28000 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 0:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thomas / The Doomed March Fly Hi Thomas, Thank you for the fly following the cow story;-) ;-) --- nordwest wrote: > > > We often forget, that we have the buddha nature, the power to do > supernatural wonders with the mind. And because of lack of faith we fail > to do so. .... I don't know if you read my other posts to you on 'buddha nature'.You could try keying in 'thomas' at this link to find anything addressed to you: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ > Some may interpret the sutras like the Christians the bible, when it > some to the point of supernatural powers, and say, "It's not meant > literally. It's exaggeration." I do nt so. I take it literally, because > I experience the protection of the buddhas and bodhisattvas daily. .... I appreciate that. If you haven't noticed, however, we are discussing suttas rather than sutras here on DSG;-) Metta, Sarah ======= 28001 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 0:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question on ego and self .. Hi RobM (& James), I meant to check a bit more on the SPECT scan study, but only just got round to it. --- robmoult wrote: > The area of the brain in question (Orientation Association Area) has > the role of collecting sensory data and organizing it around > a "self". A significantly decreased blood flow to that specific > portion of the brain would correspond to a decreased sense of "self" > as something separate from the surroundings. > > Depending on one's religious inclinations, one could describe this > sensation as: > - Being at one with the universe > - Talking to God > - Perceiving anatta .... OR a decreased spatial orientation. From what I recall from the Brain series and other studies, those without or severely reduced idea of spatial orientation are not necessarily wiser in any way, but find it very difficult to function. This may also explain symptoms such as dizziness, loss of balance, rocking etc, common amongst intense meditators. I’d be interested to know whether there is a correlation between reduced blood pressure also and the spatial disorientation, because those of us with low blood pressure tend to experience similar symptoms and I don’t think they make us any more enlightened either;-) .... > To me, the fact that these scientists have designated an area that > creates a sense of self that overlays the sensory input is > significant - this aligns well with the Buddhist view that "self" is > only a concept. .... Rob, I have a number of misgivings about ‘these scientists’. I believe there were fewer than 10 subjects for a start and as I’ve said, I think we read the conclusions we wish into the results. James, I’d like to stress here, that I’d be equally sceptical if the same results and conclusions were reached after having half a dozen DSGers study Abhidhamma texts in Pali for several hours. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if they also showed reduced blood flow to parts of the brain, spatial disorientation and so on. I’m not questioning the particular meditation practice in this thread. I also appreciate that your practice is very useful for you (though this doesn’t qualify you to know who has and hasn’t ‘hit rock bottom’;-)). ..... > I would suggest that any activity that causes a decreased blood flow > to this portion of the brain would help one to perceive "anatta". I > am not surprised that deep meditation can be a condition for this > arising. I suspect that, depending on the individual, other > conditions could also lead to a similar result. .... Rob, I just don’t understand why you would reach this conclusion at all. What are the conditions for understanding anatta? Surely nowhere in the texts is there any suggestion that a decreased blood flow to any part of the brain is one. (BTW, I think Dilbert/Scott Adams was just saying 'go against the flow' and go shopping in Colombo;-) ;-)) Metta, Sarah p.s If anyone else wishes to look a little more into this study, here is a quote (I’ve lost track of the source- I think the first link below) and a couple of other links I looked at: >Orientation Association Area, the part of the brain which influences our orientation in time and space. This area of the brain ( the posterior superior parietal lobe ) encourage religious beliefs." The frontal lobes of the brain, which are associated with attention, showed increased activity. They expected this, since greater concentration and focus was essential to meditation and prayer. More surprising was activity they observed in that area of the brain affiliated with the Orientation Association Area, the part of the brain which influences our orientation in time and space. This area of the brain ( the posterior superior parietal lobe ) helps us judge up/down, forward/behind, and must function all the time to assist movement. Newberg concluded that this decreased activity observed in these areas of the brain was responsible for the transcendental states experienced by the praying nuns and meditating monks. http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/reviews/Newberg&DAquili.html http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lngbrain/cglidden/parietal.html http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Farrenkopf.html ================================================================= 28002 From: Egberdina Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:33am Subject: Re: characteristics Hi TG and everyone, I am taking a shine to the conditions that led to the writing of this post. That was the serious bit. Now comes the disposable bit, without which it wouldn't be a post from me. If only I could grasp at and hold those conditions. Much appreciation Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > Hello Group > > The Buddha said... "In whatsoever way we conceive, the truth is ever other > than that." > > It seems to me that in order to communicate we need to use terms, but > whenever we use terms, we miss the "mark of actuality" to some degree. I think its > more of a matter of getting away from bad terms than actually finding one > that's accurate. > > The term "characteristic" seems to me much better than say "own > characteristic" or the even worse "intrinsic characteristic." (The latter two way too > strongly ignoring the principle of Dependent Origination.) No matter how good the > term is, its still fraught with notions of essence, entity, etc. > > Even when a "bare ingredient" such as "firmness" is conceptualized, I think > we cannot help but impart a sense of "entity" to it. > > So what can be done is to use the best term possible and be mindful that even > its conceptualization is delusive. (I suppose if one were enlightened, that > mindfulness would have been cultivated to the point that no delusive attribute > would accompany the use of terminology.) > > TG > > 28003 From: Egberdina Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:05am Subject: [dsg] Re: Grasping at mind states Hi Jon and everyone, Thank you, Jon, for your considered reply. I'll work backwards from end to front. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > The adage that 'practice makes perfect' is fine for some things, but > not for the development of understanding or other forms of kusala, > and I don't believe you'll find it anywhere in the texts. This is > because the 'practice' is bound to be akusala (by definition -- if it > was kusala it wouldn't be 'practice' in the sense you have just used > the term). > > Jon > I understand the need to be brief, but am finding it difficult to just post a link. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel027.html Going Forth (Pabbajja) - A Call to Buddhist Monkhood by Sumana Samanera For those inclined to do so, read the whole lot, I found it very worthwhile. For those under constraints, do a search on "Dear Mr. N., " and read that section. For those under even greater constraints, the salient point of the message is : "1. persistence; 2. persistence; 3. persistence". I seriously wonder to what extent that particular understanding of the teachings that militates against directed activity is intended to keep samsara an attractive proposition. Isn't it a self-concept that lies at the source of the studious avoidance of anything that could be interpreted as originating from a self-concept? Peace, love and joy Herman 28004 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Noticeable difference? Hi Christine (& Ben), --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear All, > > For those of us studying the Dhamma, reflecting on what we have > learned, associating with admirable friends and diligently > practising according to Dhamma - should all this conscientious effort > and application make a noticeable difference (sounds like a face > cream :-)) to our characters and personalities? ... I’d say, not necessarily and if we hope that it will, it indicates clinging again. .... >I mean, should other > people be able to see 'good' qualities and changes in us, and thereby > be attracted to the Dhamma. "I want what she's having" (sounds like > an hamburger advert. :-)). .... ;-) I don’t think we need to be concerned about looking like a hamburger ad. Changes are ‘internal’ rather than ‘external’. For example, if we’re eating a hamburger, who can tell from the outside whether there is any sati and panna? Also, as in the sutta I quoted the other day, only an arahant can tell another arahant’s wisdom and so on down to basic understanding of namas and rupas and other wholesome states. If there is no knowledge of these, how will there be any knowledge of another’s understanding of them? Metta, generosity, equanimity, sympathetic joy, compassion.....the same applies. It always comes back to our ‘own’ mental states and the namas and rupas that can be directly known, rather than concern about others'. .... >Apart from keeping the Precepts, should > Dhamma study and practice cause us to be kinder, more understanding > of others, less likely to hurt others by deed or by verbal aggression > in the form of sarcasm or a 'joke'? .... Dhamma study should help us to know states better at the present moment. Now, is there an intention to be kind or to hurt others? When we laugh and joke, what are the realities? If someone teases us and we feel hurt, what is the problem? I think we can only know for ourselves. I laugh and joke a lot with my students and of course there’s plenty of lobha. This is natural, no need to kid ourselves. Also, there are intentions to encourage the students by making their studies more enjoyable. We don’t need to be too serious all the time. My brothers and I tease each other on the rare occasions we meet. It’s an indication of our fondness for each other and is always meant in a very kindly way. Just because there’s a lot of lobha doesn’t mean we need to change our habits unnaturally. In the same way, just because there is bound to be plenty of akusala when we help people (and I was close to losing my temper with a StarKid -- the one who likes to write to James -- last Friday when he broke my photocopier), doesn’t mean we should stop helping or doing our best. This would be wrong . .... > The stimulus for this was my thinking over the Christian saying 'By > their fruits ye shall know them". What would the noticeable 'fruits' > be of a ardent Disciple of the Blessed One? ..... Why does there need to be a noticeable fruit? Ben suggested they would never get angry. This would be so for anagamis and arahants for sure. For the rest of us, who can say that when conditions change we won’t get angry? In the photocopier incident, I was in a good mood and the class was going well when the incident occurred. So quickly my mood changed. As Nina and Ken O have been discussing, the latent tendencies are very powerful, ready to act as conditions for defilements to arise anytime. We never know how and when we’re going to be tested. It reminds me of the story in the Dhp commentary when the maid servant got up later and later to test her calm, kind mistress until the latter ‘snapped’. Christine, I’d like to hear more of your own reflections on your questions.I’m sure you have plenty of good ideas and quotes as well. In your post to Azita, you mentioned that you’d received the impression on DSG that “as if, because there is no-self, and there really is no-one who is suffering, there is no need really to feel for others or do anything - and it is their kamma anyway.” I hope she'll give her comments. This sounds quite wrong to me. What do you mean by ‘feel for others’? Do you mean have metta and compassion? If so, I’ve never read anything on DSG to suggest there is 'no need' for any wholesome states or acts(link?). Of course, the near (and far) enemies and the importance of knowing the truth are often pointed out, else our perceptions and outlook are likely to become more and more perverted and distorted, don’t you think? We discussed this at length in Thailand and Myanmar. We were all encouraging you to help the dogs or whatever else you were inclined to do, developing more understanding in the process. When my leg was painful one day, Oi and Shakti just kindly started massaging it and putting special oils on it. We all have different inclinations in these regards and just continue leading our normal lives, helping each other and those around us as best we can, understanding more about the realities that make up our lives at the same time. It is also only by seeing realities that there will truly be any understanding of conditions and kamma directly, not by thinking. It’s always good to see you posting, Christine. I look forward to any feedback. Metta, Sarah ===== 28005 From: Egberdina Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: characteristics Hi Ken, Thanks for your post. Comments interspersed below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > ------------- > H: > How did you come to the conclusion that the concepts > kusala/akusala are not dependent on a point of view? > ---------------- > > Do you mean; "What a strange conclusion, how did you > reach it?" Or do you mean; "To whom are you indebted for > that gem of intellectual understanding?" > > In either case, I wouldn't have it any other way. If > kusala/akusala depended on a point of view, there would > be no sense in the world -- it would be one never ending > debate; "You think this is good; I think it is bad. . ." > > Kusala kamma bears pleasant fruit; akusala kamma, > unpleasant fruit. All the endless points of view, over > which is kusala and which is akusala, are without > influence -- the results will be the same. > > ------------- Your well-written paragraphs above are traceable as reflecting the views held by certain groups in a certain sub-continent at a certain time. There is no time and no place, however, in which an absolute morality can exist. Morality is always yoked to meaning which is always yoked to intention. What is a pleasant fruit today? That there is no sense in the world is quite correct. Why persist in maintaining the investment program? > H: > What allows you to know the results of intention, > and how to classify those results, without recourse to a > conceptual superstructure that is noone's point of view? > ------------- > > Consciousness at the sense doors knows the results of > intentional action (vipaka). Mind-door consciousness > knows mental states accumulated by all kinds of > intention. They take no recourse in conceptual > superstructure, they depend solely on conditions -- other > paramattha dhammas. If panna (right understanding) is > not present, then there is no way of telling which is > which. Points of view have no influence. > > Is that what you were asking? > > Kind regards, > Ken H Ken, to me the above paragraph is a retelling of a story I have heard many a time. And you have retold it faithfully. And that sounds condescending. And I don't intend that. I ask my kids at the dinner table "What is there when there is no thinking?". They say I'm nuts. I'm quite happy with that. Peace love and joy Herman 28006 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 6:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] sutta and Abhidhamma. Hi Nina Actually the exact technicality how it works in the accesstoinsight.org, I also using guess work for eg http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn07-006.html sn is Samyutta Nikaya 07 is Brahmana-samyutta 006 - Sutta no 6. That is how i think the convention works in accesstoinsight.org website regards Ken O 28007 From: Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tiika Vis 49, 53 Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/14/03 8:35:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I think I am leaning toward understanding sense doors as nerve ends. > Obviously science hasn't completely figured this out and I'm sure it > isn't necessary to understand everything about it to penetrate desire. > One thing that seems to happen is that sense input is somehow converted > into electricity and then transmitted to the brain where it somehow > creates a semblance of the world. The rupa that is supposedly "out > there" is different from the rupa that consciousness experiences. This > is obvious in something like color blindness. > > Larry > ============================ I think that the problem (for an Abhidhammika, and for me as well) with understanding sense doors as nerve ends, is that such a position puts one at odds with the Abhidhamma position on paramattha dhammas vs pa~n~natti. Sense doors are supposed to be rupas, hence paramattha dhammas, but nerve ends are pa~n~natti, aren't they? With metta, Howard > --------------------- > Howard: "This is *very* interesting. Now ... what do you make of it > vis-a-vis Abhidhamma? My first thought with regard to this is that the > physical sense organ, a conventional object, is not the sense door. > Whatever is sensed as sight has entered the "eye door", and whatever is > sensed as sound has entered the "ear door". The sense doorways are not > material objects in the conventional sense (though classified as rupas), > but are better thought of as channels or fields or loci of experiences > of a certain sort. > /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) 28008 From: Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness and so on..... was Re: Buddhaghosa etc Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 12/15/03 2:57:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Howard gave these quotes from the Visuddhimagga on > su~n~nattaa and anattaa: > > H:> (1) In XXI, 56, there is the following: Having discerned > voidness in the six modes in this way , he > discerns it again in eight modes, that is to say: 'Materiality has no > core, is coreless, without core, as far as concerns (i) any core of > permanence, or (ii) core of lastingness, or (iii) core of pleasure, or > (iv)core of self, or as far as concerns (v) what is permanent, or (vi) > what is lasting,or (vii) what is eternal, or (viii) what is not subject to > change. khandas, ayatanas, links in the chain of dependent origination etc.> Just > as a reed has no core, is coreless, without core; just as a castor-oil > plant, an udumbara (fig) tree, a setavaccha tree, a palibhaddaka tree, a > lump of froth, a bubble on water, a mirage, a plantain trunk, a conjuring > trick, has no core is coreless, without core, so too materiality etc.' > > (2) In XI, 104, there is the following, with the capitalization for > emphasis being mine: ... They are states (dhamma) owing to bearing > (dharana) for the length of the moment appropriate to them. They are > impermanent in the sense of [liability to] destruction; they are painful > in the sense of [causing] terror; THEY ARE NOT SELF IN THE SENSE OF HAVING > NO CORE [OF > PERMANENCE AND SO ON]. ... > (Howard’s caps). > ============================ I don't doubt at all that you are correct that I gave these quotes, but I happen not to remember it. Do you recall the context in which I did that, and was it a while ago? (I'm not usually so good in giving quotes! ;-) 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) 28009 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:16am Subject: anapanasati 6 d anapanasati 6 d QUOTE 2. Jon The objects of awareness under the Satipatthana Sutta are dhammas (realities), not concepts. The consciousness/mind section refers to the dhamma that is the moment of consciousness. The mind objects/mental objects section refers to the dhammas (realities) that can be the object of a moment of consciousness, and this in turn means any and all realities (including those covered by the other 3 sections of the sutta). To give an example. At a moment of seeing there is contact between the consciousness that sees and visible object. That visible object is a reality and also, at that precise moment, a mind object (it is the object of seeing consciousness). So the visible object at that moment falls under both the rupas’ section and the mind object’ section of the 4 satipatthanas. This helps remind us that the 4 sections in the sutta are merely ways of classifying realities and are not in themselves absolutes. Only dhammas (realties) can be the object of satipatthana, because only something that has its own characteristic that is capable of being experienced is considered to be a dhamma’; anything that does not, is not. In the Satipatthana Sutta itself, the 'eligible' mind-objects are described in different ways. One of these ways is as the 5 khandhas (Aggregates), and these 5 khandhas encompass all dhammas (other than Nibbana). I have pasted below the passage from The Way of Mindfulness’ Jon Section on Mental Objects 2. The Aggregates "And, further, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating mental object in the mental objects of the five aggregates of clinging. "How, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in the mental objects of the five aggregates of clinging? "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu thinks: 'Thus is material form [rupa]; thus is the arising of material form; and thus is the disappearance of material form. Thus is feeling [vedana]; thus is the arising of feeling; and thus is the disappearance of feeling. Thus is perception [sanna]; thus is the arising of perception; and thus is the disappearance of perception. Thus are the formations [sankhara]; thus is the arising of the formations; and thus is the disappearance of the formations. Thus is consciousness [vinnana]; thus is the arising of consciousness; and thus is the disappearance of consciousness.' Thus he lives contemplating mental objects in mental objects, internally ... and clings to naught in the world. "Thus, indeed, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating mental object in the mental objects of the five aggregates of clinging." [ends] ********** END QUOTE 2 28010 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tiika Vis, the eye. Hi Larry and Howard, op 15-12-2003 02:07 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I think I am leaning toward understanding sense doors as nerve ends. > Obviously science hasn't completely figured this out and I'm sure it > isn't necessary to understand everything about it to penetrate desire. N: There is so much under the sun. There are always deviations from the natural course, by sickness, LSD, or by other conditions we do not know them. Science always makes new discoveries, but as you say it does not lead to the goal: understanding the four noble Truths. It does not teach conditions for citta and defilements, or the three characteristics. The following sutta speaks about what is the normal, natural course, not about exceptions. We read in the Middle Length Sayings I, 43, Mahaavedallasutta: about a conversation between Sariputta and Maha Kotthita: The answer is that the mind is the repository, and mind reacts to their pasture and range. The next question is on what they depend. The answer is vitality, the life-faculty. We should think of the eyedecad, produced by kamma, which includes life faculty (jivitindriya). It is important that paryatti, theoretical understanding, is correct, otherwise insight cannot be developed. The eyesense is base and doorway for seeing, as we have read in the Tiika (and elsewhere). A sense base is the place of origin for citta. We are nama and rupa, and thus there is a physical base for each citta. Citta does not originate in the air. > Howard: "This is *very* interesting. Now ... what do you make of it > vis-a-vis Abhidhamma? My first thought with regard to this is that the > physical sense organ, a conventional object, is not the sense door. > Whatever is sensed as sight has entered the "eye door", and whatever is > sensed as sound has entered the "ear door". The sense doorways are not > material objects in the conventional sense (though classified as rupas), > but are better thought of as channels or fields or loci of experiences > of a certain sort. N: I would like to point to the clarity of the Abhidhamma. By doorway is meant: the means through which citta experiences an object. The word doorway is figurative. Eyesense is base and doorway for seeing. It is alo doorway for the other cittas in that sense-door process, it has not yet fallen away. Eyesense is not nama, it is rupa. It is not a conventional reality. We read in the Book of Analysis, Ch 3: Analysis of the Elements, § 184: The meaning of element, dhatu: what is devoid of self. Dhatu and dhamma is almost the same in meaning. Going back to the sutta: Seeing has nothing to do with hearing; they have different objects (fields or ranges), different bases. They do not know each other: they cannot arise at the same time. This has to be correctly understood. It is essential foundation knowledge for the development of insight. Larry: >I looked into eye anatomy on the web and I think what is being talked about is the end cap of the optic nerve. N: Cornea, pupil, lense, that is for medical doctors, but it has nothing to do with insight. L: The 7 layers could be 7 parts of the eye depending on how you count them N: In the suttas many similes are used to explain realities, and in the Co. even more. Do not confuse similes with medical science. 7 layers: it shows that eyesense is well hidden, but it is there, arising and falling away. L: The impermanence of it doesn't mean much to me. It is like the impermanence of all rupas, too fast to be noticed. I think it is better to consider impermanence in experiential time. N: The characteristic of impermanence cannot be realized immediately. First any misunderstanding about nama and rupa should be discarded. Eyesense is a coarse rupa, it can be object of insight. It is called *near* in the Visuddhimagga. Different from the subtle rupas which are far. In the end all has to be known. Think of in the Path of Discrimination. Nina. 28011 From: robmoult Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma Hi Nina (and others), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob M, > op 13-12-2003 11:13 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > > > > Is the "law of kamma" the same as "kamma condition" in the Patthana? > N: They are different aspects dealt with in different contexts. > Kamma produces result when it is the right time, and also other factors, > place where on lives, time, etc. play their part. But the kamma once > committed can even for arahats (Moggallana, Angulimala) rpoduce result. Not > even a Buddha can prevent this. Kamma nyaama. > As to kamma-condition, we have to differentiate conascent kamma, cetanaa > arising with each citta (conditioning the accompanying dhammas), and > naa.nakkha.nika kamma-paccaya, kamma working from a different time (the > past). ===== Understood. ===== > R: ... It is therefore not correct to say that incidents > > that happen to you arise because of kamma condition. Incidents are > > not mental states. Incidents that happen to you arise because of a > > complex set of conditions, but it would seem that it is not > > appropriate to talk of kamma when discussing incidents. > > > > People do talk of incidents happening "because of kamma". Is this > > incorrect? > N: I find Sarah's expression that a situation can be a shorthand for dhammas > helpful. There were many posts about this. Jon remarked that praise and > blame etc. are used in the Tipitaka to denote results of kamma. When we > analyse different moments it is more complex of course. ===== Not understood. Please provide some details. I am just about to get on an airplane to go to Canada on two weeks vacation, so I may not reply for some time. Metta, Rob M :-) 28012 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness and so on..... was Re: Buddhaghosa etc Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > ============================ > I don't doubt at all that you are correct that I gave these > quotes, > but I happen not to remember it. Do you recall the context in which I > did that, > and was it a while ago? (I'm not usually so good in giving quotes! ;-) ..... Those were the days;-). A link would have helped (on my part). If you lose it again, I came across it by keying in ‘plantain’ in escribe. I’ll give your old post to Erik in its entirety after signing off, as it’s not too long. Metta, Sarah: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m728.html On Second Thought (Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Self / Not self) * From: upasaka (view other messages by this author) * Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:46:59 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hi, Erik and all - In a message dated 3/20/01 11:36:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > My point - and I might be right, and I might be wrong - is that the > notion of 'anatta' (or 'sunya') in Theravada is a restriction of that in > Mahayana. > When a Mahayanist says that all dharmas are empty he/she means that > they have no separate identity, but only are "things-in-relation". BECAUSE > OF > THIS, in particular, all dharmas are impersonal; that is, they are not, > individually, or in combination, a self in the sense of a (truly existent) > person nor are they owned or controlled by any self or related to any self. > However, when a Theravadin says that all dhammas are empty, he/she > ================================= I decided to check out this idea of mine a bit more carefully by seeing what Buddhaghosa had to say about anatta and sunya. It now seems to me that although the primary Theravadin sense of 'anatta' / 'sunya' is 'impersonal', it is, in fact, not restricted to that. I give a couple quotes of material from the Visudhimagga to bear this out, the first on sunya, and the second on anatta: (1) In XXI, 56, there is the following: Having discerned voidness in the six modes in this way , he discerns it again in eight modes, that is to say: 'Materiality has no core, is coreless, without core, as far as concerns (i) any core of permanence, or (ii) core of lastingness, or (iii) core of pleasure, or (iv)core of self, or as far as concerns (v) what is permanent, or (vi) what is lasting, or (vii) what is eternal, or (viii) what is not subject to change. Just as a reed has no core, is coreless, without core; just as a castor-oil plant, an udumbara (fig) tree, a setavaccha tree, a palibhaddaka tree, a lump of froth, a bubble on water, a mirage, a plantain trunk, a conjuring trick, has no core is coreless, without core, so too materiality etc.' (2) In XI, 104, there is the following, with the capitalization for emphasis being mine: ... They are states (dhamma) owing to bearing (dharana) for the length of the moment appropriate to them. They are impermanent in the sense of [liability to] destruction; they are painful in the sense of [causing] terror; THEY ARE NOT SELF IN THE SENSE OF HAVING NO CORE [OF PERMANENCE AND SO ON]. ... Thus it seems that the Theravadin sense of sunya/anatta, while having somewhat different emphasis from the Mahayana sense, with Theravada putting more emphasis on impersonality, does, indeed, span the same entire range of meaning. I stand corrected. Evidentally, both schools speak of a dhamma as being "anatta" or "not-self" in the sense of beingcoreless, the nonexistent "self" of a dhamma being an alleged core or unchanging, separate identity or own-being. 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) --- 28013 From: Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness and so on..... was Re: Buddhaghosa etc Hi, Sarah - Ahh, I see. Thanks very much! With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/15/03 5:01:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > >============================ > > I don't doubt at all that you are correct that I gave these > >quotes, > >but I happen not to remember it. Do you recall the context in which I > >did that, > >and was it a while ago? (I'm not usually so good in giving quotes! ;-) > ..... > Those were the days;-). A link would have helped (on my part). If you lose > it again, I came across it by keying in ‘plantain’ in escribe. I’ll give > your old post to Erik in its entirety after signing off, as it’s not too > long. > > Metta, > Sarah: > > /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) 28014 From: Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tiika Vis 49, 53 Howard: "Sense doors are supposed to be rupas, hence paramattha dhammas, but nerve ends are pa~n~natti, aren't they?" Larry: AAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!! 28015 From: M. Nease Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 6:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Yoniso-manasikaara (wise attention) Hi Sarah, Right--thanks for the clarification--could've found it myself had I gone to the beginning of the thread. Always an interesting topic I think. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 9:26 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Yoniso-manasikaara (wise attention) Hi Mike, Very glad to see you around keeping an eye on what I write;-) ;-) --- "M. Nease" wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > By this do you mean that yoniso manasikaara arises only with regard to > paramattha dhammas (i.e. never with regard to concepts)? Seems to me > that it can arise with either but not sure. .... Sorry for the confusion. No, I didn't mean that (i.e only arises with regard to paramattha dhammas) and in my first post on the topic I said, I think, that when the javana cittas are sobhana or wholesome,the manasikaara is yoniso and when they are akusala, the manasikaara is ayoniso. So this would apply to all moments of dana, sila and samatha bhavana as well as to satipatthana. Having said that, however, it seemed to me on a quick look that most examples of the use of yoniso manasikaara in the texts, especially in the suttas, are referring to satipatthana as in the other examples I gave. In the following example here, at first I thought 'reflecting wisely' was a translation of yoniso manasikaara, but afterwards it occurred to me that it would be an unusual example of usage and so I checked and found yoniso was used but pa.tisankhaa rather than manasikaara. > > "'Reflecting wisely,he uses the robe only for protection from the > > cold...."- Yoniso for wisely, > but > not not manasikaara.I think reflection here is pa.tisankhaa, looking > at > the back of Vism. I don't think yoniso manasikaara is ever used in > this > kind of context. it didn't sound write when I wrote it. .... I really haven't made much of a study of this. I remember you were interested in this subject before, Mike and would be grateful for any additional comments you could make or any helpful references you have. Thx for this request for clarification too. 28016 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 9:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sutta and Abhidhamma. Hi Ken O, I have got it, thank you very much, Nina. op 15-12-2003 15:05 schreef Kenneth Ong op ashkenn2k@y...: > for eg > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn07-006.html > > sn is Samyutta Nikaya > 07 is Brahmana-samyutta > 006 - Sutta no 6. 28017 From: Sarah Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 0:36am Subject: Sounds - heard and unheard Hi Howard & All, Discussing Vism quotes reminded me of your thread with Jon on unknown rupas. I’ll stick to unknown sounds for now. A couple of points you wrote are these: >Howard: Unheard sound, except in physics theory (a conventional model) and commonsense (a conventional model), is unknown and unknowable, and is, to me, meaningless.< > Howard: You seem to be saying that unobserved rupas occur in "Rupaville"! ;-)< ..... I wonder if any of these recent quotes from the Vism threads have been of any interest/assistance in clarifying. 1. Note 22 to Vism X1V,46 from Pm 446-7 "Are not the sounds of washermen [beating their washing on stones] heard later by those who stand at a distance? No; because there is a difference in the way of apprehending a sound according to the ways in which it becomes evident to one nearby and to one at a distance. For just as, because of difference in the way of apprehending the sound of words according to the way in which it becomes evident to one at a distance and to one nearby, there comes to be [respectively] not apprehending, and apprehending, of the differences in the syllables, so also, when the sound of washermen (a) becomes [an occurrence] that is evident throughout from beginning to end to one who is nearby, and (b) becomes an occurrence that is evident in compressed form in the end or in the middle to one who is at a distance, it is because there is a difference in the apprehending and definition, which occur later in the cognitive series of ear-consciousness, that there comes to be the assumption (abhimaana) "Heard faintly is heard later". But that sound comes into the ear's focus at the moment of its own existence and in dependence on the place where it arises (see Ch. XIII, par.112; DhsA.313). If there is absolutely no successive becoming of sound, how does an echo arise? The sound, though it remains at a distance, is a condition for the arising of an echo and for the vibration of vessels, etc., elsewhere as a magnet (ayo-kanta) is for the movement of iron' (Pm. 446-47)." ..... S: In other words, the sound arises and falls away regardless of whether it is heard, heard faintly, heard partially or not heard at all. Nina quoted from U Narada’s Guide to Conditional Relations which explains the difference in eye sensitivity [or ear sensitivity] conditioned by age and other factors: "An old man’s vision [or hearing] is not clear because the sensitive eye has been affected by age and so the eye-consciousness, which is dependent on it, does not give clear vision...." ***** 2. Vism, XiV, 53. "Like snakes, crocodiles, birds, dogs, and jackals that gravitate to their own respective resorts, that is to say, ant-hills, water, space, villages, and charnal grounds, so the eye, etc., should be regarded as gravitating to their own respective resorts, that is to say, visible data, and so on (cf. DhsA. 314)." .... S: I checked DhsA.314 and we read more about the conditions for hearing with an appropriate crocodile reference for me. [aside to Christine & Cooranites: crocodile is su.msumaaro in Pali and the China team still haven’t caught StarCroc;-)] ***** 3. DhsA. 314 (The Expositor,PTS) "Again, the crocodile going out, does not see what there is to seize, but goes after food with eyes shut. But when it has dived into the water a hundred fathoms deep and entered its den and laid itself down, then its mind becomes quieted and it sleeps at ease. So, too, [the sense of] hearing desires a ‘den’; it entertains a wish for the cavity of the ear which is dependent on space. The space in the ear-cavity is the cause of hearing a sound. An open space also is operative when [a bhikkhu] is reciting within [a cave]. The sound does not break through the roof of the cave and come out, but going out by the doors and windows strikes the sensitive ear in an elemental series. Immediately, then, those seated at the back of the cave know that so-and-so is reciting......For when the sensitive ear is struck by sound,there is such and such a variety of knowledge as - distant sound, near sound, sound from the further bank, sound from the hither bank. Such knowledge is natural law. What is this natural law? Wherever there is a cavity,from that comes hearing, like the seeing of the (distant) moon and sun, etc. Such is the absence of physical contact in hearing." ..... S: We learn that space along with sound, ear-sense and contact are essential for hearing to take place. There also has to be kamma condition, decisive support condition and many others for hearing consciousness to take place at that time. As Jon summarised: Jon:>Of course, whether or not that sound actually becomes the object of any being’s hearing consciousness depends on yet another set of conditions; but only sound that has arisen in the first place can be experienced.< S: There have been many other examples about the arising and experience of other rupas. Nina gave the example from Dhs A(The Expositor): Nina:>It is also said that one does not know the hardness or softness of a bed without sitting down in it, and of fruits placed in the hand without pressing them. Very daily examples to remind us of the element of hardness, external and internal. It can be object of awareness now. <...> As you will see, at the end of my Tiika translation it is said: The word papa~nca, obsession, is used to give us an extra stab with the goad. We are obsessed by sense impressions. Therefore understanding of dhammas has to be developed at this moment. The Expositor clarifies the real purpose of all these similes and explanations by stating about the eyesense (308, 309): We never have enough of seeing, we cannot be satisfied, it is like an ocean. <'And this is an empty village,' refers to its being common to many and to the absence of a possessor.> There is no owner who can exert control. It is empty of essence as we read.< end Nina’s quote. ***** I think the points you make and discussions you and Larry have on rupas are important and useful. I look forward to any more of your comments. Metta, Sarah p.s Note the comments above referring to ‘emptiness of essence, of entity’ are Buddhaghosa’s;-) ======================================= 28018 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 0:47am Subject: Re: Noticeable difference? Dear Christine, You asked: ------------- C: > , should Dhamma study and practice cause us to be kinder, more understanding of others, less likely to hurt others by deed or by verbal aggression in the form of sarcasm or a 'joke'? ------------- I like to think there are times when these desirable consequences do show themselves. By knowing that everything is conditioned, we allow wholesome states to arise. The alternative -- the habit of thinking, "I must try harder; I must be good; I must not be bad" -- only gets in the way of wholesome states, don't you think? Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear All, > > For those of us studying the Dhamma, reflecting on what we have > learned, associating with admirable friends and diligently > practising according to Dhamma - should all this conscientious effort > and application make a noticeable difference (sounds like a face > cream :-)) to our characters and personalities? 28019 From: sarahdhhk Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 0:52am Subject: Re: Dhamma Hi Kom, RobM & All, I know you're very busy, but it's always good to hear your reminders anytime. Here was one you gave recently on hearing sounds: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > There are other things besides realities that our mind perceive as well: > those that are not realities are concepts. For example, a person is a > concept. A person cannot be experienced without us thinking about what we > see, and what we hear. When you think of me, you form an idea around the > realities that were experienced: what you saw, and what you heard. Ever > heard a sound that you couldn't (at least initially) figure out what it was? > You heard the sound (reality), and eventually form an idea (concept) about > the sound, that it is a person's, an animal's, a car's, etc. All we > really hear is a sound, but we create a story about the sound, that it is > praise, it is scowling, that it is blame. ..... RobM was just asking about praise and blame. We can see from your example that the praise and blame we're so concerned about in a day are merely experiences of sound, visible object and so on followed by long, long stories. Hence the growth of panna and detachment leads to less dependence on the worldly conditions. The result of kamma is just this very moment of seeing or hearing. Metta, Sarah ====== 28020 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 0:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: characteristics Hi Herman, ------------ H: > Your well-written paragraphs above are traceable as reflecting the views held by certain groups in a certain sub-continent at a certain time. ------------ Thanks for the compliment. I am quite confident that the views of those 'certain groups' were the teaching of the Buddha. ------------ H: > There is no time and no place, however, in which an absolute morality can exist. Morality is always yoked to meaning which is always yoked to intention. ------------ Have you given up on there being a reality beyond the conventional? Do you think the ordinary, run-of-the-mill many-folk had it right all along? --------------- H: > What is a pleasant fruit today? --------------- Now, just as in the Buddha's day, there are lots of pleasant fruit in the life of a human being. But they are only fleeting, physical phenomena not worth clinging to. --------------- . . . H: > Ken, to me the above paragraph is a retelling of a story I have heard many a time. And you have retold it faithfully. And that sounds condescending. And I don't intend that. --------------- Keep an open mind; if the story is true, it would be a shame to reject it. ---------------- H: > I ask my kids at the dinner table "What is there when there is no thinking?". They say I'm nuts. I'm quite happy with that. --------------- A mental process with no thinking is a rare thing -- a state of jhana absorbtion. In satipatthana, however, there is thinking (right thinking). No one could blame you for liking to sit quietly and enjoy the feeling of doing so. It doesn't stop you from learning Dhamma. Have you convinced yourself that sitting quietly is the Dhamma? That would be a big mistake, I think. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 28021 From: Sarah Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Yoniso-manasikaara (wise attention) Hi Michael, (Mike & All), --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Michael: > I understand it differently. I think in the stage of javana it is too > late. > Kamma is taking place in javana and my impression is that manasikara at > this > stage is probably not so relevant. I thought manasikara can become > yoniso or > ayoniso at an earlier stage, either receiving, or investigating, or > determining cittas. ..... These ones you mention(sampaticchana, santirana and votthapana cittas) are ahetuka cittas (cittas without ‘root’) and therefore they cannot be wholesome or unwholesome. I think Nina explains quite clearly in the extract from ‘Abhidhamma in Daily Life’ below which we discussed before on DSG. I know you won’t be averse to the Abhidhamma details here: http://www.vipassana.info/nina-abhi-09.htm “When an object impinges on one of the five senses, panca-dvaravajjana- citta (five-door-adverting consciousness) turns towards the object through that sense-door. This citta is followed by panca-vinnana which experiences the object, by sampaticchana-citta which receives it, by santirana-citta which investigates it and by votthapana-citta which determines the object and then by akusala cittas or kusala cittas. When the cittas of the sense-door process have fallen away the object is experienced through the mind-door. The mano-dvaravajjana-citta adverts to the object through the mind-door and is then followed by akusala cittas or kusala cittas. There is 'unwise attention' (ayoniso manasikara) to the object which is experienced if akusala cittas arise, and there is 'wise attention' (yoniso manasikara) to the object if kusala cittas arise. For example, when we see insects there may be dosa-mula-cittas (cittas rooted in aversion). Thus, there is ayoniso manasikara (unwise attention). The dosa may be so strong that one wants to kill the insects; then there is akusala kamma. If one realizes that killing is akusala and one abstains from killing, there are kusala cittas and thus there is yoniso manasikara (wise attention). If one studies Dhamma and develops vipassana (insight) it is a condition for yoniso manasikara. When we are mindful of the nama or rupa which appears through one of the six doors, there is yoniso manasikara at that moment.” ***** Michael: >I have in my mind that there is a sutta (sorry don’t > know the reference) which says that there are only two requisites for > enlightenment: hearing the true dhamma and wise attention, which ties > with > what has been said in many messages in the list about attention to the > present moment. I also heard once from Bhante G that satipatthana is the > training to develop yoniso manasikara. ..... S: The wise reflection and the wise attention refer to the understanding of present moment dhammas. The development of satipatthana includes yoniso manasikara, panna and other wholesome states. From the Tika to the Satipatthana Sutta (Soma transl): “Spiritual development usually called meditation, is the development of wisdom (pa~n~naa bhaavanaa). Just the contemplation of material form (corporeality), of feeling, consciousness or mental objects, constitutes the cultivation of the Arousing of Mindfulness.” ..... Note that contemplation doesn't mean thinking, but direct understanding. In ADL, after the explanation above, Nina continues: “When there are two people in the same situation, one person may have ayoniso manasikara and the other may have yoniso manasikara. This depends on their accumulations. We read in the 'Kindred Sayings' (lV, Salayatanavagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Fourth Fifty, Ch.V, par. 202, Lustful) about the monk who, after he has experienced an object through one of the six doors, has ayoniso manasikara, and about the monk who has yoniso manasikara. We read that Maha-Moggallana said to the monks: Friends, I will teach you the way of lusting and also of not lusting.... And how, friends, is one lustful? Herein, friends, a monk, seeing object with the eye, feels attachment for objects that charm, feels aversion from objects that displease, abides without mindfulness of the body, and his thoughts are mean. He realizes not, in its true nature, that emancipation of heart, that emancipation of wisdom, wherein those evil, unprofitable states that have arisen cease without remainder. This monk, friends, is called 'lustful after objects cognizable by the eye, nose, tongue... objects cognizable by the mind'; When a monk so abides, friends, if Mara come upon him by way of the eye, Mara gets an opportunity. If Mara come upon him....by way of the mind, Mara gets access, gets opportunity.... So dwelling, friends, objects overcome a monk, a monk overcomes not objects. Sounds overcome a monk, a monk overcomes not sounds. Scents, savours, tangibles and mind-states overcome a monk, a monk overcomes not sounds, scents, savours, tangibles and mind-states. This monk, friends, is called 'conquered by objects, sounds, scents, savours, tangibles and mind-states, not conquerer of them.'; Evil, unprofitable states, passion-fraught, leading to rebirth overcome him, states unhappy, whose fruit is pain, whose future is rebirth, decay and death. Thus, friends, one is lustful. And how, friends, is one free from lust? Herein, friends, a monk, seeing an object with the eye, is not attached to objects that charm, nor averse from objects that displease.... Tasting a savour with the tongue...with mind cognizing a mind-state, he is not attached to mind-states that charm, nor is he averse from mind-states that displease, but dwells with mindfulness of the body, his thought is boundless. So that he realizes in its true nature that emancipation of heart, that emancipation of wisdom, wherein those evil, unprofitable states that have arisen come to cease without remainder. This monk, friends, is called 'not lustful after objects cognizable by the eye... not lustful after mind-states cognizable by mind.' Thus dwelling, friends, if Mara come upon him by way of the eye, of the tongue,... of the mind, Mara gets no access, gets no opportunity.... Moreover, friends, so dwelling a monk conquers objects, objects do not conquer him. He conquers sounds, scents, savours, tangibles, mind-states. They do not conquer him. Such a monk, friends, is called, 'conquerer of objects, sounds, scents, savours, tangibles and mind-states,'; He is conquerer, not conquered. He conquers those evil, unprofitable states, passion-fraught, inciting to lust, leading to rebirth, states unhappy, whose fruit is pain, rebirth, decay and death. Thus, friends, is one free from lust.” ***** Please let me know if you still disagree with any of the points discussed. I'd be glad to see any of your references or quotes for further consideration. Mike might have more to add too;-) Metta, Sarah p.s Mike, thanks for your other feedback. You were right to pick me up on the detail. ========================= 28022 From: Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:40am Subject: Re: Grasping at mind states Hi Herman and all, Herman, long time no write. :-) You wrote: > Going Forth (Pabbajja) - A Call to Buddhist Monkhood by Sumana > Samanera > > For those inclined to do so, read the whole lot, I found it very > worthwhile. For those under constraints, do a search on "Dear Mr. > N., " and read that section. I read just the "Dear…" part, and assuming that the views expressed by the author of this essay coincides with your own, and that I have more or less understood what you both are saying, here are some general comments. The author seems to believe as many do, that `panna' is the end result of some kind of formal practice. The assumption is that `concentration' is to be developed as a means to penetrate the nature of experiences resulting in the direct perception of the tilakkhana. I think this is to be taking the Buddha's teaching on the Tilakkhana as something which can be penetrated without the need to understand cittas and cetasikas as when they are conditioned to arise. When one has this approach, then very likely one is attached to result (in this case direct perception of the tilakkhana) and so cannot help but project the phenomena into one's experience. But this is *not* the development of panna. Panna is developed not by concentration practices, if indeed the jhana practitioner has a good chance of reaching vipassana; I think it is due not to the power of concentration, but his understanding of kusala and akusala. Only panna can accumulate as sankhara for more panna to arise in the future. And the kind of panna taught by the Buddha is the one which begins with Pariyatti. Patipatti and pativedha follows upon this. There is no other way. Certainly it is not developed by "just sitting" and concentrating on the breath, or even *intending* to observe rise and fall. The "Self" says, 1. persistence; 2. persistence; 3. persistence", but the `self' is what obstructs any chance of experiencing things as they are. Because it will see what it wants to and will get what it seeks, given that `ignorance' takes `concepts' as object, and concepts are the `illusions' which we are forever indulging in, we will rest happy with the `story' of anicca, dukkha and anatta mistaking it for direct `insight'. This reminds me of a comment in another post in which you rejected the classification of nama and rupa but insisted that "There is experience". I wonder if the above observation is a result of insight or is it a conclusion made from previous conclusion on and on, and which is probably no different from anyone's observation be they Buddhists or not? It is so easy to infer `experience', but *do you know it*? The nama and rupa classification which you reject is part of a Teaching which show that knowing the "knowing element" (nama) as distinct from "the known element" (rupa) can only be at a very high stage of development. You and I will have to just accept the "theory" that this is so, and no matter what we would like to think and how strongly we feel `confidence' that something is the case, "doubt" will forever rule. So is there `experience' as in direct knowing, or is there only `inferring' that it is so? ;-) And if this is the case, with just nama and rupa, how much more so should we be careful about our experience of anicca, dukkha and anatta?! When the author of the above mentioned article makes the final conclusion, ""Not I (an abiding individuality) breathe, but breathing occurs; not I go, but going occurs; not I stand, but standing occurs; not I sit, but sitting occurs; not I lie down, but lying down occurs; not I look, but looking occurs; not I bend, but bending occurs;….."" Do you see that he is just replacing one kind of concept with another, here the `I' is replaced by `breathing', `going', `standing' etc. and both of these are equally unreal? There is no reality such as `sitting', `lying down' etc. Seeing this does not lead to understanding of `not-self', though perhaps `not-I', but this is not what is meant by `anatta'. In fact it increases `atta sanna' and not does lead to `selflessness' as the author claims. Elsewhere you mentioned about being in a state of `no thought' and that it is probably better not to say anything at all when trying to understand and direct one's mind to experiences. I believe that vitakka arises with almost all mind moments, and what you see as being without `mental chatter' is just the replacement of one kind of chatter with another, only having a different object, perhaps the `concept of breath'. The `big smile' on a meditators face may be papanca associated with lobha of a very high degree. You then asked: > I seriously wonder to what extent that particular understanding of > the teachings that militates against directed activity is intended > to keep samsara an attractive proposition. > > Isn't it a self-concept that lies at the source of the studious > avoidance of anything that could be interpreted as originating from > a self-concept? It can no doubt be so, but I would like to think that it is usually not the case. I know Sarah for example; her panna is so sharp that she detects the `self' talking long before I can do so, if ever. In my case it is not so much speaking from a `position', but rather `recognizing' the fact. Herman, I believe "views" are behind all our choices, and given that we have accumulated so much `wrong view' from don't know when, I think it is wise to carefully consider what the Buddha taught and not too quickly jump to conclusions. The `conceptual construct' which you have tried to warn everyone against, is *not* necessarily a hindrance, but rather one that is meant to replace our own underlying views that which we are often not aware of. And this is one good reason why I think we are all doing the right thing, engaging in discussions. It is the only way to straighten out one's views. > Peace, love and joy Hesitatingly I ask Herman, what do you mean by these three words…..? I ask because you talk against `conceptual frameworks' yet you use these so easily. > Herman Metta, Sukin. 28023 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Herman --- Egberdina wrote: > Hi TG and everyone, > > I am taking a shine to the conditions that led to the writing of > this post. ... If only I could grasp at and hold those conditions. I know what you mean. I would go even further and say, 'If only I could grasp at and hold those conditions...and make them MINE!' Jon PS I, too, appreciated TG's post, especially where he said: > > ... No matter how good the > > term is, its still fraught with notions of essence, entity, etc. > > > > Even when a "bare ingredient" such as "firmness" is > conceptualized, I think > > we cannot help but impart a sense of "entity" to it. > > > > So what can be done is to use the best term possible and be > mindful that even > > its conceptualization is delusive. 28024 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ditthi, vicikiccha, silabbataparamasa Herman --- Egberdina wrote: > Hi Christine, Come on, Herman. Talk about an experiment tailored to give the desired outcome ;-)). <<< Take an object, any object. Let any thoughts about the object go. Then become angry about the object. Were you able to feel angry at will? Let the anger go. Now feel happy about the object. Were you able to feel happy at will? Try applying different mindstates. Does it work? >>> Firstly, is it really anger (or feeling happy), or is it an approximation of how you feel when angry? Secondly, did it happen at will, or did it take some willing (if you see what I mean)? Finally, and more importantly, couldn’t the ease with which dosa or happy feeling is aroused be accounted for by the fact that we have so much accumulated dosa and attachment that these are ready to bubble forth at the slightest opportunity, almost *as if* their arising was subject to our control. A better experiment would surely be: how often in a day do anger and attachment arise; when they are arising, can they be made to *not* arise with the same ease as you suggest they can be aroused? <<< Clearly, feelings are not linked to objects. Feelings are linked to intention. >>> Hmm, weren't you suggesting in an earlier post that keeping the eyes shut would be one way of preventing clinging to visible-object arising (clinging being one of the main sources of 'happy feeling' in our lives)? This seems to suggest that feeling is very closely linked to the experiencing of objects (among other things, of course), wouldn't you say? Jon PS <<< If you find that you can intend, while a book is telling you that you can't, perhaps you should intend to put the book down :-) >>> I have never read a book that suggests I can't intend. That would be a pretty odd assertion What book do you have in mind here? 28025 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Michael Thank you for your reply and your clear explanation of your thinking on these points. I am going to look for some relevant references in the texts, because I think that is the only way to discuss the questions meaningfully. I find that discussing another person's opinion on the texts to be not very productive, because it is easy to get sidetracked into a discussion of what the other person really meant by when they said what they did, when in fact the real issue is what the text writers meant when they said what they did. In the meantime, I'd like to respond on 1 or 2 of your comments. --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Jon, Michael: ... In my view the Pali commentators really regarded dhammas as paramatha/sabhava and the reason I believe that is the strong reaction against those ideas that was engendered by the early Mahayana commentators, in particular Nagarjuna. And that reaction was so strong that reading Nagarjuna’s writings today it is very easy to interpret them as nihilistic. But taken in context one can understand why he wrote them like that. One should also keep in mind the interpretations of modern Theravada commentators which clearly read paramatha/sabhava as truly existent, within a context of substantiality. Jon: I'm sure that there was wrong view on someone's part here, but the question is, on whose ;-)). I don’t think a reaction such as you describe here can be taken as indicative one way or the other. As I say, I think this can only be determined by looking at the texts. (I'm not sure I understand the significance of your reference to modern commentators.) Michael: I also don’t agree with your argument that dhammas are not capable of further reduction but, would rather argue that they are capable of further reduction, but it is not necessary to do so in order to see the nature of things as they are, i.e., viewing the 3 characteristics of the aggregates with proper insight is enough for liberation, one does not have to dwell deeper. But that doesn’t mean this is not possible. I would rather say that the development of the path is the understanding of these dhammas because that is the most practical, not that it is the only possibility. Jon: Interesting. What further reduction of dhammas would you see as being possible? What other possibilities do you refer to in your last sentence? Michael: ...I would prefer to say that features are due to the regularity of the dhamma. It is not something intrinsic to the dhamma but when that dhamma arises with its characteristics, both due to causes and conditions, the feature of regularity makes that dhamma have that characteristic. And because of regularity we are mistaken to take that characteristic as unique, being part of the essence of that dhamma. Jon: This notion of regularity is new to me. Would you mind explaining a little. How does it apply as regards the unique characteristic of, say, seeing consciousness or visible-object? Thanks. Jon 28026 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unexperienced rupas Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - Howard: With regard to the question <>, my answer is no, I'm not saying that. There is no requirement for the existence of something that it be directly and immediately knowable. What I do consider to be a *pragmatic* requirement is that it be possible, in principle, to be directly known and not merely inferred. Now, what is directly known is an arammana. Whatever is not an arammana, if such exists, is not knowable, but merely inferable. Jon: Right, whatever is not arammana of the moment (or an attribute of it) is not knowable at that moment, but merely inferable. But this applies equally as regards both the existence *and* the non-existence of unexperienced rupas. So I would be interested to know on what basis you are happy to assert their non-existence but reluctant to even countenance their existence. Howard: A "thing" underlying (somewhere) experienced hardness *may* exist, but that existence is not knowable - it is merely inferable if one feels the need to infer it. I don't feel that need. Jon: No one is suggesting any "thing" underlying experienced hardness. You seem to be saying that the existence of unexperienced rupas imputes the existence of an underlying "thing", while the existence of experienced rupas carries no such implication. What is your thinking here? Howard: I go along with the Buddha when he said, to paraphrase, "In the seen let there be just the seen, in the heard just the heard, in the sensed just the sensed, and in the cognized just the cognized." Jon: Right. The realities of this moment. So any concept of the existence or non-existence of unexperienced rupas is just a moment of thinking. Jon 28027 From: Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sounds - heard and unheard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 12/16/03 3:38:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Hi Howard &All, > > Discussing Vism quotes reminded me of your thread with Jon on unknown > rupas. I’ll stick to unknown sounds for now. A couple of points you wrote > are these: > > >Howard: > Unheard sound, except in physics theory (a conventional model) and > commonsense (a conventional model), is unknown and unknowable, and is, to > me, meaningless.< > > >Howard: You seem to be saying that unobserved rupas occur in > "Rupaville"! ;-)< > ..... > I wonder if any of these recent quotes from the Vism threads have been of > any interest/assistance in clarifying. > > 1. Note 22 to Vism X1V,46 from Pm 446-7 > > "Are not the sounds of washermen [beating their washing on stones] heard > later by those who stand at a distance? No; because there is a difference > in the way of apprehending a sound according to the ways in which it > becomes evident to one nearby and to one at a distance. For just as, > because of difference in the way of apprehending the sound of words > according to the way in which it becomes evident to one at a distance and > to one nearby, there comes to be [respectively] not apprehending, and > apprehending, of the differences in the syllables, so also, when the sound > of washermen (a) becomes [an occurrence] that is evident throughout from > beginning to end to one who is nearby, and (b) becomes an occurrence that > is evident in compressed form in the end or in the middle to one who is at > a distance, it is because there is a difference in the apprehending and > definition, which occur later in the cognitive series of > ear-consciousness, that there comes to be the assumption (abhimaana) > "Heard faintly is heard later". But that sound comes into the ear's focus > at the moment of its own existence and in dependence on the place where it > arises (see Ch. XIII, par.112; DhsA.313). If there is absolutely no > successive becoming of sound, how does an echo arise? The sound, though it > remains at a distance, is a condition for the arising of an echo and for > the vibration of vessels, etc., elsewhere as a magnet (ayo-kanta) is for > the movement of iron' (Pm. 446-47)." > ============================ I'm not quite clear on the point being made by B, but I do have a couple comments. At the end he says: "If there is absolutely no successive becoming of sound, how does an echo arise? The sound, though it remains at a distance, is a condition for the arising of an echo and for the vibration of vessels, etc., elsewhere as a magnet (ayo-kanta) is for the movement of iron' (Pm. 446-47)." Now, here, he seems to answering a typical eternalist-oriented question by the appropriate Buddhist response: The later sound, heard by the people at a distance, arises conditioned by the earlier sound heard by the washermen. This I agree with. My phenomenalism is not a solipsism. It is very similar to William James', with mindstreams not isolated, but interacting, not unlike the "Indra's Net" metaphor of Mahayana (but applied differently). In any case, as far as I'm concerned, the sound resulting from the actions of, and heard by, the washermen, is not the same as the sound heard slightly later by those at a distance, but it conditions that later sound. Actually, the objectivist-materialist theories of physics assert the same. Now, the first part of B's material is unclear to me. Specifically the following: <> For me, what is apprehended by person B, even when corresponding to what is apprehended by A (e.g., two people looking at "the same" tree, or listening to "the same" sound), is never one and the same. Also, a condition which differs from another in *any* way (including time or context of occurrence), even in the same mindstream, while possibly conditioning or being conditioned by the other condition, is not identical with 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) 28028 From: Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Hi, Jon (and Michael) - In a message dated 12/16/03 8:34:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Michael: > ... In my view the Pali commentators really regarded dhammas as > paramatha/sabhava and the reason I believe that is the strong > reaction against those ideas that was engendered by the early > Mahayana commentators, in particular Nagarjuna. And that reaction was > so strong that reading Nagarjuna’s writings today it is very easy to > interpret them as nihilistic. But taken in context one can understand > why he wrote them like that. One should also keep in mind the > interpretations of modern Theravada commentators which clearly read > paramatha/sabhava as truly existent, within a context of > substantiality. > > Jon: > I'm sure that there was wrong view on someone's part here, but the > question is, on whose ;-)). I don’t think a reaction such as you > describe here can be taken as indicative one way or the other. As I > say, I think this can only be determined by looking at the texts. > (I'm not sure I understand the significance of your reference to > modern commentators.) > ========================== I could, of course, be way wrong, but my understanding is that the perfection of wisdom suttas of early Mahayana, and the work of Nagarjuna, were responses not to Theravada, but to the Sarvastivada and Sautrantika schools which were seriously infected by substantialism-eternalism and annihilationism. 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) 28029 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 9:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Hello Jon, Jon: MB: should also keep in mind the interpretations of modern Theravada commentators which clearly read paramatha/sabhava as truly existent, within a context of substantiality. J: I'm not sure I understand the significance of your reference to modern commentators. Michael: I was thinking about the opinions expressed by Bhikkhu Bodhi in the Introduction to the ‘Abhdhammattha Sangaha,’ and in the Introduction to ‘Abhidhamma Studies’ by Nyanaponika Thera. Wouldn’t you agree that he is a well respected modern Theravada scholar? Jon: What further reduction of dhammas would you see as being possible? What other possibilities do you refer to in your last sentence? Michael: If one regards the dhammas as a collection of conditions, and one can see that there is a ‘higer’ level of a collection of conditions, which conventionally we call a person, then one can infer that there must be a ‘lower’ level of a collection of conditions below the dhammas. Of course if one assumes the dhammas to be ultimate reality then this will not be acceptable. I don’t think dhammas are paramatha, that is not what I read in the suttas. Jon: This notion of regularity is new to me. Would you mind explaining a little. How does it apply as regards the unique characteristic of, say, seeing consciousness or visible-object? Michael: To use a simple illustration, imagine the leaves of the trees turning yellow in the Fall, this happens due to a series of causes and conditions, and the yellow color, which is the characteristic of the leaves in the Fall, is not intrinsic to those leaves but is a consequence of causes and conditions. Now, regularity is that those leaves will always turn yellow when those causes and conditions are present, and not due to something intrinsic in the leaves. Because every fall the leaves turn yellow an ordinary mind could attribute that characteristic to the leaves and not to the causes and conditions. Of course few people do that in relation to leaves, but with other more abstract phenomena/objects it is not difficult to attribute the characteristic as something intrinsic to that ‘thing’. Metta Michael 28030 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 9:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Hello Howard, Howard: I could, of course, be way wrong, but my understanding is that the perfection of wisdom suttas of early Mahayana, and the work of Nagarjuna, were responses not to Theravada, but to the Sarvastivada and Sautrantika schools which were seriously infected by substantialism-eternalism and annihilationism.. Michael: I think you are right but the point is that those ideas also found their way into the Theravada commentaries. Metta Michael 28031 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness and so on..... was Re: Buddhaghosa etc Hi Howard, great ! Nina. op 15-12-2003 23:01 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: Howard wrote: > I give a couple > quotes of material from the Visudhimagga to bear this out, the first on > sunya, and the second on anatta: > > (1) In XXI, 56, there is the following: Having discerned voidness > in the six modes in this way , he discerns > it again in eight modes, that is to say: 'Materiality has no core, is > coreless, without core, as far as concerns 28032 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:09am Subject: anapanasati 7 a anapanasati 7 a The Perfection of the Seven Enlightenment Factors. Before going back to the Anapanasati Sutta, I shall say something about the seven enlightenment factors. These are part of the thirtyseven factors pertaining to enlightenment, the bodhipakkhiya dhammas. We can enumerate these as follows: the four applications of mindfulness (satipaììhånas) the four right efforts (sammå-padhånas) the four bases of success (iddhi-pådas) the five ³spiritual² faculties (indriyas) the five powers (balas) the seven factors of enlightenment (bojjhangas) the eightfold Path (ariya magga) The seven factors of enlightenment are: mindfulness, investigation of dhamma (dhamma vivaya, which is panna), energy (viriya), rapture (piti), tranquillity (passaddhi), concentration (samadhi) and equanimity (upekkha). Sati is among the factors of enlightenment and also among the indriyas, faculties, the powers, the factors of the eightfold Path. The factors of enlightenment develop together with satipatthana, mindfulness of nama and rupa. When sati is classified as indriya, the aspect of its leadership has been shown. When sati can arise at any time and at any place, in whatever circumstance, it becomes a bala, a power. I quote parts of A. Sujin¹s Dhamma in Cambodia: Nina. 28033 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:09am Subject: general notes to Tiika Hi Larry, I did no 54, visible object. After that there is only co to no 58 which I will start soon. To 60, heartbase, there is a long, long note. Heavy stuff. Is it a good idea for you to present that in sections, otherwise too long for the readers? I can try to make additional explanations to each section. Also using U Narada, Guide to Conditional Relations. Nina. 28034 From: Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 0:43pm Subject: Re: general notes to Tiika Hi Nina, I will go ahead and post thru par. 57. B. ~Nanamoli has translated notes to paragraphs 58, 59, 60, 61 & 62. Notes on 60 & 61 are both very long. I haven't read them yet but if possible I will break them down by points being discussed. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Larry, > I did no 54, visible object. After that there is only co to no 58 which I > will start soon. > To 60, heartbase, there is a long, long note. Heavy stuff. Is it a good idea > for you to present that in sections, otherwise too long for the readers? I > can try to make additional explanations to each section. Also using U > Narada, Guide to Conditional Relations. > Nina. 28035 From: Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:23pm Subject: Re: Question on ego and self .. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi RobM (& James), > > I meant to check a bit more on the SPECT scan study, but only just got > round to it. > --- robmoult wrote: > > > The area of the brain in question (Orientation Association Area) has > > the role of collecting sensory data and organizing it around > > a "self". A significantly decreased blood flow to that specific > > portion of the brain would correspond to a decreased sense of "self" > > as something separate from the surroundings. > > > > Depending on one's religious inclinations, one could describe this > > sensation as: > > - Being at one with the universe > > - Talking to God > > - Perceiving anatta > .... > OR a decreased spatial orientation. From what I recall from the Brain > series and other studies, those without or severely reduced idea of > spatial orientation are not necessarily wiser in any way, but find it very > difficult to function. This may also explain symptoms such as dizziness, > loss of balance, rocking etc, common amongst intense meditators. I'd be > interested to know whether there is a correlation between reduced blood > pressure also and the spatial disorientation, because those of us with low > blood pressure tend to experience similar symptoms and I don't think they > make us any more enlightened either;-) > .... > > To me, the fact that these scientists have designated an area that > > creates a sense of self that overlays the sensory input is > > significant - this aligns well with the Buddhist view that "self" is > > only a concept. > .... > Rob, I have a number of misgivings about `these scientists'. I believe > there were fewer than 10 subjects for a start and as I've said, I think we > read the conclusions we wish into the results. James, I'd like to stress > here, that I'd be equally sceptical if the same results and conclusions > were reached after having half a dozen DSGers study Abhidhamma texts in > Pali for several hours. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they also showed > reduced blood flow to parts of the brain, spatial disorientation and so > on. I'm not questioning the particular meditation practice in this thread. > I also appreciate that your practice is very useful for you (though this > doesn't qualify you to know who has and hasn't `hit rock bottom';- )). > ..... > > I would suggest that any activity that causes a decreased blood flow > > to this portion of the brain would help one to perceive "anatta". I > > am not surprised that deep meditation can be a condition for this > > arising. I suspect that, depending on the individual, other > > conditions could also lead to a similar result. > .... > Rob, I just don't understand why you would reach this conclusion at all. > What are the conditions for understanding anatta? Surely nowhere in the > texts is there any suggestion that a decreased blood flow to any part of > the brain is one. > > (BTW, I think Dilbert/Scott Adams was just saying 'go against the flow' > and go shopping in Colombo;-) ;-)) > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s If anyone else wishes to look a little more into this study, here is a > quote (I've lost track of the source- I think the first link below) and a > couple of other links I looked at: > > >Orientation Association Area, the part of the brain which influences our > orientation in time and space. This area of the brain ( the posterior > superior parietal lobe ) encourage religious beliefs." > > The frontal lobes of the brain, which are associated with attention, > showed increased activity. They expected this, since greater concentration > and focus was essential to meditation and prayer. More surprising was > activity they observed in that area of the brain affiliated with the > Orientation Association Area, the part of the brain which influences our > orientation in time and space. This area of the brain ( the posterior > superior parietal lobe ) helps us judge up/down, forward/behind, and must > function all the time to assist movement. Newberg concluded that this > decreased activity observed in these areas of the brain was responsible > for the transcendental states experienced by the praying nuns and > meditating monks. > > http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/reviews/Newberg&DAquili.html > http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lngbrain/cglidden/parietal.html > http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Farrenkopf.html > ================================================================= Hi Sarah, You seem to throw out a couple of odd ideas in this post. The first odd idea is that a lot of meditation is going to result in: "dizziness, loss of balance, rocking etc, common amongst intense meditators". I have never experienced this…even during 10 day meditation retreats when I meditated practically all day. Have you ever experienced this? My meditation teacher has never experienced this and I have never heard of anyone else experiencing this. The study that you quote is very vague and silly: Who would equate a `transcendental experience' with dizziness and spatial distortion? Obviously the suggestion is that meditators can't know the difference. Maybe the Buddha didn't really become enlightened by meditating under the Bodhi tree; maybe he just got really dizzy? Do you believe that? Like I wrote before, these brain studies involve a lot of guesswork and aren't conclusive, either for or against meditation. A clash of brain research is pointless at this point. The second weird idea is your suggestion that studying the Abhidhamma (or suttas) is the equivalent of meditation. Sarah, without meditation Buddhism is nothing. Reading this and that, studying this and that, without meditation, is just the same as studying anything else. Will studying chemistry, history, philosophy, biology, or any other academic subject lead to enlightenment? No. Simply studying the dhamma will also lead a person absolutely nowhere. In support I will quote one sutta that is very specific to this (although there are many in support), from SN 1. Devatasamyutta: "[The Blessed One:] Not by mere speech nor solely by listening Can one advance on this firm path of practice By which the wise ones, the meditators, Are released from the bondage of Mara. Truly, the wise do not pretend, For they have understood the way of the world. By final knowledge the wise are quenched: They have crossed over attachment to the world." It is not enough to read and study the Abhidhamma or the suttas, or to write posts about such, and to pretend to know things that are not truly known (and I am not accusing you specifically but people in general). The only way to truly understand the world and to have the final knowledge is, for the majority of us, to meditate. Anything else is just running in place. Metta, James 28036 From: Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:25pm Subject: Vism.XIV 54-57 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 54. 6. As regards visible data, etc., which come next, a visible datum has the characteristic of impinging on the eye. Its function is to be the objective field of eye-consciousness. It is manifested as the resort of that too. Its proximate cause is the four great primaries. And all the [following] kinds of derived materiality are the same as this. Where there is a difference we shall mention it. This [visible datum] is of various kinds as 'blue, yellow' (Dhs.617) and so on. 55. 7. Sound has the characteristic of impinging on the ear. Its function is to be the object of ear-consciousness. It is manifested as the resort of that too. It is of various kinds as 'drum sound, tabor sound' (Dhs.621) and so on. 56. 8. Odour has the characteristic of impinging on the nose. Its function is to be the object of nose-consciousness. It is manifested as the resort of that too. It is of various kinds as 'root odour, heartwood odour' (Dhs.625) and so on. 57. 9. Flavour has the characteristic of impinging on the tongue. Its function is to be the object of tongue-consciousness. It is manifested as the resort of that too. It is of various kinds as 'root flavour, trunk flavour' (Dhs.629) and so on. 28037 From: Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:56pm Subject: concept & characteristic Hi all, Would it be correct to say the object of any consciousness that is not a non-deluded consciousness is perceived as a concept because only a non-deluded consciousness (panna) is capable of correctly discerning a characteristic and any discernment other than a correct discernment is conceptual? Larry 28038 From: Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unexperienced rupas Hi, Jon - In a message dated 12/16/03 8:44:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Jon: > Right, whatever is not arammana of the moment (or an attribute of it) > is not knowable at that moment, but merely inferable. But this > applies equally as regards both the existence *and* the non-existence > of unexperienced rupas. So I would be interested to know on what > basis you are happy to assert their non-existence but reluctant to > even countenance their existence. > ======================= It is reasonable to attribute existence to what is observable, for its existence is verifiable by observation. What is not observable, if it existed, would have that existence be unverifiable. To me, I consider something onexistent if it is not observable. [I didn't say "not observed"; I said "not observable"] There is no limit to "possible" unexperiencable things. One of these is "the self". It is not provable that there *is* no world self, no Brahman. But it is not observable, and I do not accept its existence. As far as I am concerned, the burden of proof is for the existence of something, not its nonexistence. What is in principle unobservable can never be proved to exist. I do not accept such alleged existents. You,however, are certainly free to do so. 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) 28039 From: Date: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Hi, Michael - In a message dated 12/16/03 12:48:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > Howard: > I could, of course, be way wrong, but my understanding is that the > perfection of wisdom suttas of early Mahayana, and the work of Nagarjuna, > were > responses not to Theravada, but to the Sarvastivada and Sautrantika schools > which were seriously infected by substantialism-eternalism and > annihilationism.. > > Michael: > I think you are right but the point is that those ideas also found their way > > into the Theravada commentaries. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, to some extent they apparently did. Kalupahana makes that point as well. They found there way into Mahayana as well, BTW! ------------------------------------------------------- > > Metta > Michael > ============================ 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) 28040 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 0:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question on ego and self .. Hi James, --- buddhatrue@y... wrote: >Like I wrote before, these brain studies involve a > lot of guesswork and aren't conclusive, either for or against > meditation. A clash of brain research is pointless at this point. .... I agree and I’m sure I’ve said too much already on this subject. .... >Sarah, without > meditation Buddhism is nothing. <...> We all agree that mere book study, Abhidhamma theory and so on are of no use without development of wisdom and other path factors. As for meditation, it depends what is meant. ..... >In support I > will quote one sutta that is very specific to this (although there > are many in support), from SN 1. Devatasamyutta: > > "[The Blessed One:] > Not by mere speech nor solely by listening > Can one advance on this firm path of practice > By which the wise ones, the meditators, > Are released from the bondage of Mara. > > Truly, the wise do not pretend, > For they have understood the way of the world. > By final knowledge the wise are quenched: > They have crossed over attachment to the world." .... Good quote and I’m happy to discuss the sutta (SN 1, 35(5) Faultfinders, Bodhi transl). What is meant by meditation and meditators in the suttas? Often these words are translations of jhaayatha(develop samatha and insight) and so on. I expect that ‘meditator’ here is a translation of jhaayi (the one who develops samatha and insight). The emphasis in context is very much on insight and understanding ‘the way of the world’. [Aside: Before the Buddha spoke these verses, the fault-finding devatas had suggested: “If one shows oneself in one way While actually being otherwise, What one enjoys is obtained by theft Like the gains of a cheating gambler.” and “One should speak as one would act; Don’t speak as one wouldn’t act The wise clearly discern the person Who does not practise what he preaches.” The Buddha’s response stresses understanding, insight and truth and later forgiveness rather than mere speech and listening as the devata suggests. I’d be interested to hear any further comments on this.] .... > It is not enough to read and study the Abhidhamma or the suttas, or > to write posts about such, and to pretend to know things that are not > truly known (and I am not accusing you specifically but people in > general). .... You’ve hinted at this before, James. It would be more useful if you indicate examples or comments for further discussion if you are referring to anything I’ve indicated or ‘people in general’ here. Otherwise it’s difficult to respond. In my case, I can assure you that any panna is extremely blunt and there is just enough to have confidence that the texts (inc. Abhidhamma and commentaries) are correct and very little more. In any case, any knowledge, ignorance or pretence is anatta - not mine or yours or Sukin’s -- and certainly not worthy of any comparisons --;-) .... >The only way to truly understand the world and to have the > final knowledge is, for the majority of us, to meditate. Anything > else is just running in place. ..... So as you argued to Victor (the post I agreed with), what is right will lead to more right. So what is right meditation at this very moment as you read this post? Metta, Sarah ====== 28041 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:29am Subject: JOY! (was New member, Jeff Brooks) Hi Michael, We were discussing joy or rapture (piti) I gave this link and meant to add a little more: http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas13.html --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Michael: > Sarah, I have a question, I always thought that piti, which is a > physical > sensation, is a jhana factor, it only arises with jhana. But as I read > what > you say, piti can also arise in mundane activities? Can you please > explain? ..... As Nina starts off by saying in ‘Cetasikas’, piti can be kusala, akusala, vipaka or kiriya (wholesome,unwholesome,result or inoperative). Of course it is more likely to be akusala as attachment with joy and enthusiasm is so common. Whenever there is pleasant feeling there is piti. It has the characteristic of satisfaction (sampiyaayana), whether it is kusala citta with piti, eg accompanying metta or dana or akusala citta with piti, eg accompanying attachment. Of course, the nature of kusala and akusala piti is different, just as the pleasant feelings are different. It’s difficult to know the differences and intensities vary for both and they can follow each other very closely. Whilst reading a sutta, we might assume the joy is kusala, but only sati can be aware and panna can know at anytime whether it’s kusala or akusala at the present moment. The same applies to other mundane activities which we might assume to be skilful. One of the 24 conditions is jhana condition and the cetasikas which condition by way of jhana-factors can be kusala or akusala. These are referred to in the Dhammasangani. Dhsg 397a, Summary under Bad States of Consciousness -accompanied by pleasant feeling and ditthi (wrong view): "Now, on that occasion the khandhas are four, the spheres are two, the elements are two, the nutriments are three, the faculties are five the Jhana is fivefold,[i.e vitakka, vicara,piti, sukha, samadhi] the Path is fourfold, the powers are four, the causes are two, [lobha and moha] Nina also gives a useful summary of jhana condition in her book, ‘Conditions’ which I highly recommend. http://www.zolag.co.uk/ I think that when we understand how factors such as pleasant feeling and joy arise so often in a day with attachment, it becomes more and more obvious how so much of what we have taken for being ‘good’ and ‘noble’, such as the feelings associated with tranquil walks in the forest, yoga practice, sutta reading, meditation, playing with children or any other activity need to really be understood and known when they arise. There is no suggestion here that any of our activities should change, but any increase in understanding and decrease in delusion is very precious. Any comments? Metta, Sarah ===== 28042 From: Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:08am Subject: Re: Question on ego and self .. Hi James, Hi Sarah! Sarah: We all agree that mere book study, Abhidhamma theory and so on are of no use without development of wisdom and other path factors. As for meditation, it depends what is meant. James: Of course I mean Buddhist meditation. Meditation as taught by Lord Buddha: Samatha (Calmness) and Insight (Vipassana). Sometimes one is developed before the other, sometimes they are developed in tandem. Later on you explain this so I don't understand what the question is. Surely you don't think I am referring to a different type of meditation, like Chakra meditation. ..... >In support I > will quote one sutta that is very specific to this (although there > are many in support), from SN 1. Devatasamyutta: > > "[The Blessed One:] > Not by mere speech nor solely by listening > Can one advance on this firm path of practice > By which the wise ones, the meditators, > Are released from the bondage of Mara. > > Truly, the wise do not pretend, > For they have understood the way of the world. > By final knowledge the wise are quenched: > They have crossed over attachment to the world." .... Sarah: Good quote and I'm happy to discuss the sutta (SN 1, 35(5) Faultfinders, Bodhi transl). What is meant by meditation and meditators in the suttas? James: See above comments. Sarah: Often these words are translations of jhaayatha(develop samatha and insight) and so on. I expect that `meditator' here is a translation of jhaayi (the one who develops samatha and insight). The emphasis in context is very much on insight and understanding `the way of the world'. James: Right, through meditation. Talking and listening to the dhamma (or reading the dhamma in present day) isn't enough. The mind must be developed through Buddhist meditation. That is what the sutta is explaining. By the rewards are the deeds known. [Aside: Before the Buddha spoke these verses, the fault-finding devatas had suggested: "If one shows oneself in one way While actually being otherwise, What one enjoys is obtained by theft Like the gains of a cheating gambler." and "One should speak as one would act; Don't speak as one wouldn't act The wise clearly discern the person Who does not practise what he preaches." Sarah: The Buddha's response stresses understanding, insight and truth and later forgiveness rather than mere speech and listening as the devata suggests. I'd be interested to hear any further comments on this.] James: I don't really have any. I didn't include the first part because I wanted to focus on the relevant part, but it still doesn't change the message. I didn't take anything out of context. The Buddha states that meditation is the key factor to insight and to knowing who has insight. .... > It is not enough to read and study the Abhidhamma or the suttas, or > to write posts about such, and to pretend to know things that are not > truly known (and I am not accusing you specifically but people in > general). .... You've hinted at this before, James. It would be more useful if you indicate examples or comments for further discussion if you are referring to anything I've indicated or `people in general' here. Otherwise it's difficult to respond. In my case, I can assure you that any panna is extremely blunt and there is just enough to have confidence that the texts (inc. Abhidhamma and commentaries) are correct and very little more. In any case, any knowledge, ignorance or pretence is anatta - not mine or yours or Sukin's -- and certainly not worthy of any comparisons --;-) James: I do not wish to be more specific at this time. You can simply choose to ignore my comments if you think they are unfounded or don't understand. .... >The only way to truly understand the world and to have the > final knowledge is, for the majority of us, to meditate. Anything > else is just running in place. ..... So as you argued to Victor (the post I agreed with), what is right will lead to more right. So what is right meditation at this very moment as you read this post? James: I am assuming that you are asking how to be meditating while I am reading this post (if not, I apologize). Answer: Meditating is bringing the mind repeatedly to one subject or object, which cannot be done while reading a post. Metta, Sarah ====== Metta, James 28043 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sounds - heard and unheard Hi Howard, In spite of all your protestations to the contrary, I think you’re a ‘natural’ when it comes to the Abhidhamma. You (Larry and others too of course) raise some very fine detail which I find most helpful to reflect on. Your post here is a good example;-): --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah - > I'm not quite clear on the point being made by B, but I do have a > > couple comments. At the end he says: "If there is absolutely no > successive > becoming of sound, how does an echo arise? ..... S: You know, I hesitated to include the last few lines from the comy (Pm) on this and was hoping you wouldn’t ask;-) My reason for the quotes was merely to address the issue of the arising and falling of sounds not experienced. Anyway, let’s continue: ..... Pm:>The sound, though it remains > at a > distance, is a condition for the arising of an echo and for the > vibration of vessels, > etc., elsewhere as a magnet (ayo-kanta) is for the movement of iron' > (Pm. > 446-47)." <...> H: >In any > case, as > far as I'm concerned, the sound resulting from the actions of, and heard > by, > the washermen, is not the same as the sound heard slightly later by > those at a > distance, but it conditions that later sound. .... S: I think the echo case is different from the washermen sounds with no echo. ... H: >Actually, the > objectivist-materialist theories of physics assert the same. > Now, the first part of B's material is unclear to me. > Specifically the > following: Pm: > < stones] > heard > later by those who stand at a distance? No; because there is a > difference in > the way of apprehending a sound according to the ways in which it > becomes > evident to one nearby and to one at a distance. .... S: For example, we know (from Abhidhamma) that a rupa lasts 17x as long as a citta and the way a rupa is apprehended will be determined by when the rupa is experienced for a start. This will affect how clearly it is percieved, whether it will be experienced by the following mind door process and so on as I understand. RobM is good on this detail. I’d need to check to say more. Just as an example, if the sound is heard just at the end of its span (incredibly fast as we know), there will be no registering consciousness and succeeding mind door process. ..... Pm: >For just as, because of > difference > in the way of apprehending the sound of words according to the way in > which > it becomes evident to one at a distance and to one nearby, there comes > to be > [respectively] not apprehending, and apprehending, of the differences in > the > syllables, so also, when the sound of washermen (a) becomes [an > occurrence] that > is evident throughout from > beginning to end to one who is nearby, and (b) becomes an occurrence > that is > evident in compressed form in the end or in the middle to one who is at > a > distance, it is because there is a difference in the apprehending and > definition, > which occur later in the cognitive series of ear-consciousness, that > there > comes to be the assumption (abhimaana) "Heard faintly is heard later".>> .... S: This is my point - remember a sound is just a rupa and so it depends how it is heard (or whether heard at all) by the ear door process as to how it will be perceived. ..... H: > For me, what is apprehended by person B, even when corresponding > to > what is apprehended by A (e.g., two people looking at "the same" tree, > or > listening to "the same" sound), is never one and the same. .... S: Exactly, as we also discussed in the inherent nature of rupas/pig dung thread. ..... H: >Also, a > condition which > differs from another in *any* way (including time or context of > occurrence), > even in the same mindstream, while possibly conditioning or being > conditioned by > the other condition, is not identical with it. .... S: I fully agree with this too. We get just a hint of how very complicated conditions are. Last Saturday evening there was a young couple have a very loud argument outside our window. There was a lot of hearing of loud sounds, lots of annoyance, a little compassion and then a strange thing happened. I started looking up some sutta references, became pretty engrossed in them and for about half an hour there was no idea about any loud noises outside. Whether there was less hearing of them as it seemed, I couldn’t be sure, but certainly no conditions to think about that particular story even though the couple were still arguing loudly. Metta, Sarah ======= 28044 From: Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:43am Subject: Re: characteristics Hi Ken, Thanks for your reply. My comments are interspersed below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Herman, > > ------------ > H: > Your well-written paragraphs above are traceable as > reflecting the views held by certain groups in a certain > sub-continent at a certain time. > > ------------ > > Thanks for the compliment. I am quite confident that the > views of those 'certain groups' were the teaching of the > Buddha. > I think your initial point was that whatever kusala/akusala is, it is not dependent on any point of view. You now happily acknowledge the source of your point of view re kusala/akusala :-) > ------------ > H: > There is no time and no place, however, in which an > absolute morality can exist. Morality is always yoked to > meaning which is always yoked to intention. > ------------ > > Have you given up on there being a reality beyond the > conventional? Do you think the ordinary, run-of-the-mill > many-folk had it right all along? Ken, I'm not sure if I understand what you mean here. I could reply to my guesses at your meaning and write an essay for no good reason. Happy to discuss this further if you want to clarify. > --------------- > . . . > H: > Ken, to me the above paragraph is a retelling of a > story I have heard many a time. And you have retold it > faithfully. And that sounds condescending. And I don't > intend that. > --------------- > > Keep an open mind; if the story is true, it would be a > shame to reject it. > The story that is apparent to me when I read just about any sutta is that the Buddha was a man who realised that all phenomena are dukkha, and for this reason was, as far as humanly possible, bodily and mentally a non-participant in the affairs of the world. There is no need to keep an open mind about it, it is bleeding obvious. The Buddha, by way of example, advocated abstaining from unnecessary action, word and thought. Those in his company were convinced to do likewise. It appears from the Buddha's example that quietness, quietude, quietanything has something going for it. Do you dispute that? Peace love and joy Herman > ---------------- > H: > I ask my kids at the dinner table "What is there > when there is no thinking?". They say I'm nuts. I'm quite > happy with that. > --------------- > > A mental process with no thinking is a rare thing -- a > state of jhana absorbtion. In satipatthana, however, > there is thinking (right thinking). > > No one could blame you for liking to sit quietly and > enjoy the feeling of doing so. It doesn't stop you from > learning Dhamma. Have you convinced yourself that > sitting quietly is the Dhamma? That would be a big > mistake, I think. :-) > > Kind regards, > Ken H 28045 From: Htoo Naing Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 3:19am Subject: Medicine Dear Dhamma Friends, As you will notice, most medicine are not sweet but bitter and hard to manage to swallow especially before modern time when herbal medicine had been practising. Why this has been happening is evident that people are fond of sweet. They do not like bitter taste. But when they realize that they have a disease ( suffering ), they will take that bitter medicine in order to recover from the disease. Unfortunately, when they cannot realize that they have a disease, they will not search for treatment. So, they will not take that awful bitter tasted medicine. This is my life. I have to feel this and that. I have the right to experience all these. After death there is nothing. So why must we waste time taking that bitter medicine? ( annihilistic view ). This is my life. I achieve this and that. There definitely is next lives. I will be a Deva, Brahma, human being, and so on. Even though I had died in many previous lives, my spirit still does not die. It will shift from life to life. My spirit lives forever. We are suffering in lower realms. If we are in higher realm, we will be free of suffering and we will live there forever. ( eternity view ). As they do not realize that they are suffering, they will not take medicine. Their origional practice is different. So when they face with Dhamma ( teaching of The Buddha ), they are reluctant to take that. Their habits hinder them in learning and practising Dhamma. May all beings use their time effectively With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing JourneyToNibbana htootintnaing@y... JourneyToNibbana@g... 28046 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question on ego and self .. Hi James, Thanks for your quick response! I appreciate the feedback. --- buddhatrue@y... wrote: > James: Of course I mean Buddhist meditation. Meditation as taught by > Lord Buddha: Samatha (Calmness) and Insight (Vipassana). Sometimes > one is developed before the other, sometimes they are developed in > tandem. Later on you explain this so I don't understand what the > question is. Surely you don't think I am referring to a different > type of meditation, like Chakra meditation. .... OK, so far so very good! ..... > James: Right, through meditation. Talking and listening to the > dhamma (or reading the dhamma in present day) isn't enough. The mind > must be developed through Buddhist meditation. That is what the > sutta is explaining. By the rewards are the deeds known. .... 'Through Buddhist meditation' aka: Samatha (Calmness) and Insight (Vipassana) as agreed. ..... > James: I don't really have any. I didn't include the first part > because I wanted to focus on the relevant part, but it still doesn't > change the message. I didn't take anything out of context. The > Buddha states that meditation is the key factor to insight and to > knowing who has insight. .... That’s fine, no suggestion of being out of context. I was getting side-tracked and thinking about another thread too. To be precise, the Buddha states that the path of practice (pa.tipada ) is the key factor to insight. In Sukin’s post to Herman he wrote: Sukin: “Only panna can accumulate as sankhara by the Buddha is the one which begins with Pariyatti (rt theoretical understanding). Patipatti (rt practice) and pativedha (direct realization) follows upon this. There is no other way.” (my bracketed translation of terms). .... > James: I do not wish to be more specific at this time. You can > simply choose to ignore my comments if you think they are unfounded > or don't understand. .... ;-) I’d rather just confess to any transgressions and apologise. .... > James: I am assuming that you are asking how to be meditating while I > am reading this post (if not, I apologize). Answer: Meditating is > bringing the mind repeatedly to one subject or object, which cannot > be done while reading a post. .... Now we get to the real heart of the matter. By path of practice and development of insight (or even calm), is there any suggestion in this sutta or others which you’re reading in Devatasamyutta that it can and should be at anytime other than the present moment or by ‘bringing the mind repeatedly to one subject or object’? Surely the practice can only ever be now? I had a little difficulty finding your quotation at first and in the process was enjoying skimming through one or two of the earlier ones as I looked for it. The one before is ‘There Are No’ (SN 1 -34 (4), Bodhi transl). [the Blessed One] “They are not sense pleasures,the world’s pretty things: Man’s sensuality is the intention of lust. The pretty things remain as they are in the world But the wise remove the desire for them. “One should discard anger, cast off conceit, Transcend all the fetters. No sufferings torment one who has nothing, Who does not adhere to name and form [nama - rupa]” Would you say that the path of practice still cannot ‘be done’ while reading a post, at this very present moment? If there is desire, conceit or anger now, should insight wait for another more suitable occasion? James, I'm very glad to see you quoting from BB's translation of SN. It's my favourite collection of suttas and this translation is a great work. I'd be very happy to discuss any of these suttas with you anytime. It's like discovering new ones for me every time. Metta, Sarah ===== 28047 From: Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: Question on ego and self .. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, > > Thanks for your quick response! I appreciate the feedback. > Would you say that the path of practice still cannot `be done' while > reading a post, at this very present moment? If there is desire, conceit > or anger now, should insight wait for another more suitable occasion? Hi Sarah, Here is another quick response! ;-) Okay, what you are suggesting Sarah is impossible. Let's do a little experiment: I will count to five and when I am done I would like for you to have discarded your anger, cast off your conceit, and transcend all the fetters. Okay, so get ready: One…Two…Three….Four…..Five! So, how did it go? Are you enlightened yet? No? Why not? The instructions were simple enough and you know what you need to do, just do it! The reason you can't do it is because your mind isn't developed enough to do it; otherwise you would have already done it. The only way to make your mind developed enough to do it is to practice Buddhist meditation. You don't agree with my definition of meditation which is "bringing the mind repeatedly to one subject or object" and you would like to know where I got that definition. Huh? That is the definition for concentration. Concentration is defined as "1 a : the act or process of concentrating : the state of being concentrated; especially : direction of attention to a single object ". And you know the Buddha taught Right Concentration. Right Concentration cannot be practiced while reading (or writing) a post. You yourself have admitted, "That's fine, no suggestion of being out of context. I was getting side-tracked and thinking about another thread too." You see, you didn't have proper concentration while you were writing that post. Right concentration cannot be developed during everyday activities to the extent that the Buddha intended. If you don't agree, okay. Metta, James 28048 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept & characteristic Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > Would it be correct to say the object of any consciousness that is > not a > non-deluded consciousness is perceived as a concept because only a > non-deluded consciousness (panna) is capable of correctly > discerning a > characteristic and any discernment other than a correct discernment > is conceptual? Good question. The answer I think depends on what you have in mind by 'perceived' here. As you know, at the very moment of experiencing a sense-door object (a vipaka citta) there is no conceptualisation of the object. However, in the subsequent mind-door processes, there is a lot of 'thinking about' the object. I believe that as regards these 'thinking' moments it would be correct to say that in the absence of sati or panna of the level of satipatthana/vipassana, there would be conceptualising about the object rather than its direct experience. Jon 28049 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question on ego and self .. > Hi Sarah, > > Here is another quick response! ;-) .... Likewise! ;-) .... Okay, what you are suggesting > Sarah is impossible. Let's do a little experiment: I will count to > five and when I am done I would like for you to have discarded your > anger, cast off your conceit, and transcend all the fetters. Okay, > so get ready: One…Two…Three….Four…..Five! So, how did it go? .... I had a great laugh and Jon asked from another room what was going on;-) .... Are > you enlightened yet? No? Why not? ..... Anatta. No self. No control. ..... >The instructions were simple > enough and you know what you need to do, just do it! The reason you > can't do it is because your mind isn't developed enough to do it; > otherwise you would have already done it. The only way to make your > mind developed enough to do it is to practice Buddhist meditation. .... Er......for wisdom to develop, I think. Pa.tipada or path of practice as it mentioned in the sutta. No one to do anything. .... > You don't agree with my definition of meditation which is "bringing > the mind repeatedly to one subject or object" and you would like to > know where I got that definition. Huh? That is the definition for > concentration. Concentration is defined as "1 a : the act or process > of concentrating : the state of being concentrated; especially : > direction of attention to a single object ". ..... Concentration which arises at every instant with every moment of consciousness (even when wildly distracted) and which can be right and wrong, just like wise and unwise attention can be. Concentration is not the same as the development of calm and insight. .... >And you know the Buddha > taught Right Concentration. Right Concentration cannot be practiced > while reading (or writing) a post. .... Did the Buddha say there were any occasions when there couldn’t be the development of satipatthana (inc. rt concentration)? In the Satipatthana Sutta it talks about while walking, getting dressed, eating, going to the bathroom and so on. .... >You yourself have > admitted, "That's fine, no suggestion of being out of context. I was > getting side-tracked and thinking about another thread too." You > see, you didn't have proper concentration while you were writing that > post. Right concentration cannot be developed during everyday > activities to the extent that the Buddha intended. .... I protest! If it was wise reflection on the Dhamma (whatever the thread) then at the ‘wise’ moments there were rt concentration, calm and understanding, even if not any satipatthana. .... > If you don't agree, okay. .... okay. “Wisdom is the precious gem of humans” (SN1,Devatasamyutta, 52(2)) Metta, Sarah p.s I have a little experiment for you, James, and no need to count. Just consider whether there can be any useful reflection of the Dhamma whilst reading this post (whether or not you agree) or any metta or consideration of mental states or physical phenomena. If the answer is yes, it’s an indication of moments of rt concentration, calm and a level of understanding, however briefly. Whilst you’re teaching in school, having an argument, eating a snack or whatever (trying to work out the time in Egypt - another sidetrack;-)), see whether there is any understanding of any kind. SN1, Devatasamyutta,10 (10) [The Blessed One] “They do not sorrow over the past, Nor do they hanker for the future. They maintain themselves with what is present; Hence their complexion is so serene. “Through hankering for the future, Through sorrowing over the past, Fools dry up and wither away Like a green reed cut down” ===== 28050 From: Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:42am Subject: Re: characteristics Hi Herman, ----------------- H: > I think your initial point was that whatever kusala/akusala is, it is not dependent on any point of view. You now happily acknowledge the source of your point of view re kusala/akusala :-) ------------ Yes but there is no great conflict in that. Firstly, I was saying that kusala dhammas are kusala -- they have inherent, kusala properties that make them what they are. Secondly, I have gained this intellectual understanding [of the absolute nature of dhammas], from what the Buddha taught. Does the second contradict the first? I don't think so. Two posts back, you wrote: ------------- There is no time and no place, however, in which an > absolute morality can exist. Morality is always yoked to > meaning which is always yoked to intention. > -------------- to which I replied: -------------- Have you given up on there being a reality beyond the conventional? Do you think the ordinary, run-of-the-mill many-folk had it right all along? ------------ Then you replied: -------------- Ken, I'm not sure if I understand what you mean here. I could reply to my guesses at your meaning and write an essay for no good reason. Happy to discuss this further if you want to clarify. --------------- I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying there are no absolute truths: that morality always depends on personal opinions. So, I thought you were saying, by implication, that the Dhamma is the same as conventional reality. In other words, I thought you were denying that the Buddha taught anything we run-of-the-mill ordinary people didn't already know. That's a good point you make about writing an essay. If each of does his best to make himself understood, he can save the other from answering the wrong questions. :-) (I'm not good at understanding what other people are saying and I often write things that no one can understand (not even me).) Probably misunderstanding you again, I made a comment, about keeping an open mind, to which you replied: ---------------- H: > The story that is apparent to me when I read just about any sutta is that the Buddha was a man who realised that all phenomena are dukkha, and for this reason was, as far as humanly possible, bodily and mentally a non- participant in the affairs of the world. There is no need to keep an open mind about it, it is bleeding obvious. The Buddha, by way of example, advocated abstaining from unnecessary action, word and thought. Those in his company were convinced to do likewise. It appears from the Buddha's example that quietness, quietude, quietanything has something going for it. Do you dispute that? ------------- You guessed it. :-) It's not 'bleeding obvious' at all. Bodily and mental non-participation in the affairs of the world would be natural for an arahant. But that follows from enlightenment; it is not a prerequisite. I don't see any special advantage in quietness. A lively discussion about the Dhamma, for example, is preferable to staring at a wall. Kind regards, Ken H 28051 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] tanha and intention Ben Hello and welcome from me. What a blockbuster your first post is! I'd like to comment on just a part of it. --- jangchup777 wrote: << << << INTENTION Furthermore, there is something else I've been wondering about and would like to ask others about it. In dependent origination if ignornace ceases then sankharas cease. And here, in this context, sankharas mean bodily, verbal, and mental "fabrications". (SN XII.2) As I understand it, "fabrication" is volition or intention. Is this correct? But if these intentions cease it seems to me that a person would be frozen still, completely silent, and not thinking at all! How would they even determine to get up and goto the bathroom? But this is not the case because the Buddha was very active after his enlightenment. How did he act without any intentions? And Samyutta Nikaya XII.38 seems to support this view that intentions cease when it says "when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], .... there is no future birth..." and also the line of victory: "there is nothing left to do..." >> >> >> The suttas dealing with dependent origination are extremely complex and I don’t pretend to understand them. However, we are fortunate in having the commentaries to help us. In the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation of the sutta preceding this one he quotes from the commentary as explaining that these are references to nibbana (which, as I'm sure you know, is sometimes described as cessation). This I find easy to accepts since ignorance, the first link mentioned, is only finally eradicated completely on attaining arahantship. In short, there's no suggestion that intention can (or should) be made to cease! As I understand it, even the Buddha could not act without intention. Does this make sense? There's lots more to your post but I'll just go this far for now. Jon 28052 From: Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question on ego and self .. Hi, Sarah (and James) - Insights, let alone fruitions, rarely occur during jhanas. Sariputta seems to be a prominent possible exception. Even those who use the jhanas as vehicle for insight usually apply their investigation upon leaving a jhanic state. In many, many Zen stories, "enlightenment" (whether this be important insights or actual awakenings) occurs at ordinary times. HOWEVER, it is focussed meditation, formal samatha bhavana, that is the primary cultivational tool, on a base of calming sila, making the mind a fit, malleable instrument for the investigation of dhammas and the cultivation of insight. The Buddha put enormous emphasis on this. Your post, Sarah, to James follows below without further comment. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/17/03 7:25:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Hi James, > > Thanks for your quick response! I appreciate the feedback. > > --- buddhatrue@y... wrote: > > >James: Of course I mean Buddhist meditation. Meditation as taught by > >Lord Buddha: Samatha (Calmness) and Insight (Vipassana). Sometimes > >one is developed before the other, sometimes they are developed in > >tandem. Later on you explain this so I don't understand what the > >question is. Surely you don't think I am referring to a different > >type of meditation, like Chakra meditation. > .... > OK, so far so very good! > ..... > >James: Right, through meditation. Talking and listening to the > >dhamma (or reading the dhamma in present day) isn't enough. The mind > >must be developed through Buddhist meditation. That is what the > >sutta is explaining. By the rewards are the deeds known. > .... > 'Through Buddhist meditation' aka: Samatha (Calmness) and Insight > (Vipassana) as agreed. > ..... > >James: I don't really have any. I didn't include the first part > >because I wanted to focus on the relevant part, but it still doesn't > >change the message. I didn't take anything out of context. The > >Buddha states that meditation is the key factor to insight and to > >knowing who has insight. > .... > That’s fine, no suggestion of being out of context. I was getting > side-tracked and thinking about another thread too. > > To be precise, the Buddha states that the path of practice (pa.tipada ) is > the key factor to insight. In Sukin’s post to Herman he wrote: > > Sukin: “Only panna can accumulate as sankhara by the Buddha is the one > which begins with Pariyatti (rt theoretical understanding). Patipatti (rt > practice) and pativedha (direct realization) follows upon this. There is > no other way.â€? (my bracketed translation of terms). > .... > >James: I do not wish to be more specific at this time. You can > >simply choose to ignore my comments if you think they are unfounded > >or don't understand. > .... > ;-) I’d rather just confess to any transgressions and apologise. > .... > >James: I am assuming that you are asking how to be meditating while I > >am reading this post (if not, I apologize). Answer: Meditating is > >bringing the mind repeatedly to one subject or object, which cannot > >be done while reading a post. > .... > Now we get to the real heart of the matter. By path of practice and > development of insight (or even calm), is there any suggestion in this > sutta or others which you’re reading in Devatasamyutta that it can and > should be at anytime other than the present moment or by ‘bringing the > mind repeatedly to one subject or object’? Surely the practice can only > ever be now? > > I had a little difficulty finding your quotation at first and in the > process was enjoying skimming through one or two of the earlier ones as I > looked for it. > > The one before is ‘There Are No’ (SN 1 -34 (4), Bodhi transl). > > [the Blessed One] > “They are not sense pleasures,the world’s pretty things: > Man’s sensuality is the intention of lust. > The pretty things remain as they are in the world > But the wise remove the desire for them. > > “One should discard anger, cast off conceit, > Transcend all the fetters. > No sufferings torment one who has nothing, > Who does not adhere to name and form [nama - rupa]â€? > > Would you say that the path of practice still cannot ‘be done’ while > reading a post, at this very present moment? If there is desire, conceit > or anger now, should insight wait for another more suitable occasion? > > James, I'm very glad to see you quoting from BB's translation of SN. It's > my favourite collection of suttas and this translation is a great work. > I'd be very happy to discuss any of these suttas with you anytime. It's > like discovering new ones for me every time. > > Metta, > > Sarah > /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) 28053 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 7:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unexperienced rupas Hi Howard > ======================= > It is reasonable to attribute existence to what is > observable, for its existence is verifiable by observation. What is not observable, if it existed, would have that existence be unverifiable. To me, Iconsider something onexistent if it is not observable. k: I was wondering when Buddh said there are living organism in water, was it observable at that time. Luckily it was Buddha who said it, if it happened to another person will to say it, no one will believe the person. What is not observable now does not mean it does not exist. Just like Nibbana which is not observable now, does not mean it does not exist. Just a thinker kind regards Ken O 28054 From: Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unexperienced rupas Hi, Ken - In a message dated 12/17/03 10:04:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > > >======================= > > It is reasonable to attribute existence to what is > >observable, for its existence is verifiable by observation. What is > not observable, if it existed, would have that existence be > unverifiable. To me, Iconsider something onexistent if it is not > observable. > > k: I was wondering when Buddh said there are living organism in > water, was it observable at that time. Luckily it was Buddha who > said it, if it happened to another person will to say it, no one will > believe the person. What is not observable now does not mean it > does not exist. Just like Nibbana which is not observable now, does > not mean it does not exist. > > > Just a thinker > > kind regards > Ken O > =========================== I take no exception to what you said here. Whatever conventional object is observable by any means (even not yet invented) is observable, and what is not is not. Ultimately, there is only one general category of "things" that are observable, namely the category of objects of consciousness. Experienced hardness is observed, and no other .. ever. Sights are observable. When they occur, they occur as objects of consciousness. Prior to that, there is only the greater or lesser potential for them. An unseen sight is never observed - it is unobservable, it doesn't exist. Where is an unseen sight? And how do we observe it? Answer: We don't observe it .. ever. 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) 28055 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:15am Subject: anapanasati 7 b anapanasati 7 b We read in the Anapanasati Sutta, (in the translation by Ven. Nyanatiloka, but abridged): <1. On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having put away covetousness and grief regarding the world- on that occasion, unremitting mindfulness is established in him...on that occasion the mindfulness enlightenment factor is aroused in him, and he develops it, and by development it comes to perfection in him. 2. Abiding thus mindful, he investigates, examines that state with understanding, and embarks upon a scrutiny (of it)... on that occasion the investigation-of-states (dhamma vivaya) enlightenment is aroused in him, and he develops it, and by development it comes to perfection in him... 3.On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who investigates, examines that state (dhamma) with understanding, and embarks upon a scrutiny (of it), tireless energy is aroused... on that occasion the energy enlightenment factor is aroused in him, and he develops it, and by development it comes to perfection in him... 4. On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who has aroused energy, unworldly (niramisa, not involved with the senses) rapture arises... ³The body and mind of one whose mind is held in rapture, becomes tranquillized.² 5.On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, the body and mind of a bhikkhu who is held in rapture, become tranquillized- on that occasion the tranquillity enlightenment factor is aroused in him... ³The mind of one who is tranquillized in body and blissful becomes concentrated.² 6. On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, mind of a bhikkhu who is tranquillized in body and blissful becomes concentrated- on that occasion the concentration enlightenment factor is aroused in him... ³He becomes one who looks on with complete equanimity on the mind thus concentrated.² 7. On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu becomes one who looks on with complete equanimity on the mind thus concentrated- on that occasion the equanimity enlightenment factor is aroused in him, and he develops it, and by development it comes to perfection in him.> The same is stated with regard to the other three applications of mindfulness. Nina. 28056 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept & characteristic Hi Larry, Howard, Michael, op 17-12-2003 00:56 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Would it be correct to say the object of any consciousness that is not a > non-deluded consciousness is perceived as a concept because only a > non-deluded consciousness (panna) is capable of correctly discerning a > characteristic and any discernment other than a correct discernment is > conceptual? N: Larry, if I understand your question correctly, I think you mean: 1. Citta without panna and with moha only perceives concepts. 2. Only citta with panna can discern a reality (that is not concept). 3. If 2 is not the case, there is no correct discernment, and then the object is only a concept. Thus, it seems that a concept cannot be the object of panna if I have understood you correctly? Concept and reality can be the objects of both panna and of a deluded mind. But only panna discerns what is a reality and what is a concept. 1: From the time we wake up there is experience of dhammas with a deluded mind. We touch what is hard, but we do not realize it. We think about bed, table, spoon, on account of rupas that are experienced through bodysense. The hardness that is touched seems to stay, but in reality it falls away and is replaced by another hardness. The previous hardness has gone forever. The new one is similar, but it cannot be the same. Howard wrote to Michael: perfection of wisdom suttas of early Mahayana, and the work of Nagarjuna, > were > responses not to Theravada, but to the Sarvastivada and Sautrantika schools > which were seriously infected by substantialism-eternalism and > annihilationism.. > > Michael: > I think you are right but the point is that those ideas also found their way > > into the Theravada commentaries. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, to some extent they apparently did. Kalupahana makes that point as well. They found there way into Mahayana as well, BTW!> N: substantialism-eternalism found their way into each one of us. Actually, the real cause is the latent tendency of wrong view that adheres. Personality belief, sakkayaditthi, is the condition for all other kinds of wrong view. Hardness seems to stay on. We may repeat the Tipitaka and Buddhaghosa: it has no essence, it has no core, but, we still have conditions for wrong view so long as it is not eradicated. Taking 2 and 3: Panna knows realities and concepts. Jhanacitta is accompanied by panna and it knows meditation subjects such as infinite space which is a concept. The Buddha knew all worlds in all aspects. He thought of beings with compassion and wisdom, considering: whom of the beings that are capable of being guided (veneyya satta) can I help today? And for us, when developing right understanding, should we not know concepts so that we know the difference between concepts and realities? And think of the Vis. XIV, 14, all the levels of wisdom. Even can be the objects. There are many levels of panna, and panna of satipatthana understands paramattha dhammas. Though not yet known, they are knowable, that is, if panna is developed at this moment. The eye is knowable, it is dhamma, it is real. Visible object is knowable, it is real, it is dhamma. It depends on the degree of panna which dhammas are actually known and understood as they are: impermanent, dukkha and anatta. Nina. 28057 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:15am Subject: Tiika Vis 54 Tiika Vis 54 Relevant Vis. passage: Vis. 54. 6. As regards visible data, etc., which come next, a visible datum has the characteristic of impinging on the eye. Its function is to be the objective field of eye-consciousness. It is manifested as the resort of that too. Its proximate cause is the four great primaries. And all the [following] kinds of derived materiality are the same as this. Where there is a difference we shall mention it. This [visible datum] is of various kinds as 'blue, yellow' (Dhs.617) and so on. Vis 54. tato paresu pana ruupaadiisu cakkhupa.tihananalakkha.na.m ruupa.m, cakkhuvi~n~naa.nassa visayabhaavarasa.m, tasseva gocarapaccupa.t.thaana.m, catumahaabhuutapada.t.thaana.m. yathaa ceta.m tathaa sabbaanipi upaadaaruupaani. yattha pana viseso atthi, tattha vakkhaama. tayida.m niila.m piitakantiaadivasena anekavidha.m. Tiika 54. words: pa.tihanati: to strike abhighaata (m): impact visaya: object gocara: objective field a~n~natthabhaavo: elsewhere caareti (caarita): to pasture, feed, to feast. aavi: clear yattha: where aadike: to begin with. Text: Cakkhumhi, cakkhussa vaa pa.tihanana.m cakkhupa.tihanana.m, The impingement on the eye or of the eye is eye-impingement, ta.m lakkha.na.m etassaati cakkhupa.tihananalakkha.na.m. this is its characteristic [of visible object] thus, the characteristic of impingement on the eye. Pa.tihanana~ncettha yathaavutto abhighaatova. And here the impinging is, as said, just the impact. Visayabhaavo aaramma.napaccayataa. (Its function is) being the objective field, it is object-condition *. Kaama.m saa eva gocarataa, tathaapi visayagocaraana.m aya.m viseso ana~n~natthabhaavo, Sense-object is just the objective field, and therein the diversity of visible data is not to be found elsewhere, tabbahulacaaritaa ca cakkhuvi~n~naa.nassa. and it is an object of abundant relish for seeing-consciousness **. Visayabhaave cassa ya.m vattabba.m, ta.m parato aavi bhavissati. And what should be said of its being the objective field will become clear elsewhere. Yattha pana kaayavi~n~natti-aadike. Just as in the case of body-intimation to begin with ***. ******** English: The impingement on the eye or of the eye is eye-impingement, this is its characteristic [of visible object], thus, the characteristic of impingement on the eye. And here the impinging is, as said, just the impact. (Its function is) being the objective field, it is object-condition *. Sense-object is just the objective field, and therein the diversity of visible data is not to be found elsewhere, and it is an object of abundant relish for seeing-consciousness **. And what should be said of its being the objective field will become clear elsewhere. Just as in the case of body-intimation to begin with ***. ___________ * Visible object is object-condition for seeing and for the other cittas in the eye-door process. Object-condition is an indispensable condition for the arising of cittas. Each citta must experience an object. ** Visible object is a sense object and it is in particular a condition for abundant enjoyment. As we read before: ³It relishes (cakkhati), thus it is an eye (cakkhu)². This reminds us that we are greatly attached to visible object and that we go on thinking with attachment on account of what is seen, without end. *** The Vis. text states that the following kinds of derived materiality (after visible object) are similar, but that it shall be mentioned where there is a difference. Body-intimation to begin with is different, it displays intention and this will become clearer later on. ********* Nina. 28058 From: nordwest Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:16am Subject: The worst Shame Why is it , that after countless lifetimes of practicing Buddhism, they have succeeded in becoming Bodhisattvas or Buddhas, whereas, we are still mired in reincarnation? This is the worst shame, unmatched by any other. .... The difference between enlightened beings and sentient beings is that enlightened beings think of all sentient beings instead of themselves, while sentient beings who are ordinary people only think of themselves. from the book: "Changing Destiny" by Ven. Master Chin Kung -------------- We should all feel deep humility thinking about this, that the only reasom why we are hereri sbecause of our egoistic thinking. And then let us use this humility to transform it into wisdom. Gassho, Thomas 28059 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 0:48pm Subject: Samadhi Hello all, I have a question to my estimated friends. It is in relation to samadhi, more specifically if anyone knows if there are any texts in the Theravada tradition that deal in detail with the development of concentration, more specifically from the stage of preliminary concentration (parikammasamadhi) to access concentration (upacarasamadhi). I know the contents of the Visudhimagga on this, and also came across a number of suttas that talk about concentration, and also read the Wheel book written by Bhante G on Jhanas, but never saw a detailed instruction on how to proceed from preliminary concentration to access concentration. My interest became even greater when I recently came across a book written by a Tibetan Lama which describes, based on commentaries written by Asanga and Maitreya, the steps necessary to achieve calm abiding, which I assume is similar to access concentration. I am somewhat surprised not to have yet found something similar in the Pali Canon. Does anyone have any information about this? I really appreciate any input anyone may have. Metta 28060 From: Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:35pm Subject: Re: Question on ego and self .. „« Hi Sarah, > > Here is another quick response! ;-) .... Likewise! ;-) .... James: Hmm¡Kwe seem to be on a race here! ;-) Pretty soon we will outpace those cittas! ;-). „« „« Okay, what you are suggesting > Sarah is impossible. Let's do a little experiment: I will count to > five and when I am done I would like for you to have discarded your > anger, cast off your conceit, and transcend all the fetters. Okay, > so get ready: One¡KTwo¡KThree¡K.Four¡K..Five! So, how did it go? .... I had a great laugh and Jon asked from another room what was going on;-) .... „« James: This really pleases me. It was meant as a silly demonstration and I am glad that you saw that. I don¡¦t know about anyone else but I do enjoy this banter that you and I seem to get into every once in a while. ;-) „« Are > you enlightened yet? No? Why not? ..... Anatta. No self. No control. ..... „« James: Sarah, this is where you and I differ greatly. Now, I am not stating that you are wrong and that I am right, because I know that neither one of us truly comprehends anatta (non self): But I feel that you too often take an extremist view on this subject. I believe that it is important when looking at anything, be it the Buddha¡¦s teaching or just regular life in Samsara, to maintain the ¡¥Middle Path¡¦ in attitude. Even though there is no self that doesn¡¦t mean that there is no control; conversely, there isn¡¦t absolute control either. I believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. If you will accept this possibility, maybe you will see the role of meditation in the Buddha- dharma: not an absolute control over insight but a way to create the conditions for it to arise. And still, there are no guarantees. „« „« >The instructions were simple > enough and you know what you need to do, just do it! The reason you > can't do it is because your mind isn't developed enough to do it; > otherwise you would have already done it. The only way to make your > mind developed enough to do it is to practice Buddhist meditation. .... Er......for wisdom to develop, I think. Pa.tipada or path of practice as it mentioned in the sutta. No one to do anything. .... „« James: See above comment. „« > You don't agree with my definition of meditation which is "bringing > the mind repeatedly to one subject or object" and you would like to > know where I got that definition. Huh? That is the definition for > concentration. Concentration is defined as "1 a : the act or process > of concentrating : the state of being concentrated; especially : > direction of attention to a single object ". ..... Concentration which arises at every instant with every moment of consciousness (even when wildly distracted) and which can be right and wrong, just like wise and unwise attention can be. Concentration is not the same as the development of calm and insight. .... „« James: Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about. Concentration isn¡¦t a natural feature of consciousness moments; concentration is a way to describe successive consciousness moments. Yes, each citta will have but one object but that doesn¡¦t mean that it is concentrated, that is just its nature. Single raindrops are not a river but if enough of them come together, they will form a river¡Kand an ocean. That is concentration. It is with the power of this concentration that the world can be investigated, the ¡¥self¡¦ can be investigated, and the truth can be known. (Sorry¡KI am starting to sound like some kind of Buddhist motivational speaker! LOL! ;-) I don¡¦t have the ¡¥rational presentation¡¦ ability that Howard has ;-). „« „« >And you know the Buddha > taught Right Concentration. Right Concentration cannot be practiced > while reading (or writing) a post. .... Did the Buddha say there were any occasions when there couldn¡¦t be the development of satipatthana (inc. rt concentration)? In the Satipatthana Sutta it talks about while walking, getting dressed, eating, going to the bathroom and so on. .... „« James: Okay, this is going to be another big area where we disagree. I know that the Buddha spoke often about how things ¡¥ought¡¦ to be, but that doesn¡¦t mean that things are always that way or can always be that way. To understand the Buddha¡¦s speech it is important to see his point of view and to understand the time period and audience to which he was speaking. The Buddha didn¡¦t give any kind of ¡¥pep talks¡¦ whatsoever. He simply said ¡§This is the way things should be¡¨ and there were no ifs ands or buts about it. From the Buddha¡¦s perspective what he said was the ways things were for him, he was describing what was natural for him; but that doesn¡¦t mean that it is supposed to be natural for the average worldling or can be natural for the average worldling. The Buddha didn¡¦t give pep talks and try to state that he ¡¥understood¡¦ where the average person was coming from probably because that wasn¡¦t accepted in his culture. He was seen as a leader and he had to speak as a leader: This is the way things should be! End of story. I believe that you have misinterpreted this kind of speech to mean that insight can be developed in everyday life with no outside effort whatsoever. I really don¡¦t think it is that easy, but I wish it was. Read the suttas from Ven. Ananda and Ven. Sariputta (with this perspective) and you will see a very different and more empathic presentation of the dhamma, because it was socially acceptable for them to present it as such. „« „« >You yourself have > admitted, "That's fine, no suggestion of being out of context. I was > getting side-tracked and thinking about another thread too." You > see, you didn't have proper concentration while you were writing that > post. Right concentration cannot be developed during everyday > activities to the extent that the Buddha intended. .... I protest! If it was wise reflection on the Dhamma (whatever the thread) then at the ¡¥wise¡¦ moments there were rt concentration, calm and understanding, even if not any satipatthana. .... „« James: Gosh Sarah, it is nothing personal. I really respect and admire you and your dedication to the dhamma or I wouldn¡¦t spend my time writing posts to you (I could be out looking at those pyramids or something! LOL!). I really don¡¦t understand how you determine ¡¥wise¡¦ and ¡¥unwise¡¦ moments of fleeting concentration; maybe this is some kind of Abhidhamma thing? I am not able to determine such things. Of course I could slap superficial labels on my various mind moments and call some of them ¡¥wise¡¦ and then others ¡¥unwise¡¦, but I choose not to do that. Enlightenment can come from some of the most unexpected moments: Ven. Ananda became enlightened in midair when he was about to lie down to rest. You just never know. Set up the right conditions and amazing things can happen. (Sorry¡Kmotivation speaker again ;-). „« > If you don't agree, okay. .... okay. ¡§Wisdom is the precious gem of humans¡¨ (SN1,Devatasamyutta, 52(2)) Metta, Sarah p.s I have a little experiment for you, James, and no need to count. Just consider whether there can be any useful reflection of the Dhamma whilst reading this post (whether or not you agree) or any metta or consideration of mental states or physical phenomena. If the answer is yes, it¡¦s an indication of moments of rt concentration, calm and a level of understanding, however briefly. Whilst you¡¦re teaching in school, having an argument, eating a snack or whatever (trying to work out the time in Egypt - another sidetrack;-)), see whether there is any understanding of any kind. SN1, Devatasamyutta,10 (10) [The Blessed One] ¡§They do not sorrow over the past, Nor do they hanker for the future. They maintain themselves with what is present; Hence their complexion is so serene. ¡§Through hankering for the future, Through sorrowing over the past, Fools dry up and wither away Like a green reed cut down¡¨ ===== James: Wow, I seemed to have really piqued your interest in the Devatasamyutta of SN; I am pleased about that. I just recently discovered it myself and I am glad you share my enthusiasm. I will try your experiment and report back when I feel the time is right. At this point I am not overly impressed by any individual moments of ¡¥right understanding¡¦ I might have, they are like individual raindrops to me; I am looking for the grand stream. Metta, James 28061 From: Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concept & characteristic Hi, Nina - Please forgive the "sadhu post," but ... sadhu, sadhu, sadhu! Amazing as you may find it, I like what you have to say in the following VERY much! (So, something seriously "bad" must be happening to at least one of us! ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/17/2003 1:15:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > Concept and reality can be the objects of both panna and of a deluded mind. > But only panna discerns what is a reality and what is a concept. > 1: From the time we wake up there is experience of dhammas with a deluded > mind. We touch what is hard, but we do not realize it. We think about bed, > table, spoon, on account of rupas that are experienced through bodysense. > The hardness that is touched seems to stay, but in reality it falls away and > is replaced by another hardness. The previous hardness has gone forever. The > new one is similar, but it cannot be the same. > Howard wrote to Michael: > > > perfection of wisdom suttas of early Mahayana, and the work of Nagarjuna, > > were > > responses not to Theravada, but to the Sarvastivada and Sautrantika schools > > which were seriously infected by substantialism-eternalism and > > annihilationism.. > > > > Michael: > > I think you are right but the point is that those ideas also found their way > > > > into the Theravada commentaries. > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, to some extent they apparently did. Kalupahana makes that point > as well. They found there way into Mahayana as well, BTW!> > > N: substantialism-eternalism found their way into each one of us. Actually, > the real cause is the latent tendency of wrong view that adheres. > Personality belief, sakkayaditthi, is the condition for all other kinds of > wrong view. Hardness seems to stay on. We may repeat the Tipitaka and > Buddhaghosa: it has no essence, it has no core, but, we still have > conditions for wrong view so long as it is not eradicated. > Taking 2 and 3: Panna knows realities and concepts. Jhanacitta is > accompanied by panna and it knows meditation subjects such as infinite space > which is a concept. The Buddha knew all worlds in all aspects. He thought of > beings with compassion and wisdom, considering: whom of the beings that are > capable of being guided (veneyya satta) can I help today? > And for us, when developing right understanding, should we not know concepts > so that we know the difference between concepts and realities? And think of > the Vis. XIV, 14, all the levels of wisdom. Even science> can be the objects. > There are many levels of panna, and panna of satipatthana understands > paramattha dhammas. > Though not yet known, they are knowable, that is, if panna is developed at > this moment. > The eye is knowable, it is dhamma, it is real. Visible object is knowable, > it is real, it is dhamma. It depends on the degree of panna which dhammas > are actually known and understood as they are: impermanent, > dukkha and > anatta. > Nina. 28062 From: Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Tiika Vis 54 "As we read before: ³It relishes (cakkhati), thus it is an eye (cakkhu)². This reminds us that we are greatly attached to visible object and that we go on thinking with attachment on account of what is seen, without end." Hi Nina, I wonder how one would characterize an arahant's eye. Also, why isn't there an explanation of tangible data? Is acid indigestion a feeling (vedana) or a rupa? What about a fever? What about sensations associated with pregnancy? Larry 28063 From: Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Tiika Vis 54 Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/17/2003 1:15:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > English: > The impingement on the eye or of the eye is eye-impingement, > this is its characteristic [of visible object], thus, the characteristic of > impingement on the eye. -------------------------------- Howard: So, impingement on the eye (i.e., eye contact/sight)is the characteristic of visible object. -------------------------------- > And here the impinging is, as said, just the impact. > (Its function is) being the objective field, it is object-condition *. -------------------------------- Howard: So, visible object has the function of being the objective field - it is object condition. -------------------------------- > Sense-object is just the objective field, and therein the > diversity of > visible data is not to be found elsewhere,... -------------------------------- Howard: So, sense-object is only the objective field, nothing else. This, and the foregoing material seems to me to say that visible object is nothing but object of consciousness, which, of course, is my position. I await correction! ;-)) What does "therein the diversity of visible data is not to be found elsewhere" mean? Can you clarify this, Nina? =============================== With metta, Howard 28064 From: Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concept & characteristic Hi Jon & Nina, I agree reality can be an object of a deluded consciousness (i.e. any unwholesome consciousness) but I wonder what is delusion if not conceptuality? This isn't to say concept can't be reasonably correct, e.g. the three general characteristics (impermanence, suffering, anatta). However, wisdom's (panna) special feature is its ability to know individual characteristics. Larry 28065 From: Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi Hi Michael, PTS has a translation called "Manual of a Mystic" or "The Yogavachara's Manual". The original text is undated. It is interesting from a sociological point of view, showing what sort of enthusiasms prevailed, but I found it to be useless as practical instruction. I think your best bet is to try to sort out Visuddhimagga and Vimuttimagga. There is also this short essay: http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebmed058.htm I found it to be a little over zealous but it turned my head in a useful direction. Larry ---------------------- Michael: "Hello all, I have a question to my estimated friends. It is in relation to samadhi, more specifically if anyone knows if there are any texts in the Theravada tradition that deal in detail with the development of concentration..." 28066 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 7:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unexperienced rupas Hi Howard > I take no exception to what you said here. Whatever > conventional object is observable by any means (even not yet invented) is observable, and what is not is not. > Ultimately, there is only one general category of "things" > that are observable, namely the category of objects of consciousness. Experienced hardness is observed, and no other .. ever. Sights are observable. When they occur, they occur as objects of consciousness. Prior to that, there is only the greater or lesser potential for them. An unseen sight is never observed - it is > unobservable, it doesn't exist. Where is an unseen sight? And how > do we observe it? Answer: We don't observe it .. ever. k: In my earlier email, I put the preposition that what is unobservable now does not mean it does not exist. Just like not many pple can observe spirits, so are they not in existence. This is a ver y foundamental question. Each individual has their own observable range, so the statement what is not observable does not hold ground. Furthermore, we dont observe it now, does not mean we will not observe it in countless lives later. Just like infa red is an unseen light, that does not mean it does not exist, our sight does not have the right vipaka to see it. Certain animals can detect their prey by electro-magnetic field (I think is shark) or heat wave (snake) which is not observable by us. So can we said what is detected by animal consciouness does not exist just bc it is not observable by ours now. It is observable now bc we used instruments, but still not observable without them. kind regards Ken O 28067 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 7:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi Hello Larry, This was most useful. I forgot about the Vimuttimagga, I have a copy of it but didn't think of it. In fact the essay also opened my eyes to the value of the Vimuttimagga. I don't know why but I had in mind that the Vimuttimagga was a kind of 'little brother' of the Visudhimagga, if you know what I mean. In any case the essay quotes the Vimuttimagga as well. I liked the essay very much. For a long time doing breath meditation I thought my progress was being thwarted by not seeing a visual sign, this essay definetely comes closer to my experience. Tks a lot. Metta Michael PS: I don't want to reopen the discussion on the quality of the work done by Buddhaghosa but the essay certainly points to some possible gaffes on his part. >From: LBIDD@w... >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:17:49 -0700 (MST) > >Hi Michael, > >PTS has a translation called "Manual of a Mystic" or "The Yogavachara's >Manual". The original text is undated. It is interesting from a >sociological point of view, showing what sort of enthusiasms prevailed, >but I found it to be useless as practical instruction. > >I think your best bet is to try to sort out Visuddhimagga and >Vimuttimagga. > >There is also this short essay: >http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebmed058.htm I found it to be a >little over zealous but it turned my head in a useful direction. > >Larry >---------------------- >Michael: "Hello all, >I have a question to my estimated friends. It is in relation to samadhi, >more specifically if anyone knows if there are any texts in the >Theravada tradition that deal in detail with the development of >concentration..." 28068 From: Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 3:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unexperienced rupas Hi, Ken - You are not getting me. There is a difference between what is not observed and what is not observable. Infra-red light is observable, by some creatures anytime, and by humans with the right equipment. Whatever *may* be observed by some mindstream under some conditions I call "observable". By 'unobservable' I mean not observable by any sentient being under any circumstances. If we use these terms in this way, do we still disagree? With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/17/03 10:46:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > > I take no exception to what you said here. Whatever > >conventional object is observable by any means (even not yet > invented) is observable, and what is not is not. > > Ultimately, there is only one general category of "things" > >that are observable, namely the category of objects of > consciousness. Experienced hardness is observed, and no other .. > ever. Sights are observable. When they occur, they occur as objects > of consciousness. Prior to that, there is only the greater or lesser > potential for them. An unseen sight is never observed - it is > >unobservable, it doesn't exist. Where is an unseen sight? And how > >do we observe it? Answer: We don't observe it .. ever. > > k: In my earlier email, I put the preposition that what is > unobservable now does not mean it does not exist. Just like not many > pple can observe spirits, so are they not in existence. This is a > ver y foundamental question. Each individual has their own > observable range, so the statement what is not observable does not > hold ground. Furthermore, we dont observe it now, does not mean we > will not observe it in countless lives later. Just like infa red is > an unseen light, that does not mean it does not exist, our sight does > not have the right vipaka to see it. Certain animals can detect > their prey by electro-magnetic field (I think is shark) or heat wave > (snake) which is not observable by us. So can we said what is > detected by animal consciouness does not exist just bc it is not > observable by ours now. It is observable now bc we used instruments, > but still not observable without them. > > > > kind regards > Ken O > > /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) 28069 From: Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:40pm Subject: Re: Grasping at mind states Hi Sulin and everyone, It is good to be writing to you :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sukinder@k... wrote: > Hi Herman and all, > > Herman, long time no write. :-) > > > This reminds me of a comment in another post in which you rejected > the classification of nama and rupa but insisted that "There is > experience". I wonder if the above observation is a result of > insight or is it a conclusion made from previous conclusion on and > on, and which is probably no different from anyone's observation be > they Buddhists or not? It is so easy to infer `experience', but *do > you know it*? > The nama and rupa classification which you reject is part of a > Teaching which show that knowing the "knowing element" (nama) as > distinct from "the known element" (rupa) can only be at a very high > stage of development. You and I will have to just accept > the "theory" that this is so, No such luck, Sukin, I do not have to accept anything. Faith does not develop from faith, faith develops from understanding. And understanding comes from testing the theory, not accepting it blindly. The faith that develops from the desire for faith is better left in the garbage. and no matter what we would like to > think and how strongly we feel `confidence' that something is the > case, "doubt" will forever rule. So is there `experience' as in > direct knowing, or is there only `inferring' that it is so? ;-) And > if this is the case, with just nama and rupa, how much more so > should we be careful about our experience of anicca, dukkha and > anatta?! > When the author of the above mentioned article makes the final > conclusion, > ""Not I (an abiding individuality) breathe, but breathing occurs; > not I go, but going occurs; > not I stand, but standing occurs; > not I sit, but sitting occurs; > not I lie down, but lying down occurs; > not I look, but looking occurs; > not I bend, but bending occurs;….."" > > Do you see that he is just replacing one kind of concept with > another, here the `I' is replaced > by `breathing', `going', `standing' etc. and both of these are > equally unreal? There is no reality such as `sitting', `lying down' > etc. Seeing this does not lead to understanding of `not-self', > though perhaps `not-I', but this is not what is meant by `anatta'. > In fact it increases `atta sanna' and not does lead > to `selflessness' as the author claims. > There is more danger in a wordling reading a compendium of the Abhidhamma, then there is in a wordling sitting on his bum. The Abhidhamma comes after enlightenment. Sitting on your bum comes before (Buddha's example, not mine) > > You then asked: > > I seriously wonder to what extent that particular understanding of > > the teachings that militates against directed activity is intended > > to keep samsara an attractive proposition. > > > > Isn't it a self-concept that lies at the source of the studious > > avoidance of anything that could be interpreted as originating > from > > a self-concept? > > It can no doubt be so, but I would like to think that it is usually > not the case. I know Sarah for example; her panna is so sharp that > she detects the `self' talking long before I can do so, if ever. In > my case it is not so much speaking from a `position', but > rather `recognizing' the fact. If the penny is going to drop, there is only one requirement, and that is a willingness for it to happen. The willingness underscores an understanding that the understanding doesn't come from anything controllable. Willingness and non-participation go hand in hand. The mind is occupied with what you feed it. If you feed the mind with theory, that is what you will be regurgitating. If you don't feed your mind, you are allowing the penny to start it's downward journey. No contribution required, except for willingness. > > Herman, I believe "views" are behind all our choices, and given that > we have accumulated so much `wrong view' from don't know when, I > think it is wise to carefully consider what the Buddha taught and > not too quickly jump to conclusions. The `conceptual construct' > which you have tried to warn everyone against, is *not* necessarily > a hindrance, but rather one that is meant to replace our own > underlying views that which we are often not aware of. And this is > one good reason why I think we are all doing the right thing, > engaging in discussions. It is the only way to straighten out one's > views. > > > Peace, love and joy > > Hesitatingly I ask Herman, what do you mean by these three words…..? > I ask because you talk against `conceptual frameworks' yet you use > these so easily. They are words to describe mental states that I would wish to all and sundry if wishing had any efficacy:-) > > > Herman > > Metta, > Sukin. All the best to you, Sukin Herman 28070 From: Egberdina Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:11pm Subject: [dsg] Re: ditthi, vicikiccha, silabbataparamasa Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Herman > > > Come on, Herman. Talk about an experiment tailored to give the > desired outcome ;-)). > > <<< > Take an object, any object. Let any thoughts about the object go. > Then become angry about the object. Were you able to feel angry at > will? Let the anger go. Now feel happy about the object. Were you > able to feel happy at will? Try applying different mindstates. Does > it work? > >>> > > Firstly, is it really anger (or feeling happy), or is it an > approximation of how you feel when angry? > Jon, I think you are talking about doubt here, not anger or happiness. > Secondly, did it happen at will, or did it take some willing (if you > see what I mean)? Here you are talking about intention. The intention to be happy can arise after the awareness arises that happiness is a possibility. > > Finally, and more importantly, couldn't the ease with which dosa or > happy feeling is aroused be accounted for by the fact that we have so > much accumulated dosa and attachment that these are ready to bubble > forth at the slightest opportunity, almost *as if* their arising was > subject to our control. I am open to any ideas that aren't closed. How would one go about testing the hypothesis? > > A better experiment would surely be: how often in a day do anger and > attachment arise; when they are arising, can they be made to *not* > arise with the same ease as you suggest they can be aroused? > Yes, agreed, a very worthwhile experiment. Could it be that anger and attachment arise as frequently as they do and to the extent that they do, without seeming intention for them to arise, because there is no awareness of what is being intended? > <<< > Clearly, feelings are not linked to objects. Feelings are linked to > intention. > >>> > > Hmm, weren't you suggesting in an earlier post that keeping the eyes > shut would be one way of preventing clinging to visible-object > arising (clinging being one of the main sources of 'happy feeling' in > our lives)? This seems to suggest that feeling is very closely > linked to the experiencing of objects (among other things, of > course), wouldn't you say? Feelings are very closely linked to the determination of what objects are, as in, what they mean. I fully accept that initial feelings, brought about by initial determinations, are just the results of what one has learned. (attribution of meaning) That this is not a deterministic process is demonstrayed by the ability to change one's mind about what objects mean (until your hypothesis becomes accepted theory that is :-) This relearning process will change the initial feelings that arise on seeing similar objects. A non-controversial peace, love and joy to you Herman > > Jon > > PS > <<< > If you find that you can intend, while a book is telling you that you > can't, perhaps you should intend to put the book down :-) > >>> > > I have never read a book that suggests I can't intend. That would be > a pretty odd assertion What book do you have in mind here? > I'm glad you agree that it is a very strange assertion. I have never read such a book, but others seem to have. 28071 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 0:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Links to questions about nibbana Hi Herman, James, Ken O & All, (James & Ken O- you were recently discussing atoms and James referred to the Abhidhamma’s ‘atomistic view of dhammas’, so I’ve added a note at the end that may be of interest. ***** Vism XV1,67f DISCUSSION ON NIBBANA cont. . “[Q.9] Then it follows that nibbana, too, has the kind of permanence [claimed] of the atom and so on.* [A] That is not so. Because of the absence of any cause [that brings about its arising]. [Q.10] Because nibbana has permanence, then, these [that is, the atom, etc] are permanent as well. [A] That is not so. Because [in the proposition] the characteristic of [logical] cause does not arise. [In other words, to say that nibbana is permanent is not to assert a reason why the atom, etc, should be permanent.] [Q.11] Then they are permanent because of the absence of their arising, as nibbana is. [A] That is not so. Because the atom and so have not been established as facts. The aforesaid logical reasoning proves that only this [that is, nibbana] is permanent [precisely because it is uncreated]; and it is immaterial because it transcends the individual essence of matter. The Buddha’s goal is one and has no plurality.” ***** * atom (a.nu) or (parama.nu), the smallest atom. 36 paramaa.nus are the size of one a.nu. VbhA 343 “Herein....a parama.nu (‘fundamental particle’) as a portion of space does not come into the focus of the physical eye, it only comes into that of the divine eye.” “An a.nu (‘atom’) appears circling round and round in the sun’s rays coming in through cracks in walls and palmyra leaves.” It continues to give various measurements up to yojana (‘league’). “The bhikkhu who is able to see the size of an a.nu to be as big as Mount Sineru, king of mountains, being sixy-eight thousand yojanas high, is called one who sees the slightest faults as fear.” ***** Comments welcome! Metta, Sarah ====== 28072 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 0:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unexperienced rupas Hi Howard My preposition is timeline. What is not observed in the past has now been observable as according to my previous mail examples. Hence what is not being observed by our consciouness now does not upright mean that it is not possible to be observable in the timeless future in our countless lives. Thus I feel the rupas now unobservable by us do not mean it does not exist. Lets be open minded, if commentators say they exist, so there is a possibility they exists. kind regards Ken O 28073 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Medicine Dear Htoo, I appreciate your reminders about taking the bitter medicine very much. --- Htoo Naing wrote: > Why this has been happening is evident that people are fond of sweet. > They do not like bitter taste. > > But when they realize that they have a disease ( suffering ), they will > take that bitter medicine in order to recover from the disease. > > Unfortunately, when they cannot realize that they have a disease, they > will not search for treatment. So, they will not take that awful bitter > tasted medicine. .... May we all take the bitter medicine. On your other series, ‘How to Get Through The Samsara’, I appreciate your sharing with us. Like you say, ‘Mahasatipatthana is a wide subject’. We went throught the commentaries here in great detail and it would have been helpful to have had your contributions and Abhdidhamma input too. There are some points I’d like to discuss with you further from your post. I’ll just mention one or two for now and wait for any response before adding any others. From the commentaries to the Satipatthana Sutta we read that bhavana or meditation is the development of pa~n~naa and sati - the understanding of namas and rupas under the 4 satipatthanas. We also read that sati sampaja~n~na (clear comprehension) is desirable at all times, even in every ‘sluggish and unbalanced state of mind’, as opposed to set times of day. You mention recognizing and knowing ‘every movement’ and clear understanding of ‘bodily movements’ and so on, but these of course are mere conceptual terms and cannot be the objects of awareness as of course you know. As one friend, KenH wrote here recently: >.....When the Buddha spoke of 'mindfulness while walking,' he did not mean the kind of mindfulness we share with lesser beings: When dogs and jackals walk, they know they are walking; Also, a baby at the breast knows pleasant feeling. We should not slander the Buddha by suggesting that these commonplace forms of mindfulness [of body and feeling] are the same as his unique, profound teaching: satipatthana.< I’d be interested to know whether you agree with these comments that were written on another thread. Thank you for your last clarification (on an Abhidhamma point) to me as well. Metta, Sarah ====== 28074 From: Egberdina Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 0:55am Subject: Re: Sounds - heard and unheard Hi Sarah, Howard and everyone, I think that to a certain extent this discussion is possible, as well as the discussion on unexperienced rupas, because of differences in definitions. There are three possibilities that I can see. Is there sensation when the cause for sensation is there, but no sensing apparatus ie consciousness? Is there sensation when the cause for sensation is there, and consciousness? Is there sensation when the cause for sensation is there, and consciousness as well as consciousness of consciousness? For me it is clear that there is sensation without the awareness of sensation, giving my reactivity to things flying into my eyes whilst occupied with refuting a heretic on the Net, or thunderclaps in the middle of the night. There are no correct definitions, and when everyone agrees to a common definition there are no discussions. I say Vive la difference!!! Cheers, big ears Herman 28075 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question on ego and self .. Hi James, I’m enjoying the pleasant banter too;-) --- buddhatrue@y... wrote: > James: Hmm we seem to be on a race here! ;-) Pretty soon we will > outpace those cittas! ;-). ... S:That will take some racing and outpacing! ;-) .... S:> Anatta. No self. No control. > ..... > James: Sarah, this is where you and I differ greatly. Now, I > am not stating that you are wrong and that I am right, because I know > that neither one of us truly comprehends anatta (non self): But I > feel that you too often take an extremist view on this subject. I > believe that it is important when looking at anything, be it the > Buddha’s teaching or just regular life in Samsara, ..... S: And what is ‘regular life in Samsara’ if it is not this very moment of seeing, experiencing hardness or thinking about what’s just been seen or heard? No suffering if no clinging to present name-and-form (namas and rupas). Failing to appreciate this, we’ll continue to be ‘the withered up fools’ as I see it. .... James: > to maintain > the ‘Middle Path’ in attitude. Even though there is no self that > doesn’t mean that there is no control; conversely, there isn’t > absolute control either. I believe that the truth is somewhere in > the middle of those two extremes. <...> .... The Middle Path - the development of satipatthana at this very moment. Devatasamyutta, 111 A Sword 21 (1): [The Blessed One:] “As if smitten by a sword, As if his head were on fire, A bhikkhu should wander mindfully To abandon Identity view.” It may sound extreme, but the middle path is the understanding and mindfulness of present dhammas - on fire with ignorance, attachment and wrong view of self. However, I appreciate the reminders about attitude, thank you;-) .... > James: Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about. > Concentration isn’t a natural feature of consciousness moments; > concentration is a way to describe successive consciousness moments. > Yes, each citta will have but one object but that doesn¡|t mean that > it is concentrated, that is just its nature. .... S: Even when we are speaking harshly or enjoying an ice-cream, for example, there are repeated moments of concentration on the object along with unpleasant or pleasant feelings, attention to detail and so on. So we see that concentration does not only arise with ‘good’ cittas. .... James: >Single raindrops are > not a river but if enough of them come together, they will form a > river and an ocean. That is concentration. It is with the power of > this concentration that the world can be investigated, the ‘self’ can > be investigated, and the truth can be known. .... S: How will it be known whether this kind of concentration is good or bad? Is it always ‘good’ when you meditate? How about now? I mean there are rivers and rivers;-) .... James:(Sorry I am starting to > sound like some kind of Buddhist motivational speaker! LOL! ;-) I > don¡|t have the ‘rational presentation’ ability that Howard has ;-). .... S: LOL too! Maybe we need to read more books on phenomenology;-) .... <..> James: >I believe that you > have misinterpreted this kind of speech to mean that insight can be > developed in everyday life with no outside effort whatsoever. I > really don¡|t think it is that easy, but I wish it was. .... S:Not easy - bitter medicine repeatedly as the subject heading suggests;-) .... > James: Gosh Sarah, it is nothing personal. I really respect > and admire you and your dedication to the dhamma or I wouldn’t spend > my time writing posts to you (I could be out looking at those > pyramids or something! LOL!). .... S:Thanks James - a great compliment - also to your keen interest in the dhamma;-) .... James: >I really don’t understand how you > determine ‘wise’ and ‘unwise’ moments of fleeting concentration; > maybe this is some kind of Abhidhamma thing? I am not able to > determine such things. Of course I could slap superficial labels on > my various mind moments and call some of them ‘wise’ and then > others ‘unwise’, but I choose not to do that. .... S: One drop at a time. Being honest about our great ignorance as you are is very important. It’s not a matter of slapping on labels or of even knowing ‘various mind moments’ but just beginning to understand a little about various dhammas or characteristics when they appear now: annoyance, frustration, distraction, sounds, thinking and so on. Realities which experience an object such as hearing and thinking are namas and realiies which are experienced such as visible objects and sounds are rupas. No self, no labels needed. .... James:>Enlightenment can come > from some of the most unexpected moments: Ven. Ananda became > enlightened in midair when he was about to lie down to rest. You > just never know. Set up the right conditions and amazing things can > happen. (Sorry¡Kmotivation speaker again ;-). ... S: So what are the right conditions for enlightenment? The good friend(s), Hearing dhamma, wise consideration etc. ... > James: Wow, I seemed to have really piqued your interest in the > Devatasamyutta of SN; I am pleased about that. I just recently > discovered it myself and I am glad you share my enthusiasm. I will > try your experiment and report back when I feel the time is right. .... S: I’ll look forward to that. Meanwhile, we could look at one chapter or section of SN together per week if you're interested. I think there are 56 chapters, so it'll only take just over a year;-) I'd appreciate the prompting, esp. if you start each one with a sutta extract and a few comments;-);-) .... > At this point I am not overly impressed by any individual moments > of ‘right understanding’ I might have, they are like individual > raindrops to me; I am looking for the grand stream. ... James, individual rain drops are how a grand stream begins and are very precious. If we’re greedy and always looking for the grand stream, we’re bound to be swept along by attachment and wrong view. One more sutta that is relevant to other threads on conventional and ultimate realities and the use of common language: Devatasamyutta, 25 (5) The Arahant “If a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, Would he still say, ‘I speak’? And would he say, ‘They speak to me’?” “If a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, He might still say, ‘I speak.’ And hemight say, ‘They speak to me.’ Skilful, knowing the world’s parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions.” [Note: Vohaaramattena so vohareyya. Spk: “Although arahants have abandoned talk that implies belief in a self,they do not violate conventional discourse by saying, ‘The aggregates eat,the aggregates sit, the aggregates’ bowl, the aggregates’ robe’; for no one would understand them.”} Metta and appreciation for all your useful and interesting comments. Sarah ===== 28076 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:04am Subject: Re: Grasping at mind states Hi Herman (and James) and all, > > stage of development. You and I will have to just accept > > the "theory" that this is so, > > No such luck, Sukin, I do not have to accept anything. Faith does > not develop from faith, faith develops from understanding. And > understanding comes from testing the theory, not accepting it > blindly. :-) Obviously I wasn't talking about blind faith. Besides my faith is not yours, meaning the foundation of my faith is not going to be the same as anyone else's. When I made the above remark I was aware that such statements can be made only to oneself. However it was also meant to be a general remark about how certain aspects of the teachings can at best make sense only intellectually at this stage of one's development. The testing out may or may not be via direct experience and may or may not be with regard to that very aspect of the teaching. For example one may experience to a fairly convincing degree, that craving leads to clinging, and then believe by the same token that the non-arising of ignorance leads to the non-arising of formations. So in the same way, accepting the fact of conditionality, particularly about how panna of satipatthana can have only namas or rupas as object, and how the experience of the Tilakkhana must necessarily involve first knowing nama as nama and rupa as rupa, it makes sense to me that I must except this fact without insisting on first direct experience. The alternative here, is to embrace a theory which would involve dismissing much of what *does* make sense through direct inference if not insight, this being the concept of Satipatthana itself. > The faith that develops from the desire for faith is better left in > the garbage. Better to "know" it. ;-) > > Do you see that he is just replacing one kind of concept with > > another, here the `I' is replaced > > by `breathing', `going', `standing' etc. and both of these are > > equally unreal? There is no reality such as `sitting', `lying > down' > > etc. Seeing this does not lead to understanding of `not-self', > > though perhaps `not-I', but this is not what is meant by `anatta'. > > In fact it increases `atta sanna' and not does lead > > to `selflessness' as the author claims. > > > > There is more danger in a wordling reading a compendium of the > Abhidhamma, then there is in a wordling sitting on his bum. The > Abhidhamma comes after enlightenment. Sitting on your bum comes > before (Buddha's example, not mine) I believe you would also want to stress `honesty', how one must not be carried away by `ideas' about reality, but instead know what one can really know, right? This `sitting on one's bum', how does this connect with faith as we are discussing above? Part of `reading a compendium' (which btw I never do), is the realization that one is *not* having anything more than just `intellectual understanding'. And knowing what one knows, one does understand `intellectually' what `sitting on one's bum' mean. One is sitting on one's bum all day, and it does not take any great insight to realize that `wanting' is what it is. How can upon closing one's eyes and realizing that `self' is taking the lead can one continue to pursue the activity if not by pretending that it is not what it is, or by appeal to faith which would appear to me quite blind!? James has compared reading Abhidhamma to reading other subjects such as physics and chemistry. I believe this is the obvious conclusion which even most of us have made at one time or the other. "The word is not the experience!!" True. But just as in chemistry, without the knowledge about chemical composition, it would be impossible to create new chemical compounds, without knowing conditionality (which means knowing cittas, cetasikas, rupas and their sabhava), it is impossible to know about "anatta". And knowing "about" all this (and this is the important point), is prerequisite of any direct experience. How? The ignorant and grasping mind is always interpreting and resting upon interpretations, but it does not know it. The teachings are meant to dislodge (on a moment to moment basis) this tendency, and at the same time to direct the attention to what is *really* taking place. And do we need anything more than this, given that the tendency to ignorance, along with attachment and aversion is so strong? Buddha sat, and he did a lot of other things in that last life and in the countless lives before that, I think we must not try to imitate anyone, let alone the Buddha. Outward conventional activity can be copied, but don't you think that it is all about the state of one's mind now at this very moment!? > If the penny is going to drop, there is only one requirement, and > that is a willingness for it to happen. The willingness underscores > an understanding that the understanding doesn't come from anything > controllable. Willingness and non-participation go hand in hand. Again I want to mention `honesty'. Often we talk about wanting to be without kilesas, but in reality we don't really mean it. Only one who *really* understands the danger of akusala can be said to really want to be rid of it, and this I accept, is much more than just intellectually seeing it to be so. So `willingness' is not controllable too ;-), however we start from where we are and the reliable tool we have is the intellectual understanding of the Buddha's teachings and always to be reminded about the difference between `thinking' and `direct understanding'. > The mind is occupied with what you feed it. If you feed the mind with > theory, that is what you will be regurgitating. If you don't feed > your mind, you are allowing the penny to start it's downward > journey. No contribution required, except for willingness. That is why a distinction is to be made between "theory" as in `accumulated knowledge' and `intellectual understanding'. The former may involve attachment and ignorance, the latter understanding and detachment, though even this can be object of greed and wrong view. However this latter `theory' is the foundation of the `practice' that is needed for final liberation. The penny does not role down as if it was all down hill, there will always be ups and downs, because we cannot expect anything more than a little understanding at a time followed by many, many moments of akusala. With the last statement, "No contribution required, except for willingness", I fully disagree. There are many factors each contributing all along this long and endless road, the leader of which is "Rt. View", and this starts with `Theory' ;-). > > > Peace, love and joy > > > > Hesitatingly I ask Herman, what do you mean by these three > words…..? > > I ask because you talk against `conceptual frameworks' yet you use > > these so easily. > > They are words to describe mental states that I would wish to all > and sundry if wishing had any efficacy:-) :-)Thanks, but wouldn't you prefer 'understanding'? Metta, Sukin. 28077 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 5:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Medicine Dear Sarah, You always encourage me regarding Dhamma discussion. You are a good organizer. I like DSG very much. Especially your section on ' useful posts '. It is like a road map. We can navigate through it. For example we can learn Dana ( offering ) with ease. So do in cases of Samadhi, Vinaya, Rupa and so on. '' How To Get Through The Samsara '' is intended to reveal Mahasatipatthana. As it is a wide subject, it needs patience. It may be bitter like medicine. So I posted in between '' Medicine ''. It is a method. A wide range of methods. I first described on breathing matter. Then moved to bodily positions. This contemplation on bodily position may sound depart from ultimate realities. But it is needed for building up a good concentration. Not all people are as good as that I wrote. If so, they all will attain Jhana and Magga easily. Concentration on breathing may be difficult for some. No one is concentrated on the breath all the time including our teacher The Buddha. We as beings have many thing to do. But as oppose to lesser animals and immature beings like young babies, mature meditators are conscious to all their movement including mind movement. When concentrate on breathing, it will be concentrated. But when they want to move into another body position, they have to recognize all mind movement and body movement. Object may be anything for mind. Among 89 states of consciousness, only one state of consciousness can perceive any kind of object including Pannatta ( concepts ) and Nibbana. It is Manodvara Avajjana Citta, contemplator at mind-sense-door. Sitting means nothing. It is Pannatta. Standing means nothing. It is Pannatta. Walking means nothing. It is just Pannatta. Lying means nothing. It is just Pannatta. Still, awareness to these 4 positions works to overcome running away from meditational object. No one can sit since born till death. Even though these are conceptual matter, real meditators know that these are concepts, those are realities and so on. For real practice which is not just thinking and reasoning, one has to be aware of all movement including mind. Even the word 'movement' contains concept. Like digital, there are only two signals. One is on and another is off. Mind is like digital. That is Citta is not permanent. One Citta arises ( it is on ), then immediately falls away ( it is off ). This is digital. On moment again lasts just a mind moment. This is subdivided into three. When on, it is called ' Thi ' Khana or persisting moment. Just before this is Upada or arising moment. Just after is Bangha Khana or falling away moment. All Cittas are digital. They are on and off. So do Cetasikas. But in case of Rupa except Kayavinatti( gesture ) and Vacivinatti( speech ) all Rupa have a lifespan of 17 times Citta ( 17 Cittakkhana ) or 51 Khanas. Rupa are also digital but their on-moment is a bit longer than Citta. But Pannatta is not a reality. Even though it is not a reality, it can still serve as object. Even though there are many digital signal, they all are collectively shape as form, figure, colour, sound and so on. The learned meditator well know that what is real and what is unreal. However, as a method, he has to know all moments and all movements. At the end of a section whether sitting or lying or standing which are still position, the meditator knows that a mind that wishes a change in position arises. He knows that. '..Want to stand..want to move..stretching legs ( Vayo Photthabba arise )..putting foot on the floor ( Tejo or Pathavi or Vayo Photthabba depending on what meditator perceives arises )..' I hope this is clear enough. If still in doubt further discussion will be needed. Thank you very much for your good will, encouragement and your talent in management of web site. I am looking forward to hearing from you regarding Mahasatipatthana. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: Dear Htoo, I appreciate your reminders about taking the bitter medicine very much. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- Htoo Naing wrote: >Why this has been happening is evident that people are fond of sweet. >May we all take the bitter medicine. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On your other series, `How to Get Through The Samsara', I appreciate your sharing with us. Like you say, `Mahasatipatthana is a wide subject'. We went throught the commentaries here in great detail and it would have been helpful to have had your contributions and Abhdidhamma input too. You mention recognizing and knowing `every movement' and clear understanding of `bodily movements' and so on, but these of course are mere conceptual terms and cannot be the objects of awareness as of course you know. As one friend, KenH wrote here recently: .....When the Buddha spoke of 'mindfulness while walking,' he did not mean the kind of mindfulness we share with lesser beings: When dogs and jackals walk, they know they are walking; Also, a baby at the breast knows pleasant feeling. We should not slander the Buddha by suggesting that these commonplace forms of mindfulness [of body and feeling] are the same as his unique, profound teaching: satipatthana. I'd be interested to know whether you agree with these comments that were written on another thread. Thank you for your last clarification (on an Abhidhamma point) to me as well. Metta, Sarah ====== 28078 From: Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:32am Subject: Bhavanga Cittas Hi, all - Quick question: Do bhavanga cittas occur anywhere in the Tipitaka? I have read that they do not, and that the bhavangasota is pretty much of "the same stripe" as the substantialist storehouse consciousness ("alayavijnana") of the Mahayanist Lankavatara Sutra, serving as a "continuity guarantor". Note: There *is* a key difference between the notion of bhavangasota and the Lankavatara Sutra's notion of alayavijnana, namely that the bhavangasota is an interrupted stream which "fills in the gaps," whereas the alayavijnana, like a good substantialist repository or storehouse consciousness is a *container* of seeds and is overlayed by phenomena, a *way* worse substantialist-eternalist notion. As an aside. Kalupahana says that the alayavijnana *of Vasubandhu*, on the other hand, is way more innocent (i.e., nonsubstantialist) than that of the Lankavatara Sutra, being pretty much the ordinary flow of skandhas to which there is clinging (or "mooring"). Now, bhavanga cittas may or may not be mentioned in the Tipitaka, and they may or may not actually occur, but as far as intellectually arguing in favor of them, I see no need for their existence. Conditionality, trans-temporal and simultaneous, can operate without "intervening carriers" (except as we are inclined to demand otherwise!), and, anyway, the notion of gaps between cittas is a Sautrantika invention that need not be accepted to begin with. 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) 28079 From: Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ditthi, vicikiccha, silabbataparamasa Hi, Herman (and Jon) - In a message dated 12/18/03 2:11:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Hi Jon, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > >Herman > > > > > >Come on, Herman. Talk about an experiment tailored to give the > >desired outcome ;-)). > > > ><<< > >Take an object, any object. Let any thoughts about the object go. > >Then become angry about the object. Were you able to feel angry at > >will? Let the anger go. Now feel happy about the object. Were you > >able to feel happy at will? Try applying different mindstates. Does > >it work? > >>>> > > > >Firstly, is it really anger (or feeling happy), or is it an > >approximation of how you feel when angry? > > > > Jon, I think you are talking about doubt here, not anger or > happiness. > > ============================= I think that actual anger can be generated, though usually way milder than what arises "naturally" without self-prompting. But if we were to apply the experiment to a seasoned actor, I suspect the results will be dramatic (pun intended!). An actor can create emotion at will (often by association with memories of events that generated those emotions in the past). The point is that by one means or another one who is practiced in this can cause specific emotions to arise. Volition can be effectively exercised. Why should one think otherwise? [There are always conditions, desire being foremost, that lead to the exercise of volition. But so what? Nothing arises unconditioned, including volition.] 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) 28080 From: Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unexperienced rupas Hi, Ken - In a message dated 12/18/03 3:24:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > My preposition is timeline. What is not observed in the past has now > been observable as according to my previous mail examples. Hence > what is not being observed by our consciouness now does not upright > mean that it is not possible to be observable in the timeless future > in our countless lives. Thus I feel the rupas now unobservable by > us do not mean it does not exist. Lets be open minded, if > commentators say they exist, so there is a possibility they exists. > > > kind regards > Ken O > ========================== Sorry, I don't buy it. Unfelt hardnesses and unseen sights are nonsense to me. I think that the view that such exist is a form of substantialism - they either exist inhering in unexperienced objects (tables etc) or they float free in the Land of Free-Floating Rupas. I don't buy the existence of inherent or free-floating hardnesses or sights. When a hardness or a sight arises it does so as an object of consciousness. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 28081 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tiika Vis 54 Hi Larry, op 18-12-2003 01:28 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I wonder how one would characterize an arahant's eye. N: There will be an end to the eye, since he has no more attachment. No more rebirth. There is the Dependant Origination in reverse for the arahat: When there is no more ignorance, no kamma that conditions the arising of nama and rupa at rebirth, there are no more the arising of the six bases, contact, feeling, etc. He has fully realized that birth is dukkha, that the eye is dukkha. Sometimes the Buddha taught the complete dependant Origination, sometimes he taught it in short. Kindred Sayings (IV, 37, Part I, §65, Samiddhi: the same about the other doorways. L: Also, why isn't there an explanation of tangible data? N: These are three of the four Great Elements: Earth, Fire, Wind. First the four great elements were dealt with, and after that the derived rupas. Visible object etc. are the derived rupas. L:Is acid > indigestion a feeling (vedana) or a rupa? N: Rupa conditions painful bodily feeling, and this again can (but not necessarily so) condition unhappy feeling, accompanying aversion. L:What about a fever? N: The four great elements are not balanced, too much heat. This is not a dogma, I just answer spontaneously. I think people of old with Ayur Veda were very wise. L:What about > sensations associated with pregnancy? N: Same, same, the elements are not balanced, and this can condition mental phenomena, certain obsessions. What have you been reading on the medical web. The Jivaka stories in the Vinaya make very good reading. He was the Buddha's physician. The Buddha had too much air element in the body that caused sickness. If you cannot find it, I can look it up for you. Nina. 28082 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tiika Vis 54, visible object Hi Howard, op 18-12-2003 01:39 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: Howard: > So, sense-object is only the objective field, nothing else. This, and the > foregoing material seems to me to say that visible object is nothing but > object of consciousness, which, of course, is my position. I await correction! > ;-)) > What does "therein the diversity of visible data is not to be found elsewhere" > mean? Can you clarify this, Nina? > =============================== N: Yes, it is all right what you say. . Please read on:< it is an object of abundant relish for seeing-consciousness>. Did you see my footnote? The Pali term implies: feasting on the senses. It is a reminder again that what is visible gives rise to papa~nca, obsession. The whole world comes to us through the eyes, we are attached especially where it visible object concerns. That is the meaning of. On account of visible object we become absorbed in the image, in the details, generally more than on account of the other sense objects. I am attached to nature, never tired of looking at fields, streams, trees. Think of reading, if we had no eyes, we could not read, and reading gives rise to a great deal of attachment. Or buying food, we look at it to see whether it is delicious. We understand the sutta: guarding the sensedoors, the eye is mentioned first. It is understanding and mindfulness that do the guarding. They seldom arise. The defilements jump up so sudden, they catch us unaware. But intellectual understanding is an important foundation. It is helpful to know the working of latent tendencies, to know that we cannot expect them to be eradicated before the attainment of enlightenment. But we can notice that there is attachment, conceit, that attachment conditions aversion. People may say, there cannot be awareness when reading, but there can be a beginning of understanding. It is like talking: while talking one can also think of other things, one does not have to stop talking, there are so many cittas arising and falling away very fast. Thus in between talking there can be reflection on different cittas, such as one's attachment, or there can be sati which restraints one from idle chatter or wrong talking. Evenso while reading, we do not have to stop reading while considering in bteween different cittas, feelings, emotions. We talked before on how what has just fallen away can be object of awareness. Cittas roll on exceedingly fast. We read in the "KIndred Sayings"(V, 143, on the Stations of Mindfulness, Ch I, §4, Sala that the Buddha spoke about the four Applications of Mindfulness: The Co has a note to one-pointed: This is what happens. When awareness and right understanding arise, there is one-pointedness (momentary) on the object of awareness, and just for a moment (in between talking, in between reading!) there is calm, because there is kusala citta with understanding arising in between all those akusala moments of being attached, conceited, angry, etc. Nina. 28083 From: Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tiika Vis 54, visible object Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/18/03 1:16:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Hi Howard, > op 18-12-2003 01:39 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Howard: > >So, sense-object is only the objective field, nothing else. This, and the > >foregoing material seems to me to say that visible object is nothing but > >object of consciousness, which, of course, is my position. I await > correction! > >;-)) > >What does "therein the diversity of visible data is not to be found > elsewhere" > >mean? Can you clarify this, Nina? > >=============================== > N: Yes, it is all right what you say. > . Please read > on:< it is an object of abundant relish for seeing-consciousness>. Did you > see my footnote? The Pali term implies: feasting on the senses. It is a > reminder again that what is visible gives rise to papa~nca, obsession. The > whole world comes to us through the eyes, we are attached especially where > it visible object concerns. That is the meaning of elsewhere>. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh, yes. I agree - the sense of sight is primary (among the non-mind senses) in all ways, and particularly with regard to grasping and obsession. ---------------------------------------------------- On account of visible object we become absorbed in the image, in> > the details, generally more than on account of the other sense objects. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree completely. ----------------------------------------------------- I am> > attached to nature, never tired of looking at fields, streams, trees. Think > of reading, if we had no eyes, we could not read, and reading gives rise to > a great deal of attachment. Or buying food, we look at it to see whether it > is delicious. > We understand the sutta: guarding the sensedoors, the eye is mentioned > first. It is understanding and mindfulness that do the guarding. They seldom > arise. The defilements jump up so sudden, they catch us unaware. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yep! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------ But> > intellectual understanding is an important foundation. It is helpful to know > the working of latent tendencies, to know that we cannot expect them to be > eradicated before the attainment of enlightenment. But we can notice that > there is attachment, conceit, that attachment conditions aversion. People > may say, there cannot be awareness when reading, but there can be a > beginning of understanding. It is like talking: while talking one can also > think of other things, one does not have to stop talking, there are so many > cittas arising and falling away very fast. Thus in between talking there can > be reflection on different cittas, such as one's attachment, or there can be > sati which restraints one from idle chatter or wrong talking. Evenso while > reading, we do not have to stop reading while considering in bteween > different cittas, feelings, emotions. We talked before on how what has just > fallen away can be object of awareness. Cittas roll on exceedingly fast. > We read in the "KIndred Sayings"(V, 143, on the Stations of Mindfulness, Ch > I, §4, Sala that the Buddha spoke about the four Applications of > Mindfulness: transient), ardent, composed and onepointed, of tranquil mind, calmed down, > of concentrated mind, for insight into body as it really is...> > The Co has a note to one-pointed: one-pointed and tranquillized.> This is what happens. When awareness and > right understanding arise, there is one-pointedness (momentary) on the > object of awareness, and just for a moment (in between talking, in between > reading!) there is calm, because there is kusala citta with understanding > arising in between all those akusala moments of being attached, conceited, > angry, etc. > Nina. > ============================= 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) 28084 From: Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Tiika Vis 54 Hi Nina, I don't understand the difference between tangible data and bodily feeling. If sickness is a rupa, what is the body aspect of bodily feeling? Is there a subtle difference between symptom and pain? What about a burn? A burn hurts. The hurting must be a feeling. What is the rupa, temperature? If bodly feeling arises with every consciousness, does that mean rupa (tangible data) arises with every consciousness? Larry 28085 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:50pm Subject: The development of Wisdom Here's another sniplet of a letter I exchanged with a friend recently: kom: We can only get rid of the misconception by learning more and more about the dhamma. friend: Could you explain how to learn more and more? By listening ,reading,considering or discussing or the other way. Which are your good experiences that make you realise dhamma and have faith in the Buddha and Buddhism. kom: Learning is not theoretical only. With only theoretical understanding of the teaching, one cannot realize the 4 noble truths. There must be awareness of the realities that are arising now, and panna can grow with this awareness. I think the question that is usually puzzling to many people who have just listened to TA Sujin is, how does this awareness + panna come about? Do we have to do anything to do this? Do you know when you are a bit upset, maybe the weather is too hot, that this anger comes about without YOU having to want or create this anger: it comes because of its own condition. Panna is the same way: you don't have to do anything, or want it in order for it to come about: it comes because of its own conditions. The question that we must ask ourselves is, what conditions panna? Is it by sitting? Is it by repeating some word? Is it by lying down? Is it by walking slowly? Without the teaching of the Buddha, would we even be aware that there are only dhammas out there? There are three levels of panna: one from listening, one from wise consideration, and one from the awareness of the realities now. TA Sujin teaches that panna at the listening level conditions panna at the consideration level, and panna at the listening and consideration level condition panna that comes with the awareness of the realities. I believe the Buddha taught this as well (in fact in the first sutta he taught). Do you think this makes any sense? ps: The reason why I have so much confidence in Buddhism is because I have never run into another teaching in my life that speaks such absolute, verifiable truths. Is anger ours? With sati, we can begin to realize, little by little, that anger, a dhamma, is according to what the Buddha teaches --- that it comes about because of its own conditions. The truth is absolute, there can be no dispute of this (because it is verifiable). I haven't found any other teaching that allows me to learn truths that cannot be disputed... kom 28086 From: Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi Hi Michael, I think the sign (nimitta) is a transition to pure concept as object. The closest I could come to something like that with the breath is the idea of air. I get this from Buddhaghosa's explanation of the earth kasina. I think the principles of that explanation could apply to all the meditation objects. One thing that definitely has to be dropped as an object of focus is the in and out of breathing. It's way too busy and physical. Also, I think a *pure* meditative environment is necessary. Hard to find these days. Larry ------------------- Michael: "For a long time doing breath meditation I thought my progress was being thwarted by not seeing a visual sign, this essay definitely comes closer to my experience." 28087 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question on ego and self .. Hi Sarah and James, I am greatly enjoying your dialogue, please continue. I would like to follow your Devata Samyutta Series. With appreciation, Nina. op 18-12-2003 11:07 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > S: And what is regular life in Samsara’ if it is not this very moment of > seeing, experiencing hardness or thinking about what’s just been seen or > heard? 28088 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Grasping at mind states Dear Sukin, your post is very helpful for all of us, Nina. op 18-12-2003 12:04 schreef Sukinderpal Singh Narula op sukinder@k...: > There are many factors each > contributing all along this long and endless road, the leader of > which is "Rt. View", and this starts with `Theory' ;-). 28089 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:22pm Subject: anapanasati 7 c anapanasati 7 c The Co. to this sutta (ven. Nyanatiloka):... The Co. the uses a simile of a charioteer and horses which are advancing evenly, not overrunning nor holding back. Evenso is equanimity. We then read: The enlightenment factors are included in the fourth Application of Mindfulness, contemplating dhammas in dhammas. They should not be taken for self. We read in the Co to the Satipatthana Sutta (tr. by ven. Soma) about the conditions for the enlightenment factors, and among them is . We read about right reflection in the section on the hindrance of covetousness: This is not merely thinking, it is deeply considering and contemplating with mindfulness of the object that appears and right understanding of its characteristic. We read more about this kind of reflection in the , V, Mahå-vagga, Kindred Sayings on the Limbs of Wisdom, Ch IV, § 8, Restraint and Hindrance. The enlightenment factors are translated here as Limbs of Wisdom. We read: ... At the time, monks, when the Ariyan disciple makes the Norm (Dhamma) his object, gives attention to it, with all his mind considers it, with ready ear listens to the Norm,- at such time the five hindrances exist not in him, at such time these seven limbs of wisdom by cultivation go to fulfilment.> It all begins with listening, considering, and then there are conditions for mindfulness and direct understanding of whatever reality appears. There should be equanimity, evenmindedness and impartiality towards the object that appears. No matter whether the object is greatly disturbing, it can be object of mindfulness. It is conditioned and it has no owner. The enlightenment factors are most important and they should not be neglected. We read in the same section of the Kindred Sayings, Ch II, §8, neglected and undertaken: Nina. 28090 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concept & characteristic Hi Howard, op 18-12-2003 01:24 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Please forgive the "sadhu post," but ... sadhu, sadhu, sadhu! Amazing as you > may find it, I like what you have to say in the following VERY much! (So, > something seriously "bad" must be happening to at least one of us! ;-)) Or bad things may be happening? N:So, in order not to spoil things I should keep out of: bhavanga, floating unobserved rupas (in rupaville) life faculty, heartbase (coming up soon), nutrition, In suspense :-( , Nina. 28091 From: abbott_hk Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pure Mind/Buddha Nature Hi Michael, I was just looking for something for Howard on bhavanga cittas when I came across a post I wrote some time back commenting on some of Thanissaro's points on the luminous discussion (I told you recently I couldn't remember reading his comments before;-)). Anyway, you might like to look at post no 10218 (and 10222). No need to pursue this or any thread if you'd like to let them 'rest' for a while. If you'd like to pick them up later, we'll be glad. Metta, Sarah ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Michael: > Your links were extremely useful. It brought to light some aspects I was > unaware. Tks for the trouble in sending all those interesting links. <...> > Michael: > I think it is better to quit for now. I am still siding with the comments > by Thanissaro but think it is not worthwhile pursuing it further. Tks > anyway. 28092 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pure Mind/Buddha Nature Hi Sarah When I look at it again, its makes me smile. By the way where is Rob Ep, I have not seen him writing for a very long time. Kind regards Ken O --- abbott_hk wrote: > Hi Michael, > > I was just looking for something for Howard on bhavanga cittas > when I came across a post I wrote some time back commenting > on some of Thanissaro's points on the luminous discussion (I > told you recently I couldn't remember reading his comments > before;-)). > Anyway, you might like to look at post no 10218 (and 10222). > > No need to pursue this or any thread if you'd like to let them > 'rest' > for a while. If you'd like to pick them up later, we'll be glad. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ===== > 28093 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pure Mind/Buddha Nature Hi Ken O, It's so nice to have your smiles around again;-) --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah > > When I look at it again, its makes me smile. By the way where is Rob > Ep, I have not seen him writing for a very long time. .... That's a funny thing - as I was writing to Michael about resting the thread and picking it up later if he wished, I was actually thinking of you and remembering how you'd done just this, popping back recently to pursue it after a break of a year or two, but obviously having carefully considered this thread in the meantime;-) ;-) Rob Ep, occasionally drops by to have a brief chat and send everyone good wishes, but he seemed to get busy with his acting book and other things. Hopefully he'll drop by again soon - if anyone is in touch, perhaps they can say we’re asking after him and the luminous thread never dies;-). Howard, I hope Nina, Suan or someone comes back on your bhavanga Q. You may like to review these messages from Nina and Kom in the meantime: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/17872 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/10444 I’m out of time for more detail or posts. Metta, Sarah ====== 28094 From: Egberdina Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 0:55am Subject: Re: Grasping at mind states Hi Nina, This post is not helpful to me personally. My initial reaction is feeling rather bad, actually. What you say does not add to or clarify the discussion at all, and you make claims about how the group as a whole considers Sukin's last contribution, a post I am still digesting. Sorry Sukin, I'm butting out of this one. One small victory to theory :-) Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sukin, > your post is very helpful for all of us, > Nina. > op 18-12-2003 12:04 schreef Sukinderpal Singh Narula op sukinder@k...: > > > There are many factors each > > contributing all along this long and endless road, the leader of > > which is "Rt. View", and this starts with `Theory' ;-). 28095 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:37am Subject: How we 'think' we'll act Hello All, I was thinking over something that I experienced during the last week, and wondered if any of us ever knows what we 'really' think, and what we are really like - as opposed to what we think we think. What I mean is - we can feel totally certain that we understand a little of the Buddha's teachings and believe that this will/should influence how we act, feel and think in certain stressful situations. But I'm not sure it does. Last week, after a routine trip to the doctor, I suddenly found myself sent to a specialist and then briefly into a hospital within a few days for "tests". I had always thought that, with even the very little I understand of the Buddha's teachings, I would be calm and mature and face 'whate'er betide' in the future with serenity and peace. Well, so much for the script. There was no serenity and peace. My 'outside' looked calm and mature, but 'inside' was chaos and fear. I have been regularly reflecting on the five facts in the Upajjhatthana Sutta AN v.57 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an05-057.html These reflections may or may not have been of any benefit, but I noted a distinct feeling when I was in the middle of my worry about future possibilities and suppositions, of 'But these can't really refer to me ... not me'. I can recall a more rapid heartbeat, and mixed feelings of anxiety, and unreality. I'm actually quite disappointed in myself - I was only briefly a little nauseous from the tests, nothing was any different from a week prior to even knowing I needed the tests. And nothing is any different now, a week after the tests show all is well. I wonder now how I would endure long standing pain or illness. I recall how with MahaMoggallana, even when the kamma of the past ripened so suddenly and terribly, it could only affect his body but could not shake his mind. And I wonder how does an ordinary unenlightened disciple of the Buddha prepare for and endure such an eventuality? metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 28096 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 2:05am Subject: Formal Practice or not. was Re: Grasping at mind states Hi Herman and all, Yesterday I had made up my mind to start a new thread, encouraged by Howard's and especially James' response to Sarah's post on the "Question on ego and self .." thread. I liked James' tone and thought that I was coming to better understand his position and that it might be a good time to pursue this topic in a separate thread. I had in fact started composing a post and written a bit, but I had to rush out for a lunch appointment. The lunch was bad, not the food, but I was offered a business opportunity which I was not in a position to take, and it was given by someone whom I once refused a few years ago for another project and which is one of my biggest regrets in life. So it was an afternoon with all three poisons being conditioned to the full. By the time I came back to my computer, akusala cittas had completely exhausted me. And then I saw your response to me and so I decided to drop the other post and instead write to you only. But now I wish to do so again. So Herman I invite you and James, Howard, Htoo, Victor and everyone else who *do* meditate or believe in "conscious effort and intention to practice" to discuss this as best and we all can. I would like those who *do not* believe in any kind of "formal" pratice to join in. I can't quote anything, and I have little time compared, besides next week I will be going on a vacation for a few days. Also because I tend to get preachy or boldly assert, I need more mature minds to take over when necessary. So Sarah and other's, I need your help please. Let us try to make things more clear for ourselves as well as for the other. I think it is important to get it right, the difference at this point may seem quite small, since both sides similarly quote the Tipitaka, and this can obscure the more fundamental difference, I think. And I believe it is the difference of 'facing different directions' which in the long run will lead each to be quite apart from the other, though maybe not in this life, since the Tipitaka will still available. And of course the one who is wrong will not know it anyway.;-) I don't know at this point where to start or what precise question to ask. To ask if Buddha taught formal practice or not, surely one is not going to appeal to history, since I think the primary reason for the Tipitaka to exist is the "Teachings", not the facts about the Buddha's life and what the people of his time did. So we need to study his Teachings as a whole, and realizing that not everyone accepts the Abhidhamma, I am willing to leave it out. What do you think? Sarah, what is your opinion? Do you have any suggestions? I'll sign off here. Metta, Sukin. ps: Herman, does 'victory' mean anything to anybody? ;-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina" wrote: > Hi Nina, > > This post is not helpful to me personally. My initial reaction is > feeling rather bad, actually. What you say does not add to or > clarify the discussion at all, and you make claims about how the > group as a whole considers Sukin's last contribution, a post I am > still digesting. > > Sorry Sukin, I'm butting out of this one. One small victory to > theory :-) > > Herman > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > wrote: > > Dear Sukin, > > your post is very helpful for all of us, > > Nina. > > op 18-12-2003 12:04 schreef Sukinderpal Singh Narula op > sukinder@k...: > > > > > There are many factors each > > > contributing all along this long and endless road, the leader of > > > which is "Rt. View", and this starts with `Theory' ;-). 28097 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unexperienced rupas Hi Howard Thanks for pointing out your point of view on why you dont buy the idea. First lets address the inherent issue. If I have not forgetton, correct me if I am wrong, your stand is equating independent to self, a substantialism, which I interpret as without causes and conditions. Let me clarify that this set of rupa conditioned each other to arise, they cannot arise on their own. (how come - I also dont know bc it is say so by the commentators). Moreover, rupa in our physical body cannot be independent, as our body rupas are caused and contioned by the four nutriment (physical, contact, volition and citta). I think I also like to clarify that when a hardness arises it is a characteristic of the rupa not to be mistaken as somekind of independent essence of a rupa. Secondly - Land of free floating rupas. You also know that only one rupa from a set of the four Great elements can be experienced one at a time, your question what happens to the other three (bc this will mean a substantialism concept). To me they will fall away and cease. To me there is no more free floating rupas hanging around which is independent and without cause after the one is become an object of citta. kind regards Ken O > ========================== > Sorry, I don't buy it. Unfelt hardnesses and unseen sights > are > nonsense to me. I think that the view that such exist is a form of > substantialism - > they either exist inhering in unexperienced objects (tables etc) or > they float > free in the Land of Free-Floating Rupas. I don't buy the existence > of inherent > or free-floating hardnesses or sights. When a hardness or a sight > arises it > does so as an object of consciousness. > > With metta, > Howard > 28098 From: ashkenn2k Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:41am Subject: Re: Grasping at mind states Hi Herman > There is more danger in a wordling reading a compendium of the > Abhidhamma, then there is in a wordling sitting on his bum. The > Abhidhamma comes after enlightenment. Sitting on your bum comes > before (Buddha's example, not mine) k: I laugh when you write this example. I curious if sitting on a butt and concentrating on one object can bring us to Nibbana then there could be many candidates in Ripley's believe me or not where pple can withstand extreme heat and cold using meditation. > If the penny is going to drop, there is only one requirement, and > that is a willingness for it to happen. The willingness underscores > an understanding that the understanding doesn't come from anything > controllable. Willingness and non-participation go hand in hand. The mind is occupied with what you feed it. If you feed the mind with theory, that is what you will be regurgitating. If you don't feed your mind, you are allowing the penny to start it's downward > journey. No contribution required, except for willingness. k: It is not us that give a lot of theory, you can attribute it to Buddha and he has so many sutta that it takes so many days just to finish them. It is him who say here guard the senses, he is the one who always tell us to investigate impermance and anatta of the five aggregates. He is the one who always say restrain, abundant, relinquish, so many others, so many theories but one essence :). So how are we going to not to *think* or theorized with what he say. kind regards Ken O 28099 From: Egberdina Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 4:06am Subject: Formal Practice or not Hi Sukin, You are a very brave man :-), but I am happy to contribute in good faith. As a very preliminary starting point I would like to ask about the following: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > I don't know at this point where to start or what precise question > to ask. To ask if Buddha taught formal practice or not, surely one > is not going to appeal to history, since I think the primary reason > for the Tipitaka to exist is the "Teachings", not the facts about > the Buddha's life and what the people of his time did. To divorce the Buddha's insights from the consequences of those insights at a practical level will make any discussion less useful than it can be, in my opinion. There is the hint of a suggestion in the above that formal practice is just what people did in those days. Leading the witness, my lord , and all that. Wouldn't it be better for that to be discussed than assumed? > > ps: Herman, does 'victory' mean anything to anybody? ;-) > I really don't know about others, Sukin. It doesn't mean anything to me, except for when I'm playing squash against my kids :-) All the best Herman 28100 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 4:34am Subject: More questions Dear Everyone: Please, I have a few more questions that I would like someone to answer, can you guys answer them? 1. How can a person turn into a god? 2. What would happen to you if you do not believe in Buddhism? 3. Does the Buddha have a bible? 4. What do monks do? 5. How do people pray? 6. Is Buddhism popular amongst Caucasians? 7. What else have you to tell me about Buddhism? Anyway, wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year! Philip Chui 28101 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 4:36am Subject: Ho! Ho! HO! Merry X'mas!!! Dear James, Ho! Ho! HO! Merry X'mas!! Did the Buddha celebrate christmas? What did the Buddha do at christmas? Is there any special food that the Buddha and his men eat in different festivals/seasons? What did you mean when you said "The Buddha wanted to know if there was any way to stop this process?" Looking forward to the x'mas holidays. Wish you all the best in the new coming year! Metta, Sandy 28102 From: Sarah Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Medicine Dear Htoo, Thank you so much for all your kind comments and helpful further detail on the satipatthana points. I very much look forward to more discussion, but need to wait til after the weekend. Pls be patient with me. Metta, Sarah p.s As you kindly mentioned the U.P., if you have any free time, I'd also be glad if you'd care to look at any of the saved posts under 'Satipatthana Sutta and Commentaries' in U.P.(any any others under satipatthana....) and add any comments on any of these too. Threads are never dead here;-) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts ====== 28103 From: Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept & characteristic Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/19/03 12:24:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > N:So, in order not to spoil things I should keep out of: > bhavanga, > floating unobserved rupas (in rupaville) > life faculty, > heartbase (coming up soon), > nutrition, > In suspense :-( , > Nina. > ========================== Well, inasmuch as I always look out for the welfare particularly of those I hold in especially high estimation, I would be very concerned were you to frequent such unsavory places as Bhavanga Town and Rupaville, because the sorts of entities that inhabit those dangerous locations seriously threaten one's life faculty and at least cause considerable damage to the heart base. But if you should venture there, please be sure to fortify yourself in advance with sufficient nutrition. 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) 28104 From: Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 2:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pure Mind/Buddha Nature Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 12/19/03 1:34:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Howard, I hope Nina, Suan or someone comes back on your bhavanga Q. You > may like to review these messages from Nina and Kom in the meantime: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/17872 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/10444 > ======================== Thanks for the references. I just reread them. ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 28105 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 7:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept & characteristic Hi Howard Nice names you give "Bhavanga Town and Rupaville" Cheers :) Ken O 28106 From: Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unexperienced rupas Hi, Ken - I really have little of value to give in reply to this kind post of yours. The only matter I think I'll comment on at this time is your statement "I think I also like to clarify that when a hardness arises it is a characteristic of the rupa not to be mistaken as somekind of independent essence of a rupa." Actually, I don't think that hardnesses are characteristics of rupas, but *are* rupas (of a specific sort). And I don't think that a hardness has an "essence". It is what it is, and it arises in dependence on the coming together of appropriate conditions, one of which is sentience. Without such conditions, it would never appear, and is, thus, it is nothing in-and-of-itself. That is what makes it anatta. It "exists" in a way and for a time, but not independently, not as a self-existent entity. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/19/03 6:24:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > Thanks for pointing out your point of view on why you dont buy the > idea. > > First lets address the inherent issue. If I have not forgetton, > correct me if I am wrong, your stand is equating independent to self, > a substantialism, which I interpret as without causes and conditions. > Let me clarify that this set of rupa conditioned each other to > arise, they cannot arise on their own. (how come - I also dont know > bc it is say so by the commentators). Moreover, rupa in our physical > body cannot be independent, as our body rupas are caused and > contioned by the four nutriment (physical, contact, volition and > citta). I think I also like to clarify that when a hardness arises > it is a characteristic of the rupa not to be mistaken as somekind of > independent essence of a rupa. > > > Secondly - Land of free floating rupas. You also know that only one > rupa from a set of the four Great elements can be experienced one at > a time, your question what happens to the other three (bc this will > mean a substantialism concept). To me they will fall away and cease. > To me there is no more free floating rupas hanging around which is > independent and without cause after the one is become an object of > citta. > > > kind regards > Ken O > > /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) 28107 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 8:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Question on ego and self .. Hi Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: Hi James, I'm enjoying the pleasant banter too;-) James 2: I'm glad. From reading the posts of Nina and Sukin I see that we are not the only ones enjoying it so I guess I will continue. Back by popular demand! ;-) --- buddhatrue@y... wrote: > James: Hmm we seem to be on a race here! ;-) Pretty soon we will > outpace those cittas! ;-). ... S:That will take some racing and outpacing! ;-) .... S:> Anatta. No self. No control. > ..... > James: Sarah, this is where you and I differ greatly. Now, I > am not stating that you are wrong and that I am right, because I know > that neither one of us truly comprehends anatta (non self): But I > feel that you too often take an extremist view on this subject. I > believe that it is important when looking at anything, be it the > Buddha's teaching or just regular life in Samsara, ..... S: And what is `regular life in Samsara' if it is not this very moment of seeing, experiencing hardness or thinking about what's just been seen or heard? No suffering if no clinging to present name-and- form (namas and rupas). Failing to appreciate this, we'll continue to be `the withered up fools' as I see it. .... James 2: Right, and I believe that the only difference between Samsara and Nibbana is simply living in the present moment without clinging to any phenomena (dhammas). However, this cannot just be done at will. It isn't enough to just think "Oh, there is no self; there is only the present moment; there are only transient phenomena." That is just a belief. It is a good belief and a true belief but having it doesn't change anything. Can people remind themselves of this fact millions of times a second? No. And, to me, that is what it would take to make any difference in wisdom and understanding. It isn't enough to have this belief; it has to be known for oneself, to be directly experienced. The only way to do that is to have a mind which can really focus and concentrate on the present moment; and the only way to develop that, for most people, is to practice Buddhist meditation. This is what I believe and I am pretty sure it is what the Buddha taught and intended (It would have been nice if he had been really, really specific so that no questions could ever be raised about this subject, but specifics wouldn't have fit everyone and every situation). James: > to maintain > the `Middle Path' in attitude. Even though there is no self that > doesn't mean that there is no control; conversely, there isn't > absolute control either. I believe that the truth is somewhere in > the middle of those two extremes. <...> .... The Middle Path - the development of satipatthana at this very moment. Devatasamyutta, 111 A Sword 21 (1): [The Blessed One:] "As if smitten by a sword, As if his head were on fire, A bhikkhu should wander mindfully To abandon Identity view." It may sound extreme, but the middle path is the understanding and mindfulness of present dhammas - on fire with ignorance, attachment and wrong view of self. However, I appreciate the reminders about attitude, thank you;-) .... James 2: Sarah, I wasn't giving you any reminders about your attitude! LOL! Sorry if it seemed that way. Okay, let us look carefully at what the Buddha said here. The Buddha said, "The bhikkhu should wander mindfully to abandon Identity view." Now, you take that to mean that the bhikkhu should wander mindful that he has no identity, he has no self. I don't take it that way at all. I believe that the Buddha is saying that the Bhikkhu should be mindful of everything that occurs, right at this very moment, as if he had been stabbed with a sword or his head was on fire and his life depended on it. Nothing will bring a person to the present moment like an emergency! However, being mindful of non self isn't truly being mindful, it is a belief. How can a person be mindful of what he doesn't know yet? That type of mindfulness is an artificial, mental construct and is not what the Buddha intended, I believe. It is also not a mental construct that inspires a sense of emergency; heck, to you it inspires a belief that there is no control. Since there is no one to do anything about it, one might as well die on the sword or let the head burn up! LOL! (just kidding). > James: Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about. > Concentration isn't a natural feature of consciousness moments; > concentration is a way to describe successive consciousness moments. > Yes, each citta will have but one object but that doesn¡|t mean that > it is concentrated, that is just its nature. .... S: Even when we are speaking harshly or enjoying an ice-cream, for example, there are repeated moments of concentration on the object along with unpleasant or pleasant feelings, attention to detail and so on. So we see that concentration does not only arise with `good' cittas. .... James 2: I don't believe that right concentration is ever present when there are pleasant or unpleasant feelings. Right concentration needs to be accompanied by equanimity or it isn't right concentration. Sure, I could concentrate really hard on killing someone (like my landlady! Heheh..Just kidding ;-) but that wouldn't be right concentration and it wouldn't develop wisdom. Conversely, I could concentrate really hard on winning the lottery but that wouldn't be right concentration and wouldn't create wisdom either. Even when concentration practice,like jhana, create good feelings those feelings must be abandoned to develop further wisdom; this is the secret that the Buddha discovered. To me, the various things I concentrate on during the day don't create any wisdom for the simple fact that I cling to the object/thought, abhor the object/thought, or judge the object/thought to be unimportant. For me, right concentration only occurs when I am meditating on a neutral object, like the sensation of the breath or a candle flame, and my concentration is accompanied by equanimity. From this practice, I will more naturally develop equanimity when experiencing everyday events and then have right mindfulness. From my understanding, this is the true way to destroy the fetters, cease to create kamma, and become enlightened. I am not enlightened yet because old habits die hard!! I am lucky if I even have a few moments of right concentration in a single meditation session. And because I don't have that much right concentration I don't have that much right mindfulness in my daily life. I would be the first to admit that I am one flawed individual! ;-) But, hey, I keep trying…that is all I can do. James: >Single raindrops are > not a river but if enough of them come together, they will form a > river and an ocean. That is concentration. It is with the power of > this concentration that the world can be investigated, the `self' can > be investigated, and the truth can be known. .... S: How will it be known whether this kind of concentration is good or bad? Is it always `good' when you meditate? How about now? I mean there are rivers and rivers;-) .... James 2: I will know when the concentration is right because it is accompanied by equanimity; which will make the concentration even stronger! Concentration with any kind of feelings or reactions doesn't last very long and will continually jump around from object to object. No, I don't always have right concentration when I meditate or I would have become enlightened by now. See above comments. James:(Sorry I am starting to > sound like some kind of Buddhist motivational speaker! LOL! ;-) I > don¡|t have the `rational presentation' ability that Howard has ;-). .... S: LOL too! Maybe we need to read more books on phenomenology;-) .... James 2: Maybe so. I really respect Howard because he has a deep level of equanimity; I can tell. <..> James: >I believe that you > have misinterpreted this kind of speech to mean that insight can be > developed in everyday life with no outside effort whatsoever. I > really don¡|t think it is that easy, but I wish it was. .... S:Not easy - bitter medicine repeatedly as the subject heading suggests;-) .... James 2: Okay, here we finally agree! ;-) > James: Gosh Sarah, it is nothing personal. I really respect > and admire you and your dedication to the dhamma or I wouldn't spend > my time writing posts to you (I could be out looking at those > pyramids or something! LOL!). .... S:Thanks James - a great compliment - also to your keen interest in the dhamma;-) .... James: >I really don't understand how you > determine `wise' and `unwise' moments of fleeting concentration; > maybe this is some kind of Abhidhamma thing? I am not able to > determine such things. Of course I could slap superficial labels on > my various mind moments and call some of them `wise' and then > others `unwise', but I choose not to do that. .... S: One drop at a time. Being honest about our great ignorance as you are is very important. It's not a matter of slapping on labels or of even knowing `various mind moments' but just beginning to understand a little about various dhammas or characteristics when they appear now: annoyance, frustration, distraction, sounds, thinking and so on. Realities which experience an object such as hearing and thinking are namas and realiies which are experienced such as visible objects and sounds are rupas. No self, no labels needed. .... James 2: Okay, I just think those drops are fewer and father between without concentration and mindfulness practice. James:>Enlightenment can come > from some of the most unexpected moments: Ven. Ananda became > enlightened in midair when he was about to lie down to rest. You > just never know. Set up the right conditions and amazing things can > happen. (Sorry¡Kmotivation speaker again ;-). ... S: So what are the right conditions for enlightenment? The good friend (s), Hearing dhamma, wise consideration etc. ... James 2: Yes, these are important factors because they help to condition right concentration and right mindfulness. Perhaps with those few exceptional individuals just those things you list would be enough. The power of concentration and mindfulness is already there and they just need a few more right conditions. I know that for myself I am not that fortunate. I must strive diligently for every tiny scrap of wisdom that I can gain. I work so hard at it because I know that I have a lot of hard work to do. If you are the type of person with sufficient concentration and mindfulness powers that: good friends, hearing the dhamma, and wise consideration is enough then I am really happy for you! I am just the dunce sitting at the back of the class! ;-)) And so I sit…and sit…and sit… > James: Wow, I seemed to have really piqued your interest in the > Devatasamyutta of SN; I am pleased about that. I just recently > discovered it myself and I am glad you share my enthusiasm. I will > try your experiment and report back when I feel the time is right. .... S: I'll look forward to that. Meanwhile, we could look at one chapter or section of SN together per week if you're interested. I think there are 56 chapters, so it'll only take just over a year;-) I'd appreciate the prompting, esp. if you start each one with a sutta extract and a few comments;-);-) .... James 2: This is a good suggestion but this list is already quite busy as it is. I can't believe the number of posts everyday from this group! Also, Larry is already doing a quite nice series which I ardently follow. His posts have slowed down as of late and I am not quite sure why. Maybe because of lack of response? I read everything but don't respond because I want to absorb each small piece. And he asks such deep questions about the various sections that usually only Jon is brave enough to venture some answers! ;-) I hope that he doesn't interpret lack of response as lack of interest. I for one am interested and appreciate his efforts. > At this point I am not overly impressed by any individual moments > of `right understanding' I might have, they are like individual > raindrops to me; I am looking for the grand stream. ... James, individual rain drops are how a grand stream begins and are very precious. If we're greedy and always looking for the grand stream, we're bound to be swept along by attachment and wrong view. James 2: Hmmm, this is an interesting idea. I don't really think that I am being greedy by wanting the grand stream; I just feel that anything less isn't enough. Sure I appreciate every little drop of wisdom, and I want them to collect over time, but I also want the dam to break and the skies to just pour…to carry me to the other side of the shore. (Okay, this metaphor is getting out of hand! LOL! ;-)) I don't think that I can just passively expect this to happen or that just by will power alone I am going to be able to see the ultimate reality of the present moment. I have to create the right conditions for this to happen. For me, Buddhist meditation is one of those right conditions. And sorry, but I don't think the Abhidhamma adequately describes the present moment either. Sure, it has some good parts and some truths, but it also has some falsehoods I believe (rupa being a significant one). One more sutta that is relevant to other threads on conventional and ultimate realities and the use of common language: Devatasamyutta, 25 (5) The Arahant "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, Would he still say, `I speak'? And would he say, `They speak to me'?" "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, He might still say, `I speak.' And hemight say, `They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." [Note: Vohaaramattena so vohareyya. Spk: "Although arahants have abandoned talk that implies belief in a self,they do not violate conventional discourse by saying, `The aggregates eat, the aggregates sit, the aggregates' bowl, the aggregates' robe'; for no one would understand them."} James 2: Yes, I really liked this part also. It does point to the ultimate reality of anatta. It is funny because when I read those sections…and I also looked at the notes…I thought to myself, "Oh, those DSGers would just love this!" ;-)) I store all kinds of little things like that in my mind for a rainy day (darn, there goes that metaphor again ;-)! Metta and appreciation for all your useful and interesting comments. Sarah ===== Metta and appreciation for your hospitality and friendliness, James 28108 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 10:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tiika Vis 54, bodyconsciousness Hi Larry, op 19-12-2003 01:29 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I don't understand the difference between tangible data and bodily > feeling. N: tangible data are: hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion and pressure, they are rupas that can impinge on bodysense that is also rupa and that is ready, fit, for impact. Bodily feeling: this accompanies the vipakacitta that is bodyconsciousness. Bodyconsciousness arises in a process of cittas which experience tangible object. Feeling accompanying bodyconsciousness also experiences that object in its own way, it experiences the taste of the object. It can be pleasant feeling or painful feeling, depending on the object experienced. It cannot be indifferent feeling. The reason is that when tangible object impinges, the impact is more violent, compared to the impact of the other sense objects. L: If sickness is a rupa, what is the body aspect of bodily > feeling? N: When we speak aboput sickness we use conventional terms to denote a situation. We cannot say, sickness is a rupa. There are rupas conditioning namas and namas conditioning rupas. L: Is there a subtle difference between symptom and pain? N: Pain is painful feeling accompanying body-consciousness. It has a characteristic if that is what you mean by symptom. We know when there is pain when it is strong. But, since it is only a very short moment of vipakacitta within a process, it is gone before we realize it. Akusala citta with aversion and unhappy (mental) feeling arises and we are bound to confuse cittas and feelings, not realizing that vipaka moments are different from akusala moments that arise immediately after the vipaka moments. L:What > about a burn? A burn hurts. The hurting must be a feeling. What is the > rupa, temperature? N: Yes, there is impact of heat. It can cause painful feeling, and beware: akusala citta with aversion and mental unhappy feeling. L: If bodily feeling arises with every consciousness, does that mean rupa > (tangible data) arises with every consciousness? N: That could not be so. When you are seeing, you could not experience a tangible object at the same time. It seems so because cittas in different processes arise and fall away very rapidly. Only one object at a time is experienced by citta. Body-door process of cittas is different from eye-door process of cittas. Different objects impinging on different sensebases are experienced by the cittas of these processes. Each process is demarcated by bhavangacittas, cittas that do not experience objects through the different doorways. The processes are quite distinct but it sure is difficult for us to know this by direct experience. I understand your question, wondering why there is not continuously impact on the body while we are moving about in a day. There are countless moments of them in between the experience of objects through the other doorways. Just for a short moment, but we do not notice it. They are accompanied by either painful bodily feeling or pleasant bodily feeling, but, we do not notice these when they are of a slight degree. Evenso, we do not notice all the different moments of seeing and hearing in a day, we are so used to them, we take them for granted. After the ear-door process there has to be a mind-door process of cittas experiencing sound, but it is not always followed by other mind-door processes that think of the origin of the sound, or the meaning of the sound. Thus, hearing-consciousness hears the sound, but after that there is no special attention to is. Remember the example: we record a lecture on a tape and do not pay attention to other sounds, but afterwards when listening we notice that there were loud noises in the background. There are many moments of body-consciousness but there is not all the time a special interest in it, cittas that dwell on it. The senses are ready or fit for impact of the appropriate object, but it depends on kamma and other conditioning factors whether it is time to experience a particular sense object. Seeing, body-consciousness etc. are results of kamma. And as said, often there is no special interest in the object experienced through the senses. Such processes just pass. Nina. 28109 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] bhavanga town Hi Howard, ;-)) ;-)) ;-)) Priceless, you have them all, a good way of learning Abhidhamma, something for Icaro!! Some remarks from bhavangatown after the weekend, see my post to Herman. Nina. op 19-12-2003 15:51 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > ========================== > Well, inasmuch as I always look out for the welfare particularly of > those I hold in especially high estimation, I would be very concerned were you > to frequent such unsavory places as Bhavanga Town and Rupaville, because the > sorts of entities that inhabit those dangerous locations seriously threaten > one's life faculty and at least cause considerable damage to the heart base. > But > if you should venture there, please be sure to fortify yourself in advance > with > sufficient nutrition. 28110 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: feeling bad and music. to Herman. Hi Herman, This was just personal, I did not intend to speak for the group. But I am sorry if it was unpleasant to you, I apologize. I hope you will not feel bad for long, it passes!! But you and I, hey, should we not rather talk about music? How is your organ getting on? I am rehearsing for two houseconcerts this weekend, Frescobaldi, Telemann, on Tenor recorder. You know, we have to organize a birthday party for my father: 103 years old. He will have a cake with three candles. A lot of work this weekend and not much time for Emails. Best wishes, Nina. op 19-12-2003 09:55 schreef Egberdina op hhofman@t...: > Hi Nina, > > This post is not helpful to me personally. My initial reaction is > feeling rather bad, actually. 28111 From: gazita2002 Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:43pm Subject: Re: The development of Wisdom Dear Kom, Hello, hope you are well. This morning, I got onto dsg. for a quick read before I go to yoga, looking for a little inspiration and here it is. I like to have these reminders every day, they are so helpful. Pariyatti must come before there is any development of right understanding, otherwise in ignorance, how could we possibly know what are paramatta dhammas. A good time for my question. I have been thinking about Panna and Saddha. We are told that Panna without Saddha can lead to craftiness, and that too much Saddha without Panna can lead to blind faith. How would craftiness and blind faith appear, what are their characteristics? BTW, Seasons greetings to you, Kom. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Here's another sniplet of a letter I exchanged with a friend recently: > > > kom: We can only get rid of the misconception by learning more and more > about the dhamma. > > friend: Could you explain how to learn more and more? By listening > ,reading,considering or discussing or the other way. Which are your good > experiences that make you realise dhamma and have faith in the Buddha and > Buddhism. > > kom: > > Learning is not theoretical only. With only theoretical understanding of > the teaching, one cannot realize the 4 noble truths. There must be > awareness of the realities that are arising now, and panna can grow with > this awareness. I think the question that is usually puzzling to many > people who have just listened to TA Sujin is, how does this awareness + > panna come about? Do we have to do anything to do this? Do you know when > you are a bit upset, maybe the weather is too hot, that this anger comes > about without YOU having to want or create this anger: it comes because of > its own condition. Panna is the same way: you don't have to do anything, or > want it in order for it to come about: it comes because of its own > conditions. The question that we must ask ourselves is, what conditions > panna? Is it by sitting? Is it by repeating some word? Is it by lying > down? Is it by walking slowly? Without the teaching of the Buddha, would > we even be aware that there are only dhammas out there? > > There are three levels of panna: one from listening, one from wise > consideration, and one from the awareness of the realities now. TA Sujin > teaches that panna at the listening level conditions panna at the > consideration level, and panna at the listening and consideration level > condition panna that comes with the awareness of the realities. I believe > the Buddha taught this as well (in fact in the first sutta he taught). Do > you think this makes any sense? > > ps: The reason why I have so much confidence in Buddhism is because I have > never run into another teaching in my life that speaks such absolute, > verifiable truths. Is anger ours? With sati, we can begin to realize, > little by little, that anger, a dhamma, is according to what the Buddha > teaches --- that it comes about because of its own conditions. The truth is > absolute, there can be no dispute of this (because it is verifiable). I > haven't found any other teaching that allows me to learn truths that cannot > be disputed... > > kom 28112 From: Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 4:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Tiika Vis 54, body consciousness Hi Nina, When I asked if tangible data accompanies every consciousness I meant does it accompany consciousness in the company of vedana. Does vedana accompany every consciousness? Is that vedana always bodily feeling? In order for there to be bodily feeling does there have to be tangible data? I know there is sometimes mental feeling, but let's leave that aside for now. Take the example of anxiety that is accompanied by unpleasant internal tension. The unpleasantness is vedana (feeling), the tension is rupa, and the anxiety is a mental formation (sankhara). Actually, I'm finding it very difficult to experience the characteristic of mental formations in general. I can identify the feeling and the rupa and there is often discursive thinking (a story) seemingly associated with these but I can't find the mental formation (like, dislike, bewilderment) itself. I wonder if this has something to do with mental formations being formations. Are they like a carriage in which there is no actual carriage itself? I am pretty sure I am bewildered but I can't actually say, "aHA! there is bewilderment." Larry 28113 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unexperienced rupas Hi Howard I apologise for taken your valuable time in replying my post. Notwithstanding I like to clarity hardnesss which I get it from Rupa materials written by Nina "The Element of Earth (in Pali: pathavi dhatu), which has been translated into English as “solidity” or “extension”, has the characteristic of hardness or softness." kind regards Ken O --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Ken - > > I really have little of value to give in reply to this kind > post of > yours. The only matter I think I'll comment on at this time is your > statement "I > think I also like to clarify that when a hardness arises it is a > characteristic of the rupa not to be mistaken as somekind of > independent essence of a > rupa." Actually, I don't think that hardnesses are characteristics > of rupas, but > *are* rupas (of a specific sort). And I don't think that a hardness > has an > "essence". It is what it is, and it arises in dependence on the > coming together of > appropriate conditions, one of which is sentience. Without such > conditions, > it would never appear, and is, thus, it is nothing > in-and-of-itself. That is > what makes it anatta. It "exists" in a way and for a time, but not > independently, not as a self-existent entity. > > With metta, > Howard > 28114 From: Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unexperienced rupas Hi, Ken - Pathavi dhatu, or earth element, is nothing other than hardness or softness to some degree or other. That's what it is. Some occurrences are more to the hardness end, some are more to the softness end, but there is no *substance* which is earth element having a "characteristic" of hardness or softness. There is just the phenomenon, in varying degrees, of hardness/softness. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/19/03 8:20:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > I apologise for taken your valuable time in replying my post. > > Notwithstanding I like to clarity hardnesss which I get it from Rupa > materials written by Nina > "The Element of Earth (in Pali: pathavi dhatu), which has been > translated into English as “solidityâ€? or “extensionâ€?, has the > characteristic of hardness or softness." > > > > kind regards > Ken O > /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) 28115 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tiika Vis 54, bewilderment Hi Larry, so long as we are not enlightened we all are bewildered!!! Good points, occasion for reflection and while trying to formulate it helps me too. After the weekend I like to pay special attention to your points. Nina. op 20-12-2003 01:23 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I am pretty sure I am bewildered but I can't > actually say, "aHA! there is bewilderment." 28116 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] How we 'think' we'll act Dear Christine, Your post really moved me, and it gives food for thought. First of all, I am really glad your test came out O.K. The sutta Upajjhatthana Sutta AN v.57, is one of my favorites, going straight to the heart. As John Kelly, our Pali teacher said, he meditates on it every day: He said that I will need this sutta, I liked his insistance. Since Lodewijk and I are both growing old, I have to reflect: all that is near and dear to me is subject to variableness. Am I prepared? No. op 19-12-2003 10:37 schreef christine_forsyth op cforsyth@v...: I had always > thought that, with even the very little I understand of the Buddha's > teachings, I would be calm and mature and face 'whate'er betide' in > the future with serenity and peace. Well, so much for the script. > There was no serenity and peace. N: So human. What gets me too is that our reactions are so unforeseeable. When there is something that upsets me, before I know the tears spring into my eyes, almost automatically. Where is the calm Dhamma person? And when we hear: now you see it is all uncontrollable, you see the anattaness, it does not seem to help much. Or we hear: just conditions. Lodewijk gets upset and irritated when he hears this. C: . I'm actually quite > disappointed in myself N: Yes, I recognize this. And how!!! C: I recall how with > MahaMoggallana, even when the kamma of the past ripened so suddenly > and terribly, it could only affect his body but could not shake his > mind. And I wonder how does an ordinary unenlightened disciple of > the Buddha prepare for and endure such an eventuality? N: Realizing more and more how unforeseeable our reactions are, we cannot prepare very much. It is as it is. What helps me personally is going to the root of our defilements. As I mentioned, knowing more about the latent tendencies that can only be eradicated by lokuttara cittas. It helps to a certain extent to know where the akusala citta that suddenly arises comes from. Where is the calm Dhamma person: I realize that there is a great deal of conceit here. And clinging how we would like to be. When we are upset about people or events it is again defilement and this is also be caused by the latent tendency of conceit, why does this have to happen to *me*. And personality beief, wrong view. We do not have to prepare ourselves, but when we see more clearly our defilements it will make us come to realize increasingly their disadvantages and dangers. Even the level of pariyatti, intellectial understanding is most helpful. When time comes pariyatti can condition right awareness and right understanding. That is why Moggallana could stand anything. Nina. 28117 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 3:19am Subject: Anicca (Impermanence) Dear Group, Sabbe sankhaaraa aniccaa means 'all formations are impermanent'. This is commonsense, we see it in everything from emotions, to ice, to the pyramids - nothing lasts forever, eventually all things crumble and deteriorate. Nyanatiloka gives a quote from the Visuddhimagga "Impermanency of things is the rising, passing and changing of things, or the disappearance of things that have become or arisen. The meaning is that these things never persist in the same way, but that they are vanishing dissolving from moment to moment. (Vic. VII, 3 I can see thoughts and emotions arising and vanishing from moment to moment. But I am doubtful about other things - it doesn't seem to fit my experience. And I can't find in the Suttas a reference to change occuring at the same steady and continuous rate for diverse things. Couldn't it be feasible for change to occur in fits and starts, not in a smooth and continuous succession? That some things might last for a while? metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 28118 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 5:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anicca (Impermanence) - and other questions Hi Christine, That some things might last for a while? - When I see this I laugh bc I am also like that, I do have the tendency to hope some things to last for a while, just a litter longer even though I know all is going away. Anyway I leave to the experts to answer your mail. Hi Nina and Sarah I got three basic qn. In the Lobha cittas there are those disconnected with wrong view, since they are not sobhana cittas, definitely it will not mean right view. What do it mean? Secondly is the question of the promptness of ignorance - Under the Comprehensive of Abdhidhamma translated by B.Bodhi, in the book, Visud maintain that the distinction in terms of prompting is omitted because neither alternative is applicable. They state since these two cittas lack natural acutness, they cannot be described as unprompted; and since there is no occassion when one deliberatly tries to arouse them, they cannot be described as prompted. Ledi Sayadaw, however rejects this position, hold these cittas to be exclusively unprompted. He contends: "Since these two cittas occur in beings naturally, by their own intrinsic nature; they need not be aroused by any inducement or expedient means. They always occur without trouble or difficulty. Therefore they are exclusively unprompted and this should be seen as the reason the distinction by way of prompting is not mentioned here" Thirdly, the Comprehensive Manual of Abidhidhamma states that wrong view and conceit are contrary to each other, hence they cannot co-exist in the same citta. The explanation is not adequate, could you provide a better one. kind regards Ken o p.s. Sarah - The reason I smile when I see the luminous thread is that now I know the reason why you at the time you call yourself a dinosaur, a dying breed. 28119 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 5:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anicca (Impermanence) - and other questions --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Thirdly, the Comprehensive Manual of Abidhidhamma states that wrong > view and conceit are contrary to each other, hence they cannot > co-exist in the same citta. The explanation is not adequate, could > you provide a better one. > >=========== Dear Ken, Thinking about conceit or wrong view may not show us the difference but when the characteristic of conceit is present can we see that it is different from that of wrong view.. robert 28120 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anicca (Impermanence) - and other questions Hi Robert It is true that thinking will not help :). It is my inquisitive nature that at times I like to go to the core of a question. Maybe I just cannot logically understand what is the difference between conceit and wrong view. To me isn't conceit a wrong view. I just dont understand what is the subtle difference between them as said in the Manual, could you help me to find the commentaries comment on this. The quest to know is bc I like to exercise my mind, when greed arise in my immediate presence, I will asked whether it is prompted or not, conceit or wrong view etc. Then also looking those behind the curtain of greed where moha lurks :) and recently also concern about latency after the mail from Nina. Sometimes I also like to ask is it object predominant or not... or investigate its anicaness or anattanessa. I think it is fun, there are so many ways to look at one event. And sometimes, if I could not fall asleep, I used this exercise to visit Bhavanga Town :) and I find it an effective method and it never fail to amaze me. Cheers Ken O > Dear Ken, > Thinking about conceit or wrong view may not show us the > difference > but when the characteristic of conceit is present can we see that > it > is different from that of wrong view.. > robert > > > > > > > > > 28121 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:58am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The development of Wisdom Hi Azita, I am very happy to hear from you, after having met you and many interesting discussions in Thailand. I am doing very well now. I hope you are doing better ;-). Yes, I think there are many interesting tidbits about why parayatti is most important to the development of wisdom, and why it is impossible to realize the 4 noble truths without the frequent awareness of this very moment. If we need reminder, we can always remember the 4 factors of sotapanna: the association with a wise person, listening to the true dhamma, wise consideration, and practice according to the dhamma. Wrong views are abundant, and without all these 4 factors, we can never eliminate it... The question you ask is way over my head, (and since I currently have no access to the commentaries) so perhaps others will respond... It's pretty interesting though, there is no panna without sadha, so what does this text mean about having panna without sadha? It cannot be true panna. I can tell you my thoughts... Panna without Sadha is the ability to think through things (even not a true panna). Some Bikkhu with this characteristic may be prone to think of ways to get around the Patikmokkha, resulting in such craftiness. You know one of the Patikmokkha is not to have sexual intercourse, but do you know that the Buddha issued many additional minor rules in regard to the major rule, based on the Bikkhus getting around the wording of the rule. A person with sadha, but without panna, cannot know the truth for himself, and must rely on other always. This obviously doesn't work out too well when the people one is associated with are not all ariyans: one is bound to veer of in the wrong path according to their current association. An example of being crafty in daily life is, you are about to get to an appointment, you know you should be on time and being late is no good, but yet, because of all other excuses you may have, you go late anyway. Don't you think this is a bit crafty? You manage to find some justifications for something no good. Being crafty is not being straight, not being true to the dhamma (because there is no panna at such moments). Craftiness leads you to mistake akusala as kusala, kusala as akusala, and many other mistaken ideas. Truths are impossible to see when there is such craftiness. I think that's why TA Sujin keeps reminding us to be straight. Ah, but how do you become stright, and know that you are straight? Definitely, not without panna, and not with such craftiness. Lobha is easily mistakenly as saddha. Vedana associated with lobha and kusala states are the same kinds of vedana (either pleasant or neutral). Lobha can also come with piti, so does saddha. Do you see how easy it is to mistake lobha as saddha, even if there may be sadha before that lobha? An example of this is, when you give, you feel sadha, piti, and somanassa, but immediately afterward, there is lobha to the kusala mental states, but all the meanwhile, you think they are all saddha. Do you know that some people give because they feel good? Such lobha are subtle comparing to the gross lobha, but lobha nonetheless, and with that, final liberation is just impossible. Seasonal Greetings for Everybody! Metta, kom > -----Original Message----- > From: gazita2002 [mailto:gazita2002@y...] > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 3:43 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: The development of Wisdom > > > Dear Kom, > > Hello, hope you are well. This morning, I got onto dsg. for a > quick read before I go to yoga, looking for a little inspiration and > here it is. I like to have these reminders every day, they are so > helpful. Pariyatti must come before there is any development of > right understanding, otherwise in ignorance, how could we possibly > know what are paramatta dhammas. > > A good time for my question. I have been thinking about Panna > and Saddha. We are told that Panna without Saddha can lead to > craftiness, and that too much Saddha without Panna can lead to blind > faith. How would craftiness and blind faith appear, what are their > characteristics? > > BTW, Seasons greetings to you, Kom. > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > Azita. > > 28122 From: Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 3:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anicca (Impermanence) Hi, Chris - In a message dated 12/20/03 6:19:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Dear Group, > > Sabbe sankhaaraa aniccaa means 'all formations are impermanent'. > This is commonsense, we see it in everything from emotions, to ice, > to the pyramids - nothing lasts forever, eventually all things > crumble and deteriorate. Nyanatiloka gives a quote from the > Visuddhimagga "Impermanency of things is the rising, passing and > changing of things, or the disappearance of things that have become > or arisen. The meaning is that these things never persist in the > same way, but that they are vanishing dissolving from moment to > moment. (Vic. VII, 3 > I can see thoughts and emotions arising and vanishing from moment to > moment. But I am doubtful about other things - it doesn't seem to > fit my experience. And I can't find in the Suttas a reference to > change occuring at the same steady and continuous rate for diverse > things. Couldn't it be feasible for change to occur in fits and > starts, not in a smooth and continuous succession? That some things > might last for a while? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: There is considerable variation in "lastingness" for conventional objects, with some seeming to go through slow gradual change, ofeten through periods of no change at all, and others dropping out quickly. I suspect this may no t be so when it comes to directly observed, elementary, actualities (paramattha dhammas), though I could be wrong. Take the stream of visual objects, for example. Each time we note even the slightest variation in the smallest aspect of "the scene," we have to recognize that this is no longer the same scene as before. If, there is, in fact, a shortest such "scene duration," - and this would be *very* short compared to the apparent durations of conventional objects - it seems to me that at least two scenarios might apply. Let us call the minimal duration before a change of any sort in a visual object can occur, if there is such a minimal duration, the "min-dur". One scenario is that every visual object persists for a time period that is an integral multiple of the min-dur. In this case, the "discrete, variable duration case," the same, single visual object persists throughout an entire consecutive, gapless sequence of min-durs. In another scenario, the "discrete, fixed duration case," every visual object persists only for the min-dur, and after each min-dur, there is a next object that *may* be an exact replica of the preceding. The difference between these two scenarios is definitional - purely a matter of "parsing". On the other hand, the presumption that there is a min-dur may well be false. Moreover, even if it is correct, it is not necessarily so that every visual object persists for an *integral* multiple of that duration - the multiples may be fractional, or even non-rational multiples! Even "worse," perhaps the durational periods are more like fuzzy intervals than discrete periods. Or perhaps there is actually no duration at all! Maybe each phenomenon drops away the moment it appears. Perhaps, even, our ideas of time and duration don't really apply at all, and are merely conventional! Presumably, an arahant, or a Buddha at least, would know the precise facts of this topic. But - and this, I think, is the bottom line - why does it matter? Isn't this subject just one of the many leaves in the forest that are not held in the Buddha's hand? The notion of 'anicca' implies neither discreteness nor continuity. It doesn't imply gradual change or abrupt cessation or a combination of the two. It implies only one thing: No conditioned state remains, and, hence, there is nothing to cling to. The Buddha addressed but one matter - suffering and the end of suffering, and it is for this purpose alone that he taught the characteristic of anicca. By following the Buddha's path of practice we have a means of coming to directly discover for ourselves the truth of anicca. Then we will know, but more importantly, then we will be freed. ------------------------------------------------------ > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- ============================ 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) 28123 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 4:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anicca (Impermanence) Hello Howard, Thanks for your reply Howard - How I came to be examining anicca is that I am starting to read "Change - an examination of impermanence in experience" by Samanera Bodhesako. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/chang-pr.htm He says that an important factor in understanding impermanence is Right View - Wrong View is blindness. 'That blindness -- so the Buddha's discourses repeatedly assert -- is involved centrally with our failure to see, to know, the nature of impermanence. And yet in our own experience everywhere we look we see that things are indeed impermanent. If the Buddha is correct then what have we missed?' metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Chris - > > In a message dated 12/20/03 6:19:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, > cforsyth@v... writes: > > > > > Dear Group, > > > > Sabbe sankhaaraa aniccaa means 'all formations are impermanent'. > > This is commonsense, we see it in everything from emotions, to ice, > > to the pyramids - nothing lasts forever, eventually all things > > crumble and deteriorate. Nyanatiloka gives a quote from the > > Visuddhimagga "Impermanency of things is the rising, passing and > > changing of things, or the disappearance of things that have become > > or arisen. The meaning is that these things never persist in the > > same way, but that they are vanishing dissolving from moment to > > moment. (Vic. VII, 3 > > I can see thoughts and emotions arising and vanishing from moment to > > moment. But I am doubtful about other things - it doesn't seem to > > fit my experience. And I can't find in the Suttas a reference to > > change occuring at the same steady and continuous rate for diverse > > things. Couldn't it be feasible for change to occur in fits and > > starts, not in a smooth and continuous succession? That some things > > might last for a while? > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > There is considerable variation in "lastingness" for conventional > objects, with some seeming to go through slow gradual change, ofeten through > periods of no change at all, and others dropping out quickly. I suspect this may no > t be so when it comes to directly observed, elementary, actualities > (paramattha dhammas), though I could be wrong. Take the stream of visual objects, for > example. Each time we note even the slightest variation in the smallest aspect > of "the scene," we have to recognize that this is no longer the same scene as > before. If, there is, in fact, a shortest such "scene duration," - and this > would be *very* short compared to the apparent durations of conventional objects > - it seems to me that at least two scenarios might apply. > Let us call the minimal duration before a change of any sort in a > visual object can occur, if there is such a minimal duration, the "min-dur". One > scenario is that every visual object persists for a time period that is an > integral multiple of the min-dur. In this case, the "discrete, variable duration > case," the same, single visual object persists throughout an entire > consecutive, gapless sequence of min-durs. In another scenario, the "discrete, fixed > duration case," every visual object persists only for the min-dur, and after each > min-dur, there is a next object that *may* be an exact replica of the > preceding. The difference between these two scenarios is definitional - purely a > matter of "parsing". > On the other hand, the presumption that there is a min-dur may well be > false. > Moreover, even if it is correct, it is not necessarily so that every visual > object persists for an *integral* multiple of that duration - the multiples may > be fractional, or even non-rational multiples! Even "worse," perhaps the > durational periods are more like fuzzy intervals than discrete periods. Or perhaps > there is actually no duration at all! Maybe each phenomenon drops away the > moment it appears. Perhaps, even, our ideas of time and duration don't really > apply at all, and are merely conventional! > Presumably, an arahant, or a Buddha at least, would know the precise > facts of this topic. But - and this, I think, is the bottom line - why does it > matter? Isn't this subject just one of the many leaves in the forest that are > not held in the Buddha's hand? The notion of 'anicca' implies neither > discreteness nor continuity. It doesn't imply gradual change or abrupt cessation or a > combination of the two. It implies only one thing: No conditioned state > remains, and, hence, there is nothing to cling to. The Buddha addressed but one > matter - suffering and the end of suffering, and it is for this purpose alone that > he taught the characteristic of anicca. By following the Buddha's path of > practice we have a means of coming to directly discover for ourselves the truth > of anicca. Then we will know, but more importantly, then we will be freed. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > metta and peace, > > Christine > > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > ============================ > With metta, > Howard 28124 From: Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 0:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anicca (Impermanence) Hi, Christine - In a message dated 12/20/03 7:45:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Hello Howard, > > Thanks for your reply Howard - > How I came to be examining anicca is that I am starting to > read "Change - an examination of impermanence in experience" by > Samanera Bodhesako. > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/chang-pr.htm > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Is it a worthwhile "read"? ------------------------------------------------ > He says that an important factor in understanding impermanence is > Right View - Wrong View is blindness. 'That blindness -- so the > Buddha's discourses repeatedly assert -- is involved centrally with > our failure to see, to know, the nature of impermanence. And yet in > our own experience everywhere we look we see that things are indeed > impermanent. If the Buddha is correct then what have we missed?' > > metta and peace, > Christine > ============================ Yes, everywhere we look there is impermanence. But we are trained (self-trained, it seems) to not see it - to see permanence where there is impermanence. We really need to purposely observe with the *intention* of seeing impermanence, I think. What is missing, perhaps, is that very intention. It is needed to overcome the tendency to the "static view" created, at least in part, by our taking of conventional concept-objects, frozen in time by the mind, as realities. The actual world of phenomena doesn't wait for us, and can't be grasped, but our substitute, shadow-world of concepts does not so appear. 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) 28125 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anicca (Impermanence) Hello Howard, I think it *could* be a good read, except I lack judgment to know whether he is on or off the Track. (I was the one up the back during Math class writing short stories and poems). So I would need to really concentrate when reading about recursiveness and reductionist analysis. I tried for a quick look at the final section "Two Overviews" but have a sinking feeling one is left with a question. I'll need to find a quiet time to concentrate (probably not on this last weekend of shopping before Christmas Day). :-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: I am starting to > > read "Change - an examination of impermanence in experience" by > > Samanera Bodhesako. > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/chang-pr.htm > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Is it a worthwhile "read"? > ------------------------------------------------ > Yes, everywhere we look there is impermanence. But we are trained > (self-trained, it seems) to not see it - to see permanence where there is > impermanence. We really need to purposely observe with the *intention* of seeing > impermanence, I think. What is missing, perhaps, is that very intention. It is > needed to overcome the tendency to the "static view" created, at least in part, by > our taking of conventional concept-objects, frozen in time by the mind, as > realities. The actual world of phenomena doesn't wait for us, and can't be > grasped, but our substitute, shadow-world of concepts does not so appear. > > With metta, > Howard 28126 From: Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 3:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anicca (Impermanence) Hi Christine The rate of change is dependent on the qualities of both an object and its environment. A "free floating" asteroid in space has very little impacting it and therefore changes form relatively slowly. It might look almost the same over millions of years. If it slams into a planet, huge changes occur relatively fast. All things are continuously changing in accordance to the forces currently impacting upon them. Current structural formations have taken "their" current shape in accordance with the forces "they" have encountered (over time). The cup sitting on my desk doesn't appear to be changing, but it is expanding and contracting dependent on temperature changes. It is moving through space (in relation to other objects) as the planet moves through space, and it will eventually encounter impact(s) cataclysmic enough the break it and render it no longer identifiable as a cup. If we are careful with the cup, put it in a display case and don't use it; and assuming an earthquake or something else doesn't knock it down, it will last much longer than if we use it regularly. This is simply because it is undergoing far less 'contact' in a more protected environment. Conditionality (the nature of conditional states) requires things to alter in accordance to conditions. Impermanence is just an aspect of conditionality, it is nothing in and of itself. I.E., there is no force of impermanence. There are simply interacting forces and THAT is impermanence in action. TG In a message dated 12/20/2003 3:19:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Dear Group, > > Sabbe sankhaaraa aniccaa means 'all formations are impermanent'. > This is commonsense, we see it in everything from emotions, to ice, > to the pyramids - nothing lasts forever, eventually all things > crumble and deteriorate. Nyanatiloka gives a quote from the > Visuddhimagga "Impermanency of things is the rising, passing and > changing of things, or the disappearance of things that have become > or arisen. The meaning is that these things never persist in the > same way, but that they are vanishing dissolving from moment to > moment. (Vic. VII, 3 > I can see thoughts and emotions arising and vanishing from moment to > moment. But I am doubtful about other things - it doesn't seem to > fit my experience. And I can't find in the Suttas a reference to > change occuring at the same steady and continuous rate for diverse > things. Couldn't it be feasible for change to occur in fits and > starts, not in a smooth and continuous succession? That some things > might last for a while? > > metta and peace, > Christine > 28127 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 9:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anicca (Impermanence) Hello TG, and all, Thanks TG - I understand what you are telling me, this is how the world appears to me, to all of us. But doesn't this bring us to an awkward spot here? :-) What about citta/cetasika and rupa? Never did find out how long a citta/cetasika can linger ... (17 times less than a rupa?) :-) I have been taught, here on dsg, and in abhidhamma books, that the Buddha taught that no 'thing' exists for even a moment. That mental and physical phenomena rise and fall away with incredible speed, and there is a 'mind moment' in between when it is there, but changing ... the flux or continuum. That what we see is an appearance of a solid lasting thing but is really groups of events that cannot stay for even a moment. This is the same way we see a continuous ring of fire if someone is whirling a burning stick. Within this rapid change (which, looking out my study window, I can't discern) physical phenomena and mental phenomena are said to be renewed ceaselessly. Accepting myself and the world in this way has helped me to understand more about anatta and conditionality, about no control - but I do feel hesitant about the theory, hence I continue to look into it ... Samanera Bodhesako seemed to be tackling the subject from a different angle. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > Hi Christine > > The rate of change is dependent on the qualities of both an object and its > environment. A "free floating" asteroid in space has very little impacting it > and therefore changes form relatively slowly. It might look almost the same > over millions of years. If it slams into a planet, huge changes occur > relatively fast. > > All things are continuously changing in accordance to the forces currently > impacting upon them. Current structural formations have taken "their" current > shape in accordance with the forces "they" have encountered (over time). > > The cup sitting on my desk doesn't appear to be changing, but it is expanding > and contracting dependent on temperature changes. It is moving through space > (in relation to other objects) as the planet moves through space, and it will > eventually encounter impact(s) cataclysmic enough the break it and render it > no longer identifiable as a cup. If we are careful with the cup, put it in a > display case and don't use it; and assuming an earthquake or something else > doesn't knock it down, it will last much longer than if we use it regularly. > This is simply because it is undergoing far less 'contact' in a more protected > environment. > > Conditionality (the nature of conditional states) requires things to alter in > accordance to conditions. Impermanence is just an aspect of conditionality, > it is nothing in and of itself. I.E., there is no force of impermanence. > There are simply interacting forces and THAT is impermanence in action. > > TG > > > In a message dated 12/20/2003 3:19:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, > cforsyth@v... writes: > > > Dear Group, > > > > Sabbe sankhaaraa aniccaa means 'all formations are impermanent'. > > This is commonsense, we see it in everything from emotions, to ice, > > to the pyramids - nothing lasts forever, eventually all things > > crumble and deteriorate. Nyanatiloka gives a quote from the > > Visuddhimagga "Impermanency of things is the rising, passing and > > changing of things, or the disappearance of things that have become > > or arisen. The meaning is that these things never persist in the > > same way, but that they are vanishing dissolving from moment to > > moment. (Vic. VII, 3 > > I can see thoughts and emotions arising and vanishing from moment to > > moment. But I am doubtful about other things - it doesn't seem to > > fit my experience. And I can't find in the Suttas a reference to > > change occuring at the same steady and continuous rate for diverse > > things. Couldn't it be feasible for change to occur in fits and > > starts, not in a smooth and continuous succession? That some things > > might last for a while? > > > > metta and peace, > > Christine > > > > > 28128 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] tanha and intention Ben --- jangchup777 wrote: ... > INTENTION ... > Also, when sankaras are spoken of as an aggregate of clinging, are > these the same sankharas that are referred to in dependent > origination? The simple answer to this question is 'no', but discussing the difference is no simple matter! In both contexts the term 'sankhara' refers to the mental factor that is cetana (volition, intention), but in the context of sankhara-khandha it includes other mental factors as well. However, even cetana needs to be understood from different aspects according to its context. In her book 'Cetasikas' (Ch 5, 'Volition in the Cycle of birth and Death'), Nina explains sankhara the context of dependent origination as follows: (www.zolag.co.uk/) <<< Sankhara, the second link in the Dependant Origination, is cetana in its function of kamma which produces vipaka, so that the cycle of birth and death continues. Under this aspect cetana is also called abhisankhara. The prefix ‘abhi’ is sometimes used in the sense of preponderance. Cetana which is kusala kamma or akusala kamma has preponderance in the conditioning of rebirth. Only cetana which accompanies kusala citta or akusala citta can be ‘abhisankhara’. ... All abhisankharas or “kamma-formations” are a link in the Dependent Origination, they are conditioned by ignorance. Kusala kamma is still conditioned by ignorance, although at the moment of kusala citta there is no ignorance accompanying the citta. So long as there is ignorance we perform kamma which can produce vipaka; we will be reborn and thus the cycle continues. We read in the Visuddhimagga (XVII, 119) that the ignorant man is like a blind person: As one born blind, who gropes along Without assistance from a guide, Chooses a road that may be right At one time, at another wrong, So while this foolish man pursues The round of births without a guide, Now to do merit he may choose And now demerit in such plight. But when the Dhamma he comes to know And penetrates the Truths beside, Then ignorance is put to flight At last, and he in peace may go. >>> As you can see, it's not an easy area to grasp, but I hope this helps a little. Jon PS Here also is a brief (abridged) extract from Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' that may help to give an idea of the different meanings of sankhara in these 2 contexts: (http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html) <<< 'Sankhára': This term has, according to its context, different shades of meaning, which should be carefully distinguished. 1. As the 2nd link of the formula of dependent origination, sankhára has the active aspect, 'forming, and signifies karma, i.e. wholesome or unwholesome volitional activity (cetaná) of body, speech or mind. This definition occurs, e.g. at S. XII, 2, 27. ... In other passages, in the same context, sankhára is defined by reference to: (a) meritorious karma-formations (puññ'ábhisankhára), (b) demeritorious k. (apuññ'abhisankhára), (c) imperturbable k. (áneñj'ábhisankhára), e.g. in S. XII, 51; D. 33. ... 3. It also denotes the 4th group of existence (sankhárakkhandha), and includes all 'mental formations' whether they belong to 'karmically forming' consciousness or not. 'Khandha': The 5 'groups (of existence)' or 'groups of clinging' (upádánakkhandha); alternative renderings: aggregates, categories of clinging's objects. These are the 5 aspects in which the Buddha has summed up all the physical and mental phenomena of existence, and which appear to the ignorant man as his ego, or personality, ... In S. XXII, 56, there is the following short definition of these 5 groups: ... "What, o monks, is the group of mental formations? There are 6 classes of volitional states (cetaná): with regard to visual objects, to sounds, to odours, to tastes, to bodily impressions and to mind objects.... SUMMARY OF THE 5 GROUPS ... IV. Group of Mental Formations (sankhára-kkhandha) This group comprises 50 mental phenomena, of which 11 are general psychological elements, 25 lofty (sobhana) qualities, 14 karmically unwholesome qualities. (I) To its most frequent usages the general term 'formation' may be applied, with the qualifications required by the context. This term may refer either to the act of 'forming or to the passive state of 'having been formed' or to both. >>> 28129 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Grasping at mind states Herman --- Egberdina wrote: > Hi Jon and everyone, ... > I understand the need to be brief, but am finding it difficult to > just post a link. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel027.html > Going Forth (Pabbajja) - A Call to Buddhist Monkhood by Sumana > Samanera > > For those inclined to do so, read the whole lot, I found it very > worthwhile. For those under constraints, do a search on "Dear Mr. > N., " and read that section. > > For those under even greater constraints, the salient point of the > message is : "1. persistence; 2. persistence; 3. persistence". I wouldn't disagree with this, assuming that it's persistence in developing the path that is being referred to (I'm sure it is). But what is the development of the path? This is what we all need to understand better, and it's not something that can be easily discerned from a superficial familiarity with the teachings and, indeed, is very easily misunderstood. I'd be interested to hear your own ideas on this anytime you feel inclined to share them ;-)) > I seriously wonder to what extent that particular understanding of > the teachings that militates against directed activity is intended > to keep samsara an attractive proposition. I know you do not really mean to suggest that directed activity is necessarily kusala, but that could be the inference drawn from the above. As with persistence, concentration, quietness and the rest, directed activity comes in many stripes, and is of no value unless it's kusala (in fact, if it's not kusala then it's akusala). Now in order for kusala to arise, is persistence or directed activity a necessary condition, would you say? > Isn't it a self-concept that lies at the source of the studious > avoidance of anything that could be interpreted as originating from > a self-concept? Probably ;-)). And that's why to get it right we need the guidance offered by the teachings. Jon 28130 From: Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anicca (Impermanence) Hi Christine In a message dated 12/20/2003 10:02:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Hello TG, and all, > > Thanks TG - I understand what you are telling me, this is how the > world appears to me, to all of us. But doesn't this bring us to an > awkward spot here? :-) TG: Not at all. What about citta/cetasika and rupa? Never > did find out how long a citta/cetasika can linger ... (17 times less > than a rupa?) :-) TG: Consciousness is a faster form of energy than form. Energies move at different speeds due to different causal conditions. > > I have been taught, here on dsg, and in abhidhamma books, that the > Buddha taught that no 'thing' exists for even a moment. TG: The notion, for example, that hardness arises for one moment and then is immediately replaced by another hardness is NOT taught in the suttas. The few references that the Buddha makes as to how things wear away are expressed in very common sense terms; and indicates that it is the contact between states that cause them to wear away. I would agree that nothing exists "as a self" for even a moment, but I don't think that's the issue at hand. That mental > > and physical phenomena rise and fall away with incredible speed, and > there is a 'mind moment' in between when it is there, but > changing ... the flux or continuum. That what we see is an > appearance of a solid lasting thing but is really groups of events > that cannot stay for even a moment. > This is the same way we see a continuous ring of fire > if someone is whirling a burning stick. Within this rapid change > (which, looking out my study window, I can't discern) physical > phenomena and mental phenomena are said to be renewed ceaselessly. > Accepting myself and the world in this way has helped me to > understand more about anatta and conditionality, about no control - > but I do feel hesitant about the theory, hence I continue to look > into it ... Samanera Bodhesako seemed to be tackling the subject from > a different angle. TG: My response is... 1) The above theory is not in the slightest taught by the Buddha in the Suttas. 2) I think you have good grounds for feeling hesitant about a theory that is beyond knowable experience and perhaps common sense. 3) In my opinion, the optical experience called "persistence of vision" is unrelated to the above impermanence theory. 4) In the Visuddhimagga, one of the ways described to develop impermanence insight is to realize that nothing traverses through time unchanged. For example...nothing in the 1st decade of one's life traverses into the 2nd decade and so on. This type of analysis is described in proceeding smaller and smaller increments. To me, this is just saying that things are continuously altering. I do not believe it is meant to mean that something has completely fallen away and something completely new has arisen. I think it has been mis-understood by some people in this way... i.e., to think of impermanence in a digital on-off fashion. Because states are continuously altering, how could any state traverse through time? Its always at least slightly different due to continuously altering conditions. Its basically another way of saying "no-self" because something would have to be a self to traverse through time and there isn't any such thing/state. I believe nature is altering in a analog fashion. It is not a digital "on-off" phenomena IMO. TG 28131 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Howard Thanks for this. I'd have had no idea! In the end, however, I don't think the history of the different schools has any real bearing on the central question of whether a particular view is or is not in conformity with the Buddha's original teaching. Nothing one reads should be taken as 'gospel'. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Michael) - ... > ========================== > I could, of course, be way wrong, but my understanding is > that the > perfection of wisdom suttas of early Mahayana, and the work of > Nagarjuna, were > responses not to Theravada, but to the Sarvastivada and Sautrantika > schools > which were seriously infected by substantialism-eternalism and > annihilationism. > > With metta, > Howard 28132 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] How we 'think' we'll act Dear Nina, I really liked your post. So often on yahoo lists people pretend to experience what other people expect them to experience, depending on their years as a buddhist. Often a problem I have is that the thought arises 'I ought to know and understand more' or 'I ought not to feel like this, I'm not a beginner anymore'. It is really beneficial for me that you express yourself with such openness and honesty. Thank you also for mentioning how knowing more of the latent tendencies helps you. I think I will study some more about them myself - so much to learn, and so little time. :-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Dear Christine, > Your post really moved me, and it gives food for thought. > First of all, I am really glad your test came out O.K. > The sutta Upajjhatthana Sutta AN v.57, is one of my favorites, going > straight to the heart. As John Kelly, our Pali teacher said, he meditates > on it every day: that is near and dear to me is subject to variableness...I am heir to my own > kamma....> > He said that I will need this sutta, I liked his insistance. > Since Lodewijk and I are both growing old, I have to reflect: all that is > near and dear to me is subject to variableness. Am I prepared? No. > > op 19-12-2003 10:37 schreef christine_forsyth op cforsyth@v...: > I had always > > thought that, with even the very little I understand of the Buddha's > > teachings, I would be calm and mature and face 'whate'er betide' in > > the future with serenity and peace. Well, so much for the script. > > There was no serenity and peace. > N: So human. What gets me too is that our reactions are so unforeseeable. > When there is something that upsets me, before I know the tears spring into > my eyes, almost automatically. Where is the calm Dhamma person? And when we > hear: now you see it is all uncontrollable, you see the anattaness, it does > not seem to help much. Or we hear: just conditions. Lodewijk gets upset and > irritated when he hears this. > C: . I'm actually quite > > disappointed in myself > N: Yes, I recognize this. And how!!! > C: I recall how with > > MahaMoggallana, even when the kamma of the past ripened so suddenly > > and terribly, it could only affect his body but could not shake his > > mind. And I wonder how does an ordinary unenlightened disciple of > > the Buddha prepare for and endure such an eventuality? > N: Realizing more and more how unforeseeable our reactions are, we cannot > prepare very much. It is as it is. > What helps me personally is going to the root of our defilements. As I > mentioned, knowing more about the latent tendencies that can only be > eradicated by lokuttara cittas. It helps to a certain extent to know where > the akusala citta that suddenly arises comes from. Where is the calm Dhamma > person: I realize that there is a great deal of conceit here. And clinging > how we would like to be. When we are upset about people or events it is > again defilement and this is also be caused by the latent tendency of > conceit, why does this have to happen to *me*. And personality beief, wrong > view. > We do not have to prepare ourselves, but when we see more clearly our > defilements it will make us come to realize increasingly their disadvantages > and dangers. Even the level of pariyatti, intellectial understanding is most > helpful. When time comes pariyatti can condition right awareness and right > understanding. That is why Moggallana could stand anything. > Nina. 28133 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Michael --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Jon, ... Michael: I was thinking about the opinions expressed by Bhikkhu Bodhi in the Introduction to the ‘Abhdhammattha Sangaha,’ and in the Introduction to ‘Abhidhamma Studies’ by Nyanaponika Thera. Wouldn’t you agree that he is a well respected modern Theravada scholar? Jon: Absolutely, but there are considerable differences of view even among well-respected modern scholars and, in any event, what is one to make of any differences with the ancient writers? In the end I think one has to go back to the original source as far as that is possible. Michael: If one regards the dhammas as a collection of conditions, and one can see that there is a ‘higher’ level of a collection of conditions, which conventionally we call a person, then one can infer that there must be a ‘lower’ level of a collection of conditions below the dhammas. Of course if one assumes the dhammas to be ultimate reality then this will not be acceptable. Jon: I haven't yet understood this idea of dhammas as a collection of conditions. Perhaps you could explain a little further. If, according to this idea, the conventional notion of a person is in reality (a level of) a collection of conditions, what is the relationship between dhammas and the notion of person (since you have described both as a 'collection of conditions')? Michael: I don’t think dhammas are paramatha, that is not what I read in the suttas. Jon: Are you saying that what you read in the suttas is what you have described here as 'dhammas as a collection of conditions'? Michael: To use a simple illustration [regarding the notion of regularity], imagine the leaves of the trees turning yellow in the Fall, this happens due to a series of causes and conditions, and the yellow color, which is the characteristic of the leaves in the Fall, is not intrinsic to those leaves but is a consequence of causes and conditions. Now, regularity is that those leaves will always turn yellow when those causes and conditions are present, and not due to something intrinsic in the leaves. Because every fall the leaves turn yellow an ordinary mind could attribute that characteristic to the leaves and not to the causes and conditions. Of course few people do that in relation to leaves, but with other more abstract phenomena/objects it is not difficult to attribute the characteristic as something intrinsic to that ‘thing’. Jon: I follow so far, but I don’t see how this relates to dhammas and their distinctive characteristic. Could you perhaps give a specific example? Sorry to be a little slow in getting your points. Jon 28134 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Michael --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Howard, > > Howard: > I could, of course, be way wrong, but my understanding is that the > perfection of wisdom suttas of early Mahayana, and the work of > Nagarjuna, > were > responses not to Theravada, but to the Sarvastivada and Sautrantika > schools > which were seriously infected by substantialism-eternalism and > annihilationism.. > > Michael: > I think you are right but the point is that those ideas also found > their way into the Theravada commentaries. Interesting. Do you have any particular commentaries in mind? I am not aware of any 'substantialism-eternalism and annihilationism' views in the commentaries -- in fact just the opposite. Jon 28135 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] tanha and intention Ben --- jangchup777 wrote: ... Ben: It seems that I cannot discern the difference between an intention and a desire in my own mind. A sankhara and tanha. Say a man desires to relieve himself at the toilet. Is this a desire? An intention? Is it called tanha because we favor the empty-bladder feeling and oppose the have-to-go feeling? Is it rightly called a bodily sankhara? Now if this person is prevented from using the toilet, he might relieve himself outside and be undisturbed. But another man might be angry and displeased. And this is because he is clinging to that intention to use the toilet, right? Is that what it means to not cling to sankharas? To be able to abandon an intention without any care? +++++++++++++++++ Jon: Intention and desire (attachment) are 2 mental factors that accompany moments of consciousness. It is said in the texts that every single moment of consciousness is accompanied by the mental factor of intention (cetana). Attachment/desire (lobha, a synonym for tanha) is a mental factor that may accompany unwholesome (akusala) moments of consciousness. Whenever there is attachment there is intention too. It may well not be possible to say whether one is motivated by intention or attachment. Because of our ignorance and wrong view, individual dhammas are 'invisible' except as moments of awareness (sati) and understanding (panna), neither of which can occur simply because we would like to know more about a particular dhamma or moment. To my understanding, what is important is the development of awareness of any presently occurring dhamma, so that gradually dhammas can be seen more as they truly are. With the gradual development of awareness, individual dhammas such as intention and desire gradually become to be seen as they are, and the distinction between them more apparent. However, we should not be too anxious for this to occur. It is the task of a lifetime or, more likely, several lifetimes. I have copied below 2 more extracts from Nina's 'Cetasikas', this time discussing the different functions and characteristics of these 2 mental factors as given in the texts. I have given rather lengthy extracts to show how different these 2 dhammas are, and to inlcude the many practical examples that Nina mentions. I think you'll agree that, reading these descriptions there ought to be no mistaking one for the other, yet the fact is that this happens all the time. We should take this as an indication of the extent to which awareness and understanding of dhammas has yet to be developed. ;-)) Hope you find this material interesting. Jon: 'Cetasikas' (www.zolag.co.uk/) CETANA (from Ch 5) Cetana, volition, is a cetasika which arises with every citta, as we have seen. Seeing, hearing or thinking which arise now are accompanied by cetana. Every type of cetana performs the function of coordinating the different tasks of the accompanying dhammas, no matter whether the citta is kusala citta, akusala citta, vipakacitta or kiriyacitta. When cetana accompanies kusala citta or akusala citta it performs, besides the function of coordinating, another function: it “wills” kusala or akusala and it can motivate a wholesome or an unwholesome deed through body, speech or mind. Kusala cetana and akusala cetana, which are actually kusala kamma and akusala kamma, are capable of producing the appropriate results of the deeds they motivated. Since kusala kamma and akusala kamma are capable of producing rebirth-consciousness, they are a link in the ‘Dependant Origination’ (paìiccasamuppada, the conditional origination of phenomena). ... While we study the different aspects of cetana we can see that cetana is different as it arises with different cittas. - Cetana which accompanies kusala citta or akusala citta “wills” kusala or akusala and it is capable of producing vipaka; it is, except in the case of cetana which accompanies magga-citta, abhisankhara or kammaformation. - The cetanas which accompany rúpavacara citta and arúpavacara citta can produce rebirth in higher planes of existence, in rúpa-brahma planes and arúpa-brahma planes, they are a link in the Dependant Origination. - Cetana which accompanies vipakacitta is vipaka, it is produced by akusala kamma or kusala kamma. This type of cetana has only the function of coordinating the other dhammas it accompanies. - The cetana which accompanies kiriyacitta is not kusala or akusala, nor is it vipaka; it is of the jati which is kiriya, inoperative. This type of cetana has only the function of coordinating. LOBHA (from Ch 15) The Dhammasangaùi (§1059) ... gives a long list of different names for lobha in order to illustrate its different shades and aspects. Lobha is compared to a creeper, it strangles its victim such as a creeper strangles a tree. It is like the ocean, it is insatiable. Lobha can be coarse or it can be more subtle such as hoping or expecting. It is a “bondage” because it binds beings in the round of births. It is a depravity because it corrupts the mind. The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 162) gives the following definition of lobha: … greed has the characteristic of grasping an object like “monkey lime”. Its function is sticking, like meat put in a hot pan. It is manifested as not giving up, like the dye of lamp-black. Its proximate cause is seeing enjoyment in things that lead to bondage. Swelling with the current of craving, it should be regarded as taking (beings) with it to states of loss, as a swift-flowing river does to the great ocean. Greed has the characteristic of grasping like monkey lime. Monkey lime was used by hunters in order to catch monkeys. We read in the Kindred Sayings (V, Mahå-vagga, Book III, Chapter I, §7, The monkey) that a hunter sets a trap of lime for monkeys. Monkeys who are free from “folly and greed” do not get trapped. We read: … But a greedy, foolish monkey comes up to the pitch and handles it with one paw, and his paw sticks fast in it. Then, thinking: I’ll free my paw, he seizes it with the other paw, but that too sticks fast. To free both paws he seizes them with one foot, and that too sticks fast. To free both paws and the one foot, he lays hold of them with the other foot, but that too sticks fast. To free both paws and both feet he lays hold of them with his muzzle: but that too sticks fast. So that monkey thus trapped in five ways lies down and howls, thus fallen on misfortune… In this way the hunter can catch him and roast him over the fire. The Buddha explained to the monks that the monk who is not mindful gets trapped by the “five sensual elements”: visible object, sound, scent, savour and tangible object. When one is taken in by these objects, “Måra gets access”. Clinging is dangerous, it leads to one’s own destruction. Are we at this moment taken in by one of the “five sensual elements”? Then we are in fact “trapped”. At the moment of lobha we enjoy the object of clinging and we do not see that lobha makes us enslaved, we do not see the danger of lobha. Therefore it is said that the proximate cause of lobha is seeing enjoyment in things that lead to bondage. Growing into a river of craving, lobha takes us to the “states of loss”. Lobha can motivate unwholesome deeds which are capable of producing an unhappy rebirth. So long as lobha has not been eradicated we are subject to birth, old age, sickness and death. Lobha is attached to many different kinds of objects and it has many degrees. Different names can denote the cetasika which is lobha. Råga (greed), abhijjå (covetousness) and taùhå (craving) are other names for lobha. When lobha is coarse it motivates akusala kamma patha (unwholesome course of action) through body, speech or mind. ... There is lobha, not only when we want to obtain things, but also when we enjoy pleasant sights, sounds, smells, flavours, tangible objects and mental objects. Don’t we like softness while we are sitting or lying down? When we sit on a hard floor we have aversion, and when we sit in a comfortable chair we find it agreeable and then there is lobha. Are we not attached to temperature, to the temperature which is just right for us: not too hot, not too cold? When we drink coffee or tea we want it to be of the temperature we like. When eating and drinking we are attached not only to flavour, but also to temperature. And don’t we like the smell of our food, the sight of it and the softness or hardness of it? There is bound to be attachment through each of the six doors, time and again. Lobha may be accompanied by pleasant feeling or by indifferent feeling. When it is accompanied by pleasant feeling there is enthusiasm ( píti) as well. When there is pleasant feeling we are delighted with it and then pleasant feeling becomes another object of attachment. When there is attachment there is also ignorance, shamelessness, recklessness and restlessness (uddhacca). Ignorance does not see the true nature of the object of clinging, it does not see that it is only a conditioned reality which does not stay. Shamelessness is not ashamed of akusala and recklessness does not see its danger. Restlessness is instability due to akusala, it prevents the citta from applying itself to kusala. Lobha can be accompanied by indifferent feeling and then it is not as intense as when it is accompanied by pleasant feeling. When we want to go somewhere or want to do something, lobha is likely to arise, but it may not always be accompanied by pleasant feeling, there may be indifferent feeling instead. Lobha-múla-citta with indifferent feeling is likely to arise countless times, but we are so ignorant, we do not notice it. 28136 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:55pm Subject: Re: Formal Practice or not Hi Herman, I was hoping others would respond :-(, but maybe they are waiting for something more exiting. You asked: > As a very preliminary starting point I would like to ask about the > following: > > > I don't know at this point where to start or what precise question > > to ask. To ask if Buddha taught formal practice or not, surely one > > is not going to appeal to history, since I think the primary > reason > > for the Tipitaka to exist is the "Teachings", not the facts about > > the Buddha's life and what the people of his time did. > > To divorce the Buddha's insights from the consequences of those > insights at a practical level will make any discussion less useful > than it can be, in my opinion. There is the hint of a suggestion in > the above that formal practice is just what people did in those > days. Leading the witness, my lord , and all that. Wouldn't it be > better for that to be discussed than assumed? :-) I am thinking about how our preconceptions lead us to interpret anything in a way best suited, and we think we *do* understand the meaning of the `Teachings' themselves. It is almost as if the Texts have little power as compared to our own inclinations. I was thinking that reading the Suttas for information about whether or not there was `formal meditation' (as we know it) during the Buddha's time, would reveal the fact that there was no such thing. And I was thinking that this is not something I would like to base my argument upon, but instead would like to find out through careful consideration if such a thing would be consistent with his Teachings, particularly about conditionality and anatta. But I guess this is what DSG members have been discussing all along. ;-) I do believe that many different practices existed during the Buddha's time, the most powerful of which was `jhana'. India during that time was "ripe" with really great individuals, by the thousands. Spiritual practices existed every where and it was very common for young people to leave their families, seeing the danger of the household life. Of course before the Buddha arrived, their understanding of the danger of Lobha was based not on `conditionality'. However even this was a result of the most admirable wisdom, unlike us, even with our knowledge of Buddha's teachings. I believe that they *knew* their minds very well, and their knowledge of the Three poisons was direct and not inferential. So in my view, even Jhana required extremely high wisdom. This wisdom however is not the same as `vipassana wisdom', since it does not tie in with conditionality and anatta and so it conditions an idea of `doing' something to rise above the lobha. Yet they were able to identify and discover the `meditation objects' (kasinas), most suitable to the individual for deeper levels of absorption. But later generations like now, have instead come to believe that the `objects' are central to the practice and all one has to do is choose one and start focusing. There is no direct experience of the danger of akusala yet they expect to reach the highest level of kusala (second only to Lokuttara cittas) through just focusing on something. In other words, even Jhana starts with `wisdom'! And Vipassana panna on the other hand, is concerned with eradicating `ignorance', so here "panna" is even more central. The above is not based on anything I have read, but is just an estimation of things based on my understanding of jhana and vipassana. The main reason why I mention this is because I believe that the same phenomenon has happened with regard to the Buddha's teaching of Satipatthana. Everyone says that Anatta and conditionality is central to the Buddha's teachings and that the path is lead by Rt. View, but they seem to have a lot of `buts' here and there. Like I said earlier, it is almost as if the Teachings itself has little power and influence when faced with our preconceptions and inclinations. Of course this happens to everyone and at this point I don't discount the possibility of it happening to me even right now. ;-) What do you think? I had other things in mind, but can't recall what they were. Anyway I will send this off and wait to see what you have to say. Metta, Sukin. 28137 From: Egberdina Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 0:08am Subject: Re: How we 'think' we'll act Hi Christine, I value this post highly, because you have written about what was experienced how it was experienced, not how it should have been experienced. An embarassing and scary thing happened to me recently. Vicki, my wife, was a couple of hours overdue from work, and I was becoming a little bit frantic and annoyed. I rang her up on her mobile, and she answered, cool as a cucumber. I blurted something out, but when she reminded me that she had told me that lunchtime that she would be at a Christmas function, I suddenly remembered. It changed everything. But when you don't know, you just don't know. It was a reminder to me to make no judgments about anything, because you can only know whatever comes to you. Glad to hear that whatever ailed you wasn't there. Best wishes and Christmas hugs Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello All, > > I was thinking over something that I experienced during the last > week, and wondered if any of us ever knows what we 'really' think, > and what we are really like - as opposed to what we think we think. > What I mean is - we can feel totally certain that we understand a > little of the Buddha's teachings and believe that this will/should > influence how we act, feel and think in certain stressful situations. > But I'm not sure it does. Last week, after a routine trip to the > doctor, I suddenly found myself sent to a specialist and then briefly > into a hospital within a few days for "tests". I had always > thought that, with even the very little I understand of the Buddha's > teachings, I would be calm and mature and face 'whate'er betide' in > the future with serenity and peace. Well, so much for the script. > There was no serenity and peace. My 'outside' looked calm and > mature, but 'inside' was chaos and fear. I have been regularly > reflecting on the five facts in the Upajjhatthana Sutta AN v.57 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an05-057.html > These reflections may or may not have been of any benefit, but I > noted a distinct feeling when I was in the middle of my worry about > future possibilities and suppositions, of 'But these can't really > refer to me ... not me'. I can recall a more rapid heartbeat, and > mixed feelings of anxiety, and unreality. I'm actually quite > disappointed in myself - I was only briefly a little nauseous from > the tests, nothing was any different from a week prior to even > knowing I needed the tests. And nothing is any different now, a week > after the tests show all is well. I wonder now how I would > endure long standing pain or illness. I recall how with > MahaMoggallana, even when the kamma of the past ripened so suddenly > and terribly, it could only affect his body but could not shake his > mind. And I wonder how does an ordinary unenlightened disciple of > the Buddha prepare for and endure such an eventuality? > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 28138 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 2:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anicca (Impermanence) - and other questions --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert > > It is true that thinking will not help :). It is my inquisitive > nature that at times I like to go to the core of a question. Maybe > I just cannot logically understand what is the difference between > conceit and wrong view. To me isn't conceit a wrong view. I just > dont understand what is the subtle difference between them as said in > the Manual, could you help me to find the commentaries comment on > this. ============= DearKen, Conceit and wrong view are different. Take the case of when you were (perhaps?) confused about sakkya-ditthi. Maybe you had ideas that some dhammas are controllable? And this is self view. Then later you began to realise that all dhammas are conditioned and fundamentally not under mastery of any self. This is right view. But at that same time that right view appeared was there any self satisfaction about this right view.That is conceit. Very natural; very, very common. But different from wrong view. RobertK 28139 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:03am Subject: Reminders Hi All, Just a couple of reminders. Trimming When replying to another post, please remember to trim any part of the other post that is not necessary for your reply (whether it appears before or after your own message). If the post you are replying to is a recent one, you may assume that other members will have seen it. Salutation etc Please use a salutation at the beginning of each post, and sign off at the end (preferably with a real name). Thanks for your co-operation. Jon and Sarah PS Comments or questions off-list, please. Thanks. 28140 From: philofillet Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:02am Subject: Re: How we 'think' we'll act Hello Christine, and Herman, and all. Glad to hear things turned out well, Christine. I think about this sort of thing quite often. I worry that my fledgling practice wouldn't stand up well to a really tough blow. Or, in my case, getting cut off by a car when I'm cycling could throw me into a sudden nasty outburst of anger if I don't have my Upekka (equanimity) firmly fastened when I hit the road! As for the health/illness thing, someone at another group pointed out to me that the reason I wonder how I would stand up if I were ill is that I'm too strongly attached to the notion of "health" - well, I'll have to be further along the path until I can let that attachment go, I'm afraid. I have been learning more lately about the practice of embracing pain, in its less severe forms, and seeing through it rather than running away from it. Haven't been running for the aspirin as soon as I have a slight headache like I used to. By the way, I'm a new member. I look forward to learning from you all. With Metta, Philip --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > I value this post highly, because you have written about what was > experienced how it was experienced, not how it should have been > experienced. <......> 28141 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:26am Subject: before going to sleep Dear Ken O, It is so good you consider Dhamma before going into Bhavangatown. It makes me think of Suan's admonition that it can be our last sleep. Considering the Dhamma can become our habitual kamma that can produce a happy rebirth. You bring up very good points: ignorance and asankharika, conceit, wrong view, etc. Later on I can also look at them and see what I can add. Sarah and I have a Co to the Abh. Sangaha which is very useful. Nina. 28142 From: Dan D. Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:33am Subject: moha I read in Nyanatiloka's "Buddhist Dictionary" that moha is delusion, a synonym for avijja, and that avijja is ignorance of the four noble truths and the most persistent of the ten fetters. My questions is: What's moha? "Duh! You just gave a definition for it, Dan. Why are you asking if you already know?!" Reciting a definition and *knowing* something are two different things. There are many people on this list who are so good at explaining things that I was hoping someone could help me understand this term -- what it means, how to explain it, how to recognize it, what its impact is, etc... Dan 28143 From: abhidhammika Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:54am Subject: The Wrong View And Conceit Dear Ken O, Robert K, Nina, Mike Niece and all How are you? Suppose we keep reading the teachings of Gotama the Buddha and the commentaries of Aacariya Buddhaghosa, and suppose also that we understand and accept them, then we could well have the right view at the level of the good worldly humans (kalyaa.na puthujjana). When the mind with greed arises in the good worldly human, it would do so without the wrong view. But, as there is no wrong view, the mind with greed may arise with conceit or may not. What I am getting at is that an appreciative follower of Gotama the Buddha or Theravada teachings can be deemed to be without the wrong view (otherwise, they won't be following those teachings). If I have to copy from the whiteboard what I wrote for my second-year students, it is as follows. I was explaining the nature of idealism in the Clinical Bodhiology class. "A Viewpoint As How To Deal With Reality Idealism as a way of dealing with reality regards the mental as the ultimate reality, does not accept matter as reality. Someone who suffers from idealism treats hallucinations (generated by his mind) as realities, imagines things, is in denial." End Quote. As you see, the wrong view serves as a tool to deal with reality. Of course, in this case it would deal with reality in the wrong way. By contrast, conceit is to do with who or what we are or who or what we are not, or what we have or what we do not have. So even a Theravadin Buddhist has the problems of who or what one is or who or what one is not, or what one has or what one does not have. These problems are those of conceit and arise in the greed-associated mind without the wrong view. Why would conceit arise in the greed- associated mind? Think about it on your own for now. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong > wrote: > > Hi Robert > > > DearKen, > Conceit and wrong view are different. Take the case of when you were > (perhaps?) confused about sakkya-ditthi. Maybe you had ideas that > some dhammas are controllable? And this is self view. Then later you > began to realise that all dhammas are conditioned and fundamentally > not under mastery of any self. This is right view. But at that same > time that right view appeared was there any self satisfaction about > this right view.That is conceit. Very natural; very, very common. > But different from wrong view. > RobertK 28144 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:02am Subject: Re: moha Dear Dan, Always good to hear from you! Is there any moha now? Are the characteristics of seeing and visble object discerned clearly, one is rupa the other nama. If not then is moha present? Without first discerning the nature of the realities of the present moment how can we really see ariya sacca (noble truth) such as dukkha. So moha and lobha are so common and obscure reality. There is almost always running among concepts and moha is one of the prime causes of this. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > I is: > What's moha? > 28145 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Hi Jon and Michael I found some info on sabhava dhamma in the book Summary of the topic of Abdhidhamma and Exposition of the Topics of Abdhidhamma translated by R.P. Wijeratne and Rupert Gethin. In the commentary of the Prologue, there is an explanation of the Utimate Dhammas "Alternatively, consciouness is the mere act of being conscious (cintana) . For it is its mere occurence in accordance with conditions that is called 'a dhamma with its own particular nature' (sabhava-dhamma). In consideration of this, it is the definition of the particular nature of ultimate dhammas that is taken as absolute: the explanation by way of agent (kattar) and instrument (karana) should be seen as a relative manner of speaking. For a dhamma's being treated as an agent and also its being[treated] in consequence as an instrument, by attributing the state of agent to a group of conascent dhammas, are both taken as a relative manner of speaking. The explanation in these terms should be understood as for the purpose of indicating the non-existence of an agent, etc apart for the particular nature of a dhamma." I hope that clarify sabhava-dhamma. The author of the books is attributed to Anuruddha. Thats all folks and happy discussing for both of you. Cheers and kind regards Ken O 28146 From: Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anicca (Impermanence) Hi, TG (and Christine) - In a message dated 12/21/03 2:12:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > > Hi Christine > > In a message dated 12/20/2003 10:02:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, > cforsyth@v... writes: > > >Hello TG, and all, > > > >Thanks TG - I understand what you are telling me, this is how the > >world appears to me, to all of us. But doesn't this bring us to an > >awkward spot here? :-) > > TG: Not at all. > > What about citta/cetasika and rupa? Never > >did find out how long a citta/cetasika can linger ... (17 times less > >than a rupa?) :-) > > TG: Consciousness is a faster form of energy than form. Energies move at > different speeds due to different causal conditions. > > > > > >I have been taught, here on dsg, and in abhidhamma books, that the > >Buddha taught that no 'thing' exists for even a moment. > > TG: The notion, for example, that hardness arises for one moment and then > is > immediately replaced by another hardness is NOT taught in the suttas. The > few references that the Buddha makes as to how things wear away are > expressed in > very common sense terms; and indicates that it is the contact between states > > that cause them to wear away. > > I would agree that nothing exists "as a self" for even a moment, but I don't > > think that's the issue at hand. > > That mental > > > >and physical phenomena rise and fall away with incredible speed, and > >there is a 'mind moment' in between when it is there, but > >changing ... the flux or continuum. That what we see is an > >appearance of a solid lasting thing but is really groups of events > >that cannot stay for even a moment. > >This is the same way we see a continuous ring of fire > >if someone is whirling a burning stick. Within this rapid change > >(which, looking out my study window, I can't discern) physical > >phenomena and mental phenomena are said to be renewed ceaselessly. > >Accepting myself and the world in this way has helped me to > >understand more about anatta and conditionality, about no control - > >but I do feel hesitant about the theory, hence I continue to look > >into it ... Samanera Bodhesako seemed to be tackling the subject from > >a different angle. > > TG: My response is... > 1) The above theory is not in the slightest taught by the Buddha in the > Suttas. > 2) I think you have good grounds for feeling hesitant about a theory that > is > beyond knowable experience and perhaps common sense. > 3) In my opinion, the optical experience called "persistence of vision" is > unrelated to the above impermanence theory. > 4) In the Visuddhimagga, one of the ways described to develop impermanence > insight is to realize that nothing traverses through time unchanged. For > example...nothing in the 1st decade of one's life traverses into the 2nd > decade and > so on. This type of analysis is described in proceeding smaller and smaller > > increments. > To me, this is just saying that things are continuously altering. I do not > believe it is meant to mean that something has completely fallen away and > something completely new has arisen. I think it has been mis-understood by > some > people in this way... i.e., to think of impermanence in a digital on-off > fashion. > > Because states are continuously altering, how could any state traverse > through time? Its always at least slightly different due to continuously > altering > conditions. Its basically another way of saying "no-self" because > something > would have to be a self to traverse through time and there isn't any such > thing/state. > > I believe nature is altering in a analog fashion. It is not a digital > "on-off" phenomena IMO. > > TG > ============================ Well, the bottom line is that we just don't know, and in the suttas this is an issue not addressed by the Buddha, who largely taught in conventional terms. But I think that the discrete vs continuous (or digital vs analog) issue is off the point. What is critical, as I see it, are two points: 1) Nothing remains - e.g., an odor is observed, but at some later time a sound is noted instead, and later "the" odor is noted again; sadness arises, but at some later time it is quite clear that no sadness is present, but completely gone at that time; distractedness is present, but at some later time time it is clear that the mind is composed, the distractedness completely gone at that time, and 2) With the development of heightened concentration, energy, calm, and mindfulness, the non-remaining is seen to occur at way finer intervals than previously, to the extent even of the world seeming to fly away at blinding speed. 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) 28147 From: Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 3:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Hi, Jon - In a message dated 12/21/03 2:15:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > Thanks for this. I'd have had no idea! > > In the end, however, I don't think the history of the different > schools has any real bearing on the central question of whether a > particular view is or is not in conformity with the Buddha's original > teaching. Nothing one reads should be taken as 'gospel'. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I completely agree. ---------------------------------------------- > > Jon > ======================= With metta, Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon (and Michael) - > ... > >========================== > > I could, of course, be way wrong, but my understanding is > >that the > >perfection of wisdom suttas of early Mahayana, and the work of > >Nagarjuna, were > >responses not to Theravada, but to the Sarvastivada and Sautrantika > >schools > >which were seriously infected by substantialism-eternalism and > >annihilationism. > > > >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) 28148 From: Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 3:18am Subject: A Nice Reference for Bhavanga Hi, all - Whether bhavanga cittas are a reality or not, and whether there is a conceptual need for them or not, I do think that the following presentation is a rather good one and one which shows the Theravadin notions of bhavanga and bhavangasota to be far more "innocent" than their Mahayana first cousin of 'alayavijnana' (storehouse consciousness), the latter smacking strongly of substantialism, if not eternalism: http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/budtch/budteach20.htm With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 28149 From: Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 3:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How we 'think' we'll act Hi, Herman - In a message dated 12/21/03 3:09:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Hi Christine, > > I value this post highly, because you have written about what was > experienced how it was experienced, not how it should have been > experienced. > > An embarassing and scary thing happened to me recently. Vicki, my > wife, was a couple of hours overdue from work, and I was becoming a > little bit frantic and annoyed. I rang her up on her mobile, and she > answered, cool as a cucumber. I blurted something out, but when she > reminded me that she had told me that lunchtime that she would be at > a Christmas function, I suddenly remembered. It changed everything. > But when you don't know, you just don't know. > > It was a reminder to me to make no judgments about anything, because > you can only know whatever comes to you. > > Glad to hear that whatever ailed you wasn't there. > > Best wishes and Christmas hugs > > Herman > ============================ Herman, you sound to me just like me! ;-) When we really love someone, we are vitally concerned with their welfare, and when there is reason for que stioning that welfare, being worldlings, and attached, we suffer great worry, great consternation, really enormous dukkha. Perhaps some day we will have put away our defilements, and then we can experience love and compassion and concern without the frantic upset, but until then, the dukkha of worry is the price we willingly pay to love and to be alive (and not dried up husks). 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) 28150 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:26am Subject: Re: A Nice Reference for Bhavanga Hi Howard and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > Whether bhavanga cittas are a reality or not, and whether there is a > conceptual need for them or not, I do think that the following presentation is > a rather good one and one which shows the Theravadin notions of bhavanga and > bhavangasota to be far more "innocent" than their Mahayana first cousin of > 'alayavijnana' (storehouse consciousness), the latter smacking strongly of > substantialism, if not eternalism: > > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/budtch/budteach20.htm I read this article and I didn't see anything mentioned about storehouse consciousness ('alayavijnana'). Are these your conclusions or did I miss something? I found the article interesting but I am curious as to how anyone is able to know the type of consciousness while sleeping, or how it is like the consciousness of death. Did the Buddha state this in any sutta? From what I have read of sleep studies, and I have even participated in a sleep study, there are several stages to sleep with varying mental activity in each stage. According to this article sleep is either dreaming or being like one who is dead. I don't know if this is scientifically accurate and, most importantly, I have no idea what it has to do with Buddhism. Is it to decrease fear of death because it is supposed to be like sleeping? Or is to keep one mindful of death while sleeping? Is kamma generated while sleeping? What about dreams about killing someone? Would that generate bad kamma? What if someone kills someone while sleep walking (which occurred sometime back in Arizona)? What kind of kamma would that generate? Hmmm…I have a lot of questions it seems. The second thing I found interesting about the article is the check list of the various negative consequences of negative actions. I have never seen that before. Who would have known that lying causes bad breath? ;-) The writer didn't give a source for this material so I don't know where it comes from. Do you know? > > With metta, > Howard Metta, James 28151 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Hello Jon, See below, >From: Jonothan Abbott >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics >Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:18:32 +0800 (CST) > >Michael > > --- Michael Beisert wrote: > > Hello Jon, >... >Michael: >I was thinking about the opinions expressed by Bhikkhu Bodhi in the >Introduction to the ‘Abhdhammattha Sangaha,’ and in the Introduction >to ‘Abhidhamma Studies’ by Nyanaponika Thera. Wouldn’t you agree that >he is a well respected modern Theravada scholar? > >Jon: >Absolutely, but there are considerable differences of view even among >well-respected modern scholars and, in any event, what is one to make >of any differences with the ancient writers? In the end I think one >has to go back to the original source as far as that is possible. > Michael: Well, and what would be the original sources? There is no agreement on that either. Everyone for himself/herself has to find a way of qualifying the teachings. One should strive to acquire that discernment. >Michael: >If one regards the dhammas as a collection of conditions, and one can >see that there is a ‘higher’ level of a collection of conditions, >which conventionally we call a person, then one can infer that there >must be a ‘lower’ level of a collection of conditions below the >dhammas. Of course if one assumes the dhammas to be ultimate reality >then this will not be acceptable. > >Jon: >I haven't yet understood this idea of dhammas as a collection of >conditions. Perhaps you could explain a little further. If, >according to this idea, the conventional notion of a person is in >reality (a level of) a collection of conditions, what is the >relationship between dhammas and the notion of person (since you have >described both as a 'collection of conditions')? > Michael: It seems quite obvious to me. The concept of a person arises from a deluded mind. One can divide the person into a multitude of parts. Like body parts, elements, dhammas, etc. And the divison and subdivision can go on indefinitely. There is no final substratum that one can argue really exists. Dhammas only exist because of conditionality therefore one can say that they arise from a collection of conditions. And a person will arise from another set or collection of conditions. >Michael: >I don’t think dhammas are paramatha, that is not what I read in the >suttas. > >Jon: >Are you saying that what you read in the suttas is what you have >described here as 'dhammas as a collection of conditions'? Michael: Whoever sees dependent origination sees the dhamma ... That's all I have to say > >Michael: >To use a simple illustration [regarding the notion of regularity], >imagine the leaves of the trees turning yellow in the Fall, this >happens due to a series of causes and conditions, and the yellow >color, which is the characteristic of the leaves in the Fall, is not >intrinsic to those leaves but is a consequence of causes and >conditions. Now, regularity is that those leaves will always turn >yellow when those causes and conditions are present, and not due to >something intrinsic in the leaves. Because every fall the leaves turn >yellow an ordinary mind could attribute that characteristic to the >leaves and not to the causes and conditions. Of course few people do >that in relation to leaves, but with other more abstract >phenomena/objects it is not difficult to attribute the characteristic >as something intrinsic to that ‘thing’. > >Jon: >I follow so far, but I don’t see how this relates to dhammas and >their distinctive characteristic. Could you perhaps give a specific >example? > Michael: It's clear enough to me. A leave turns yellow in Fall and this is a distinctive characteristic of leaves in the Fall. Does it mean the leaves own that characteristic, it is intrinsic to them? Of course not. Could the leaves have another characteristic? Yes, if conditions would be different. The same logic applies to any phenomena. >Sorry to be a little slow in getting your points. Michael: Yeah. The turnaround has been really slow. I will have to stop this thread here though because I will be unavailable in the next days. So maybe later we can catch up. Metta Michael 28152 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Hy Jon, See below ... >From: Jonothan Abbott >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics >Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:22:51 +0800 (CST) > >Michael > > --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Howard, > > > > Howard: > > I could, of course, be way wrong, but my understanding is that the > > perfection of wisdom suttas of early Mahayana, and the work of > > Nagarjuna, > > were > > responses not to Theravada, but to the Sarvastivada and Sautrantika > > schools > > which were seriously infected by substantialism-eternalism and > > annihilationism.. > > > > Michael: > > I think you are right but the point is that those ideas also found > > their way into the Theravada commentaries. > >Interesting. Do you have any particular commentaries in mind? I am >not aware of any 'substantialism-eternalism and annihilationism' >views in the commentaries -- in fact just the opposite. Michael: The one that springs to mind is the Visudhimagga. It has been discussed to some length here already in relation to the analysis made by D. Kalupahana. Metta Michael 28153 From: Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anicca (Impermanence) Hi Howard Christines original question seemed to concern the physics of impermanence as much or more so than the phenomenological experience of it. I agree that what boils down to actual experience is primary; but the analysis of physical "happenings" is also an important insight tool and the Buddha uses such physical examples of impermanence very often in the suttas -- oceans, mountains, treasures, and all sorts of other objects. There are 3 examples in the suttas where the Buddha addresses the issue of -- how things are worn away. I'll just give one here. The Buddha describes the length of an aeon with the analogy of a cloth being rubbed across a 'seven mile cubed' rock once every one hundred years. "The rock would sooner be worn away than the period of an aeon would expire." He is clearly showing (in my mind) that friction wears things out in a gradual manner. (Of course he'd have to replace those cloths pretty often.) ;-) TG In a message dated 12/21/2003 8:01:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Well, the bottom line is that we just don't know, and in the suttas > this is an issue not addressed by the Buddha, who largely taught in > conventional > terms. > But I think that the discrete vs continuous (or digital vs analog) > issue is off the point. What is critical, as I see it, are two points: 1) > Nothing > remains - e.g., an odor is observed, but at some later time a sound is noted > > instead, and later "the" odor is noted again; sadness arises, but at some > later time it is quite clear that no sadness is present, but completely gone > at > that time; distractedness is present, but at some later time time it is > clear > that the mind is composed, the distractedness completely gone at that time, > and > 2) With the development of heightened concentration, energy, calm, and > mindfulness, the non-remaining is seen to occur at way finer intervals than > previously, to the extent even of the world seeming to fly away at blinding > speed. > > With metta, > Howard > 28154 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:07am Subject: Re: How we 'think' we'll act Hello Philip, (Herman) and all, Welcome to the List. :-) I guess that the unpredictability of our own reactions underlines the teachings on no-self and conditionality. I'd say you'd have to be alert and have your wits about you as a cyclist, considering some of the drivers' on the roads nowadays (me!). I'll be patient and forebearing if the conditions are there for me to be so, and if not, I won't. Is there anything you would care to say about how you came to be interested in the Dhamma and where you live? - the rest of us are a pretty varied group, people of all ages from North and South America, Europe, India, Africa, all over Asia and Australasia (and, no doubt, elsewhere). You can see scads of us in the various photo albums at: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst It is also worth having a look at the various topics under Useful Posts (click on the fourth link from the top) in the Files page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philofillet" 28155 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:08am Subject: Re: Formal Practice or not Hi Sukin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Herman, > > I was hoping others would respond :-(, but maybe they are waiting > for something more exiting. No, I personally wasn't waiting for something more exciting, I just didn't quite understand your question or where you were coming from. It seemed to be a provisional type of question that didn't state exactly what you were looking for. Personally, I believe that Buddhist meditation is part of the Noble Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path can roughly be categorized as: Morality, Meditation, and Wisdom and they each condition each other. I am a strong believer in Meditation and I am a strong believer in Morality because I believe in kamma; (that isn't to say I perfectly practice either one, but I have been much better as of late). Wisdom is the one that is a little tricky to me. Take for example this group: here we have two camps of people who either fully believe in the Abhidhamma, or don't fully believe in it. From my perspective, those who believe in it are wrong and are lacking in a certain kind of wisdom, otherwise they wouldn't believe in it (Sorry, I am just being honest). From their perspective I am the one who is wrong and am lacking in a certain kind of wisdom because I don't believe in it. I have been told as much but usually in a very politically correct way. Rob M. states that belief or disbelief in the Abhidhamma has nothing to do with wisdom but is more a personal preference caused by accumulations and conditioning. I like Rob M's approach but I think it is more than a personal preference; I flat out don't believe in the Abhidhamma and don't believe that it is true Buddhism. Therefore, some say that simply believing in Buddhism (as opposed to Christianity or something else) is Right View and Right Understanding but I don't think so. I think that is a start but I think that it takes a lot more to have wisdom. I accept the possibility that I am wrong about the Abhidhamma and that the others are right, but it can't be both. Really, sticky issues come up when looking at meditation and morality also. In Buddhism, things are not always cut and dry all the time. I don't know if I have answered your question or just rambled on pointlessly. If you ask a more specific question maybe I won't ramble as much! ;-) > Metta, > Sukin. Metta, James 28156 From: Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Nice Reference for Bhavanga Hi, James - In a message dated 12/21/03 12:26:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > Hi Howard and All, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, all - > > > > Whether bhavanga cittas are a reality or not, and whether > there is a > >conceptual need for them or not, I do think that the following > presentation is > >a rather good one and one which shows the Theravadin notions of > bhavanga and > >bhavangasota to be far more "innocent" than their Mahayana first > cousin of > >'alayavijnana' (storehouse consciousness), the latter smacking > strongly of > >substantialism, if not eternalism: > > > >http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/budtch/budteach20.htm > > I read this article and I didn't see anything mentioned about > storehouse consciousness ('alayavijnana'). Are these your > conclusions or did I miss something? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: The article talked only about bhavanga cittas, not storehouse consciousness. I've learned about the latter from other sources, where it is clear that it is a substantialist-eternalist notion as adopted by much of Mahayana (though perhaps not in the original formulation by Vasubandhu). The conclusion is mine, based on this article (about bhavanga cittas) and my knowledge from other sources of alayavijnana. ------------------------------------------------- I found the article interesting > > but I am curious as to how anyone is able to know the type of > consciousness while sleeping, or how it is like the consciousness of > death. Did the Buddha state this in any sutta? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think so. Moreover, it doesn't seriously occur in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. It is a commentarial notion, and it may or may not have validity. I have no idea. The notion is not unreasonable, but that proves nothing. My point was merely to show that it is not an essentialist-eternalist notion but is well in line with the anatta perspective of Buddhism. --------------------------------------------------- From what I have > > read of sleep studies, and I have even participated in a sleep study, > there are several stages to sleep with varying mental activity in > each stage. According to this article sleep is either dreaming or > being like one who is dead. I don't know if this is scientifically > accurate and, most importantly, I have no idea what it has to do with > Buddhism. Is it to decrease fear of death because it is supposed to > be like sleeping? Or is to keep one mindful of death while > sleeping? Is kamma generated while sleeping? What about dreams > about killing someone? Would that generate bad kamma? What if > someone kills someone while sleep walking (which occurred sometime > back in Arizona)? What kind of kamma would that generate? Hmmm…I > have a lot of questions it seems. > > The second thing I found interesting about the article is the check > list of the various negative consequences of negative actions. I > have never seen that before. Who would have known that lying causes > bad breath? ;-) The writer didn't give a source for this material so > I don't know where it comes from. Do you know? > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Can't say now - I'm too busy brushing my teeth! ----------------------------------------------- > > > > >With metta, > >Howard > > Metta, James > =============================== With sleepy 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) 28157 From: Larry Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:37am Subject: Re: moha --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > What's moha? Larry: Huh????????????????????????? 28158 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 0:02pm Subject: FW: [Pali] thorn simile in Pali Canon? Dear Rob K, Sarah and all, You remember that a long time ago we studied with Jim wholesome craving for arahatship, in the Netti (the Guide)? I frwd this, since it came up in the Pali list. Dear John, This is a very subtle point and I like to research myself. M. 137 explains about sorrow connected with renunciation and how this sorrow arises as a result of desire. The Co (in Thai) is very good, but I need more time. Netti: 87: craving that is profitable and unprofitable. Thorn, ka.n.taka (n), I looked up PED: A. V, 135: the thornless thorn-removers are arahats. This weekend I am engaged with worldly craving, but in the course of next week I try again. Nina. op 21-12-2003 02:54 schreef John Kelly op palistudent@y...: > Does anyone know where in the Pali canon there is a > simile about removing a thorn with a thorn then > throwing both thorns away? This is in reference to > craving for Arahatship helps motivate one to attain > Arahatship, and so end all craving. > 28159 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 3:55pm Subject: more spirits Dear Robert Why can't farangs see phi or deva and Merry Christmas. I hope you get all you want and Alex too. I'm sorry I can't make this letter longer because the lesson is running short and I cannot use the computer at home. Charles 28160 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:27pm Subject: Re: more spirits Hi Charles, I think maybe most farang are not so interested in phi and deva and so even if they were there we wouldn't know. In one book it says that devas don't much like the smell of humans because some of the bad things we do sometimes like telling lies or stealing gives a bad fragrance(for devas) that even perfume can't mask. So the devas usually don't like to be near most humans. But who knows? Best wishes for Xmas too. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear Robert > > Why can't farangs see phi or deva and Merry Christmas. > I hope you get all you want and Alex too. > > I'm sorry I can't make this letter longer because the > lesson is running short and I cannot use the computer > at home. > > Charles 28161 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How we 'think' we'll act Dear Philip, welcome to the list. We all cling to health, it is natural. But it is good to realize that we cling. Thus, we do not run away from clinging but try to understand more about it. I hope you find the discussions here useful, Nina. op 21-12-2003 13:02 schreef philofillet op plnao@j...: > I have been learning more lately about the practice of embracing > pain, in its less severe forms, and seeing through it rather than > running away from it. Haven't been running for the aspirin as soon as > I have a slight headache like I used to. 28162 From: Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Nice Reference for Bhavanga Ven. Narada Mahathera: "In the opinion of Western philosophers sub-consciousness and consciousness co-exist. But, according to Buddhist philosophy, no two types of consciousness co-exist." Hi all, I think I have a qualm with this. It seems to me that everything in consciousness process which is not an object of consciousness could be called sub-consciousness in the sense that it is mental machination that we are not aware of. So all the cetasikas that accompany consciousness are sub-conscious until they become objects of consciousness, one at a time. It seems obvious to me that there is a lot going on in other people's minds that they are unaware of, and I am sure it is the same for me. Also, "accumulations" (ayuhana) might be a closer parallel to "store-house consciousness" than bhavanga. Bhavanga consciousness itself is very mysterious. The only reason it seems blank is because of extreme subtlety [I guess?]. My understanding is that it is a consciousness of an object repeated over and over again. I also vaguely remember it is responsible for producing bodily rupa. Is this right? Larry 28163 From: Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Nice Reference for Bhavanga Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/22/03 12:21:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Ven. Narada Mahathera: "In the opinion of Western philosophers > sub-consciousness and consciousness co-exist. But, according to Buddhist > philosophy, no two types of consciousness co-exist." > > Hi all, > > I think I have a qualm with this. It seems to me that everything in > consciousness process which is not an object of consciousness could be > called sub-consciousness in the sense that it is mental machination that > we are not aware of. So all the cetasikas that accompany consciousness > are sub-conscious until they become objects of consciousness, one at a > time. It seems obvious to me that there is a lot going on in other > people's minds that they are unaware of, and I am sure it is the same > for me. > > Also, "accumulations" (ayuhana) might be a closer parallel to > "store-house consciousness" than bhavanga. Bhavanga consciousness itself > is very mysterious. The only reason it seems blank is because of extreme > subtlety [I guess?]. My understanding is that it is a consciousness of > an object repeated over and over again. I also vaguely remember it is > responsible for producing bodily rupa. Is this right? > > Larry > ========================== This may well go against Abhidhamma, but I believe that the cetasikas, as cetasikas (and not as object), are experiential parts of mindstates. After a given mindstate or sequence of mindstates in which the feeling was pleasantness, we can look back and say "That was pleasant," and that implies that the pleasantness was a (participatory) aspect of the experience. Likewise for distractedness, worry, calm, etc. When we examine an object with a calm mind, the calmness is part of the experience, but is not the object of the experience. So, I do not think that the cetasikas are either unconscious or even subconscious - they are simply not the arammana. Accumulations and inclinations (anusaya), on the other hand, are things I'm not very clear about. However, the notion of permanent or semi-permanent structures in the mind is worrisome to me from an anatta perspective. Perhaps accumulations and inclinations on any occasion amount to nothing more than the particular combination of cetasikas present in the current mindstate or in prior mindstates. Certain groups of cetasikas tend to condition future groups of cetasikas, and that may be all there is to accumulations and inclinations. We are "inclined" to react in certain ways due to the cetasikas that have just arisen or that previously arose. (Conditionality need not hold only between immediately successive mindstates, I think, though I could be wrong on this. The issue isn't critical.) In this case, it may be incorrect to think of accumulations and inclinations as subconscious. Of course, any elements of a mindstate, including the object, the awareness itself, and the cetasikas, may occur with varying intensities, and any of these occuring with very low intensity could be thought of as subconscious/subliminal. Bhavanga cittas, if they are actualities, are most likely minimal-intensity mindstates. 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) 28164 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:04pm Subject: Question on Brahma Viharas Hello All, On another list, a member put out a call for others to band together and to perform a Metta Bhavana on Christmas Eve in unison and radiate loving-kindness to the whole world, mentioning in particular, Palestine, West Bank, and Afghanistan. (One would also hope those 38 Afghanis fasting on Nauru.) Is this a lovely, generous thought, possibly even an effective way to bring about change in the world, or is it just wishful sweet thinking - a soothing balm to those of us not in control of our countries policies? I remember others writing about the 'near' enemies of the Brahma Viharas and how very easily people mistook them for the genuine article. Things like selfish affection and lust being the near enemy of metta, and pity and aversion being the near enemy of compassion. I know there have been a couple of discussions coming down on the side of radiating metta only to others and not oneself, but should metta be projected to *individual* others, or only to *groups and categories*? Have we ever discussed whether the Brahma Viharas actually have an effect on others visualised, or only on the person 'projecting' them? i.e. the 'psychic lightning' vs. 'self development'. [Just by the by ... Do you think (if the psychic lightning hypothesis works) that a whole mob of us could co-ordinate our metta and zap the three B's - President Bush and Prime Ministers Blair and Bonsai (Little Bush) a.k.a. Howard and bring about a change in world politics? :-) I'm up for it, if anyone thinks it has half a chance :-)] metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 28165 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:30pm Subject: Re: Formal Practice or not Hi Sukin, Thanks for starting this thread. Apart from "well said" and "me too," I don't have much to add at this stage. (Lost for words.) ------------- S: > I am thinking about how our preconceptions lead us to interpret anything in a way best suited, and we think we *do* understand the meaning of the `Teachings' themselves. It is almost as if the Texts have little power as compared to our own inclinations. ------------- Exactly! Were I not in fear of the Trimming monitors, I would just repost your entire message :-) ------------- S: > Let us try to make things more clear for ourselves as well as for the other. I think it is important to get it right, the difference at this point may seem quite small, since both sides similarly quote the Tipitaka, and this can obscure the more fundamental difference, I think. -------------- Looking forward to the next instalment, Ken H 28166 From: Sarah Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] approach to Vis. XIV, 47-54 Hi Larry, Apologies for this late ambush post...... I hope you weren’t being serious when you wrote to Nina: --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > I liked your treatment of the senses as pointing toward revulsion with > the body. This made me wonder if it says anywhere in scripture or > commentary that it is a disadvantage to be blind or deaf, and if so, > why? I have many times thought it would be a great advantage to be deaf. > Plus I like sign language. I wish I could do it. But I think I am more > likely to loose my sight in old age. .... I meant to chip in at the time. I think it’s very misguided to think that there is any advantage to being blind or deaf - results of akusala kamma. I have taught children who are both and I can assure you, life is very difficult and there is certainly no less attachment to hearing or seeing as a result. I remember once spending time with an elderly man on a long boat trip to Australia. He had recently become deaf as a result of an air compression accident on a plane (he only took boats now)and we wrote each other notes. He told me his wife had also lost her hearing in the same accident and unable to bear it had committed suicide. Appreciate your good fortune whilst you still have your faculties and develop awareness of the realities instead;-) I’m prompted to give this ramble now as I just remembered this sutta may be relevant: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn152.html Here’s an extract: “As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him: "Uttara, does the brahman Parasiri teach his followers the development of the faculties?" "Yes, master Gotama, he does." "And how does he teach his followers the development of the faculties?" "There is the case where one does not see forms with the eye, or hear sounds with the ear [in a trance of non-perception]. That's how the brahman Parasiri teaches his followers the development of the faculties." "That being the case, Uttara, then a blind person will have developed faculties, and a deaf person will have developed faculties, according to the words of the brahman Parasiri. For a blind person does not see forms with the eye, and a deaf person does not hear sounds with the ear." When this was said, the young brahman Uttara sat silent & abashed, his shoulders slumped, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words. The Blessed One -- noticing that Uttara was sitting silent & abashed, his shoulders slumped, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words -- said to Ven. Ananda, "Ananda, the development of the faculties that the brahman Parasiri teaches his followers is one thing, but the unexcelled development of the faculties in the discipline of a noble one is something else entirely." "Now is the time, O Blessed One. Now is the time, O One Well-Gone, for the Blessed One to teach the unexcelled development of the faculties in the discipline of the noble one. Having heard the Blessed One, the monks will remember it." "In that case, Ananda, listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," Ven. Ananda responded to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said: "Now how, Ananda, in the discipline of a noble one is there the unexcelled development of the faculties? There is the case where, when seeing a form with the eye, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. He discerns that 'This agreeable thing has arisen in me, this disagreeable thing... this agreeable & disagreeable thing has arisen in me. And that is compounded, gross, dependently co-arisen. But this is peaceful, this is exquisite, i.e., equanimity.' With that, the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. Just as a man with good eyes, having closed them, might open them; or having opened them, might close them, that is how quickly, how rapidly, how easily, no matter what it refers to, the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. In the discipline of a noble one, this is called the unexcelled development of the faculties with regard to forms cognizable by the eye. "Furthermore, when hearing a sound with the ear, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. He discerns that 'This agreeable thing has arisen in me, this disagreeable thing... this agreeable & disagreeable thing has arisen in me. And that is compounded, gross, dependently co-arisen. But this is peaceful, this is exquisite, i.e., equanimity.' With that, the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. Just as a strong man might easily snap his fingers, that is how quickly, how rapidly, how easily, no matter what it refers to, the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. In the discipline of a noble one, this is called the unexcelled development of the faculties with regard to sounds cognizable by the ear.” ***** Metta, Sarah ==== 28167 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 0:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendencies Dear Nina (& Ben), Another late reply... --- nina van gorkom wrote: > > N: Before I had different ideas of latent tendencies, but this study is > an > eye opener. It uses many texts from the Yamaka, the sixth Book of the > Abhidhamma, which does not have an English translation. The Guide > through > the Abhidhamma Pitaka gives a good summary. .... Yes, what I’ve read in the Guide thr’ A.P. has always just given me an appetite for the Yamaka, though I’m sure it’s very difficult and the Guide is such a helpful little book. Under Anusaya-Yamaka “(1-5, with 6 and 7) ‘to whomsoever Sensuous Craving, Anger, Conceit, Erroneous opinion and Scepticism adhere, do there also Craving for Existence, and Ignorance adhere? - Yes.” ..... N: > I had underestimated the strength of latent tendencies, I thought that > they > are just subtle, and did not pay much heed. I thought, well, only at > enlightenment they will be eradicated. They are subtle anyway. But I got > the > wrong notion of subtle defilements. > Now it is repeated again and again that they are strong, powerful, > because > they are not eradicated. <...> > Akusala is heaped up again and again!! .... I look forward to the series! .... N: >Makes us have more work to get > rid of > it. When the object is right for the defilement, there is the > opportunity > for being added to the latent tendencies Thus, they change all the time > while citta arises and falls away. It is repeated; we are very sick, > even > when the microbes do not break out. .... Again we need that medicine Htoo described. .... N: > Also the role of feeling which experiences the taste of the object is > explained. This helps to have a sense of urgency. .... In his introduction to the Brahmajala Sutta (p32), B.Bodhi discusses why wrong views satisfy craving, ‘desires based on the lack of understanding..’ and discusses more on the 3 kinds of craving, kaamata.nhaa, bhavata.nhaa and vibhavata.nhaa and how these lead to the various kinds of wrong views. (I can elaborate further if Ben wishes), Also, he writes about feeling that it is “the ‘bait of the round’ (va.t.taamisa) which will be swallowed when left unexamined, but will be discarded if the hook it conceals is detected. Ignorance of feeling means not seeing its origin, passing away, satisfaction, unsatisfactoriness, and the escape from it.....” We’re so very influenced by our feelings all the time, constantly craving the pleasant and not seeing the bait as it is. .... N: > I may need to order Yamaka Pali. Also other commentaries, such as the Co > to > the Path of Discrimination is used and also this is not in English. ..... I’m not sure, but I think I heard there is an English transl of Yamaka in Burma. Not sure. Maybe Suan knows. Metta, Sarah ====== 28169 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 0:56am Subject: kaamagu.na - cords or strands of sensuality Dear Friends, (esp. those who were in Bkk when there was discussion about kaamagu.na), I wrote a couple of weeks ago: >....in a different context he (Num) was raising qus about the Mahapunnama Sutta, MN109, as I recall. In this sutta we read about the upadana khandhas rooted in desire. We read that ‘the clinging is neither the same as these five aggregates affected by clinging, nor is the clinging something apart from the five aggregates affected by clinging.It is the desire and lust in regard to the five aggregates affected by clinging that is the clinging there.’ The Buddha is then asked about the diversity in the desire regarding the upadana khandha and explains the various wishes or desires that may arise.< In the commentary to the Maharahulavada sutta, Nina translated: >raagoti pa~ncakaamagu.nikaraago As to the word attachment, this is attachment with regard to the five objects of sensual pleasure.< I realized this is the same expression of kaamagu.na that Num was asking about. Kaamagu.na - literarlly ‘cords or strands of sensuality’. From the Nyantiloka dictionary, under kaama: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/g_m/kaama.htm káma may denote: 1. subjective sensuality, 'sense-desire'; 2. objective sensuality, the five sense-objects. 1. Subjective sensuality, or sense-desire, is directed to all five sense-objects, and is synonymous with káma-cchanda, 'sensuous desire', one of the 5 hindrances (nívarana); káma-rága, sensuous lust', one of the ten fetters (samyojana); káma-tanhá, 'sensuous craving', one of the 3 cravings (tanhá); káma-vitakka, 'sensuous thought', one of the 3 wrong thoughts (micchá-sankappa; s. vitakka). Sense-desire is also one of the cankers (ásava) and clinging (upádána). 2. Objective sensuality is, in the canonical texts, mostly called káma-guna, 'cords (or strands) of sensuality'. "There are 5 cords of sensuality: the visible objects, cognizable by eye-consciousness, that are desirable, cherished, pleasant, lovely, sensuous and alluring; the sounds ... smells ... tastes ... bodily impressions cognizable by body-consciousness, that are desirable .... " (D.33; M.13, 26, 59, 66). These two kinds of káma are called 1. kilesa-káma, i.e. káma as a mental defilement, 2. vatthu-káma, i.e. káma as the object-base of sensuality; first in MNid.. I, p. 1, and frequently in the commentaries. Sense-desire is finally eliminated at the stage of the Non-Returner (Anágámi; s. ariya-puggala, samyojana). The peril and misery of sense-desire is often described in the texts, e.g. in stirring similes at M. 22, 54, and in the 'gradual instruction' (s. ánupubbí-kathá). See further M.13, M.45, M.75; Sn.v.766ff.; Dhp.186, 215. The texts often stress the fact that what fetters man to the world of the senses are not the sense-organs nor the sense-objects but lustful desire (chandarága). On this see A.VI.63; S.XXXV.122, 191. - (App.). ***** Metta, Sarah ===== 28170 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 1:37am Subject: Re: Formal Practice or not Hi James (and Herman), Your post was a pleasant read, I on the other hand tend to get lost and end up mixing things up. > No, I personally wasn't waiting for something more exciting, I just > didn't quite understand your question or where you were coming from. > It seemed to be a provisional type of question that didn't state > exactly what you were looking for. Yes, I still don't have any particular question in mind, but as I said, my main intention is to find out how the idea of `formal practice' would fit in with the Buddha's teachings. Allow me to say somehting about my own reactions towards Abhidhamma since I first came in touch with it 3 years ago. I had heard like many people here that the Abhidhamma was not originally taught by the Buddha, but was written by commentators who got the ideas from their understanding of the Suttas. Nevertheless I was interested in it as I had no objection to whether the Buddha was the author or not. Probably this is because I was not as dedicated to Buddhism hence the Buddha himself at that time, since my understanding was very much of a new comer, besides I was still to some extent, interested in other religions as well. So it is because of the Abhidhamma that I am now quite a Theravada devotee and firmly believe that the Buddha's teachings is the only way to liberation. Anyway, in the beginning, because of the `structure' of Abhidhamma, it came to my mind that perhaps its proponents are resting upon its consistency and in fact could be fooling themselves. But being amongst good friends, such doubts would soon appear unfounded when faced with those aspects of the teachings, which lead to verifiable (more or less) facts. On and off such thoughts have been coming and going in variations, and if you remember, several months ago I wrote about being doubtful not so much about the teachings, but my own `reliance' and dependence on Buddhist concepts on the whole and not particularly Abhidhamma ones? I started to move around in circles outside of Buddhism to see how I would stand there. And remember I said that Sarah reminded me about the fact about `being caught in stories'? I realized that it is all about "this moment", that whatever the words we use, the important thing is that it leads to the present moment? The problem is the `thinking', seeing problems where there are none. In fact just this Saturday, while reflecting on Herman's comment: ""If you feed the mind with theory, that is what you will be regurgitating."" And arriving at the afternoon discussion before K. Sujin, Tim (a participant) was talking about how `differently' she now views experiences, referring to the Abhidhamma perspective. I asked her `how different it was from say, someone who views the world from a physicist's understanding of reality?' There was no doubt about the "content" and value of Abhidhamma as against scientific materialist views, but the concern was about one's own understanding of the Buddha's teachings and whether one is going to be forever *stuck* on the theoretical level?! Or worse, one is under the illusion that one *is* making progress. We also talked about the limitation of words with reference to the single experience of `saltiness'. How no two moments is ever the same and yet we give so much importance to the `description'. We concluded that words were unavoidable, but then what is the correct attitude towards them? I guess my answer is `not to think too much'! :-/ Don't grasp at anything while studying and contemplating. Labeling or guessing will take place, just knowing them even intellectually as just that, is good enough for now. So you see I consider about this distinction between direct experience and theory too ;-). But then what has it originated from and what it proliferated into, was it `wise consideration' or mostly `doubt'? James I don't think there is anything wrong with Abhidhamma; the problem is our own doubts and thinking this and that. Even these moments can be seen as conditioned, for example in my above example, part of what conditioned that thinking, was considering Herman's statement. This is not to say that his statement is wrong, but that because of my own lack of firm understanding and not remembering Sarah's reminder ;-), such thoughts arose. > Personally, I believe that > Buddhist meditation is part of the Noble Eightfold Path. The > Eightfold Path can roughly be categorized as: Morality, Meditation, > and Wisdom and they each condition each other. I am a strong > believer in Meditation and I am a strong believer in Morality because > I believe in kamma; Firstly you know what some of us think about the N8P, we don't think it as a step by step training nor is it necessary to categorize it as Sila, Samadhi and Panna, since we see it as a description of mental factors all arising together at path moment. As to development of Sila, Samadhi and Panna as something imperative in their own right, my own understanding is as follows. Sila is the moment of refrain from akusala via body, speech or mind. So there must be a moment which otherwise conditions akusala, and there is a `remembrance' about the danger, hence the restraint. Even this is done with varying degrees of wisdom, the more the better. In any case, just to recognize akusala *is* a level of wisdom accompanied by Saddha and Sati and as you know, concentration. I think you will agree at this point, that it means nothing to keep sila outwardly. Just following a `rule' one has decided to keep is quite meaningless, the important thing is the restraint at the moment when opportunity to otherwise indulge arises, no? So is there anyone who `keeps sila'? ;-) More importantly, at the moment of satipatthana, Sila, Samadhi and Panna is all perfected. So you see these three go together. But the lead is panna. > Rob M. states that belief or disbelief in the Abhidhamma has nothing to do > with wisdom but is more a personal preference caused by accumulations > and conditioning. I like Rob M's approach but I think it is more > than a personal preference; I flat out don't believe in the > Abhidhamma and don't believe that it is true Buddhism. I don't know what Rob has in mind, but if I were to make any distinction, I would say that the study of Abhidhamma is not for everyone and is not necessary, considering the fact that people are of different temperaments. You may be a little surprised to hear, but I am often put off when reading certain details, I know that the systematic study of Abhidhamma is *not* for me. However I do believe that an appreciation for its value is a sign of understanding the Buddha's teachings. And I apologize if this is a presumption, but I think that "you" do too. Your objection is only to certain aspects which I believe you should not dismiss, but instead keep an open mind and allow for the possibility that you will agree with it in the future.;-) Even I have some reservations, but they don't come in the way. Meanwhile if I am not sure about certain things, I can at least try to see the background from which I come. What are my own doubts based upon? > Therefore, some say that simply believing in Buddhism (as opposed to > Christianity or something else) is Right View and Right Understanding > but I don't think so. I think that is a start but I think that it > takes a lot more to have wisdom. I accept the possibility that I am > wrong about the Abhidhamma and that the others are right, but it > can't be both. Even the right and wrong, should it be based on every detail? Would we ever be able to prove everything? This should not stop you from at least trying it out no? ;-) Besides, accepting the possible validity of the Abhidhamma does not mean that it will require one to stop meditating, does it? Also we are required to test everything out for ourselves anyway. > Really, sticky issues come up when looking at meditation and morality > also. In Buddhism, things are not always cut and dry all the time. > I don't know if I have answered your question or just rambled on > pointlessly. If you ask a more specific question maybe I won't > ramble as much! ;-) I have been more than rambling, hope you didn't mind. > Metta, James Metta, Sukin. 28171 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Michael Thanks for the reply. First of all, my apologies for the slow turnaround of my previous posts. I'm afraid it's unavoidable, as I am rarely able to send out posts during the week or Saturdays, due to work and other commitments. My only chance to work on posts is on Sundays. However, I am making an exception for this post ;-)). --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Jon, Michael: Well, and what would be the original sources? There is no agreement on that either. Everyone for himself/herself has to find a way of qualifying the teachings. One should strive to acquire that discernment. Jon: There are commentaries that are generally recognised and accepted by the scholars you mention (Ven. Nyanaponika Thera, Bhikkhu Bodhi) as stating the orthodox Therevada doctrine. In the 'everyone for himself' approach, what is the point of reference in discussion between 2 individuals? If it is simply the individuals' own experience, then it will be a case of wrong view vs. wrong view. Michael: It seems quite obvious to me. The concept of a person arises from a deluded mind. One can divide the person into a multitude of parts. Like body parts, elements, dhammas, etc. And the divison and subdivision can go on indefinitely. There is no final substratum that one can argue really exists. Dhammas only exist because of conditionality therefore one can say that they arise from a collection of conditions. And a person will arise from another set or collection of conditions. Jon: The teaching as found in the suttas is not about 'dividing' persons/objects into parts. The whole point of the teachings is that there is no person/object in the first place, it is all an illusion. To my understanding, 'dhammas' in the context being discussed here are the underlying realities arising in this world which, because of ignorance and wrong view, are taken for person/object etc. Michael: Whoever sees dependent origination sees the dhamma ... That's all I have to say Jon: Yes, I certainly agree with the central importance of dependant origination in the teachings. But as I understand it, 'the dhamma' in the context of your comment (meaning 'the teaching' or more specifically 'the four noble truths'), and 'dhammas' in the context of dhammas as a collection of conditions; dhammas and the conventional notion of a person (realities of different kinds) are different in meaning. Individual dhammas are also of central importance to the teachings. They are found referred to throughout the suttas in terms of the 5 khandhas, the sense-bases, the elements, etc. Indeed, individual dhammas are referred to in each limb of the dependant origination. I am not aware of any reference in the suttas, direct or indirect, to 'dhammas' as being a 'collection of conditions'. Michael: It's clear enough to me. A leave turns yellow in Fall and this is a distinctive characteristic of leaves in the Fall. Does it mean the leaves own that characteristic, it is intrinsic to them? Of course not. Could the leaves have another characteristic? Yes, if conditions would be different. The same logic applies to any phenomena. Jon: I would still be interested to hear a specific example of the practical application of this logic. Or are you saying that seeing and visible object are in fact the same dhamma but observed under different conditions? Michael: Yeah. The turnaround has been really slow. I will have to stop this thread here though because I will be unavailable in the next days. So maybe later we can catch up. Jon: No hurry. I'm enjoying our discussion ;-)). Jon 28172 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Medicine Dear Htoo, As I mentioned, I appreciate your encouragement and keen confidence in the Tipitaka, esp. the Abhidhamma, very much too. --- htootintnaing wrote: > Sitting means nothing. It is Pannatta. Standing means nothing. It is > Pannatta. Walking means nothing. It is just Pannatta. Lying means > nothing. It is just Pannatta. ..... I liked this comment very much because I think it’s very important to differentiate between pannatti (concepts) and paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities). As we discussed on the ayatana (sense fields) thread a long time ago, only the latter can be objects of satipatthana. Pannatti can only ever be conceptualized or thought about. They can be the object of panna (understanding), but not of panna in satipatthana. So, I don’t think that focussing or concentrating on body movements , breath or any concepts can lead to more detachment from the idea of self or understanding of paramattha dhammas. I also think the desire for results is so strong for most of us and that’s why we look for a method or a way of developing concentration and so on. At these moments of concentrating or wishing to follow a method, the attachment can so easily move us away from awareness being aware of the characteristic arising right now. This is where, I believe, our knowledge of Abhidhamma is so essential. From the comy to the Satipatthana sutta: “Mental objects should be contemplated upon by way of own characteristic [salakkha.na] of impression and the like [phusanaadi]; by way of general characteristic [saama~n~na lakkha.na] of impermanence and the like [aniccataadi]; by way of phenomenon-emptiness [ su~n~nata dhamma], namely, by way of the void-nature called soullessness [anattataa sa’nkhaata su~n~nataa sabhaavassa] toexplain which clearly, the instruction of the portion dealing with the void in the Abhidhamma proceeded by means of the statement beginning with ‘At that time indeed there are phenomena, there are aggregates [ya.m vibhaavetu.m abhidhamme tasmi.m kha pana samaya dhammaa honti khandhaa hontit aadinaa su~n~nataavaara desanaa pavattaa], without any mention of a soul.....” **** (For other friends with misgivings about the suse of sabhaava in the commentaries, here we have ‘sunnata sabhava’, referrring clearly to the nature or characteristic of anatta.) In other words, as I understand, sati sampajaana refers to the clear comprehension of characteristics of present paramattha dhammas, i.e present namas and rupas and not to an idea that ‘I will follow or concentrate on movements’ or a special practice such as slowing down these movements which leads to an unnatural way of living, as I see it. .... H:> Still, awareness to these 4 positions works to overcome running away > from meditational object. > > No one can sit since born till death. Even though these are > conceptual matter, real meditators know that these are concepts, > those are realities and so on. .... I think that for most of us, whether ‘real meditators’ or not, there is very little understanding of the distinction between concepts and realities at this very moment. If we refer to awareness of ‘these 4 positions’, it’s OK as we use awareness conventionally, but this is not the meaning of satipatthana as you clarify later. ..... H:> But Pannatta is not a reality. Even though it is not a reality, it > can still serve as object. .... It can serve as an object, but only of thinking or of other wholesome states such as dana, metta or samatha. So we need to be clear of the purpose of the Teachings: i.e to really understand paramattha dhammas in order to detach from the idea of self and eradicate kilesa. I liked all your comments about the momentary nature of cittas and their ‘digital’ nature. However, when you write:..... ..... H: > The learned meditator well know that what is real and what is unreal. .... I think this knowledge can only be developed by beginning to understand present dhammas, not by wishing to follow a method. .... H: > However, as a method, he has to know all moments and all movements. > At the end of a section whether sitting or lying or standing which > are still position, the meditator knows that a mind that wishes a > change in position arises. He knows that. > > '..Want to stand..want to move..stretching legs ( Vayo Photthabba > arise )..putting foot on the floor ( Tejo or Pathavi or Vayo > Photthabba depending on what meditator perceives arises )..' .... It seems in what you describe here that there is a special kind of thinking or idea of what the object of awareness should be. As I understand the teachings, we’re encouraged to understand whatever reality arises now without any idea of method or special movement or any kind of selection. Otherwise there is always an idea of self trying to have more sati, trying to follow a method and so on. .... H: > I hope this is clear enough. If still in doubt further discussion > will be needed. .... We agree on much of what you’ve said and I’ve only quoted part of your post. I know I’ve also said many things you may not agree with and I’d be very happy tohear your further comments, Htoo. It’s a pleasure to discuss with you and to draw on our mutual respect for the entire Tipitaka and ancient commentaries. .... H: > Thank you very much for your good will, encouragement and your talent > in management of web site. I am looking forward to hearing from you > regarding Mahasatipatthana. .... It’s kind of you to say this again. I assure you it’s all very smooth sailing for me these days, thanks to all the members and others who work behind the scenes like Jon and Kom. I do hope my comments are not seen as disrespectful to your kind sharings in anyway, Htoo. I look forward to many more and greatly appreciate your metta and kind wishes. Looking forward to further discussion with you on Mahasatipatthana. Metta, Sarah Also from the Satipatthana Sutta comy: "Since there is nothing called spiritual development [bhavana] without laying hold on something whatsoever in material form, feeling, consciousness and mental objects [kaya vedana citta dhammesu kiñci dhammam anamasitva] they (Santati and Patacara) too overcame sorrow and lamentation just by this Way of Mindfulness. For the hearers [savaka], namely, the disciples of the Buddha, there is no attainment of the Noble Path [Ariya Magga] possible, except by practicing the subject of meditation [kammatthana] of the Four Truths [Catu Sacca]. Spiritual development usually called meditation, is the development of wisdom [pañña bhavana]. Just the contemplation of material form (corporeality), of feeling, consciousness or mental objects, constitutes the cultivation of the Arousing of Mindfulness." ================================================= 28173 From: ashkenn2k Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:11am Subject: Re: Question on Brahma Viharas Hi Christine Just like Sukin mention in his earlier mail, Abdhidhamma could change the way we look at things. To the three Bs, that is nothing we can do about it even if we pray a million times a day, it is practically useless (IMO). Just like Buddha has tried to stop a war for three times, yet the war still continue. Even him also can do nothing about it. Just like what Robert describe when he was initially being irritated to pay for something, then he realise it is just concepts, the anger ceased. When one see the samasara as conditions, what is unjustify or envy are just aksuala or kusala conditions that are maturing. That is no need to lament why like this why like that bc this only add more aversion to oneself. Not beneficial to ones cultivation. Notwithstanding, I am more concern about the immediate environment and helping them. IMO, this is how I think compassion should be shown. For those we can do nothing about it, we leave it to conditions. To me one of the way to help those affected by the three Bs is to donate money to the charity organisation (be it Christian mission or not) that help relieve or reduce their suffering. kind regards Ken O 28174 From: gazita2002 Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:17am Subject: Re: The development of Wisdom Dear Kom, What you have said makes some sense to me; you have opened up more possibilities re craftiness and blind faith. I was thinking - well I don't know what I was thinking!!!! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Hi Azita, > > I am very happy to hear from you, after having met you and many interesting > discussions in Thailand. ............ > The question you ask is way over my head, (and since I currently have no > access to the commentaries) so perhaps others will respond... It's pretty > interesting though, there is no panna without sadha, so what does this text > mean about having panna without sadha? It cannot be true panna. This is part of where my concern lies - it did not come from a text but a tape, one from the Foundation in Bkk. Can't remember xactly what - but it was about 'balancing' panna and saddha. When I read dsg posts, I assume a lot of people have done a lot a reading, as there are some posts way over my head too, Kom. I sometimes feel that I have a degree of 'blind faith'. I've read very little of the Tipitika; but have listened to TA. Sujin and before her, Ven. Dhammadharo. Of course, there is no way of really knowing unless there is right understanding of the present moment - and even in the writing of this, I'm thinking "but I don't know this for sure, I'm just saying it cos I believe it!!!!" I sound like a muddled-headed wombat [Aussie, for being confused] As I work my way thro this post, its beginning to sound like a good dose of Doubt. So enuff of this part of your reply,Kom. The rest on craftiness and Lobha/Saddha is too much for me to deal with at this time, and thank you for your help. May we all be well and happy, Azita I can tell > you my thoughts... > > Panna without Sadha is the ability to think through things (even not a true > panna). Some Bikkhu with this characteristic may be prone to think of ways > to get around the Patikmokkha, resulting in such craftiness. You know one > of the Patikmokkha is not to have sexual intercourse, but do you know that > the Buddha issued many additional minor rules in regard to the major rule, > based on the Bikkhus getting around the wording of the rule. > > A person with sadha, but without panna, cannot know the truth for himself, > and must rely on other always. This obviously doesn't work out too well > when the people one is associated with are not all ariyans: one is bound to > veer of in the wrong path according to their current association. > > An example of being crafty in daily life is, you are about to get to an > appointment, you know you should be on time and being late is no good, but > yet, because of all other excuses you may have, you go late anyway. Don't > you think this is a bit crafty? You manage to find some justifications for > something no good. Being crafty is not being straight, not being true to > the dhamma (because there is no panna at such moments). Craftiness leads > you to mistake akusala as kusala, kusala as akusala, and many other mistaken > ideas. Truths are impossible to see when there is such craftiness. I think > that's why TA Sujin keeps reminding us to be straight. Ah, but how do you > become stright, and know that you are straight? Definitely, not without > panna, and not with such craftiness. > > Lobha is easily mistakenly as saddha. Vedana associated with lobha and > kusala states are the same kinds of vedana (either pleasant or neutral). > Lobha can also come with piti, so does saddha. Do you see how easy it is to > mistake lobha as saddha, even if there may be sadha before that lobha? An > example of this is, when you give, you feel sadha, piti, and somanassa, but > immediately afterward, there is lobha to the kusala mental states, but all > the meanwhile, you think they are all saddha. Do you know that some people > give because they feel good? Such lobha are subtle comparing to the gross > lobha, but lobha nonetheless, and with that, final liberation is just > impossible. > > Seasonal Greetings for Everybody! > > Metta, > > kom > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gazita2002 [mailto:gazita2002@y...] > > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 3:43 PM > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [dsg] Re: The development of Wisdom > > > > > > Dear Kom, > > > > Hello, hope you are well. This morning, I got onto dsg. for a > > quick read before I go to yoga, looking for a little inspiration and > > here it is. I like to have these reminders every day, they are so > > helpful. Pariyatti must come before there is any development of > > right understanding, otherwise in ignorance, how could we possibly > > know what are paramatta dhammas. > > > > A good time for my question. I have been thinking about Panna > > and Saddha. We are told that Panna without Saddha can lead to > > craftiness, and that too much Saddha without Panna can lead to blind > > faith. How would craftiness and blind faith appear, what are their > > characteristics? > > > > BTW, Seasons greetings to you, Kom. > > > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > > Azita. > > > > 28175 From: gazita2002 Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:41am Subject: Re: Reminders [ho ho ho] Dear All, Here is a different reminder and the 'ho ho ho' will be obvious [maybe] given the time of year that we're in: The Early Teachers [cited at Vism XI,23] The pleasant drink, the pleasant food, Hard, soft, whatever it may be: Through one door it is loaded in, Through nine it trickles out again. The pleasant drink, the pleasant food, Hard, soft, whatever it may be: Man may in company enjoy, Yet, in discharging it, he hides. The pleasant drink, the pleasant food, Hard, soft, whatever it may be: Man may enjoy with full delight, Yet, in discharging, feels disgust. The pleasant drink, the pleasant food, Hard, soft, whatever it may be: The whole, after one single night, Will reach a state of loathsomeness. Verses for next year's Xmas cards; graffiti on a restaurant wall; poetry to teach the kiddies; Seasons greetings, May we all be well and happy, Azita. 28176 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The development of Wisdom Hi Azita & Kom, --- gazita2002 wrote: > > What you have said makes some sense to me; you have opened up > more possibilities re craftiness and blind faith. I was thinking - > well I don't know what I was thinking!!!! .... Well I was thinking your questions were the same or similar to ones I raised in Bangkok, probably before you arrived and maybe it was this you listened to on tape. Jack and Oi were present and Oi made some good contributions too, Kom. Perhaps you could encourage her to add more too;-) ..... Kom:> > The question you ask is way over my head, (and since I currently > have no > > access to the commentaries) so perhaps others will respond... It's > pretty > > interesting though, there is no panna without sadha, so what does > this text > > mean about having panna without sadha? It cannot be true panna. .... I suggested the same, but K.Sujin stressed it was. In case you missed it (it would have been posted when you were both still travelling I think), I’d be glad if you’d take a look at this post I wrote on return and add any further comments: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m22457.html Metta, Sarah ===== 28177 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anicca (Impermanence) - and other questions Hi Ken O (& RobertK), --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert > > It is true that thinking will not help :). It is my inquisitive > nature that at times I like to go to the core of a question. Maybe > I just cannot logically understand what is the difference between > conceit and wrong view. To me isn't conceit a wrong view. I just > dont understand what is the subtle difference between them as said in > the Manual, could you help me to find the commentaries comment on > this. ..... I like all your careful considerations and questions. I liked RobK’s comment that ‘thinking about conceit or wrong view may not show us the difference but when the characteristic of conceit is present we can see that it is different from that of wrong view.’ It’s true, only panna will know the difference, but it does help to hear and consider examples and details too as you are doing. This can be a condition for panna to know the characteristics. You might like to see if any of these messages from U.P. help with references. ***** Conceit vs wrong view of self (sakkaya-sitthi) 11868, 20141, 22649, 22765, 25213 ***** I like to hear all your wise reflections a lot. And as you prepare for Bhavanga Town, it may only be thinking, but it’s a lot more useful than counting sheep if you ask me;-) In appreciation for all your sharp comments. I loved the quote from the comy to the Ab.Sangaha you gave too. You’re becoming quite a dinosaur yourself;-) Metta, Sarah p.s If Robert’s comments and these posts still leave qus, let us know and we’ll try to add more. It’s useful for all of us. Actually, we had quite a lot of discussion on these topics in Bkk and Burma. Let me know off-list if you’d like a set of tapes (MP3 or cassettes) ============================================================== 28178 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 6:18am Subject: Re: Formal Practice or not Hi Sukin, I am glad that you enjoyed my post. You have many good ideas but to me they don't become immediately apparent. Your writing style is more `stream of consciousness', a style I greatly enjoy in writers like Kerouac and Ginsberg, but takes a lot of effort to decipher. Maybe I don't take the effort I should sometimes because there are so many posts to read in this group! ;-) I am going to take snips of what you wrote, sometimes out of order, to organize a response that works more logically/systematically for me. I hope you don't mind because I am not going to quote everything (or the mods- `the gods' ;-))- would not be pleased). If you feel that I have taken anything out of context, please don't hesitate to clarify for me. Get comfortable because this is going to be one extremely long post! (I am on Christmas vacation so I have the time ;-)). Sukin: There was no doubt about the "content" and value of Abhidhamma as against scientific materialist views, but the concern was about one's own understanding of the Buddha's teachings and whether one is going to be forever *stuck* on the theoretical level?! Or worse, one is under the illusion that one *is* making progress. James: Excellent! I say that these are good doubts. Stick with them and ponder them more. I had these same doubts when I first read Nina's writings about the Abhidhamma and then became even more convinced of their validity as my participation in this group continued. I have quit a couple of times, because I obviously don't belong, but I keep getting called back. Go figure?? ;-) (I guess: What fun is discussion when everyone agrees with each other? ;-) Sukin: I guess my answer is `not to think too much'! :-/ Don't grasp at anything while studying and contemplating. Labeling or guessing will take place, just knowing them even intellectually as just that, is good enough for now. James: Hmm…it doesn't sound like you are too confident in this answer. Does this really satisfy you? Personally, it sounds like you are saying that you need to think and not think at the same time, to have the concepts and labels in your mind but to somehow not have them. How are you supposed to accomplish this? Personally, I don't believe this is possible. Sukin: However I do believe that an appreciation for its value is a sign of understanding the Buddha's teachings. And I apologize if this is a presumption, but I think that "you" do too. Your objection is only to certain aspects which I believe you should not dismiss, but instead keep an open mind and allow for the possibility that you will agree with it in the future.;-) James: This is a little presumptuous, but that is okay. I have varying degrees of acceptance and non-acceptance of different aspects of the Abhidhamma which I am not going to enumerate now or it would put you to sleep! ;-). However, you way you state it you seem to assume that I am predominately in favor of the Abhidhamma but there are small aspects I don't agree with and, given time and enough wisdom, I may agree with them. First, that isn't correct, I officially reject the entire Abhidhamma on principal (if any of it is wrong, then the whole thing is wrong: which is the proper standard of judging the dhamma). Second, I have a question for you: Do you have an open mind and entertain the possibility that I am correct and that the Abhidhamma is a false teaching? Do you think that maybe sometime in the future you will learn the error of your thinking and turn away from the Abhidhamma? Would that even be possible or would your mind be too far indoctrinated with its concepts and labels? (Sorry for the melodrama! LOL! "Luke, turn away from the dark side of the Force." Hehehe..) Sukin: Allow me to say somehting about my own reactions towards Abhidhamma since I first came in touch with it 3 years ago. James: Okay, since we are swapping stories, allow me to share mine. I first came into contact with the Abhidhamma about eight years ago. My meditation teacher, Ajahn Somporn from Thailand, gave me instructions to `know nama and rupa' while I was meditating. At first I had no idea what he was talking about because I had never heard of these terms. He explained to me each of them, which I understood to be mental and physical phenomena. I didn't know at the time that this came from the Abhidhamma, I thought it was a kind of meditation technique. Ajahn Somporn's English wasn't so great. I attempted to do what he said and found myself very frustrated in the process. It seemed like I was trying to put a new head on top of the one I already have! All physical phenomena are only known through the mind, labeling is only known through the mind, and thoughts are only known through the mind. On a superficial level there was nama and rupa, but on a deeper level it was all nama. There was nothing that could be known separate from nama. I explained this to my teacher and told him that I thought I should just go back to my regular Buddhist meditation. He agreed. I got the impression that he didn't do this type of meditation either but he felt obligated to teach it to me. Now I know why. The Abhidhamma does have some powerful influence in Thailand. I joined this group fully thinking that the Abhidhamma had been taught by the Buddha and hadn't heard otherwise. I gave it a fair shot, read all the material I wanted to read, discussed it in this group, and reached the conclusion that the Abhidhamma wasn't taught by the Buddha and is a perversion of his teachings by intermixing with Vedic beliefs. The Abhidhamma attempts to explain `The World' in a way that the Buddha did not. Allow me to quote part of one of my favorite suttas that I have quoted before in this group (and include the notes this time) SN, Devaputtasamyutta, 26. Rohitassa "…It is, friend, in just this fathom-long carcass endowed with perception and mind that I make known the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the way leading to the cessation of the world…. (Note 182: …This pithy utterance of the Buddha, which may well be the most profound proposition in the history of human thought, is elucidated at 35:116 by the Venerable Ananda, who explains that in the Noble One's Discipline "the world" is "that in the world by which one is a perceiver and conceiver of the world," i.e. the six sense bases. From Ananda's explanation we can draw out the following implications: The world with which the Buddha's teaching is principally concerned is "the world of experience," and even the objective world is of interest only to the extent that it serves as the necessary external condition for experience. The world is identified with the six sense bases because the latter are the necessary internal condition for experience and thus for the presence of the world. As long as the six sense basis persist, a world will always be spread out before us as the objective range of perception and cognition. Thus one cannot reach the end of the world by traveling, for wherever one goes one inevitably brings along the six sense bases, which necessarily disclose a world extended on all sides. Nevertheless, by reversing the direction of the search it is possible to reach the end of the world. For if the world ultimately stems from the six sense bases, then by bringing an end to the sense bases it is possible to arrive at the end of the world…" Now, According to the Abhidhamma, nama and rupa are separate from each other and exist independently, with their own characteristics and are ultimate. I completely disagree and believe that this thinking is contrary to what the Buddha taught. I am not interested in descriptions of any world separate from the world of human experience. Sukin: Firstly you know what some of us think about the N8P, we don't think it as a step by step training nor is it necessary to categorize it as Sila, Samadhi and Panna, since we see it as a description of mental factors all arising together at path moment. James: No, I did not know that. Those posts that are veiled with too many advanced Pali words, un-translated, I just skip. This is a pretty weird idea. What is a `path moment'? Where did this idea come from? The Buddha didn't teach this. You think factors like "Right Speech" and "Right Livelihood" are simply mental factors? That isn't true. Right speech is speaking rightly, with one's mouth…or pen. Understand? Right Livelihood is working rightly, with one's body, in order to gain sustenance. These are pretty common sense things. It seems that you are creating some kind of lofty, esoteric idea out of the Eightfold Path which isn't necessary. It is quite fine the way it is. I don't know what a `path moment' is but it isn't the way the Buddha categorized the Eightfold Path. He described the Eightfold Path as a vehicle. For support I turn again to SN, Devatasamyutta (Sorry, I am studying it at this time; I'm sure there are other examples) 46. Nymphs: …"'The straight way' that path is called, And `fearless' is its destination. The chariot is called `unrattling' Fitted with wheels of wholesome states. The sense of shame is its leaning board, Mindfulness its upholstery; I call the Dhamma the charioteer With right view running out in front. One who has such a vehicle- Whether a woman or a man- Has, by means of this vehicle, Drawn close to Nibbana. (Note 102: Having completed the discourse (the verse), the Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths, and at the end of that discourse the deva was established in the fruit of stream-entry; the other beings present attained the fruits that accorded with their own supporting conditions.)" No the Eightfold Path is not like steps to follow; I never said that. But I do believe that all of the factors of the path are different and don't necessarily all come together at the same time or in the same way. Of course they must all come together, in the proper way, for the vehicle to carry a person. I believe it is also important to categorize the different parts of the Noble Eightfold Path or the Buddha wouldn't have. We have to accept some authority here; if not the Lord Buddha then who? Perhaps if you explained `path moment' a little more to me I would understand where you are coming from. Sukin: This should not stop you from at least trying it out no? ;-) Besides, accepting the possible validity of the Abhidhamma does not mean that it will require one to stop meditating, does it? James: How does one `try out' the Abhidhamma? I don't understand your meaning. To me that would mean that I would need to stop meditating and attempt to have `path moments' during everyday experience by labeling nama and rupa when I notice them. Right? I have already attempted to incorporate the Abhidhamma into meditation and I found it impossible. What would you suggest I do? I am willing to try anything if I understand what you mean. It doesn't seem to me that those who follow the Abhidhamma have any kind of practice whatsoever except studying the dhamma and discussing it. To me, that's more like a book club than the dhamma-sangha. Sukin: I have been more than rambling, hope you didn't mind. James: Nope, hope you don't mind my changing things around a bit. Metta, Sukin. Metta, James 28179 From: Htoo Naing Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:22am Subject: How To Get Through The Samsara ( 10 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The Dhamma practitioner is practising Kayanupassana Satipatthana. Kaya means body. Anu means in detail. Passa means look, view. Sati means mindfulness. Patthana means putting. So Kayanupassana Satipatthana is '' Putting of the mind along with mindfulness on every detail that arises at body at the very present moment. This is also known as Vipassana. Vi means special, differently, detailing, analytically, Passa means look, view. The Dhamma practitioner is meditating on his body. He had been meditating in sitting position. He knew the whole body of his breath. He knew the breath as long when long, and as short when short. He also knew when the breath paused and also knew a long pause when long and a short pause when short. When he breathed in, the whole body was well relaxed, and he breathed out tranquilizing the whole body. He was aware of all through his breath at every piece and at every moment. Even though the mind is moving around in-breath and out-breath, he was well concentrated and a good Samadhi has been set up. This is not simply one-pointedness which may be a translational word for Ekaggata Cetasika. In Vipassana, as the mind is moving around, it does not fix at an object or at a point. So, one-pointedness in Vipassana is misnomer for Ekaggata Cetasika. In Vipassana, the mind is well concentrated. In which way it is well concentrated is one-directionedness. The mind goes in a single direction. Which direction it takes is to the direction of very very present moment. This is easy to say and write but very very difficult to achieve as all Vipassana meditators know. But practice can support a lot. Most meditators do not see at the very present moment. So where are they looking at? They are looking at the past objects or they are looking at the future objects. Then their concentration is minimally disturbed and if unnoticed, major disturbances arise in connection with past thoughts and future thoughts especially when these thoughts are hindrances like sensual thoughts, hateful thoughts, spreading-repenting thoughts, undue tiredness bound lazy thoughts and suspicious thoughts and ignoring thoughts. Now the meditator is practising breathing meditation and Kayanupassana Satipatthana. As well as the breath, he also knew all his body positions or Iriyapatha. He knows while he is sitting. He knows while he is standing. He knows while he is walking. He knows while he is lying. He is fully aware of all his body positions. The body has to be in a position out of four namely sitting, standing, walking, and lying. Walking is moving while sitting, standing, and lying are stationary. Even when he is in one of three stationary positions, he is also fully aware of all his body movement and mind movement. Now as he has been sitting for an hour, he is going to change his position into standing and then walking. In the next hour, the meditator is going to practise walking meditation with full awareness. May you all practise Vipassana to attain beneficial effects With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing JourneyToNibbana JourneyToNibbana@g... htootintnaing@y... 28180 From: Benjamin Jerome Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] tanha and intention Jon - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonothan Abbott" To: Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:29 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] tanha and intention > To my understanding, what is important is the development of > awareness of any presently occurring dhamma, so that gradually > dhammas can be seen more as they truly are Could you please describe how to develop awareness of presently occurring dhammas? This sounds like mindfulness to me. Does this mean to simply pay attention to sounds, sights, smells, tastes, touches, and thoughts in the here and now? Ben 28181 From: philofillet Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 6:18am Subject: Greetings from a new member Time to introduce myself properly, after popping in briefly the other day. My name is Philip. I'm a Canadian living in Japan, where my humble job as an English converstion teacher gives me fantastic opportunities to practice mindfulness and the Brahma-Viharas. I have settled this year into a fairly solid Theravada-ish practive after flirting with Buddhism for many years, and I have been experiencing tangible benefits, especially with respect to ridding myself of a lot of weeds and soggy undergrowth emerging from the Hindrances of ill- will and sensual desire. I have so far made it through this year without any of the "regrettable incidents" that popped up too often in past years, usually outbursts of anger against assholes in fast cars (I'm a cyclist and avid walker) and my beloved but sometimes taxing best friend/life partner Naomi! I'll be away through the holidays, but I look forward to learning more from you as I get my fledgling practice going. Since there doesn't seem to be much in the way of Theravada in Japan, I will be relying on books and groups like this for the time being. If anyone has information about Theravada in Japan, other than the temple in Shibuya and the meditation center in Kyoto that I already know about, I would be grateful to hear it. With Metta, Philip 28182 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:26am Subject: Vis. and Tiika 58 Hi Larry, Yes, I am ready. The footnote 24 is heavy reading, refers to Patthana, and I shall make additional remarks, more about faculty, indriya. I translated text until this footnote and the text after this I leave, it is too long. Nina. 28183 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tiika Vis 54, body consciousness Hi Larry, op 20-12-2003 01:23 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > When I asked if tangible data accompanies every consciousness I meant > does it accompany consciousness in the company of vedana. Does vedana > accompany every consciousness? N: Yes, vedanaa is one of the seven universals. We cannot say tangible object accompanies citta, because it is rupa, not nama. It can be object of citta, but not all the time. L:Is that vedana always bodily feeling? N: No, it is bodily feeling only when it is accompanying the vipakacitta that is body-consciousness. L:In order for there to be bodily feeling does there have to be tangible > data? I know there is sometimes mental feeling, but let's leave that > aside for now. N: Yes, it accompanies the vipakacitta that experiences tangible object. > L: Take the example of anxiety that is accompanied by unpleasant internal > tension. The unpleasantness is vedana (feeling), the tension is rupa, > and the anxiety is a mental formation (sankhara). N: You are describing here a situation, and we have to be clear what dhammas are involved. Unpleasant internal tension seems to me a mixture of namas and rupas. There is unpleasant feeling, and this, as you describe it, would be akusala, accompanying citta rooted in aversion. Anxiety is a form of dosa. Dosa can be fear, it has many shades. Tension: it can be rupa conditioned by the dosa, very likely. Some rigidity in the body. All these dhammas have characteristics which appear one at a time. When there can be direct awareness of them we do not name them, do not point to them. There can be a beginning to know that nama is not rupa. But, this is very difficult. L: Actually, I'm finding it very difficult to experience the characteristic > of mental formations in general. I can identify the feeling and the rupa > and there is often discursive thinking (a story) seemingly associated > with these but I can't find the mental formation (like, dislike, > bewilderment) itself. N: Yes, I also find it very difficult. Let us not try to find the mental formation, we won't be able to. It cannot be realized by thinking, but it helps to have a clear understanding what different dhammas are on the level of pariyatti. L: I wonder if this has something to do with mental > formations being formations. N: the term mental formations is used like a collective name for all cetasikas except feeling and sa~n~naa. Cetana, volition or kamma, forms up conditions for vipaka. This is foremost of sankharakkhandha. But as Nyanatiloka says, it stands for forming or having been formed. But you do not have to think about this name, so long as you know which cetasikas are this khandha. L: Are they like a carriage in which there is > no actual carriage itself? I am pretty sure I am bewildered but I can't > actually say, "aHA! there is bewilderment." N: You probably mean: they are devoid of self? They are only cetasikas arising because of many different conditions. Dispeller of Delusion, Formations aggregate: : When lokuttara citta arises it is different. It means dispersal. And also lokuttara panna will make an end to bewilderment. Nina. 28184 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:26am Subject: anapanasati 8 a anapanasati 8 a Perfection of Clear Vision (vijja) and Deliverance (vimutti). We read in the anapanasati sutta (transl by ven. Nyanatiloka): The same is stated about the other enlightenment factors With regard to the word seclusion (viveka), which is seclusion from defilements, we read about the meaning in the Co to the ³Root of Existence² (Mulapariyaya sutta, as tr. by Ven. Bodhi)that there are five kinds of seclusion, or abandoning: by substitution of opposite factors(tadanga pahana), by suppression (in jhana), by eradication (by the four paths), by tranquillization ( by the four fruitions) and by escape (nibbana). As regards abandoning by substitution of opposite factors (tadanga pahana), this occurs during the development of the stages of insight. The personality view is abandoned by the first stage of insight: defining nama and rupa, distinquishing their different characteristics, and by each of the higher stages there is abandoning by opposite factors. As to the words of the sutta, fading away (viraga) and cessation (nirodha), thes have the same meaning as seclusion, viveka. As to the words, ³resulting in relinquishment², as the Visuddhimagga VIII, 236) explained, this is relinquishment as giving up (of defilements) and as entering into nibbana. We read: we read that also the path is called both relinquishment as giving up and relinquishment as entering into. *** Nina 28185 From: Larry Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 0:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Nice Reference for Bhavanga Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > This may well go against Abhidhamma, but I believe that the cetasikas, > as cetasikas (and not as object), are experiential parts of mindstates. After > a given mindstate or sequence of mindstates in which the feeling was > pleasantness, we can look back and say "That was pleasant," and that implies that the > pleasantness was a (participatory) aspect of the experience. Likewise for > distractedness, worry, calm, etc. When we examine an object with a calm mind, the > calmness is part of the experience, but is not the object of the experience. > So, I do not think that the cetasikas are either unconscious or even > subconscious - they are simply not the arammana. Larry:I agree that cetasikas are participatory aspects of an experience but I would say we are never aware of them all when they arise, but with clear perception we could find them in reflection (or psycho-analysis) and see that they formed part of that experience. That mental activity of which we are unaware is what I would call "sub-conscious". I suppose we could say bhavanga is unconscious compared to regular conscious activity, but this is just a relational designation because bhavanga is technically a conscious activity. > Accumulations and inclinations (anusaya), on the other hand, are > things I'm not very clear about. However, the notion of permanent or semi-permanent > structures in the mind is worrisome to me from an anatta perspective. Perhaps > accumulations and inclinations on any occasion amount to nothing more than > the particular combination of cetasikas present in the current mindstate or in > prior mindstates. Certain groups of cetasikas tend to condition future groups > of cetasikas, and that may be all there is to accumulations and inclinations. > We are "inclined" to react in certain ways due to the cetasikas that have just > arisen or that previously arose. (Conditionality need not hold only between > immediately successive mindstates, I think, though I could be wrong on this. The > issue isn't critical.) L: I'm not clear on this either. The tricky part is the "previously arisen" bit. >In this case, it may be incorrect to think of > accumulations and inclinations as subconscious. Of course, any elements of a > mindstate, including the object, the awareness itself, and the cetasikas, may occur > with varying intensities, and any of these occurring with very low intensity could > be thought of as subconscious/subliminal. Bhavanga cittas, if they are > actualities, are most likely minimal-intensity mindstates. > > With metta, > Howard L: I agree. Additionally, one thing that occurred to me is that objects of consciousness do not themselves have objects. If a particular sound has a pleasant feeling and we examine that feeling in retrospect, it is just a feeling, connected to the sound only conceptually even though originally, pleasant feeling as accompanying cetasika had the sound as object. Sound and feeling are separate realities in either case but the sound that is the object of pleasant feeling is more likely to appear to BE pleasant feeling. Larry 28186 From: Larry Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 1:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] approach to Vis. XIV, 47-54 Hi Sarah, Excellent sutta reference. Just what I was looking for. What is equanimity here? The perceiving consciousness itself, i.e. panna? As for the disadvantages of blindness and deafness, or other disabilities, I am sure they are challenging but certainly no reason to commit suicide or even be down in the dumps all the time. I am sure there are many reasonably happy and well adjusted disabled people. What I was fishing for is a textual reference to the idea that a disabled person can't realize nibbana. I have read this somewhere and I was wondering, why not? Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Larry, > > Apologies for this late ambush post...... > > I hope you weren't being serious when you wrote to Nina: > > --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > > I liked your treatment of the senses as pointing toward revulsion with > > the body. This made me wonder if it says anywhere in scripture or > > commentary that it is a disadvantage to be blind or deaf, and if so, > > why? I have many times thought it would be a great advantage to be deaf. > > Plus I like sign language. I wish I could do it. But I think I am more > > likely to loose my sight in old age. > .... > I meant to chip in at the time. I think it's very misguided to think that > there is any advantage to being blind or deaf - results of akusala kamma. > I have taught children who are both and I can assure you, life is very > difficult and there is certainly no less attachment to hearing or seeing > as a result. I remember once spending time with an elderly man on a long > boat trip to Australia. He had recently become deaf as a result of an air > compression accident on a plane (he only took boats now)and we wrote each > other notes. He told me his wife had also lost her hearing in the same > accident and unable to bear it had committed suicide. Appreciate your good > fortune whilst you still have your faculties and develop awareness of the > realities instead;-) > > I'm prompted to give this ramble now as I just remembered this sutta may > be relevant: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn152.html > > Here's an extract: > > "As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him: "Uttara, does the > brahman Parasiri teach his followers the development of the faculties?" > > "Yes, master Gotama, he does." > > "And how does he teach his followers the development of the faculties?" > > "There is the case where one does not see forms with the eye, or hear > sounds with the ear [in a trance of non-perception]. That's how the > brahman Parasiri teaches his followers the development of the faculties." > > "That being the case, Uttara, then a blind person will have developed > faculties, and a deaf person will have developed faculties, according to > the words of the brahman Parasiri. For a blind person does not see forms > with the eye, and a deaf person does not hear sounds with the ear." > > When this was said, the young brahman Uttara sat silent & abashed, his > shoulders slumped, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words. The > Blessed One -- noticing that Uttara was sitting silent & abashed, his > shoulders slumped, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words -- said to > Ven. Ananda, "Ananda, the development of the faculties that the brahman > Parasiri teaches his followers is one thing, but the unexcelled > development of the faculties in the discipline of a noble one is something > else entirely." > > "Now is the time, O Blessed One. Now is the time, O One Well-Gone, for the > Blessed One to teach the unexcelled development of the faculties in the > discipline of the noble one. Having heard the Blessed One, the monks will > remember it." > > "In that case, Ananda, listen & pay close attention. I will speak." > > "As you say, lord," Ven. Ananda responded to the Blessed One. > > The Blessed One said: "Now how, Ananda, in the discipline of a noble one > is there the unexcelled development of the faculties? There is the case > where, when seeing a form with the eye, there arises in a monk what is > agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. He > discerns that 'This agreeable thing has arisen in me, this disagreeable > thing... this agreeable & disagreeable thing has arisen in me. And that is > compounded, gross, dependently co-arisen. But this is peaceful, this is > exquisite, i.e., equanimity.' With that, the arisen agreeable thing... > disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and > equanimity takes its stance. Just as a man with good eyes, having closed > them, might open them; or having opened them, might close them, that is > how quickly, how rapidly, how easily, no matter what it refers to, the > arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable > thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. In the discipline of a > noble one, this is called the unexcelled development of the faculties with > regard to forms cognizable by the eye. > > "Furthermore, when hearing a sound with the ear, there arises in a monk > what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. > He discerns that 'This agreeable thing has arisen in me, this disagreeable > thing... this agreeable & disagreeable thing has arisen in me. And that is > compounded, gross, dependently co-arisen. But this is peaceful, this is > exquisite, i.e., equanimity.' With that, the arisen agreeable thing... > disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and > equanimity takes its stance. Just as a strong man might easily snap his > fingers, that is how quickly, how rapidly, how easily, no matter what it > refers to, the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & > disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. In the > discipline of a noble one, this is called the unexcelled development of > the faculties with regard to sounds cognizable by the ear." > ***** > Metta, > > Sarah > ==== 28187 From: Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 8:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Nice Reference for Bhavanga Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/22/03 4:04:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > L: I agree. Additionally, one thing that occurred to me is that > objects of consciousness do not themselves have objects. If a > particular sound has a pleasant feeling and we examine that feeling > in retrospect, it is just a feeling, connected to the sound only > conceptually even though originally, pleasant feeling as accompanying > cetasika had the sound as object. Sound and feeling are separate > realities in either case but the sound that is the object of pleasant > feeling is more likely to appear to BE pleasant feeling. > > =========================== Yes. And this raises an interesting related matter: Citta, A, has an object. When a citta, B, has a (fresh memory of) the past citta, A, as B's object, what exactly is included in that object? Does it include A's object and its cetasikas? If not, then there is no distinguishing among cittas!! I suspect that we are never directly aware (as an object) of the vi~n~nana aspect of a mindstate in isolation. I suspect that with regard to this there is only the awareness of a mind-created facsimile (a memory) of the *entire* mindstate, a facsimile that encompasses both the vi~n~nana, the arammana, and the cetasikas, so that by subsequent examination of that construct we can indirectly retrieve various aspects of the past event. We can, by examination, recall *that* we were aware of hardness, *that* it was unpleasant, *that* there was aversion, etc. In addition, the awareness of that memory can lead to a reoccurrence of some of the cetasikas that were part of that remembered mindstate, giving a kind of re-living of that state. 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) 28188 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 1:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] How To Get Through The Samsara ( 10 ) Hello, Htoo Naing, I am not sure if I miss the #09 for this Great series you are unravelling for us all. If I did, can you do me a favor, can you please repost it ? Thanks, You know, I also came from Myanmar. Eddie Lou --- Htoo Naing wrote: > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > The Dhamma practitioner is practising Kayanupassana ............ > May you all practise Vipassana to attain beneficial > effects > > With Unlimited Metta, > > Htoo Naing 28189 From: Larry Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Tiika Vis 54, body consciousness Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Larry, > op 20-12-2003 01:23 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > > > When I asked if tangible data accompanies every consciousness I meant > > does it accompany consciousness in the company of vedana. Does vedana > > accompany every consciousness? > N: Yes, vedanaa is one of the seven universals. We cannot say tangible > object accompanies citta, because it is rupa, not nama. It can be object of > citta, but not all the time. > L:Is that vedana always bodily feeling? > N: No, it is bodily feeling only when it is accompanying the vipakacitta > that is body-consciousness. ------------- Larry: What about anxiety? I think in the Vedana Samyutta there are indications that feeling is always bodily feeling and sometimes _also_ mental feeling. If there is no mental feeling with insight then insight must arise with bodily feeling. Correct? -------------- > L:In order for there to be bodily feeling does there have to be tangible > > data? I know there is sometimes mental feeling, but let's leave that > > aside for now. > N: Yes, it accompanies the vipakacitta that experiences tangible object. > > > L: Take the example of anxiety that is accompanied by unpleasant internal > > tension. The unpleasantness is vedana (feeling), the tension is rupa, > > and the anxiety is a mental formation (sankhara). > N: You are describing here a situation, and we have to be clear what dhammas > are involved. Unpleasant internal tension seems to me a mixture of namas and > rupas. > There is unpleasant feeling, and this, as you describe it, would be akusala, > accompanying citta rooted in aversion. Anxiety is a form of dosa. Dosa can > be fear, it has many shades. Tension: it can be rupa conditioned by the > dosa, very likely. Some rigidity in the body. > All these dhammas have characteristics which appear one at a time. When > there can be direct awareness of them we do not name them, do not point to > them. There can be a beginning to know that nama is not rupa. But, this is > very difficult. > L: Actually, I'm finding it very difficult to experience the characteristic > > of mental formations in general. I can identify the feeling and the rupa > > and there is often discursive thinking (a story) seemingly associated > > with these but I can't find the mental formation (like, dislike, > > bewilderment) itself. > N: Yes, I also find it very difficult. Let us not try to find the mental > formation, we won't be able to. It cannot be realized by thinking, but it > helps to have a clear understanding what different dhammas are on the level > of pariyatti. -------------------- Larry: I disagree. Let's try to find mental formations. If there is something there, we can find it by looking. I think the whole nama category is very subtle. The more clearly we can see how subtle and ungraspable nama is, the less of a "problem" it is. -------------------- > L: I wonder if this has something to do with mental > > formations being formations. > N: the term mental formations is used like a collective name for all > cetasikas except feeling and sa~n~naa. Cetana, volition or kamma, forms up > conditions for vipaka. This is foremost of sankharakkhandha. But as > Nyanatiloka says, it stands for forming or having been formed. > But you do not have to think about this name, so long as you know which > cetasikas are this khandha. > L: Are they like a carriage in which there is > > no actual carriage itself? I am pretty sure I am bewildered but I can't > > actually say, "aHA! there is bewilderment." > N: You probably mean: they are devoid of self? They are only cetasikas > arising because of many different conditions. -------------------------- Larry: No, I mean I can't find the cetasika at all. Just tangible data and some words. I'm not even real sure about feeling. On the other hand, I am obviously feeling and reacting like crazy. -------------------------- > Dispeller of Delusion, Formations aggregate: the principal formationat the lower end...volition is principal because of > its obviousness in the sense of accumulating...> > : When lokuttara citta arises it is different. It means > dispersal. And also lokuttara panna will make an end to bewilderment. > Nina. Larry 28190 From: Larry Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Nice Reference for Bhavanga Hi Howard, I agree. Maybe this facsimile is an abbreviation like a symbol that sanna constructs as sign (nimitta). Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry - > Yes. And this raises an interesting related matter: Citta, A, has an > object. When a citta, B, has a (fresh memory of) the past citta, A, as B's > object, what exactly is included in that object? Does it include A's object and > its cetasikas? If not, then there is no distinguishing among cittas!! > I suspect that we are never directly aware (as an object) of the > vi~n~nana aspect of a mindstate in isolation. I suspect that with regard to this > there is only the awareness of a mind-created facsimile (a memory) of the > *entire* mindstate, a facsimile that encompasses both the vi~n~nana, the arammana, > and the cetasikas, so that by subsequent examination of that construct we can > indirectly retrieve various aspects of the past event. We can, by examination, > recall *that* we were aware of hardness, *that* it was unpleasant, *that* > there was aversion, etc. In addition, the awareness of that memory can lead to a > reoccurrence of some of the cetasikas that were part of that remembered > mindstate, giving a kind of re-living of that state. > > With metta, > Howard 28191 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] moha Hi, Dan, I do not know a lot in term of terminology, but I will try to be more down to earth, Moha is Ignorance, Not seeing things in true sense or light. We are very limited in real abilities to see things as they really are. So many illusions around. We even see moments of joy/happiness/ectasies as 'REAL' happiness, when it is most likely just the opposite. Q. What is the impact ? A. Heavy impact, in fact this may be the True Essence of Buddhism as presenter of True Real Model of ALL Phenomena. we are going round in Infinite circles of 'Endless' rebirths with the definite accompanying Dukkha (sufferings). The only way out of this is attainment of Nibbana (aka Nirvana), where all the Dukkha cease. This is possible thru Wisdom (not just Knowledge) gained mostly thru practice of Correct Meditation. Metta, Eddie Lou --- "Dan D." wrote: > I read in Nyanatiloka's "Buddhist Dictionary" that > moha is delusion, > > > what its impact is, etc... > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > 28192 From: hshsing Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:43pm Subject: Buddists' belief I read a message, a question "Does a buddist pray?". But I can not find any reply. Perhaps I am wrong. I think a buddist believe what Buddha said. Did Buddha say anything about gods or God? Maybe no. Therefore, some buddist believe in gods or God, and some do not believe in gods or God. Am I correct? hshsing@y... 28193 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] How To Get Through The Samsara ( 10 ) Hi Eddie, Always good to see you around. --- Eddie Lou wrote: > I am not sure if I miss the #09 for this Great series > you are unravelling for us all. If I did, can you do > me a favor, can you please repost it ? ..... Pls click on this link to find #09. If you also click on ‘other posts by author’, you’ll be able to find all Htoo’s series anytime: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m23755.html ..... > You know, I also came from Myanmar. ..... I hope you read some of our posts after our visit to your great country. Whereabouts in Myanmar do you come from and how long since you lived there? Do you live in the States now? Whereabouts? (Apologies if you’ve told us and I’ve forgotten). Suan also comes from Myanmar too of course. Metta, Sarah ====== 28194 From: Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:34am Subject: Eye Door, Ear Door, and Rupas Galore Hi, all - The sense door descriptions given in the Dhammasangani sound to me like the descriptions of pa~n~natti, and not paramattha dhammas. There is talk of the sensitive material or sensitive substance of the eye organ and of the ear organ. In the latter case, it is located inside the ear canal near the hair follicles. This sounds like standard, conventional descriptions of static structures or sensitive physical substances. If one were to define the eye sense as the capacity for seeing, and to count that capacity asa rupa, well, okay. But that is not what is said! This is one more area of Abhidhamma that I find quite unsatisfactory. The Buddha, even when discussing the deepest of concepts, paticcasamupada for example, is incredibly clear in the suttas. But if one reads what is said in the Dhammasangani about the sense doors, for example, it is as if it were written by no one even remotely related to the Buddha. There is no clarity at all on this topic. Why is that so? The coverage of rupas in the Abhidhamma is, in my opinion, that absolutely worst of the material. It is primitive, unclear, and most disappointing. (I would be willing to bet that those sections were done by people quite different from those who did the rest of the Abhidhamma.) 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) 28195 From: Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Nice Reference for Bhavanga Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/22/03 5:50:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I agree. Maybe this facsimile is an abbreviation like a symbol that > sanna constructs as sign (nimitta). > > Larry > > ======================== Yes, I follow you! 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) 28196 From: Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:57pm Subject: Vism.XIV 58 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 58. 10. The feminity faculty has the female sex as its characteristic. Its function is to show that 'this is a female'. It is manifested as the reason for the mark, sign, work, and ways of the female (cf. Dhs. 633). 11. The masculinity faculty has the male sex as its characteristic. Its function is to show that 'this is a male'. It is manifested as the reason for the mark, sign, work, and ways of the male (cf. Dhs. 634). Both these last are coexstensive with the whole body, as body sensitivity is. But it does not follow that they have to be called either 'located in the space where body-sensitivity is located' or 'located in the space where that is not located'. Like the natures of visible data, etc., these are not confoundable one with the other.24 ------------------------- note 24: P.T.S. text reads "a~n~nama~n~na.m sa.nkaro natthi". Harvard text omits "sa.nkaro natthi". The word "sa.nkara" in the sense of 'confounding' or error is not in P.T.S. Dict.; see Vis. concluding verses. P.T.S. ed., p. 711. 'Though these things, that is to say, the "mark ... of the female", etc., arise each due to its own condition consisting in kamma, etc., they mostly only do so as modes in a continuity accompanied by the feminity faculty. And so "it is manifested as the reason for the mark", etc., is said making the feminity faculty their cause. 'As regards the "mark of the female", etc., too, its "facultiness" is stated as predominance, in other words, as a state of cause, because the conditions for the modal matter (aakaara-ruupa) consisting of the mark of the female, etc., in a continuity accompanied by faculties do not arise otherwise, and because these kinds of materiality are a condition for apprehending the female. But because the feminity faculty does not generate even the material instances in its own group or maintain or consolidate them, and because it does not so act for the material instances of other groups, it is therefore not called in the text faculty, presence, and non-disappearance conditions, as the life faculty is for the material instances of its group, and as nutriment is for the material instances in succeeding groups. And it is because the mark, etc., are dependent on other conditions that wherever they have predominance its shape is encountered, even in dead and sculptured matter that resembles it. And so too with the masculinity faculty. 'And since these two do not occur together in a single continuity, because of the words "Does the masculinity faculty arise in one in whom the feminity faculty arises? -- No" (Yamaka), etc., therefore even in a hermaphrodite there is only one of them at a given moment (see also DhsA. 323)' (Pm.448). 28197 From: Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 0:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 58 Hi, Larry and all - In a message dated 12/22/03 8:02:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV > > 58. 10. The feminity faculty has the female sex as its characteristic. > Its function is to show that 'this is a female'. It is manifested as the > reason for the mark, sign, work, and ways of the female (cf. Dhs. 633). > > 11. The masculinity faculty has the male sex as its characteristic. > Its function is to show that 'this is a male'. It is manifested as the > reason for the mark, sign, work, and ways of the male (cf. Dhs. 634). > > Both these last are coexstensive with the whole body, as body > sensitivity is. But it does not follow that they have to be called > either 'located in the space where body-sensitivity is located' or > 'located in the space where that is not located'. Like the natures of > visible data, etc., these are not confoundable one with the other.24 > ------------------------- > > note 24: P.T.S. text reads "a~n~nama~n~na.m sa.nkaro natthi". Harvard > text omits "sa.nkaro natthi". The word "sa.nkara" in the sense of > 'confounding' or error is not in P.T.S. Dict.; see Vis. concluding > verses. P.T.S. ed., p. 711. > > 'Though these things, that is to say, the "mark ... of the female", > etc., arise each due to its own condition consisting in kamma, etc., > they mostly only do so as modes in a continuity accompanied by the > feminity faculty. And so "it is manifested as the reason for the mark", > etc., is said making the feminity faculty their cause. > > 'As regards the "mark of the female", etc., too, its "facultiness" is > stated as predominance, in other words, as a state of cause, because the > conditions for the modal matter (aakaara-ruupa) consisting of the mark > of the female, etc., in a continuity accompanied by faculties do not > arise otherwise, and because these kinds of materiality are a condition > for apprehending the female. But because the feminity faculty does not > generate even the material instances in its own group or maintain or > consolidate them, and because it does not so act for the material > instances of other groups, it is therefore not called in the text > faculty, presence, and non-disappearance conditions, as the life faculty > is for the material instances of its group, and as nutriment is for the > material instances in succeeding groups. And it is because the mark, > etc., are dependent on other conditions that wherever they have > predominance its shape is encountered, even in dead and sculptured > matter that resembles it. And so too with the masculinity faculty. > > 'And since these two do not occur together in a single continuity, > because of the words "Does the masculinity faculty arise in one in whom > the feminity faculty arises? -- No" (Yamaka), etc., therefore even in a > hermaphrodite there is only one of them at a given moment (see also > DhsA. 323)' (Pm.448). > > ========================== So, from this, what are we to say that feminine faculty and masculine faculty *are*??? Some mystical, magical unseen hidden causes of what we conventionally take to be feminine and masculine characteristics? Will someone say they are genes? Uh, uh - genes are pa~n~natti! This business, like jivitindriya, is just more evidence of how weak the rupa notion is handled in Abhidhamma. Sorry, my Abhidhammika friends - I seem to be in an ornery mood! Must be the season, right! ;-)) 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) 28198 From: Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:09pm Subject: "Doing" Abhidhamma Hi, all - I think there is a sense in which abhidhamma can be thought of as an ongoing investigative, intellectual analysis operating symbiotically with an ongoing process of direct, mindful, observational analysis of what arises in the namarupic stream. Of course, when we worldlings engage in such a process, we have to take our "discoveries" and our theories with a grain of salt, holding our "conclusions" as quite provisional. The main thing, as I see it, though, is that abhidhammic development, when done properly, even by such as us, as a review and analysis of what is actually observed, and with great care taken in avoiding atta-centric approaches, can be a real help in enabling us to see the impersonal, insubstantial, conditioned and objective nature of reality. To study the analyses already made by those further along than we, subjecting their findings to our own careful perusal and evaluation, and to then further apply the same approach ourselves to direct experince can serve as genuine intellectual support for seeing things as they really are. This is a kind of "gnani yoga" view of the role of abhidhamma and abidhammic development. Thoughts, anyone? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 28199 From: Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 8:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 58 Howard: "This business, like jivitindriya, is just more evidence of how weak the rupa notion is handled in Abhidhamma." Hi Howard, What a surprise! I thought you would like this:>)) Actually,I haven't figured out what this is saying yet. Hopefully Nina will have some clarifying remarks. However, I can't imagine what abhidhamma, or anything else, would be without concepts. What could you say? Larry