. Sorry, but that's how I see it. > ------------- > > No need to apologise, I get a bit frustrated by the > 'other side' too. Where is the confusion (point-missing), > that Abhidamma categories are supposedly causing? Are > Abhidhamma scholars confused people? The little bit > I have learnt seems perfectly logical and consistent. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Just for the record, you have skipped here something else I added: " (No doubt you see me as being even more seriously in error! Fun, isn't it?? ;-))" I would like to make it clear that, though I do believe the positions I put forward, I do not *know* they are correct, and I don't insist on them. -------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------- > H: >The thought of "the tree in my garden" does, > however, actually occur. If you think not, well, wait .. > how could you think one way or the other, there being no > thoughts at all! > ------------- > > No one is claiming not to have thoughts. 'A thought' > is different from 'thought' (thinking). And vitakka, > as found in the Pali Canon, is virtually unknowable > without a lot of help. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Huh? Sorry - don't get what you are saying. ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 26176 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 9:15am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Dear Ken H & Sarah, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah [mailto:sarahdhhk@y...] > > Any reality arising is always due to ‘an intricate set of conditions’. For > example, we say that seeing consciousness is the result of kamma. This > means that kamma is the main condition and without it, there could be no > vipaka. But there have to be many other support conditions for that vipaka > citta to arise - eg object condition (the visible object), proximity > cond., conascence, mutuality, depenence, presence, decisive support and so > on and so on. (Kom, keep an eye on what I write too...) No trouble here!!! > > As for the inherent pleasantness/unpleasantness, as you explained to > Howard, this is inherent to the rupa. We discussed before how it’s > impossible for us to know at any time whether we are seeing a pleasant or > unpleasant visible object. Various examples were given of how we may be > fooled in this regard. (let me know if you’d like me to find the other > posts). “Saataruupa.m (‘agreeable’) is what is classed as agreeable. > [this signifies] a desirable object as proximate cause of enjoyment” > (Dispeller,16, 2286). > .... > > You are referring to the Balinese bathroom I thoughtfully > > incorporated into the family home. Why are women so > > unappreciative? > .... The text says the only surefire way to know if it is kusala or akusala vipaka is to know the difference between the two types of cittas! Of course, this is incredibly subtle (just imagine, an unskilled worldling already has a hard-time distinguishing between lobha and kusala - which share the same set of feelings, and the differences between these two are gross comparatively), and only the most differentiating wisdom can tell the differences. If you don't have one of those, then you just have to plainly guess, just like me! kom 26177 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Larry, op 17-10-2003 01:02 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > The best satipatthana is just > looking at what arises without comment. N: But it should be looking with understanding, not merely looking. There is likely to be thinking about realities more often than direct awareness, but also thinking can be realized as it is: only a conditioned nama. Nina. 26178 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: paramattha dhammas Hi Larry, these are useful points for considering. op 17-10-2003 00:45 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > What paramattha dhamma is born? N: conditioned dhammas are born, produced, come into being, are originated. Thus, citta, cetasika and rupa. So long as ignorance has not been eradicated, it conditions the continuation of the cycle of birth and death. In Vis. 22, it is said, (paccayasambhuuta) is meaning (attha). In the Tiika 22 I came upon the word, "structure of conditions" (paccayaakaara). Now this refers to the Dependent Origination. I looked up Dispeller I, Ch 6, the Structure of Conditions, which deals in detail with the Dependent Origination. Under para 919 and 920 it is explained that the Wheel of Existence is profound in meaning. As you have read in Vis. 24, also the understanding of the four noble Truths are discrimination of dhamma and of meaning. The four noble Truths are deep and difficult to understand. Also the four discriminations are deep and difficult to understand. L: Death, foulness, and the breath are > always contemplated as impermanent, and therefore realities, never as > mere concepts. There is a mix, even in the abhidhamma, of paramattha > dhammas and what you would call concepts. N: I am glad you remind me of death. There are three kinds of death: conventional death, momentary death and final death of the arahat. The Buddha spoke in conventional language about birth, old age, sickness and death as dukkha, with the aim to point to the truth of paramattha dhammas. Understanding should be developed of the dhamma appearing at this moment, so that it can eventually be seen as impermanent, dukkha and non-self. I may think of death which is sure to come. At the dying moment all my illusions, hopes, stories, memories fall away with the last citta. It is good to realize this, and it can bring us to the present moment which is actually not different: we may be thinking about many stories, but each moment falls away and where are the stories we find so important? Foulness and breath are explained with the aim to bring us back to the present moment: one nama or rupa appearing at a time. Breath is only a rupa conditioned by citta, it is impermanent. In the Tipitaka, the Abhidhamma included, conventional language is used only with the aim to point to the reality of the present moment. Nina. 26179 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] ICARO´S DHAMMA DIARY CHAPTER FOUR !!!! Dear Icaro, Thank you for your diary, I like it very much. I answer now, since only the weekend you are around. But do you have some leave next week? What is the sheep road? op 12-10-2003 17:53 schreef icarofranca op icarofranca@y...: > > 9. Impulsion (Nos. 9 to 15 - where kamma is produced, where > moral or immoral consciousness arises - Cf. Javana´s definition)- > Bang! > 10. Impulsion - Bang! > 11. Impulsion - Bang! > 12. Impulsion - Bang! > 13. Impulsion - Bang! > 14. Impulsion - Bang! > 15. Impulsion - Bang! N: A lively way of presenting the process of cittas. I: > Fortunately I hit all my rounds, and that´s stimulating for my > illusory ego N: Very good to see this. It is so natural. > 16. Registering Consciousness (see Tadalammana)- (gosh!!! I > am firing well, just at the target´s centre!!!!) > 17. Registering Consciousness - the doughboy at my side is > missing ALL the rounds! I am afraid he will shoot at my target...or > at ME!!!! N: I had a good laugh. I: one can get a good analogy for a shooting sequence but at > other life´s aspects such remarks must be investigated on N: Yes. It reminds me that even during one bang there are already many processes going on. Hearing in the eye-door process, like or dislike in the same eye-door rpocess, mind-door process of cittas which only experience the sound, after that again other processes through the mind-door which know the origin of the sound, and think with like or dislike of it, other cittas with coneit: I am better than my neighbour. > Conditions for Pañca-viññaa to arise : > Cakkhu 1. visual organ 2. visual object 3. light 4. attention > Sota 1. audiory organ 2. sounds 3. space 4. attention > Ghaana 1. olfactory organ 2. smells 3. air 4. attention > Jivhaa 1. gustory 2. tastes 3. water 4. attention N: The Atthasalini gives fine details. If the tongue would not be wet you would not taste anything. I: 3 mind-elements: > > 1. sense-door consciousness which is consciousness > 2. moral receiving consciousness (Kusala) > 3. immoral receiving consciousness (Akusala). N: better add kusala vipaka and akusala vipaka, they are only vipaka. Looking forward to the next issues. Nina. P.S. You just copied the Tipitaka in time, because now the Tipitaka org is off line for a while. I was too late for my Tiika!! 26180 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] 31 Planes for comments op 17-10-2003 02:07 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: Dear Rob M, Thank you very much, this is very complete. Only recently I became more interested in the Earthboud devas, because I translated the Dhamma Issue about rebirth of devas from Thai. We very so often come accross these notions in the suttas. Useful to know more details. With appreciation, Nina. > > Worlds, Planes and Spheres > ========================== 26181 From: Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 2:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: paramattha dhammas Hi Nina, I disagree that cittas are born. Only babies are born. This is the correct use of these words. I agree that everything in abhidhamma points to the present moment. Larry 26182 From: Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 2:24pm Subject: nibbana, panna, & anusaya Hi Nina, Suppose someone asked, what is the difference between the mundane consciousness of panna (as object) and the supramundane consciousness of nibbana? Could it be that the only difference is the presense or absence of the underlying tendencies (anusaya)? Larry 26183 From: Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 2:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 31 Planes (long message) for comments Hi Rob, Sarah has gone to extraordinary lengths to explain that concepts are not conditioned and therefore not impermanent. She may be able to provide some sources when she gets back to HK. Here is one from Visuddhimagga VIII, note 68: Note 68. 'In such passages as "Dhammas that are concepts" (Dhs., p. 1;1308) even a non-entity (abhaava) is thus called a "dhamma" since it is borne (dhaariiyati) and affirmed (avadhaariiyatii) by knowledge. That kind of dhamma is excluded by his saying "Dhammas [means] individual essences". The act of becoming (bhavana), which constitutes existingness (vijjamaanataa) in the ultimate sense, is essence (bhaava); it is with essence (saha bhaavena), thus it is an individual essence (sabhaava); the meaning is that it is possible (labbhamaanaruupa) in the true sense, in the ultimate sense. For these are called "dhammas (bearers)" because they bear (dhaara.na) their own individual essences (sabhaava), and they are called "individual essences" in the sense already explained' (Pm. 282; cf. Ch. VII, n.1). L: I think the answer is that since worlds, spheres, and planes are figures of speech (from one point of view), their impermanence is also a figure of speech. Larry ------------------ Rob: "Concepts (such as worlds or beings) are impermanent because they are conditioned..." 26184 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:25pm Subject: Egypt Diary: Real Reason Hi All, As I become more settled into Cairo, I begin to reflect on the reason I came here. This may be a bit of a surprise, but I didn't come to Cairo to learn about Egyptian culture. I didn't have that much interest in Arabic culture before leaving the US and I didn't think that coming here would change much about that. I wasn't just dying to see the pyramids, the Nile, or really anything else in Egypt. It isn't a culture that interests me terribly; Asian culture is the one that interests me the most. So why did I come here? Believe it or not, I came here for the same reason that I left for Thailand to become a monk: I felt that I needed to. When I first heard about their being a job opening in Cairo, I thought to myself, "No way!" Repressive society, smelly camels, smoking shish a…count me out! But then I one day had an epiphany that Egypt was exactly the place I should go; maybe because it was the place that didn't interest me that much. I came to Egypt to get away from it all. So far my updates sound very negative about Egypt, and they are negative. Make no doubts about it, I don't like Egypt in the slightest…but I wasn't really expecting to. Why complain then? Well, call it `Growing Pains'. Even though I know that ultimately it is going to be a good experience for me, that doesn't mean I have to like it! ;-) I have the situation now in Cairo that I hoped to have by becoming a monk (until I discovered that monks aren't really monks anymore). I live alone; I have little contact with other people; I have little connection with anything in my environment, and no desire to make a connection; I have no possibility for romantic relationships (in Egypt gays are thrown in jail); and alcohol/beer is nearly impossible to find so I don't drink any. I am about as isolated and deprived as I can be without actually being a monk. It is exactly what I need. I have brought the entire Buddhist Canon with me (minus the Abhidhamma ;-) and I have begun to read it from beginning to end, very slowly. I have also begun to meditate much more frequently than before and with deeper intensity (even though I have been sick a lot). I am learning about myself in new ways and with new depth. That is the real reason I came to Cairo. 26185 From: robmoult Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:20pm Subject: Concepts not conditioned, not impermanent Hi Sarah (and Larry), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Sarah has gone to extraordinary lengths to explain that concepts are not > conditioned and therefore not impermanent. She may be able to provide > some sources when she gets back to HK. This is interesting. Could you point me to past posts where this has been discussed? Sarah, as you are an English teacher, I know you abhor double negatives :-) Can I therefore imply that "not impermanent" means that concepts are "permanent"? Metta, Rob M :-) 26186 From: Lynn Cohen Date: Thu Oct 16, 2003 6:42pm Subject: bhavanga Hi Amara and dhamma friends, Our group in Ringwood , Victoria,Australia study the Abhihamma in Daily Life by Nina . We do have questions that we would like to "put out there" for your perusal. One of these questions concerns the bhavanga citta. We understand the bhavanga citta is vipakacitta, a result. We also understand that it is conditioned by the patisandhi citta.Does this stream of bhavanga that continues on from life (understanding that it arises and falls away in the present moment) to life hold all the karmic seeds from our past lives like a sort of reservoir of information? With Metta, Lynn 26187 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 8:21pm Subject: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi TG (and Howard and Andrew), ------------- TG: > Concepts are not illusions. They are mental states that arise and cease. ------------ It would be good if you could flesh this out a little. Your use of 'mental states' needs to be defined. According to the definition I know, 'mental states' does not include concepts. ------------ TG: > Being befuddled by concepts in thinking that their referent has an intrinsic nature is the illusion! ------------ Again, this statement needs to be supported with evidence. From the Abhidhamma, I understand that some concepts refer to absolute realities (which do have intrinsic nature), and some concepts refer to other concepts (which don't have intrinsic nature). In either case, the concept is not a reality. Whether we have the concept of a coffee cup (not real), or the concept of a cetasika (real), the concept itself is not real. ------------- TG: > Thinking that physicality, mental formations, consciousness, and nibbana are ultimate realities with their own intrinsic natures is the illusion/delusion along with any other view that sees things as having their 'own nature.' --------------- This is a big statement. The texts we are studying explain, in great detail, the intrinsic nature (sabhava), of things that are absolutely real (paramattha dhammas). -------------- TG: > If concepts (alone) were illusions, the Buddha would not have been able to communicate without being under the spell of illusion. A distinct impossibility. --------------- You can use an illusion, a concept, without being under the spell of it. Even we worldlings can, at the intellectual level, see the illusory nature of concepts; Arahants see it perfectly. While you are waiting for Sarah to reply to your previous post, I would like to make a few comments on it: Sarah had asked: > Can you give any further support for this, i.e thoughts/ideas/concepts > being inc. in sankharakkhandha? And you wrote: ------------ TG: > I thought I'd take a shot at this through deductive logic; trying to incorporate Abhidhamma point of view... Anything that arises would be conditioned and that would include, in total, the 5 aggregates. ------------- In what followed, you included thoughts (ideas, concepts), under the heading of 'anything that arises.' That means you and Sarah were, I think, talking at cross- purposes. The crux of the distinction between concepts and realities is that the former are just figures of speech, not ultimately existent. So, obviously, they don't arise, they don't do anything. The latter are absolutely real -- they arise, persist and subside (even though only for the briefest possible moment). This is where Howard and I get a little impatient. We accuse each other of being unable to see what is right under our noses. Naturally, I am right and Howard is wrong. As you will have seen, Howard posits the existence of a thought that exists, even when its referents do not. This seems to be a round-about way of proving that concepts -- living beings, coffee cups and so on -- can be seen as anicca, dukkha and anatta. It's simply wrong. Or should I say, 'it's simply not Dhamma.' As for that sutta you quoted: "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend -- these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from the others (Majjhima # 43), Dsg has discussed it at length but I've forgotten. Andrew raised it last time so he may recall the details (although he hasn't been getting much computer time lately). Kind regards, Ken H ] 26188 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 8:33pm Subject: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi Ken, I think it would be helpful if the discussion is focused on what the Buddha taught. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi TG (and Howard and Andrew), [snip] 26189 From: robmoult Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 8:47pm Subject: Re: bhavanga Hi Lynn, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lynn Cohen wrote: > We understand the bhavanga citta is vipakacitta, a result. We also understand that it is conditioned by the patisandhi citta.Does this stream of bhavanga that continues on from life (understanding that it arises and falls away in the present moment) to life hold all the karmic seeds from our past lives like a sort of reservoir of information? You are correct that a bhavanga citta is a vipaka citta, it is the result of the last thought in the previous existence. Bhavaga citta is a type of citta that takes different names when it performs different functions. For example, the patisandhi (rebirth- linking) citta is actually a bhavanga (patisandhi being its function). Cuti (death) citta is another bhavanga citta (cuti being its function). It is therefore not correct to say that bhavanga cittas are conditioned by the patisandhi citta. The arising of a bhavanga citta depends on many conditions, such as the falling away of the previous citta (according to the laws of citta; citta-niyama). The concept of a reservoir of kamma was raised by a later (Mahayana) version of Abhidhamma but is not part of the Theravada tradition. Consider the following analogy; there is a fruit on a tree - what are the conditions that caused that fruit to be at that location on that tree? The fruit and its location are not 'stored' in the seed of the tree. Hope that my comments clarify rather than confuse. Metta, Rob M :-) 26190 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 8:57pm Subject: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) ---Dear Ken For the sake of clarity and so that I can follow the discussions it might be better to use concept when meaning pannati rather then thoughts. This is because most English translations of the ultimate realities that occur when thinking such as vittaka and vicara are translated as thinking. Thus if you mean concepts say 'ideas' or 'concepts' rather than 'thoughts' which is liable to confuse ultimate reality with pannati. RobertK dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > In what followed, you included thoughts (ideas, > concepts), under the heading of 'anything that arises.' > That means you and Sarah were, I think, talking at cross- > purposes. 26191 From: Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 6:46pm Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) In a message dated 10/17/2003 8:22:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > In what followed, you included thoughts (ideas, > concepts), under the heading of 'anything that arises.' > That means you and Sarah were, I think, talking at cross- > purposes. The crux of the distinction between concepts > and realities is that the former are just figures of > speech, not ultimately existent. So, obviously, they > don't arise, they don't do anything. The latter are > absolutely real -- they arise, persist and subside (even > though only for the briefest possible moment). > Hi Ken H Concepts are imaginations. The imaginations do exist and they are mental states. If concepts didn't exist, how could you possibly think? It seems to me you are confusing concepts with the 'referent' of concepts. For example, the concept of 'dog' does arise and cease due to conditions. The 'referent' of that concept (an actual dog for example) does not exist at all and does not arise or cease (in that conceptual realm). The mental states that conceptualize a dog do. TG 26192 From: Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 6:52pm Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) In a message dated 10/17/2003 8:58:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > ---Dear Ken > For the sake of clarity and so that I can follow the discussions it > might be better to use concept when meaning pannati rather then > thoughts. This is because most English translations of the ultimate > realities that occur when thinking such as vittaka and vicara are > translated as thinking. Thus if you mean concepts say 'ideas' > or 'concepts' rather than 'thoughts' which is liable to confuse > ultimate reality with pannati. > RobertK > Hi RobertK I'm curious as to how ideas and concepts are not thoughts? TG 26193 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 0:06am Subject: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi Howard, We were talking about understanding suttas without outside assistance. You wrote: ----------- > Answering specifically for myself: For the most part, I study the suttas, our best record of what the Buddha taught, and, following the Kalama Sutta, I do my best in attempting to understand - but more importantly, I make must best effort in attempting the follow the Budhha's taught practice. ------------ I should just accept this and leave well alone:-) But no, I am compelled to badger you and try to make you see things my way: 'The Buddha's taught practice' is what we should all be attempting to follow but what is it? I've done a Goenka course and I've followed dozens of meditation techniques found in books; but are they what the Buddha taught? They are the works of meditation teachers. For authenticity, they quote little bits of text taken from here and there in the Pali Canon. Why can't they point to one sutta where the Buddha teaches formal vipassana meditation? ('Formal meditation' as opposed to 'momentary, conditioned right understanding.') Let alone, vipassana meditation, why doesn't he teach jhana meditation? He describes jhana in intricate detail but, as far as I know, it is only the ancient commentators who, in the Visudhimagga, explain step by step how to get there. (They don't do the same for formal vipassana meditation; in fact, they pooh pooh the very idea.) I think the answer is simple; meditation is not the Middle Way, the practice taught by the Buddha. ----------------- H: > (Of course, at times, elements of Abhidhamma and commentarial material are useful to me - at times Mahayana "sutras" are also useful. BTW, I do understand reasonably well what the five khandhas are. The Buddha was a wonderful expositor. --------------- But, as you know only too well, I don't think you do understand what the five khandhas are; You think they include thoughts (ideas, concepts). But they don't and the Abhidhamma makes that perfectly clear. It's a huge difference; the five khandhas with concepts are infinitely different from the five khandhas without concepts. ------------- H: > Yes, we all use Abhidhamma and whatever else we like when it "suits" us. We particularly run to parts of the Abhidhamma and suttas that seem to support our already extant preconceptions! When I, for example, pick up what might be phenomenalism in parts of Abhidhamma or in certain suttas, why they immediately become the "best"! We are nearly hopeless, Ken! ;-)) It helps, at least, for us to be aware of our doing this. This is an example of how important guarding the mind door is. ----------------- No argument there. Phew! :-) ---------------- . . . . . K: > > > No one is claiming not to have thoughts. 'A thought' > is different from 'thought' (thinking). And vitakka, > as found in the Pali Canon, is virtually unknowable > without a lot of help. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Huh? Sorry - don't get what you are saying. ------------ I see what you mean, it looks like a dog's breakfast. In my opinion, you have been equating 'thought' the noun with 'thought' the verb. In Abhidhamma, a thought (the noun), is an idea, a concept (pannatti). Thought (the verb), can refer to vitakka and/or vicara which are cetasikas. Thanks for your patience. Kind regards, Ken H 26194 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 0:19am Subject: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi Robert (and Howard), > For the sake of clarity and so that I can follow the discussions it > might be better to use concept when meaning pannati rather then > thoughts. Good idea. It's a pity I didn't read this before sending my lastest post to Howard. It has just occurred to me that it still didn't clear up the confusion; I got confused over what is a verb and what is a noun. Never mind. Kind regards, Ken H 26195 From: monomuni Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 9:11pm Subject: The 12 clever Skills! Friends: The 12 Skills! There is the Skill of Establishing the Appearance of Phenomena: As Transient, thereby not confirming the deception of permanence. As Miserable, thereby not reinforcing the deceit of satisfaction. As Not-self, thereby not supporting the conceit of “I-Me-Ego-Mine”. As Insubstantial, thereby not proving the trickery of compactness. As Loss, thereby not verifying the misinterpretation of accumulation. As Change, thereby not ascertaining the delusion of durability. As Sign-less, thereby not assuring the illusion of representation. As Undesirable, thereby not enhancing the obsession of ever wanting. As Empty, thereby not boosting the apparent ownership of identity. As Knowledge, thereby not encouraging the terror of doubt. As Relinquishment, thereby not prolonging the glinging of attachment. As Ceasing, thereby not maintaining the slavery of construction. These are the 12 clever & advantageous mental skills… --oo0oo-- Source: The Path of Discrimination. Patidasambhidamagga by Sariputta. Friendship is truly GREATEST The entire Motivation behind all of the Noble Life. Yeah! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct : - ] -- A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/ One who has conquered all defilements, cannot be defeated. Such a one is The Buddha, who has attained unlimited power. Random Dhammapada Verse 179 26196 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 0:49am Subject: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) > > Hi RobertK > > I'm curious as to how ideas and concepts are not thoughts? > > TG > ================ Dear TG, The thinking process is real but the concepts that are thought about are not. This becomes clearer as the different khandhas are studied directly (insighted) . One may think of a girl one knows and during this there are concepts - the girl- and also realities. The realities include the khandha of vedana, feeling. And this has real characteristics and it arises and passes away so rapidly during what may seem a very brief 'thought'. Or there may be awareness of how lobha - attachment, part of sankhara khandha , and a reality, arises during the thinking process , or any other reality which may be present. In the Nidanavagga of the Samyutta nikaya : Opammasamyutta The Archers, The Buddha gave the example of some incredibly fast action and then said: "Bhikkus as swift as that man is, still swifter are the sun and moon.....and the vital formations [ayusankhara]perish even more swifty than that." The commentary to this (see bodhi p.819) says this is with reference to the physical life faculty which perishes even faster than that. But it is not possible to describe the breakup of the formless phenomena -mental states - (becuase they break up even faster). Thus if there is not distinguishing of concept from reality - right from the beginning- one may think about impermanence, that this or that dies, falls away etc. But this is still only thinking about impermanence and there might be no awareness of the actual realities that are truly falling away while thinking is occuring. RobertK 26197 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] nibbana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi342" > A valid question sometimes asked is why do 'true believers' have such > an absolute certainty that theirs is the only path to the ultimate > unconditioned reality? All the more surprising because few if any > have actually made the journey! Yet, there is a degree of conceit > and arrogance that sustains such a (self?) view, disguised > as 'confidence'. > > Could it be that 'true believers' have to exclude other possibilities > just to gain that very confidence in the first place? > > metta, > dharam ========== Dear Dharam, Good to see you back, hope to see more of you. In the case of the Buddha's followers faith, saddha is a helpful component. The Buddha explained in the Mahaparinnibbana sutta that: "in this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold Path; and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true ascetics are the systems of other teachers". If the Buddha was wrong and there are other teachers who teach the path to arahantship would he be worthy of the title Buddha? Was he conceited? RobertK 26198 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 4:19am Subject: Brief report from Bangkok Dear All We are just back after spending most of the day at the Foundation. This morning we had another stimulating discussion with Ajaran Sujin. Today we were joined by Sukin as well as dsg lurkers Shakti (and her friend Sandra) and Ivan, and other regulars of the English discussion group (and the others from yesterday). Christine seemed to have got over her shock-and-horror at the thought of the discussion being webcast to the world at large (a trial of the new equipment to go into operation for the Thai discussions) and we all had a good session. After lunch, generously provided for us by Kh Duangduen, we had more discusison among ourselves as Ajarn Sujin was engaged with other visitors. Strong views were exchanged about the Vessantara Jataka ;-)) Tomorrow we have a 'rest day' in preparation for a 6:00am rendezvous at the airport for our flight to Myanmar (forst stop, Mandalay). Sarah and I are very much enjoying the ongoing discussion here. Thanks to you all for keeping things going in our absence. Jon 26199 From: Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 2:53am Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi, Ken (and TG) - In a message dated 10/17/03 11:22:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > This is where Howard and I get a little impatient. We > accuse each other of being unable to see what is right > under our noses. Naturally, I am right and Howard is > wrong. As you will have seen, Howard posits the > existence of a thought that exists, even when its > referents do not. This seems to be a round-about way of > proving that concepts -- living beings, coffee cups and > so on -- can be seen as anicca, dukkha and anatta. It's > simply wrong. Or should I say, 'it's simply not Dhamma.' > ========================== I really do not know what you are talking about. Living beings, coffee cups and so on do not exist except figuratively. There are no such things in actuality. It is nonsense to say (literally and not figuratively) that "they" arise, and it is also nonsense to say that "they" do not arise. In reality, there *are* no such things. It is nonsense to literally assert anything of what does not exist, and that includes denying that "they" have certain characteristics. There *are* no such things as living beings and coffee cups, but there *are* (that is, there *do arise*) the concepts, thoughts, ideas of each of these things, which is exactly why we *seem* to experience living beings and coffee cups. Are you unaware of thoughts of coffee cups, Ken? Ken, I strongly suggest you look up in a dictionary the word 'concept'. You will see that it refers primarily to thoughts or ideas - to mental phenomena, and not to what such thoughts allegedly refer to, not to their alleged denotative meanings. When someone says "The Buddha just came to mind," they do *not* mean that the (literally nonexistent) being who is intended referent of the term 'Buddha' came to mind; they mean that a mental phenomenon occurred - they mean a *thought* arose, not "the Buddha". Speaking *figuratively*, the Buddha was a person who existed circa 2500 B.C.E., and he was not and is not a concept. There are, however, Buddha-thoughts (i.e., thoughts of the Buddha) that arise and cease all the time. The historical Buddha was a conventional reality, else all of us Buddhists are totally insane! (Which is, of course, a possibility! ;-) He was not an actuality, however. Speaking literally, there never was such a thing as the Buddha. Buddha-thoughts, however, are literal realities, and they arise in many mindstreams quite frequently. If you and others wish to use the words 'thought', 'concept', and 'idea' in a way different from that normally used by native speakers of English, a way which conflates thoughts with their intended referents, it would be better if you would come up with different words, or simply stop mixing apples and oranges. For some odd reason, it seems that you and some others on DSG are either eager to evict cognitive functions from the namic inventory, or you are determined to use language in a way that others do not. In either case, it simply creates confusion, 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)