32200 From: Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, James & Jon - In a message dated 4/14/04 10:47:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > Friend Jon, > > Jon: I don't think I suggested that my statement was a direct quote > of the Buddha's. I see nothing wrong with summaries, re-statements or > 'extrapolations' as long as they correctly reflect the Buddha's > teaching (if only direct quotes were allowed we'd all be limited to > exchanging sutta excerpts with each other ;-)). > > James: Hey, that would be fun!! ;-)) Yea, you are right that there > is nothing inherently wrong with extrapolating from the Buddha's > teachings. Ven. Sariputta did it quite often in various suttas. > However, the key here is if these extrapolations `correctly reflect > the Buddha's teaching'. In this case, we have the Buddha speaking > about how mindfulness of breath can be used to lead to liberation, > and we have you directly contradicting this by assembling various > meanings from obscure commentaries and adding your own > interpretations to even these commentaries. It is not necessary to > go through so many layers of thought and interpretation to figure > out what the Buddha was teaching. He was teaching mindfulness of > breath! You know: breathing! Pulling air into your lungs and > pushing it back out again by contracting and expanding the > diaphragm. What is so difficult to understand about that? > > Jon: I'm sorry that you find the quote already provided insufficient > to > support the statement. I'll try and do better, but I think I'll > first have to narrow down the exact point(s) in contention, as it > will need more than one quote. Which one (or more) of the following > would you take issue with in particular: > - The dhammas/five aggregates spoken of in the suttas do not include > 'breath'. > - The object of the development of insight (vipassana bhavana) is > always a dhamma/one of the five aggregates. > - Samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana are separate and distinct > forms of bhavana leading to different outcomes -- jhaana and rebirth > in an appropriate plane, in the case of samatha bhavana, and > enlightenment with no further rebirth, in the case of vipassana > bhavana. > > James: This shouldn't need more than one quote. You are making this > far more complicated than it has to be. For starters, give me a > quote (one quote) from the Buddha that directly states your number > 2: "the object of the development of insight is always a dhamma/one > of the five aggregates". This shouldn't be difficult to find > because it is a key issue: development of insight. If you can > provide a quote, I will leave you alone ;-). > > Jon: As you'll have noticed, I've been discussing this same passage > (from another sutta) with Jack, together with the commentary on the > statement "He trains thus: `I shall breathe in contemplating > impermanence'; he trains thus: `I shall breathe out contemplating > impermanence.' > > In brief, it seems to mean impermanence as a characteristic of any of > the five aggregates. > > James: If you sit down and do it, mindfulness of breathing, you will > eventually figure out what it means. There is no reason to start > looking at numerous commentaries to figure it out. It means that > the person will breathe in and out contemplating the impermanence of > samsara. Samsara would include dhammas and those things that are > fabricated...and the breath. They are all impermanent. Doing this > can rid the mind of defilements through non-clinging. > > It is almost as if you see Enlightenment as `knowing something', and > it is to a certain extent, but Enlightenment is more freeing the > mind of those things which keep in enslaved. Mindfulness of the > breath can free the mind in this regard. Almost anything can free > the mind in this regard. For example, as we have been discussing, > Sariputta became enlightened just thinking about what the Buddha was > teaching. His mind was completely engaged in concepts when it was > freed of the taints. Freedom from the taints doesn't require > contemplation of raw phenomena in all cases (though in most cases it > does because that will greatly assist in fostering non-clinging). > > Metta, James > ========================== I think you are both right! We worldlings, are typically unable to attend directly to paramattha dhammas during "ordinary" mindstates. Pretty much all that we experience is passed through a more or less opaque filter of conceptualization. This is where we begin. When the Buddha directs attention to the breath, he is directing our attention to a somewhat restricted range of experience which we conceptualize as in-breathing and out-breathing. The realities subsumed by breathing are earth (solidity), air (motion), fire (temperature), and water (dryness - wetness), and, of course, a variety of derivative touch sensations. Those that are subsumed by in-breathing are somewhat different from those subsumed by out-breathing (for example, coolness vs warmth). Mindfulness of breath begins at the conceptual level. Even at that level, mundane understanding of impermanence and conditionality arises, but it is of minor import. However, the relative restriction of domain of attention tends to heighten the level of concentration. If by effort, with other conditions cooperating, one can maintain clarity and resist succumbing to sloth and torpor, then there is a corresponding heightening of mindfulness and comprehension, and one begins to see through the obfuscating conceptual filter a bit, getting somewhat closer to attending to actualities. At the pinnacle of this process, one attends directly to the subsumed paramattha dhammas, at which point there is the possibilty for supermundane insight into the tilakkhana to arise as the mind gains direct insight into the hindrances, the khandhic elements, the internal and external sense media, the enlightenment factors, and the four noble facts of dukkha. 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) 32201 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] immaterial space Hi Larry, op 12-04-2004 00:49 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I have a doubt about the reality status of the four bases of immaterial > jhana. These are: "boundless space", "boundless consciousness", > "nothingness", and "neither perception nor non-perception". I believe > these are classified as concepts because the objects of the lower levels > of jhana are concepts and because they are not listed in the list of > realities. However, it seems to me (1) a base is a reality, (2) the > description of the base of neither perception nor non-perception sounds > like a reality, and (3) the 'profitable consciousness' of the > fine-material sphere is associated with jhana factors (realities) and > the 'profitable consciousness' of the immaterial sphere is associated > with the bases [this suggests to me that the bases are realities]. If > this is the case then there are three kinds of space: the rupa > (delimitation), the concept of the rupa (imagined space), and immaterial > 'boundless' space. What is your view on this? N: See first: Sarah quotes: From the Debates Commentary (comy to Kathavatthu, Points of Controversy, PTS), chV1, V1: “Now follows the controversy about space. Space is of three modes: as confined or delimited [S:pariccheda or aakaasa ruupa], as abstracted from object (kasi.n’ugghaatim-, referring to Jhana procedure only), as open (aja.ta-). Of these the first is conditioned, the other two are mere concepts. But some, like the Uttaraapathakas and Mahi.msaasakas hold that the two latter modes also, inasmuch as (being mental fictions) they are not conditioned, must therefore be unconditioned.’(Points of Controversy, p192). N: I can add something. Aakaasa , often is added: aakaasa dhaatu: the element of space, so that it is clear that it is a reality: an element. Element is devoid of self. Dhaatu can be used synonymous with dhamma: bearing its own characteristic. Space like the air is a concept. The object of Jhana also a concept, but we can look at more details. Boundless space, a concept, but special. As I wrote in a former post to Howard, objects can be classified as: Slight (paritta, all sense objects), mahaggata (exalted, of jhana) and appamaa.na, boundless, here: lokuttara dhammas. Apart from these there are objects called: not so classifiable, navattaba, see Vis III, 117, note 32. This is very detailed. The object of boundless space when someone contemplates it is navatabba, it is a concept. Second jhana and third jhana have paramattha dhammas, namely cittas as object. L: What is the difference between delimitation and shape? The rupa that delimites the groups of rupa is not shape, it is space element. Shape is not a rupa, not a reality but a concept. See above: shape and form, thought of on account of seeing visible object. Nina. 32202 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Misuzu Kaneko Dear Philip, Thank you for the lovely poem. I find it a good idea you included the Japanese. Very artistically and professionally done. You made my day. It inspires me to some remarks on Dhamma. Buddhism is so entrenched in the Japanese mind, it is extraordinary. And you see how language is such a means to come into contact with other religions, cultures. It fills me with respect when I learn about them. op 14-04-2004 05:22 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: >> Lotus Renge > > softly open hirai-i-ta > softly shut tsu-u-bonda > the lotus in the pond o-tera no ike de > of the temple renge no hana ga> > For me, this poem very nicely expresses the feeling I've had > since coming across the Abdhidhamma, and beginning to understand > paramattha dhamma. All is rising, and falling, and rising, and > falling, in all people, and living creatures, and even inanimate > objects. This leads to a sense of peace, I think, and a maintainable > preview of ultimate liberation. N: It sounds so severe when we hear: this is colour, only colour that is seen, colour and seeing are paramattha dhammas, and thinking of a flower is thinking of a concept. There seems to be so much insistence on paramattha dhammas, and why? Because it is deep, difficult to understand. It is the truth and developing understanding of what is true can lead to a lessening of defilements. Defilements cause sorrow. Since paramattha dhammas is a new subject to many, so much time is spent to explain about them, and about the benefit of knowing them: no self behind it all. But now about the Middle Way! It is beneficial to understand what dhamma is, what reality is. To know what is dhamma and what is a concept. To realize when we are clinging to dhammas, and also clinging to concepts. But, understanding must be developed very naturally, not in a rigid way. No separation of my meditation life and my daily life. We should not reject concepts and then, we can be reminded of the Dhamma when looking at the lotus: softly open, softly shut. Certainly, we *think* of impermanence, we do not realize it from moment to moment, but this can bring us back to reality: be it thinking, or the concept of flower we think of, or seeing, or colour. But it must come naturally, not by force. Otherwise our life is so strained, artificial. I think of Rob Ep's letter: so natural, so simple, when writing: < We went to a Seder for Passover and also had a bit of fun with Easter eggs on Easter morning. > For those who do not know: Seder is the Judaic tradition, commemorating the exodus of the Jews from exile in Egypt to their promised country. The youngest child has to ask: I find it a very moving tradition. (Appreciated if Howard adds more). So we see, it is helpful to incorporate just the whole of our daily life, our traditions into Dhamma. I hope others will do this too, not being afraid that this is off-topic. This is the balance we have to find: understand realities, but develop it naturally, in the midst of your life full of concepts. When you are with A. Sujin or the other Thai friends you will know what the Middle Way means. And you will see, that if you do not *try* to know just paramattha dhammas, pushing away your thinking of concepts, or, all the things you like to do and do naturally, or your own tradition, the development of understanding can become very natural. After all, understanding of our own life, accumulations, inclinations must be developed naturally. Otherwise, the goal cannot be reached. And that is Abhidhamma. I like to help people see that Abhidhamma is life. All these classifications can jump out of the book, be part of our life, they are about life. But there is another thing, the language. When one can read Pali, the texts, also of the suttas, come to life. Take the Brahmajalasutta (D.N, no 1), I used to find it rather tough. When I read it in Pali it was quite a different sutta and much more lively. The same with all the suttas, the same with the Vis. and Tiika now. These are texts well worth reflecting on. We cannot avoid that much gets lost in the translations and not everybody is inclined to learn Pali. I have to make extra efforts to make the texts come to life! Philip, your post made me understand more about the necessary balance as found in the Middle Way. Unknowingly there may be a certain stress to know nama and rupa, although one has realized in theory that this will only counteract the development. How true. A. Sujin also said: when you do not try, I will guarantee that panna will develop. We all have to find out with ups and downs! The Abhidhamma can help us not to be stressed: effort, sati, understanding, concentration, they are all cetasikas performing their functions. The more understanding of cetasikas and all dhammas develops the more there will be balance in our life. Attachment, sadness, these shake us up, but they can be known as only conditioned dhammas. Thank you, with much appreciation and a bow to you, Nina. 32203 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Hi Larry, op 14-04-2004 00:59 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Nina: "We keep on thinking about concepts and stories, and these are not > realities, in fact, when the object of citta is not a reality, it is a > concept. But, we should not forget that there are these roots, we think > with unwholesome roots most of the time." L: This is a good point. How should we analyze it? Is it unwholesome > vitakka and vicara? N: When the root is unwholesome all the accompanying cetasikas are also akusala. Conditioned by way of conascence, also reciproxity, and other conditions. But, these akusala dhammas can and should be realized as only conditioned namas. L:Can we say concepts are produced by consciousness in > the same way as intimation? N: No. Intimation is a subtle rupa, an unique change in the elements, originated by citta. Concept is an object of citta which thinks. But it is not a paramattha dhamma: not citta, cetasika or rupa. For details see Vis. Ch VIII, note 11. L: Where do concepts come from? N: They do not come from anywhere, they do not arise and fall away. But when thinking falls away people have the impression that the concept, the object of thinking also falls away. On account of all the sense objects citta thinks of concepts. Even shortly after seeing, when we do not think stories, we pay attention to shape and form and define the object. That is not seeing, but thinking. Sa~n~naa plays an important part here. It remembers a whole of impressions and we take it for something that is real. It is necessary to know when the object of citta is a paramattha dhamma and when a concept. But, as I wrote to Philip, we do not have to avoid concepts. Our life is full of concepts and the development of understanding should be quite natural. Concepts is not a forbidden area. We should not avoid either the thinking with unwholesome roots, it arises naturally and it can be known when it appears. There could be an overreaction towards concepts and thinking. That is not the Middle Way. Dhamma students (me included) complain that they have a lot of thinking and no awareness of realities. At that very moment they hinder sati, they slow down the development of right understanding. Only when we can be naturally aware, also of thinking, we shall know the difference between concepts and realities more clearly. L: Is discursive thinking a form of speech? N: Vitakka and vicara (applied and discursive thought) play a role in speaking, but they are not the only cetasikas which do so. Vitakka hits or strikes the object so that citta can know it. Nina. 32204 From: Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) Jon, I think I will bow out of this discussion. I have addressed most of your points to the best of my ability in previous posts. This sutta to me is deep but very straightforward. I think you are making something difficult out of something straightforward. This sutta to me is describing a series of steps that one can follow in one's practice to reach enlightenment. In other teachings, the Buddha described other methods emphasizing other aspects of practice. If one believes these two points as I do, your questions aren't relevant. If one believes as you do, they are. 1. Disagree that samatha bhavana involves only image of breath: addressed that in previous post. 2. Vipassana defined as when one of 5 aggegates is object of meditation: addressed that in previous post. 3. Moments of vipassana vs. moments of samatha: that is not the point of this sutta as I addressed in previous post. 4. "rather than a general exhortation on the importance of insight": I didn't address this in previous posts because I didn't think it necessary to explain the importance of insight. I think the Buddha is unequivocal in stating the importance of insight. Only things I have not addressed before is that I don't think the Anap. Sutta is limited to those whose skill using the breath as object is well developed. Most beginners I know start off their meditation practice using their breath as object. I also think you misread the quote, "where a monk...setting mindfulness to the fore..." This describes most people who sit down to meditate and is an easy instruction to try to follow. Be well. Jack Thanks for following up again. We are in agreement that the sutta distinguishes between moments of samatha bhavana (i.e., when [image of] breath is the object of consciousness) and moments of vipassana bhavana (i.e., when any of the five aggregates is object of insight); but you question the relevance of that distinction to the present discussion. Again this brings us to the nub of the matter. The distinction is relevant when we come to consider what the sutta is saying about the relationship between the two forms of bhavana. We have touched on this point briefly already. In general terms, the sutta could be saying any of the following: 1/ If insight is to be developed, then samatha with breath as object should first be developed ; 2/ Insight can be better developed if samatha with breath as object is also developed; 3/ Samatha with breath as object will be of greater value if insight is also developed in conjunction with the samatha. To my reading, No. 3 comes closest. I base this not only on the commentary but also on the wording of the sutta itself. Consider the oft-quoted passage: <> The emphasis here is on how to 'make the most' of samatha with breath as object, rather than being a general exhortation on the importance of the development of insight. Let's not forget that there are hundreds of suttas that give a teaching on the development of insight, and do so without mentioning mindfulness of breathing. So this sutta is for those who already have a particular interest in samatha with breath as object, i.e., in whom that skill is well developed. Consider also the somewhat oblique way the five aggregates are referred to in the sutta, notwithstanding their central importance to it, in contrast to the prominence given to the five aggregates in numerous other suttas dealing with the development of insight. Consider also the necessary 'qualifications' for inclusion among those to whom the sutta is addressed: <<"There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out.>> How many people are there today for whom this would be a description of their regular daily life, in whom mindfulness is developed to the stage where it can be 'set to the fore' just like that, who can remain 'always mindful' as they breathe in and out. This does not describe any person I know or have heard of. This I believe is a teaching for those who are not only ready for enlightenment but who have the potential for that enlightenment to be attained with jhana as base. That's the relevance as I see it. I think what I've said addresses most of the comments in your post, but I'll reply separately on what remains, as all your points are of interest. Jon --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: ... > Jon: Yes, but as explained above the text is making a distinction > between > moments when (image of) breath is the object of consciousness > (i.e., > samatha bhavana) and other moments when any of the five aggregates is > object of insight (i.e., vipassana bhavana). The two cannot > co-occur at precisely the same moment. > > jack: I don't understand why you think this is a response to my > previous > paragraph. Why is their not occuring at the same moment, of which I agree, > important here? ... > Jon:Well, perhaps one of the areas of disagreement is the point > I've just > mentioned, that the moments with breath as object will be different > moments to those where the characteristic of impermanence of the five > aggregates is apparent. I hope my explanation on this has been > clear (I fear it hasn't). > > jack: As I said above, I don't see the relevance to our discussion. 32205 From: Philip Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:42pm Subject: Buddhist fundamentalism? Hello James, and all. Jon and James exchanged thoughts on extrapolating from the Buddha's teaching. > James: Yea, you are right that there >is nothing inherently wrong with extrapolating from the Buddha's >teachings. Ven. Sariputta did it quite often in various suttas. >However, the key here is if these extrapolations `correctly reflect >the Buddha's teaching'. Ph: There is a question that always pops into my mind. Strictly speaking, how can we truly know what correctly reflects the Buddha's teaching? Strictly speaking, isn't the whole Pali canon an extrapolation, in a sense, albeit it one that varies from the original teaching in a thankfully small way? I mean, we know that the teachings were passed down orally over several centuries before being transcribed in Sri Lanka. Is it blasphemous to suggest that they cannot possibly be 100% faithful to the Buddha's intended teaching and must in some way reflect forces at work in the sangha during those two centuries? I ask this not to question the value of the sutta - because I'm not an idiot, thankfully- but just to say that I question an approach which relies on a fundamentalist interpretation of the sutta. I think the Buddha wanted us to examine our experience - didn't he? - using his teachings as signposts on the road rather than detailed maps to adhere to without lifting one's eyes to look and learn from the reality in and around oneself. Pardon the prattle. I am just trying to get at a question I have about arguing dhamma based on interpretations of sutta. I am by no means an anti-intellectual - that's not my point. I can see the value of debating, and, of course, referring to sutta is the most reliable and proper way to do so, but I question one's ability to announce victory in an argument based on sutta. Not that announcing victory is anyone's point in this group. I'm thinking more of a group I once belonged to in which sutta questions were thrown around like bricks. I guess I am just antsy about fundamentalist Buddhism - Lord knows there's enough fundamentalism in the world already! BTW, James, I was grabbed by something you wrote a few weeks ago, about how you used to believe that everything comes down to the moment, but now that you have come to believe that everything comes down to the Buddha's teaching. That is a loose paraphrase. Do you remember your exact words? It was interesting. Wouldn't you say that the Middle Way would apply there? BTW again, James, another thing you wrote has stayed with me. When I first joined the group and was feeling kind of feverish with enthusiasm, you suggested that I relax and not try to study dhamma too hard and instead work on mindfulness. That was good advice, and I've been following it. Thanks! Metta, Phil 32206 From: Philip Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:53pm Subject: For fellow beginners - the thought process laid out Hello all. Reading through a resonse from Rob M to my post about mudita from a few weeks back (I print out responses and only catch up with them properly some time later) I came across this wonderful quotation he identified as his favourite section of the Honeyball Sutta. (Mn 18) I think it might be very helpful for any Abhidhamma beginners like myself. It certainly lays out the thought process very clearly: "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a condition there is feeling. What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With what one has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past, future, and present forms cognizable though the eye." Rob adds : "I interpret the last sentece as meaning that one gets wrapped up in their own fantasy world." Hope this helpful. It certainly was for me. :) Metta, Phil 32207 From: ashkenn2k Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:29am Subject: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Hi James, Jack and anyone who loves satipatthana Now I know why concepts cannot be an object of satipatthana, because concepts do not have the three characteristics. Hence we cannot practise using concepts because an object without the three characteristics cannot assist us in understanding the world with the three characteristics. Hence breathing cannot assist us to understand impermanence, that is why when we read the Anapanasati Sutta, we have breathing in, he focus on inconstancy, he no longer focusing on the breath but focusing on one of the three inconstancy, in order words he has left samatha meditation to vipassana meditation. Then again, however since breath is a concept, he is not looking at breath per se, he is experiencing four great elements as only them can exihibit the three characteristics while breath does not. So when he focus on breath as inconsistant, he is practising the understanding to paramatha dhammas and not concepts. Ken O 32208 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:14am Subject: Re: Buddhist fundamentalism? Friend Phil, Hi, how are you? I hope you are fine. I hope school is going nicely. I read the Japanese poem you posted a few days ago. It was very sad, lovely, and wonderful. I hope you will post more if you happen to have them. Okay, to your questions: Phil: There is a question that always pops into my mind. Strictly speaking, how can we truly know what correctly reflects the Buddha's teaching? James: We cannot know for sure. Memorized or written, there can be mistakes in either mode. Humans are not infallible. Personally, I really trust the Sutta Pitaka because it is pretty consistent in content and style. The Buddha seemed to speak in a different manner than Ven. Sariputta and Ananda and later monks. They all speak about the same things but style is important to consider when analyzing the validity of the suttas. For example, there has been a long controversy for years concerning if Shakespeare really wrote his plays or if someone else wrote them. Some people find it hard to believe that an actor, who used to be a grammar school teacher, could be so brilliant. (BTW, after the Buddha, Shakespeare is my favorite ;-)) Professor Ward Elliott of Claremont McKenna College created a database to analyze Shakespeare's writing compared to the other writings of the Renaissance period. He used linguistic tests that measured things like the number of relative clauses and hyphenated compound words and length of words and sentences, and a new test that used a pattern recognition technique. He couldn't determine if Shakespeare wrote his plays but he did determine that only one person wrote them all. I believe that if the same type of test was applied to the Sutta Pitaka it would be found that they were spoken by one person. Of course, that one person would be the Buddha. Thankfully, in this group the validity of the Sutta Pitaka doesn't come up too often; that can get very irritating. Of course, some suttas may not be valid (As I analyzed with the Anupada Sutta…) Phil: Strictly speaking, isn't the whole Pali canon an extrapolation, in a sense, albeit it one that varies from the original teaching in a thankfully small way? James: I don't think so. How did you come to this conclusion? The Sutta Pitaka is supposed to contain direct quotes of the various bhikkhus, laypeople, and kings which are identified in each sutta. They are not paraphrases or summaries. Phil: I mean, we know that the teachings were passed down orally over several centuries before being transcribed in Sri Lanka. Is it blasphemous to suggest that they cannot possibly be 100% faithful to the Buddha's intended teaching and must in some way reflect forces at work in the sangha during those two centuries? James: I don't think so for two reasons: 1. The style is consistent, as I stated earlier; 2. It would be lying to have a sutta which states "And the Blessed One Said…" and then to make up something he supposedly said. This could have happened for a few suttas but probably not most. There would have been a huge outcry. Bhikkhus have great integrity after all (or are supposed to). Phil: I ask this not to question the value of the sutta - because I'm not an idiot, thankfully- but just to say that I question an approach which relies on a fundamentalist interpretation of the sutta. James: So, are you saying that I am a `Fundamentalist Buddhist'? I wouldn't describe myself that way. I have questioned the validity of the Abhidhamma and some of the suttas. I don't strictly adhere to anything just because it has been labeled `Buddha Word'. Doing that would make me fundamentalist. Now, an `anything goes' approach to Buddhism isn't the opposite of fundamentalism, it is just plain ignorant thinking. ;-)) Phil: I think the Buddha wanted us to examine our experience - didn't he? - using his teachings as signposts on the road rather than detailed maps to adhere to without lifting one's eyes to look and learn from the reality in and around oneself. James: Yes he did. What is your point? Didn't you learn this by reading the Sutta Pitaka? How would you have known to do this otherwise? Phil: I guess I am just antsy about fundamentalist Buddhism - Lord knows there's enough fundamentalism in the world already! James: I don't think I am being fundamentalist. I also don't like fundamentalism either. But I think I dislike `anything goes' even more…maybe this makes me fundamentalist in your eyes?? Phil: BTW, James, I was grabbed by something you wrote a few weeks ago, about how you used to believe that everything comes down to the moment, but now that you have come to believe that everything comes down to the Buddha's teaching. That is a loose paraphrase. Do you remember your exact words? It was interesting. Wouldn't you say that the Middle Way would apply there? James: That is an incorrect paraphrase. What I stated, and it was just a joke anyway, is that my new catchphrase, instead of "It all comes down to the present moment" will be "It all comes down to what the Buddha taught". This is not a change in my perspective; it is the same perspective I have always had. I don't think that simply `knowing' the present moment will lead to liberation…what one needs to realize is that the present moment, as well as the past and future moment, are inherently suffering. Phil: BTW again, James, another thing you wrote has stayed with me. When I first joined the group and was feeling kind of feverish with enthusiasm, you suggested that I relax and not try to study dhamma too hard and instead work on mindfulness. That was good advice, and I've been following it. Thanks! James: You are quite welcome. I'm glad that you are taking a more relaxed and productive approach rather than a stressed and unproductive approach. Metta, James 32209 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:34am Subject: The 2 Ancient Protectors ! Friends: Which two Qualities Protect the whole World ? Guilty Conscience loathing any wrong-doing like excrement or urine is a protector of the whole world! Self-esteem is it's immediate cause. Fearful Shame afraid of retribution like fearing the Boss is a protector of the whole world! Respect for others is it's immediate cause. Whenever these are present, humans approach the Divine. Whenever these are absent, humans behave like animals. Morality is therefore a true Treasure! Mighty powerful is Virtue! Ensuring future safety! The Buddha on Conscience: Past bad deeds cannot be undone, but guilt can be overcome: SN XLII.8 As a basis for acquiring understanding: AN VIII.2 As a quality that safeguards the world: Iti 42 As a rare and fine quality: SN I.18 As a treasure: AN VII.6 As a guardian: AN II.9 Associated with skillful qualities: Iti 40 The Buddha on Shame: As a treasure: AN VII.6 As a guardian: AN II.9 As a quality that safeguards the world: Iti 42 All yours in the Dhamma. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma 32210 From: eireen30 Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 0:21pm Subject: Abidhamma Hello, I am new in this group, my name is Andrea. I have a question. Where can I find good informations about Abidhamma. It seems to be difficult, to find a good book, or online articles about this subject. It would be great, if someone could give me some hints, where I can find good literature ... Best regards, Andrea 32211 From: Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Hi, Ken and all - In a message dated 4/15/04 4:29:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi James, Jack and anyone who loves satipatthana > > Now I know why concepts cannot be an object of satipatthana, because > concepts do not have the three characteristics. Hence we cannot > practise using concepts because an object without the three > characteristics cannot assist us in understanding the world with the > three characteristics. Hence breathing cannot assist us to > understand impermanence, that is why when we read the Anapanasati > Sutta, we have breathing in, he focus on inconstancy, he no longer > focusing on the breath but focusing on one of the three inconstancy, > in order words he has left samatha meditation to vipassana meditation. > Then again, however since breath is a concept, he is not looking at > breath per se, he is experiencing four great elements as only them can > exihibit the three characteristics while breath does not. So when he > focus on breath as inconsistant, he is practising the understanding to > paramatha dhammas and not concepts. > > > > Ken O > > ============================ It's a good bet that right before reading this post, you did not have the idea of a tree in mind but that now, by reading this, the concept of tree has arisen in your mind. Later, when you busy yourself with other matters, the concept of tree will no longer be present. Is that not impermanence? On the other hand!!! Here I'm about to attempt to zero in, in a precise way, on an analysis to the effect that there *are no such things* as concepts at all! What exactly is it which comes and goes when, as I say, the concept of a tree arises and ceases in the mind? I think that it is, in fact, not a single phenomenon at all. A number of different things arise and cease. Among these are at least the following: (Typically fuzzy) mental tree images (and these may actually be sequences of visual experiences, and not a single ones), moments of wordless identification or recognition (sa~n~na), sequences of mental states that constitute memories, and sequences of internalized sounds constituting the unspoken word 'tree' and associated with a complex sequence of just-passed mental phenomena. So, what I'm saying is that not only is the referent of a concept often nonexistent, but concepts themselves may not be existent. There may only be sequences of multi-faceted mental events, which are mentally grouped and named AS IF a single mental phenomenon. That grouping and naming activity is what we call "concept formation", but there is no single, direct element of experience, no single phenomenon, that is a concept. Thus, concepts themselves are concept only!! ;-)) Comments, anyone? :-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32212 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 5:22am Subject: Re: Abidhamma Hi Andrea, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "eireen30" wrote: > I am new in this group, my name is Andrea. I have a question. Where > can I find good informations about Abidhamma. It seems to be > difficult, to find a good book, or online articles about this > subject. It would be great, if someone could give me some hints, > where I can find good literature ... Welcome to DSG! I recommend Nina van Gorkom's book "Buddhism in Daily Life" followed by her "Abhidhamma in Daily Life". They are avaialble for download from Zolag and other sites. I strongly recommend that you supplement your reading with asking questions here on DSG as they arise. You may get answers from Nina, Sarah / Jon the moderators, myself or others. Let me start the ball rolling by asking you a question... what sparked your interest in the Abhidhamma? Metta, Rob M :-) 32213 From: Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana In a message dated 4/15/04 5:19:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: On the other hand!!! Here I'm about to attempt to zero in, in a precise way, on an analysis to the effect that there *are no such things* as concepts at all! Howard and All, In a sense, concepts irrefutably do exist. The arising and falling away of the sound of a bell ringing is no different than the arising and falling away of a thought of a tree. My meditation and reading of the Abhidhamma and Visud. reinforces the similarity of the mind's reaction to phenomena arising at the 6 sense doors not just the 5 physical senses. A sound of a bell is no less or no more real than a thought of a tree. The difference between vipassana and samatha is not in the difference of the object of attention but in the way the mind handles the object of attention. Going off in another direction, it seems to me that a concept can be taken two different ways. One way is that it is a sense object arising and falling away. That is what I tried to describe in the first paragraph above. The other sense of a concept is how it is constucted and de-constructed. The concept of tree involves my mind making a lot of decisions in what is a tree and what isn't. At times, when I have discomfort, I can de-construct that discomfort and see how it is entirely mind-made. Seeing I am causing myself discomfort, I drop it. But, during meditation mode, that might not be relevant. The suffering arises and falls away. It is as it is. Some musings on a beautiful Spring morning. jack 32214 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:04am Subject: Seeing and seeing of seeing ( 01 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, In the whole universe, there is nothing but nama dhamma and rupa dhamma. Rupa dhamma can never know itself and others while nama dhamma can know both nama dhamma and rupa dhamma. Nama dhamma are cittas and cetasikas. Cittas are always accompanied by a group of cetasikas depending on conditions favouring them arising. Dhamma are being studied and dhamma are known. Dhamma are seen. This is seeing. This is knowledge. This is awareness. This is wisdom. This is sight. This is light. What is this light, what is this sight, what is this wisdom, what is this awareness, what is this knowledge, what is this 'seeing'? Dhamma are happening all the time. Nothing is static and nothing is stagnant. In the flow of lives that is life after life or wheel of life, there stick jati or rebirth with existing and this again is stuck with leaving or death. In between are full of sufferings. A life starts with jati. That jati is dukkha. Rebirth is dukkha. Rebirth is suffering. Anyone who has been born has started getting old. This oldness is jara. Jara is dukkha. In a life there are a lot of mishaps including diseases and accidents and all these byadhi are suffering and all these are dukkha. Soka or sorrow, parideva or lamentation, dukkha or physical pains, domanassa or mental pains, upayasa or great despair are all suffering and all these are dukkha. All feelings are a khandha and this vedanakkhandh is dukkha. All perceptions are a kghandha and this sannakkhandha is dukkha. All mental fabrications are a khandha and this sankharakkhandha is dukkha. All consciousness are a khandha and this vinnanakkhandha is dukkha. All these 4 namakkhandha are dukkha. Nama dhamma have to arise due to conditions. Among these conditions rupa dhamma are included. Rupa dhamma are a khandha and this rupakkhandha is dukkha. All these five upadanakkhandha are dukkha. Living with hatred beings or things are dukkha. Departing from beloved ones is also dukkha. When one wants something but it is not available to him is also dukkha. All these things are dukkha.This is seeing. When this seeing arises the practitioner knows it and he sees that he sees. This seeing of seeing is recognising the dhamma. He sees this because he is mindful, alert, effortful, well concentrated, well-tracked, and well-lighted. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... 32215 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] root and non-root Hi Larry, op 11-04-2004 16:53 schreef Larry op LBIDD@w...: All rooted consciousness > is rooted in ignorance. N: Only the cittas that are akusala and have akusala hetus are rooted among others in ignorance. This root accompanies each akusala citta. L: To be rooted means to be drawn from the > reservoir of one's accumulations. An arahant has accumulations also > but they aren't a mass of ignorance. N: The three akusala hetus are lobha, dosa and moha. They have conditions for their arising so long as the latent tendencies (anusayas) have not been eradicated by lokuttara citta. The latent tendencies are powerful and they can condition the raising of akusala citta at any time. L:Somehow the change of lineage > consciousness instantaneously purifies this entire reservoir and > millennia of confusion and bewilderment suddenly makes sense. This > happens in 4 stages and culminates in the complete purification of > the arahant's accumulations. N: Change of lineage, gotrabhu, experiences nibbana, but it does not eradicate latent tendencies. This moment marks the transition from mundane citta to supramundane citta, or, in conventional terms from being a worldling to becoming an ariyan. It is followed by the maggacitta that eradicates. It all proceeds extremely fast. As you say, this happens in four stages of enlightenment, and at the moment of arahatship millennia of confusion and bewilderment are left behind. This is enormous, thus we can imagine the long, long journey before this can be reached. L: Perhaps we can gain a little > understanding of an arahant's mahakiriya cittas by studying the > rootless nature of rupas. Rupas are not happy or sad or confused. > They are just what they are. It is a fine distinction but I think we > can discriminate between the rootless mind-door rupa of intimation > and the consciousness rooted in ignorance that produces it. N: I would like to add a little. The rupa of bodily and verbal intimation is indeed non-root, not sad or happy. It can be a doorway of kamma through body and speech, but it is not always doorway. It is rupa, not mind-door. The citta that produces it can be citta rooted in sobhana hetu or in akusala hetu. When we notice someone else who is angry, making gestures, the rupa that is bodily intimation has nothing to do with anger, it is non-root. The citta with anger falls away, the rupa falls away. We know about it because of thinking. And when it happens to ourselves we can think about it. But who can be aware and directly know it? When the coarse rupas are not known by insight how can such a subtle rupa be known? It is far, thus difficult to penetrate. Nina. 32216 From: Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] immaterial space Hi all, This is a repost of one that disappeared. Looks like Yahoo is experiencing difficulties. -------------------------- Hi Nina and Sarah, Thanks for the additional info on space. I'm not going to take a position for now. Here's a few more bits and pieces I picked up from Vism. X. The physical support for the space kasina (called 'limited-space' kasina) would be something like a piece of wood with a hole in it. The space of the hole would be the object of focus and, as with all kasinas, that object would be imaginatively idealized. Thence the 4 jhanas arise in order if conditions permit. If one wants to enter the immaterial jhanas an antipathy towards even the idea of materialty has to be developed. Once the fourth jhana is established attention is removed from that ideal physical object and what is left is just space. In other words, one stops generating that idea. The space kacina is not used if one wants to enter the immaterial jhanas. I think this is because the contrast between ideal physical space being there and not being there wouldn't be enough to make a significant difference. This remaining space is called endless or boundless or infinite space. It is a 'base' (ayatana) "in the sense of habitat for the jhana whose nature it is associated with, as the 'deities' base' is for deities". The Base of Infinite Consciousness and the Base of Nothingness is a base in the same sense. The Base of Neither Perception Nor Nonperception is a base "because it is included in the mind base (manayatana) and the mental-object base (dhammayatana). Larry 32217 From: Philip Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:50pm Subject: Re: Buddhist fundamentalism? Hi James Thanks for your response to my rather peculiar post. I think I was just thinking through some things about my own approach to sutta rather than trying to criticize you or anyone else. I've ordered the Bhikkhu Bodji MN anthology and am wondering how to approach it. As you said, I wouldn't know enough to examine present realities if it weren't for the Sutta Pitaka. But I think it's a valid point that seeking to settle disputes by sutta references can become a vain enterprise, because the Sutta Pitaka is so broad that either side can usually find justification for their cause, within reason. (e.g the need or lack of need for jhanas in enlightenment) The only true settling of dispute lies in experience of insight that is beyond words, I would say. I enjoy reading your posts with their insistent lines of thinking. and I especially value the way no one is stirred to expressions of irritation when you challenge them in an excessively- I would say- way. (i.e Jon as a puppet of Mara, the Evil One ) Most commendable! I hope your ex-pat life is continuing nicely, and that your classes are going well. I have a new one starting today, so I'm a wee bit anxious. Thanks again for your guidance in that very helpful post back then, and in advance for the guidance to come. :) Metta, Phil 32218 From: Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Hi, Jack - In a message dated 4/15/04 9:57:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jackhat1@a... writes: > In a sense, concepts irrefutably do exist. The arising and falling away of > the sound of a bell ringing is no different than the arising and falling > away of > a thought of a tree. My meditation and reading of the Abhidhamma and Visud. > reinforces the similarity of the mind's reaction to phenomena arising at the > 6 > sense doors not just the 5 physical senses. A sound of a bell is no less or > no > more real than a thought of a tree. > ========================= Jack, I'm going to do some ""thinking out loud" now. My first inclination was to say "No, that's not so - the sound is a single paramattha dhamma, whereas the 'thought of a tree' is actually a sequence of phenomena." But I realize that you are correct. They are very much the same sort of thing. Not that the tree-thought is a single paramattha dhamma, but that the bell-sound is *not* a single paramattha dhamma! It, also, may be a sequence of differing sounds. The "bell sound" just like the "tree thought" may be a sequence of phenomena. Now, in fact, this matter makes me wonder: Is there actually such a thing as a single sound-event not consisting of parts that differ from each other? What is the fact of the matter? If there is such a thing, then it would be a single rupa, a single material "abhidhammic" phenomenon. But if there is not, if, instead, for example, the sound of a bell occurs across time as a fluctuating, varying, experiential event, then the distinction between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natti would lose its force. There would just remain the distinction between "actual" and "merely imagined" in the sense that whatever is experienced via a single sense door, and is cognized as impermanent, as impersonal, and as dependent (i.e., not self-existent) is actual, but whatever seems to be experienced via more than one sense door or is cognized as permanant or personal or self-existent is merely imagined. So, the changing, fluctuating bell sound as a conditioned, impersonal phenomenon would be an actuality, but a bell sound as as an independent entity would not be, and a tree would not be. 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) 32219 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:03pm Subject: Re: Buddhist fundamentalism? Friend Phil, Phil: Thanks for your response to my rather peculiar post. James: You're welcome. I will usually respond if I can understand the post. I have to take your posts apart a lot, sentence by sentence, to respond…glad that doesn't bother you. Phil: I've ordered the Bhikkhu Bodji MN anthology and am wondering how to approach it. James: I think you should just start reading it from cover to cover, don't skip anything or jump around. Use two bookmarks so that you can constantly check the commentary (B.B. is kind of excessive with the commentary notes at times, but you get used to it ;-). That is the collection I am currently reading. Phil: But I think it's a valid point that seeking to settle disputes by sutta references can become a vain enterprise, because the Sutta Pitaka is so broad that either side can usually find justification for their cause, within reason. James: I don't think that you will find that to be the case. Phil: I enjoy reading your posts with their insistent lines of thinking. James: Thank you…not sure what you mean but thanks. ;-) (Please don't bother to explain…it's not important). Phil: and I especially value the way no one is stirred to expressions of irritation when you challenge them in an excessively- I would say- way. (i.e Jon as a puppet of Mara, the Evil One ) Most commendable! James: That's sure a back-handed compliment! ;-)) Phil, we are all puppets of Mara…but Mara especially likes to pick on those who are close to enlightenment or leading others to enlightenment. Jon may not have understood it, but I was paying him a compliment and expressing concern. Sometimes I pick up vibes about things. You can just think I am weird, that's fine. Let's drop it, please ;-). Phil: I hope your ex-pat life is continuing nicely, and that your classes are going well. I have a new one starting today, so I'm a wee bit anxious. James: My ex-pat life is going fine (though I plan to go to an Asian country next), and good luck on your new class. Phil: Thanks again for your guidance in that very helpful post back then, and in advance for the guidance to come. :) James: Hmmm…'guidance' would be two strong of a word. I don't see myself as giving anyone guidance, just my opinion. Metta, James 32220 From: Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:54pm Subject: Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi, all - I propose the following for your consideration. In Abhidhamma, a so called paramattha dhamma is an actual experiential phenomenon/condition/event as opposed to so called pa~n~natti, which are purely mental constructs and not direct and actual elements of experience. Typically, a paramattha dhamma is viewed as never being a complex, but as an elementary, irreducible experiential phenomenon occuring during a discrete and delimited time interval. Jack raised the issue of a bell sound being no more real than concepts. This was in response to my pointing out that a concept isn't a single phenomenon, but a complex sequence of events, mentally grouped together and dealt with as a unit. Jack pointed out that "the arising and falling away of the sound of a bell ringing is no different than the arising and falling away of a thought of a tree." He stated quite correctly that "a sound of a bell is no less or no more real than a thought of a tree." This has led me to thinking that the Abhidhammic notion of a paramattha dhamma (or an "ultimate reality") not being a complex, but being unitary and "discrete" or "momentary" may not be "quite right". It occurs to me that, for example, there might not actually be a single sound-event that does not consist of parts. Instead, the sound of a bell might well be a phenomenon that occurs across time as a fluctuating, varying, experiential event, so that impermanence may include not only cessation, but change! If this is so, then the distinction between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natti (concepts/mind constructs) as it seems to be drawn by Abhidhamma would lose its force. Yet there still remains, I believe, a way of distinguishing between paramattha dhamma as an actual and direct element of experience and what is "concept only." What would be the criteria for identifying an apparent phenomenon as an actual one? I think that a critical criterion for a phenomenon being a paramattha dhamma is that it be experienced through a *single* sense door. The ringing of a bell seems to satisfy this. A melody, however, does not, because a melody is not just heard - to be a "melody" it must also be cognized through the mind door. To hear sound requires just the ear door, but to "hear" a melody requires the mind door as well. Hardness, warmth, and bodily movement seem to satisfy this, all being experienced through the body door. But "a tree" can seemingly be touched, be seen, sometimes be smelled (an evergreen or a gingko), and always be cognized, and so it is *not* experientially basic/elementary/actual/paramatthic. Is this criterion of single-door experiencing necessary and sufficient? I welcome comments. 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) 32221 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma Dear Andrea, welcome to this group. Do not hesitate to ask questions. What do you think of Abhidhamma, how do you see it? When the mods are back from Thailand they will give you some tips for newcomers, links, also a link to a glossary of terms. It is appreciated if you tell us something about your background and interests. Looking forward to your input, Nina. op 14-04-2004 21:21 schreef eireen30 op elfe30@h...: > Hello, > > I am new in this group, my name is Andrea. I have a question. Where > can I find good informations about Abidhamma. 32222 From: Christopher Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:59pm Subject: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hello, This (rather strange) question is actually about Mahayana Buddhism. Please forgive me for asking it here, I have often received lots of friendly help in here, and I'm not sure where else I might find an answer. So any help is appreciated.. When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help other beings. I am wondering if there is a certain way that a meditator does this, and if so, how? Would there come a point in meditation where it is obvious that entering the stream is possible, and a person can simply choose not to advance? Or is it possible to 'accidentally' enter the stream, only realizing afterwards what has happened? If so, what does a Mahayanist do about this? Thanks, Chris. 32223 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:26pm Subject: Existence or not is not the right question! A friend asked: >so the whole purpose of "our " "existence" is not to exist ? No; That is taking it too far... !!! Nibbana = eternal Peace, Bliss & Ease is the purpose of the Noble life. There is the Buddha's 4 classic negations: Do an awakened being exist after Death ? No it is not like that! Do an awakened being not exist after Death ? No it is not like that! Do an awakened being both exist & not exist after Death ? No it is not like that! Do an awakened being neither exist nor not exist after Death ? No it is not like that! Check MN 63 for the indeterminable issues, which cannot be answered often because the question is wrongly formulated: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn063.html In brevity: There Never have Been, is Not Now & Never Will Be an unchanging entity whether internal or external, whether self or other, whether far or near, whether subtle or gross, whether fine or foul, that IS CONSTANTLY EXISTING... One extreme is this Eternalism: "Things exist constantly as the same thing" The opposite extreme is the Annihilationism: "Nothing exists (after death), all is relative or empty" Personalism, substantialism & essentialism is on the Eternalist side. Nihilism, relativism, great-empti-ism is on the Annihilationism side. Buddha (& good Buddhists) avoids both extremes by sticking to Middle of the dynamic & conditioned facts: From Ignorance emerges Constructions. From Constructions emerges Consciousness. From Consciousness emerges Name(ing)&form(ing). From Name&form emerges the 6 Senses. From the 6 Senses emerges Contact. From Contact emerges Feeling. From Feeling emerges Craving. From Craving emerges Clinging. From Clinging emerges Becoming. From Becoming emerges Birth. From Birth emerges Ageing, Sickness & Death. From Ageing, Sickness & Death emerges this whole Mass of Suffering ... Deep, Deep, Deep is this... It is because of not being able to grasp this, we still buzz around here, like a bee in a closed jarr ... : - ] 32224 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:58pm Subject: Reg: Concepts; main but mere ideas Friends: Primary Concepts (pannatti): There is the conception of Cluster (khandha) There is the conception of Source (ayatana) There is the conception of Element (dhatu) There is the conception of Ability (indriya) There is the conception of Person (puggala) These are the constructed & fermented frames of reference, upon which to hang any empirical experience. However, when first once stretched and nailed to these frames, experience will never again regain it's reality ... !!! Elimination of the Fermentations (asava-kkhaya) may be likened to a complete de(con)struction of this empty matrix of idealistic conceptual framework. Freed of frames is freed of names. Freed of naming is freed of forming. Freed of names & forms is freed of consciousness. Thus is the fuel of birth & being dried out. 32225 From: Philip Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 3:15am Subject: Re: Abidhamma Hi Andrea Welcome to the group. I'm new too. I would just like to add a recommendation for K Sujin's book on Metta, which was translated by Nina. The introduction by Nina introduces a lot of the pali terminology and basic concepts that are featured in the abdhidhamma in a very concise way and you might find it helpful before you start into Abhidhamma in Daily Life. Here's a link. http://www.dhammastudyandsupport.com/book/Metta- Loving_Kindness_In_Buddhism/Metta-Loving_Kindness_In_Buddhism.htm Also, if you go to Files, you'll find the Useful Posts, and there's a section there on Abdhidhamma for beginners. Great stuff. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "eireen30" wrote: > Hello, > > I am new in this group, my name is Andrea. I have a question. Where > can I find good informations about Abidhamma. It seems to be > difficult, to find a good book, or online articles about this > subject. It would be great, if someone could give me some hints, > where I can find good literature ... > > Best regards, > Andrea 32226 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 5:04am Subject: Dhamma is there, there is Dhamma Dear Dhamma Friends, Dhamma is just in front of you. Dhamma is just close to you. Dhamma is just near you. Dhamma is just inside of you. Dhamma helps those who stay with Dhamma. Dhamma shows vision who see it. Dhamma is always in balance. Dhamma comes without delay if practise it. Dhamma is good from the beginning to the end. Dhamma is calling us should we know. Dhamma has tasted by saint after saint. Dhamma is always there in our mind. May you all directly see dhamma as they really are. Happy New Year! Htoo Naing 32227 From: Philip Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:11am Subject: Re: Misuzu Kaneko Hello Nina, and all. I am still reflecting on your kind response to my thread on mudita, Nina, but I think I will respond to this one first. Nina: > Thank you for the lovely poem. I find it a good idea you included the > Japanese. Very artistically and professionally done. You made my day. Ph: Very glad you enjoyed it and that I could repay a small portion of the debt of gratitude I feel to you, and others in this group, for having opened my eyes to Abdhidhamma. > It > inspires me to some remarks on Dhamma. Buddhism is so entrenched in the > Japanese mind, it is extraordinary. And you see how language is such a means > to come into contact with other religions, cultures. It fills me with > respect when I learn about them. Ph: I used to take it for granted that because so few Japanese people are familiar with the Buddha's teaching - believe me, it's true- Japanese people couldn't be considered Buddhists. And on the whole they don't consider themselves to be Buddhists in a real way. And yet, there is something in the patient, peaceful nature of the people here that speaks to me of true dhamma that has, as you say, become entrenched in the Japanese mind. For me, it is a reminder that there is more to dhamma than sutta and meditation. Dhamma arises and falls with every moment, in every sentient being. Liberation entails study and practice, but dhamma is all around. That's what the poem says to me, what I feel so deeply about it. It's kind of ecstatic, really, at least it feels that way to me these days, even on the drab, dreary days. All is rising, and falling, and rising and falling. I really feel it, and have on many days since I saw my wife as paramattha dhammas that night! :) I know I have only understand paramattha dhammas in a superficial way through the intellect, but I do sense that all is rising, and falling, and rising and falling. N:> It sounds so severe when we hear: this is colour, only colour that is > seen, colour and seeing are paramattha dhammas, and thinking of a flower is > thinking of a concept. There seems to be so much insistence on paramattha > dhammas, and why? Because it is deep, difficult to understand. It is the > truth and developing understanding of what is true can lead to a lessening > of defilements. Defilements cause sorrow. Since paramattha dhammas is a new > subject to many, so much time is spent to explain about them, and about the > benefit of knowing them: no self behind it all. Ph: I think you do a wonderful job in your books at taking newcomers like myself on our first steps toward understanding of paramattha dhammas. However, while you can lead us to water, we have to drink ourselves. You know, I've had a bit of a chip on my shoulder about Zen, perhaps because there seems to be a lot of folks I've come across who use it to pose as wise men, and because there is so much cruddy commericialization of it, but ironically since coming across ythe Abhidhamma, I've developed more of an appreciation for Zen. Of course, the poem I shared has a Zen feeling to it. And it says as much about the Buddha's teaching to me as just about any sutta I've ever read. Well, I have a fascination for the poet in question. (I am hoping to memorize several hundred of her poems in the hopes that her kind of consciousness of the world will soak in!) N: > We should not reject > concepts and then, we can be reminded of the Dhamma when looking at the > lotus: softly open, softly shut. Certainly, we *think* of impermanence, we > do not realize it from moment to moment, but this can bring us back to > reality: be it thinking, or the concept of flower we think of, or seeing, or > colour. But it must come naturally, not by force. Otherwise our life is so > strained, artificial. Ph: Again, I find there is something that is natural and ecstatic about Abhidhamma, something that goes beyond words. I guess it's the old pot-smoking hippy in me. (Not any more, but there are accumulations, don't you know ;) ) But while some people I know in another group tried to read Abhidhamma in Daily Life and gave up almost immediately, and called it clinical and unwelcoming, it made me feel kind of ecstatic. All that rising and falling, rising and falling. Back to the poem, I like the way the poem moves from a very familiar, almost cliched, image of the lotus flower to the less familar but still somewhat sentimental image of the children in a ring in the temple yard, and then to a kind of shift of consciousness to feel - without forcing oneself to try to understand - the houses and town opening and shutting. I felt in this the paradigm shift we need to make to be able to understand that even rupa are rising and falling. Again, this brings me a kind of ecstatic feeling. > This is the balance we have to > find: understand realities, but develop it naturally, in the midst of your > life full of concepts. When you are with A. Sujin or the other Thai friends > you will know what the Middle Way means. > And you will see, that if you do not *try* to know just paramattha dhammas, > pushing away your thinking of concepts, or, all the things you like to do > and do naturally, or your own tradition, the development of understanding > can become very natural. After all, understanding of our own life, > accumulations, inclinations must be developed naturally. Otherwise, the goal > cannot be reached. Ph: I love the above passage. I think I am being quite patient these days, not being tough with myself about rushing deeply into Abhidhamma. For example, I stalled after chapter 9 of Abdhidhamma in Daily Life, and went back to the beginning again, and then back again, and haven't picked it up for a couple of weeks. And there is no need to be stressed about that. On the other hand, Christine signs off with "The problem is that you think you have time" or words to that effect! That brings me to the next thing I want to mention - samvega, that sense of urgency. I've talked about how the poem gives me a peaceful sense of being liberated from stress - all that shutting and closing (rising and falling, in other words) and a sense of things happening in a conditioned way, with no need to fret. But this morning, I read this, from Ayya Khema on samvega: "When our insights give rise to seeing the whole world on fire from craving and ourselves burning with it, then urgency will become a natural part of our our make-up." This made me wonder if my mind has been up to its own tricks, and this sensing of a kind of ecstasy in rising and falling of paramattha dhammas is just a new attempt by self to make the world in a cozy place to exist in, the way it used to subvert the brahma-viharas. Or is the peaceful feeling I've had the state of mind that is often paired with samvega? Pasada. Serenity that arises to temper samvega. Well, I think I could do with a little bit more urgency, maybe. Maybe the sense of rising and falling of dhammas around me, in my daily life as in the poem, is a strategy to hide from knowledge that I am in a burning house. Wrong understanding leading me to have pretty notions even while being consumed by the blaze. Or is it pasada, serenity that protects us from despair, as Thanissaro Bhikku called it, and which is presumedly not an unwholesome state of mind. I will continue to think about this. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Philip, > Thank you for the lovely poem. I find it a good idea you included the > Japanese. Very artistically and professionally done. You made my day. It > inspires me to some remarks on Dhamma. Buddhism is so entrenched in the > Japanese mind, it is extraordinary. And you see how language is such a means > to come into contact with other religions, cultures. It fills me with > respect when I learn about them. > op 14-04-2004 05:22 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: > > >> Lotus Renge > > > > softly open hirai-i-ta > > softly shut tsu-u-bonda > > the lotus in the pond o-tera no ike de > > of the temple renge no hana ga> > > For me, this poem very nicely expresses the feeling I've had > > since coming across the Abdhidhamma, and beginning to understand > > paramattha dhamma. All is rising, and falling, and rising, and > > falling, in all people, and living creatures, and even inanimate > > objects. This leads to a sense of peace, I think, and a maintainable > > preview of ultimate liberation. > N: It sounds so severe when we hear: this is colour, only colour that is > seen, colour and seeing are paramattha dhammas, and thinking of a flower is > thinking of a concept. There seems to be so much insistence on paramattha > dhammas, and why? Because it is deep, difficult to understand. It is the > truth and developing understanding of what is true can lead to a lessening > of defilements. Defilements cause sorrow. Since paramattha dhammas is a new > subject to many, so much time is spent to explain about them, and about the > benefit of knowing them: no self behind it all. > But now about the Middle Way! It is beneficial to understand what dhamma is, > what reality is. To know what is dhamma and what is a concept. To realize > when we are clinging to dhammas, and also clinging to concepts. But, > understanding must be developed very naturally, not in a rigid way. No > separation of my meditation life and my daily life. We should not reject > concepts and then, we can be reminded of the Dhamma when looking at the > lotus: softly open, softly shut. Certainly, we *think* of impermanence, we > do not realize it from moment to moment, but this can bring us back to > reality: be it thinking, or the concept of flower we think of, or seeing, or > colour. But it must come naturally, not by force. Otherwise our life is so > strained, artificial. > I think of Rob Ep's letter: so natural, so simple, when writing: < We went > to a Seder for Passover and also had a bit of fun with Easter eggs on Easter > morning. > For those who do not know: Seder is the Judaic tradition, > commemorating the exodus of the Jews from exile in Egypt to their promised > country. The youngest child has to ask: from all other nights?> I find it a very moving tradition. (Appreciated if > Howard adds more). So we see, it is helpful to incorporate just the whole of > our daily life, our traditions into Dhamma. I hope others will do this too, > not being afraid that this is off-topic. This is the balance we have to > find: understand realities, but develop it naturally, in the midst of your > life full of concepts. When you are with A. Sujin or the other Thai friends > you will know what the Middle Way means. > And you will see, that if you do not *try* to know just paramattha dhammas, > pushing away your thinking of concepts, or, all the things you like to do > and do naturally, or your own tradition, the development of understanding > can become very natural. After all, understanding of our own life, > accumulations, inclinations must be developed naturally. Otherwise, the goal > cannot be reached. > And that is Abhidhamma. I like to help people see that Abhidhamma is life. > All these classifications can jump out of the book, be part of our life, > they are about life. > But there is another thing, the language. When one can read Pali, the texts, > also of the suttas, come to life. Take the Brahmajalasutta (D.N, no 1), I > used to find it rather tough. When I read it in Pali it was quite a > different sutta and much more lively. The same with all the suttas, the same > with the Vis. and Tiika now. These are texts well worth reflecting on. We > cannot avoid that much gets lost in the translations and not everybody is > inclined to learn Pali. I have to make extra efforts to make the texts come > to life! > Philip, your post made me understand more about the necessary balance as > found in the Middle Way. Unknowingly there may be a certain stress to know > nama and rupa, although one has realized in theory that this will only > counteract the development. How true. A. Sujin also said: when you do not > try, I will guarantee that panna will develop. We all have to find out with > ups and downs! The Abhidhamma can help us not to be stressed: effort, sati, > understanding, concentration, they are all cetasikas performing their > functions. The more understanding of cetasikas and all dhammas develops the > more there will be balance in our life. Attachment, sadness, these shake us > up, but they can be known as only conditioned dhammas. > Thank you, with much appreciation and a bow to you, > Nina. 32228 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Not entering the Stream in Mahayana In a message dated 4/16/04 12:01:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time, charnett@y... writes: When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help other beings. I am wondering if there is a certain way that a meditator does this, and if so, how? Would there come a point in meditation where it is obvious that entering the stream is possible, and a person can simply choose not to advance? Or is it possible to 'accidentally' enter the stream, only realizing afterwards what has happened? If so, what does a Mahayanist do about this? Chris, I think most Mahayanists think of themselves as dedicating their practice and lives toward helping others not the formulation that you state above. They do this by mentally dedicating each meditation to helping others. jack 32229 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 3:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi again, all - I've been mulling over my own questions that I gave in the post copied below. I find I end up agreeing withmy self on one point and disagreeing on another! (This, of course, is proof that thinking about Abhidhammic topics will drive one insane! ;-)) What I agree with is the following that I wrote: "I think that a critical criterion for a phenomenon being a paramattha dhamma is that it be experienced through a *single* sense door." That seems clear to me, and correct. But what I disagree with is the following: "This has led me to thinking that the Abhidhammic notion of a paramattha dhamma (or an 'ultimate reality') not being a complex, but being unitary and 'discrete' or 'momentary' may not be 'quite right'. It occurs to me that, for example, there might not actually be a single sound-event that does not consist of parts. Instead, the sound of a bell might well be a phenomenon that occurs across time as a fluctuating, varying, experiential event, so that impermanence may include not only cessation, but change! If this is so, then the distinction between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natti (concepts/mind constructs) as it seems to be drawn by Abhidhamma would lose its force." The reason that I believe I was incorrect in this, and that the mindstate/citta scenario of Abhidhamma better describes the facts is the following: While we are "hearing a bell," we *seem* to be hearing other sounds throughout, and, not only that, we seem to be simultaneously seeing, and smelling, and touching, and even thinking. But we know, even from modern biological science and psychology (I believe), that we do not in fact do these things simultaneously. So, the "single bell sound" experience is not a single continuous experience at all, but consists of (probably tens of thousands of) mind moments interspersed with mind moments in which occur sights, and tactile experiences, and olfactory experiences,and yet other sound experiences. So, I think that on the matter of my post copied below, my grade is only 50%, which despite grade inflation, can't be construed as passing! ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/15/04 11:56:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Hi, all - > > I propose the following for your consideration. > In Abhidhamma, a so called paramattha dhamma is an actual experiential > phenomenon/condition/event as opposed to so called pa~n~natti, which are > purely mental constructs and not direct and actual elements of experience. > Typically, a paramattha dhamma is viewed as never being a complex, but as an > > elementary, irreducible experiential phenomenon occuring during a discrete > and > delimited time interval. > Jack raised the issue of a bell sound being no more real than > concepts. This was in response to my pointing out that a concept isn't a > single > phenomenon, but a complex sequence of events, mentally grouped together and > dealt > with as a unit. Jack pointed out that "the arising and falling away of the > sound of a bell ringing is no different than the arising and falling away > of a > thought of a tree." He stated quite correctly that "a sound of a bell is no > less > or no more real than a thought of a tree." > This has led me to thinking that the Abhidhammic notion of a > paramattha dhamma (or an "ultimate reality") not being a complex, but being > unitary and > "discrete" or "momentary" may not be "quite right". It occurs to me that, > for > example, there might not actually be a single sound-event that does not > consist of parts. Instead, the sound of a bell might well be a phenomenon > that > occurs across time as a fluctuating, varying, experiential event, so that > impermanence may include not only cessation, but change! If this is so, then > the > distinction between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natti (concepts/mind > constructs) as > it seems to be drawn by Abhidhamma would lose its force. > Yet there still remains, I believe, a way of distinguishing between > paramattha dhamma as an actual and direct element of experience and what is > "concept only." What would be the criteria for identifying an apparent > phenomenon > as an actual one? I think that a critical criterion for a phenomenon being a > > paramattha dhamma is that it be experienced through a *single* sense door. > The ringing of a bell seems to satisfy this. A melody, however, does > not, because a melody is not just heard - to be a "melody" it must also be > cognized through the mind door. To hear sound requires just the ear door, > but to > "hear" a melody requires the mind door as well. > Hardness, warmth, and bodily movement seem to satisfy this, all being > experienced through the body door. But "a tree" can seemingly be touched, be > > seen, sometimes be smelled (an evergreen or a gingko), and always be > cognized, > and so it is *not* experientially basic/elementary/actual/paramatthic. > Is this criterion of single-door experiencing necessary and > sufficient? I welcome comments. > > /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) 32230 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 3:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi, Chris - In a message dated 4/16/04 3:02:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, charnett@y... writes: > Hello, > > This (rather strange) question is actually about Mahayana Buddhism. > Please forgive me for asking it here, I have often received lots of friendly > > help in here, and I'm not sure where else I might find an answer. So > any help is appreciated.. > > When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the > stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help other > beings. I am wondering if there is a certain way that a meditator does > this, and if so, how? Would there come a point in meditation where it is > obvious that entering the stream is possible, and a person can simply > choose not to advance? Or is it possible to 'accidentally' enter the > stream, only realizing afterwards what has happened? If so, what does > a Mahayanist do about this? > > Thanks, > > Chris. > =============================== I don't think that one should take the "seven lifetimes" idea too literally. I tend to think of it as merely a potential upper bound. In the Theravadin tradition as well as the Mahayanist, the Buddha-to-be (and as a bodhisatta/bodhisattva, he was surely at least a stream enterer) developed perfections over many aeons, and not just over a few lifetimes, before (simultaneously) becoming arahant and Buddha. Oh, BTW, one does not have to be a Mahayanist to aspire to Buddhahood. That is a "career" recognized within Theravada as well. However, Theravada follows what is given in the original Pali scriptures, and thus considers a bodhisatta to be *less* than a buddha, because a bodhisatta is one who is *on the way* towards Buddhahood. With metta/maitri, 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) 32231 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 8:49am Subject: Dhamma Dear Dhamma Friends, Happy New Year! Old year will have gone while new year is arising. There will not be any overlapping. So does nama dhamma. One citta will have gone while another citta is arising and there will not be any overlapping. Olg life will have to release at a time when a completely new life is arising and there will not be any overlapping. May all members stay with Dhamma in New Year. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 32232 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi Howard, Andrea and all, Howard, I appreciate your sincere study to get at the heart of the matter, paramattha and concept. I shall try to add something, and explain at the same time that the Abhidhamma is life, not theory. I am thinking too of Andrea. op 16-04-2004 05:54 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...:> > Typically, a paramattha dhamma is viewed as never being a complex, but as an > elementary, irreducible experiential phenomenon occuring during a discrete and > delimited time interval. N: Right, it is just an element, devoid of self. Occurring only for a moment. Let's keep in mind the momentary aspect. .... > This has led me to thinking that the Abhidhammic notion of a > paramattha dhamma (or an "ultimate reality") not being a complex, but being > unitary and > "discrete" or "momentary" may not be "quite right". N: ;-)) ;-)). I come back to that one later on. (laughing mainly about myself). You have become so careful now with: *not quite right * Appreciated!!! H:Instead, the sound of a bell might well be a phenomenon that > occurs across time as a fluctuating, varying, experiential event, so that > impermanence may include not only cessation, but change! If this is so, then > the distinction between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natti (concepts/mind > constructs) as it seems to be drawn by Abhidhamma would lose its force. N: ;-)) I do my best to put in more force. H: .... I think that a critical criterion for a phenomenon being a > paramattha dhamma is that it be experienced through a *single* sense door. N: True, the whole day paramattha dhammas are experienced one at a time, through the sense-doors but no panna to realize them as paramattha dhammas. H: .... Is this criterion of single-door experiencing necessary and > sufficient? N: There is more to it. When just talking about everyday life: all that is not citta, cetasika or rupa is a concept. This is not an empty formula, it is so valuable to understand more details of citta, cetasika and rupa. Citta, cetasika and rupa are the paramattha dhammas of our life, they are so real. For Andrea: citta is consciousness, cetasika are mental factors that accompany citta. Only one citta arises at a time and it is accompanied by several cetasikas. Kusala (wholesome) dhammas are: kusala citta and sobhana (beautiful) cetasikas arising in different combinations. What is kusala is always kusala, that is its characteristic, it cannot be changed into akusala. This is a way to know what paramattha dhamma is: it has its own characteristic that cannot be changed into something else. We can give kusala another name, in another language, such as skillfulness, wholesomeness, but its characteristic does not change. There are many shades and varieties of kusala, depending on the accompanying cetasikas, but all the same: kusala is kusala. Each kusala citta is accompanied by non-attachment and non-aversion, and it may be accompanied by panna, understanding. The Abhidhamma helps us to realize that there cannot be selfish motives at the moment of kusala citta. There are different kinds of kusala: generosity consisting in giving useful things to others. But also: appreciation of the kusala citta of others: at such a moment there is non-attachment, non-aversion, no jealousy, there is peace. The kusala citta in others that we can appreciate has nothing to do with thoughts about this or that person, this or that religion. We can go straight to reality, to dhamma and consider sincerely the kusala citta of someone else, and then we can feel deep respect for his kusala citta. Kusala is real, it is a paramattha dhamma, by no means a concept. We can show respect for others' kusala by body and speech, that is kusala sila (sila is translated as moral conduct). When on pilgrimage in India with my Thai friends we do this on the last day: we kneel (this is very natural, since we are sitting on the ground anyway), palms together and a big bow, saying anumodana, which means appreciation or thankfulness. We do that to all friends who are around. We appreciate all their kusala during that journey. We can also do that here, it is kusala! Now lobha (attachment) would not be lobha if it would not come in in between the kusala cittas. Here the Abhidhamma helps us, showing us that there are many different processes of cittas, some with kusala cittas and some with akusala cittas, succeeding one another so fast that we cannot follow them all. This is the momentary aspect of conditioned dhammas. At this or that moment, citta is kusala citta, or akusala citta. But we can learn that akusala dhamma has a characteristic different from kusala dhamma. We are attached to the beautiful moments of appreciation of kusala, then there is akusala again, coming in so fast. We can also learn that this is very, very natural. But understanding (another beautiful cetasika) can be accumulated, so that at least different characteristics of paramattha dhammas can be known. This will lead to the understanding of them as arisen because of different conditions, and to the realization of the fact that there is no person who owns them. It will lead to detachment. It is so human that we find some persons in our surroundings more difficult to get on with. But we can notice their kusala citta and then, we can appreciate their kusala, without thinking of a person. No aversion, no antipathy with the kusala citta, and we can verify this. Citta, cetasika and rupa, arising and falling away all the time. This is life, this is Abhidhamma. The development of more understanding of them is the development of vipassana. This is not a matter of focussing and thinking: is this concept, is this paramattha dhamma. It can come naturally. We do not have to force ourselves to pay attention only to paramattha dhammas, life is full of concepts of persons and events. But how valuable to have more understanding of paramattha dhmmas in the midst of life, so that defilements that are in the way can be lessened. Vipassana in daily life is a challenge. We always have to find the balance between awareness of paramattha dhammas and leading our life naturally, with thinking and paying attention to concepts. Howard, when Rob M told you about his kusala, and all his good deeds after the loss of your mother in law, what was the citta like? You appreciated with kusala citta his kusala. Rob gave you this opportunity for kusala, and that was his kusala; not hiding kusala but giving another person the opportunity to appreciate. There is not Howard's or Rob's citta, cittas change, are momentary, how can there be any possessor? True, each person has different tendencies accumulated in the citta, but still, citta is momentary. This is my answer to the question whether the Abhidhamma is right or not quite right. We have to verify ourselves whether the Abhidhamma is right, only that is convincing. The suttas also deal with kusala and akusala, with the ways how to develop kusala, and to eliminate akusala. The Abhidhamma does not teach any differently from the suttas but it explains in depth the true motives for all our actions, speech and thoughts, and this is liberating. It is a revelation to see that the Abhidhamma is so powerful in assisting us to understand this very moment. To understand what are citta, cetasika and rupa in real life, rolling on by conditions at this moment now. Nina. p.s. Howard, I appreciated our exchanges (it just happened by conditions, didn't it) about Talmudian hairsplitting and the Talmud. They proved helpful in more than one respect, beyond expectation. I understand better now what you mean when expressing yourself. I have to tell Larry that we are off trekking three days on Monday. 32233 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:23am Subject: Tiika Vis. 75 Tiika Vis. 75 (the all English of the Tiika is always below, after the Pali) "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV, 75 Intro: This is again a different classification of all rupas. It reminds us that past kamma that has fallen away keeps on producing the sense-bases of eye, etc. which are faculties (leaders in their own field), and the other faculties. Nobody can make them arise, they depend on kamma. We are reminded of the other causes that produce rupas of the body, and only the four characteristics inherent in all rupas are not produced by any of the four causes. We read: what was born, what is born and what will be born, also all that is called kamma-born. Kamma produced rupas of the body in the past, and will do so in the future and it does at this very moment. What U Narada wrote in his Introduction to the translation of Dhåtu-Kathå, an Abhidhamma text (PTS:Discourse on Elements) can be applied to rupas, these are only elements. We read: “The elements are not permanently present. They arise to exhibit their own characteristic natures and perform their own characteristic functions when the proper conditions are satisfied, and they cease after their span of duration. Thus no being has any control over the arising and ceasing of the elements and they are not at his mercy or will however mighty and powerful he may be. In other words, the elements have no regard for anyone, show no favour to anyone and do not accede to the wishes of anyone. They are entirely dependent on conditions.² Vis:75. According to the kamma-born triad, etc., however, that born from kamma is 'kamma-born'; that born from a condition other than that is 'not-kamma-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-kamma-born-nor-not-kamma-born' That born from consciousness is 'consciousness-born'; that born from a condition other than consciousness is 'not-consciousness-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-consciousness- born-nor-not-consciousness-born'. That born from nutriment is 'nutriment-born'; that born from a condition other than that is 'not-nutriment-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-nutriment-born-nor-not- nutriment-born'. That born from temperature is 'temperature-born'; that born from a condition other than that is 'not-temperature-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-temperature-born- nor-not-temperature-born'. Pali Vis 75: 75. kammajaadittikavasena pana kammato jaata.m kammaja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m akammaja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva kammaja.m naakammaja.m. cittato jaata.m cittaja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m acittaja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva cittaja.m naacittaja.m, aahaarato jaata.m aahaaraja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m anaahaaraja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva aahaaraja.m naanaahaaraja.m. ututo jaata.m utuja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m anutuja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva utuja.m naanutujanti eva.m kammajaadittikavasena tividha.m. Tiika, Vis 75: Kammato jaatanti ettha ya.m ekantakammasamu.t.thaana.m a.t.thindriyaani *, As to kamma-born these are here the eight faculties which are solely originated by kamma, hadaya~ncaati navavidha.m ruupa.m, and with the heart(base) they are thus nine kinds of materiality, ya~nca navavidhe catusamu.t.thaane kammasamu.t.thaana.m navavidhameva ruupanti eva.m a.t.thaarasavidhampi kammato uppajjanato kammaja.m. and besides, among the nine kinds of materiality originated by the four causes, there are nine kinds originated by kamma **, and what is kamma-born materiality is thus also eighteen kinds, since they have arisen because of kamma. Ya~nhi jaata~nca ya~nca jaayati ya~nca jaayissati, What was born, what is born and what will be born, ta.m sabbampi ³kammajan²ti vuccati yathaa duddhanti. also all that is called kamma-born... Tada~n~napaccayajaatanti kammato a~n~napaccayato jaata.m utucittaahaaraja.m. As to the expression, born from a condition other than that, this means, born from a condition other than kamma, namely, temperature, consciousness and nutrition. Nakutocijaatanti lakkha.naruupamaaha. As to the expression, not born from anything, he said that these are the material phenomena as characteristics ***. Vi~n~nattidvaya.m, saddo, aakaasadhaatu, lahutaadittaya.m cittasamu.t.thaanaani avinibbhogaruupaaniiti eta.m pa~ncadasavidha.m ruupa.m cittaja.m. The pair of intimation, sound, the element of space **** , the triad of lightness, are originated by citta, and with the inseparable rupas there are thus fifteen kinds born of consciousness. Aakaasadhaatu, lahutaadittaya.m, aahaarasamu.t.thaanaani avinibbhogaruupaaniiti eta.m dvaadasavidha.m ruupa.m aahaaraja.m. The element of space and the triad of lightness etc. are originated by nutrition, and together with the inseparable rupas there are thus twelve kinds originated by nutrition. Ettha sadda.m pakkhipitvaa terasavidha.m ruupa.m ututo samu.t.thita.m utuja.m. Here sound is included and thus thirteen kinds of materiality originated by nutrition are materiality born of nutrition. Sesa.m kammajatike vuttanayaanusaareneva veditabba.m. The remaining part should be understood in accordance with what is said with regard to the triad of kamma *****. ***** English: As to kamma-born these are here the eight faculties which are solely originated by kamma, and with the heart(base) they are thus nine kinds of materiality, and besides, among the nine kinds of materiality originated by the four causes, there are nine kinds originated by kamma **, and what is kamma-born materiality is thus also eighteen kinds, since they have arisen because of kamma. What was born, what is born and what will be born, also all that is called kamma-born... As to the expression, born from a condition other than that, this means, born from a condition other than kamma, namely, temperature, consciousness and nutrition. As to the expression, not born from anything, he said that these are the material phenomena as characteristics ***. The pair of intimation, sound, the element of space **** , the triad of lightness, are originated by citta, and with the inseparable rupas there are thus fifteen kinds born of consciousness. The element of space and the triad of lightness etc. are originated by nutrition, and together with the inseparable rupas there are thus twelve kinds originated by nutrition. Here sound is included and thus thirteen kinds of materiality originated by nutrition are materiality born of nutrition. The remaining part should be understood in accordance with what is said with regard to the triad of kamma *****. _________ * the eight faculties of eyesense, earsense, smelling-sense, tasting-sense, bodysense, life-faculty, femininity, masculinity. ** The four causes of kamma, citta, temperature (utu) and nutrition. The rupas dealt with here are sometimes originated by kamma, sometimes by one of the three other causes. These rupas are: the eight inseparable rupas and space. When originated by kamma the inseparable rupas arise in a group of at least nine rupas, including life-faculty that is solely originated by kamma. As to space: this delimits the groups of rupas originated by the four causes, arising and falling away together with them. Thus, space is reckoned as originated by the four causes. *** The characteristics of origination, continuity, decay and impermanence. This is explained in Vis. XIV, 80. **** åkåsa dhåtu, the word dhåtu is used to show that it is a paramattha dhamma, not a concept. ***** The triad of consciousness-born, not-consciousness born, neither consciousness-born-nor-not-consciousness-born. As to the second one, born from a condition other than consciousness, namely, kamma, temperature, and nutrition. As to the last one of this triad, this is again the four characteristics of all materiality. The same with the triads of temperature and of food. **** Nina 32234 From: old_dead_wood Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 10:31am Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi All: Can someone tell me HOW you KNOW that there are "rebirths" and "lifetimes"? Is this actually dogma that must be accepted without evidence in order to be considered a member of the sangha? Thank You ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the > > stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help other > > beings. > over many aeons, and not just over a few lifetimes 32235 From: Andrew Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:36pm Subject: Re: Buddhist fundamentalism? Hello everyone Back again! A big thank you to all who sent kind messages re the passing of Sandra's father. We did appreciate your thoughts a great deal. I have missed alot of posts on DSG and will try to catch up ASAP. Hope I don't misconstrue things in the meantime! I have a few (obscure) comments to make on the subject of reading and extrapolating from the Pali Canon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: Strictly > speaking, how can we truly know what correctly reflects the Buddha's > teaching? Strictly speaking, isn't the whole Pali canon an > extrapolation, in a sense, albeit it one that varies from the > original teaching in a thankfully small way? I mean, we know that the > teachings were passed down orally over several centuries before being > transcribed in Sri Lanka. (snip) I can see the value > of debating, and, of course, referring to sutta is the most reliable > and proper way to do so, but I question one's ability to announce > victory in an argument based on sutta. Not that announcing victory > is anyone's point in this group. A: Philip, I think that this is all part of our samsara experience. We don't live in the time of a teaching Buddha. We don't have Buddha's life on video tape that we can fast forward and rewind to check what he actually said. The Pali Canon is not a transcript such as is taken in court proceedings (but even the correct interpretation of court transcripts is often hotly debated!). Whilst it is essential to read the suttas, refusing to consider matters unless a sutta reference is provided is, in my view, a mistake. Let me give an example. I sometimes joke with my Swedish friends that the 3 great themes of Swedish literature are pine forests, cows and loneliness. The first 2 are, of course, tongue-in-cheek but the 3rd isn't. Loneliness is a huge theme running throughout Swedish literature. But if you actually read that literature and counted up how many times the word "loneliness" is used, you may be surprised to find that it is not used very much at all. Can you conclude from this "fact" that loneliness is just a minor issue in Swedish literature? Surely not! That would be a terrible mistake! It would, in fact, make you miss the point of the literature entirely because the authors may not be writing "loneliness" when they write ABOUT loneliness. Getting to the point, I note that Rob M recently assessed the use of the word "pannatti" (concept) in the suttanta and found that it isn't used very much at all. He concluded that it is a "minor term" in the suttanta. I can't take issue with that, of course, UNLESS one tries to extrapolate from the fact and conclude that distinguishing concept from non-concept was not a core part of the Dhamma. That would be akin to arguing that loneliness is not of much interest in Swedish literature because the word "loneliness" isn't used much. Possibly a terrible mistake. Possibly missing something of crucial significance. I think the point I am making is that a term may be minor quantitatively but major qualitatively. I suspect all Rob M was saying was that pannatti is a minor term quantitatively in the suttanta. To me, however, that still doesn't solve the crucial question about its qualitative position in the Dhamma. In conclusion, Dhamma study was never meant to be easy! Take care Andrew 32236 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:51pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi old_dead_wood, Regarding your question: How do you know that there are rebirths and lifetimes? Let me ask you this: How do you know that the earth is round, not flat? Have you ever seen for yourself that earth is indeed round, not flat? I think that understanding how you know something that you accept as true will help you understand one might know that there are rebirths and lifetimes even though he or she might not seen his or her own previous life. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "old_dead_wood" wrote: > > Hi All: > > Can someone tell me HOW you KNOW that there are "rebirths" and > "lifetimes"? Is this actually dogma that must be accepted without > evidence in order to be considered a member of the sangha? > > Thank You 32237 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 5:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Nina and Lodewijk Sorry that I wasn't able to reply earlier. I was very busy before leaving Hong Kong, and have hardly had a spare moment since arriving. Plus the heat has made it quite exhausintg here. We have had some useful discussions, as might be expected, and I'll be mentioning some points in later emails. I'd like first to reply to Lodewijk's question in the light of the discussions so far (no direct quotes I'm afraid -- others may have notes but I had my hands full with recording the discussion). --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon and Howard, > > Lodewijk wrote something by hand I type out. ... > Abhidhamma], Nina and I got into a discussion on Satipatthana. I said that > after so many years of listening, I still did not quite understand what > exactly satipatthana means. Lodewijk, you say that that after so many years of listening, you still do not quite understand what exactly satipatthana means. This sounds exactly like my own experience. When I left Thailand after having lived here for the best part of 8 years I had been attending discussions every week and listening to talks on the radio regularly and had joined several trips to India. But still this satipatthana was not clear to me. It has taken a lot of further study, listening and discussing since then to get a clearer picture so that at least I feel I understand what it's supposed to be. Actual moments of satipatthana are something else again, of course! Nina said:"It is the same as > vipassana", "the > same as the eightfold Path", "the same as panna.", but this led me further > astray. Does it mean:"the six doors" or "Seeing now"? Maybe, yes and no. I > said:"That is just bits and pieces, but I still do not get a > coherent, > logical answer to my question:"What is exactly is satipatthana?" But having got your coherent, logical explanation, what then? The next step would be just this you mentin here -- consideration of the seeing now, the six doors, etc. It may sound like 'bits and pieces', but that's because there has to be a start somewhere. Only by making a start can the full relevance be appreciated. > The answer > cannot be:"You will know the answer as soon as you canbe aware of realities > as they are." Maybe yes, but that is not the way to convince people like > Howard [and me] !> end quote. Well, 'being aware of realities as they are' seems a pretty good answer to your question. I can't immediately think of a more coherent, logical explanation of satipatthana! In any event, as Howard likes to say, discussing the menu is no substitute for sampling the food ;-)) > I can add: Lodewijk said that this whole matter upsets him. We were talking > about western ways of reasoning and eastern ways. I find myself > very > confortable with the last way, but, Lodewijk said that does not > help > westerners. He thinks there are many like him. He finds it very > difficult > when A. Sujin answers with the example of seeing now or dhamma now. The difficulty lies in the nature of the problem and not anything else. One has to accept the frustration and keep listening, considering and asking questions until it becomes clearer, which it will! The dosa is a normal reaction iin such situations. Think about why this occurs. > ... I still feel myself, that it must take years and years of > getting bits and pieces, and lots of patience before we understand. That's how I see it too! Jon PS I did try to compose an explanation, but as you'll see from what follows it doesn't really say anything useful. Satipatthana is what enables life or the world in general to be seen as it truly is rather than as we presently perceive it to be. It is the direct awareness of any one of the many experiences of which this present 'moment of experience' is in fact comprised. As this infers, our present perception of things is flawed, due to deeply entrenched misconceptions. Direct awareness allows there to be a level of understanding of the different elements of experience that in themselves are completely impersonal but which coalesce so as to give the appearance of individual people and things. It is of the nature of the misconceptions from which we all suffer that any self-conceived attempt to see things as they truly are will do no more than lead to further misconceptions. It is only with the guidance of the teaching on satipatthana that the circle of delusion can be broken. 32238 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana In a message dated 4/16/04 4:27:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, old_dead_wood@y... writes: Can someone tell me HOW you KNOW that there are "rebirths" and "lifetimes"? Is this actually dogma that must be accepted without evidence in order to be considered a member of the sangha? No this is not dogma that must be accepted. Jack 32239 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 5:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi Howard, Concept is the object of a single sense door, the mind door. Does that make it an ultimate reality? I agree that experience seems to be linear but I can't think of a good reason for that. Certainly the senses are always "on". Otherwise one sense experience wouldn't interrupt another. Plus it seems to me that abhidhamma makes a distinction between experience and reality and says that reality isn't linear. I understand this from the concept of indivisible groups of rupa and the groups of cetasikas that arise in consciousness process. Plus it just makes sense that reality isn't linear. I think this idea of multiple events basically has to do with the concept of sankhara (formation), which I haven't seen a good explanation of so far. Larry 32240 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 5:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi old_dead_wood, I agree with Victor that rebirth is a matter of belief like the roundness of the earth. It is said that on enlightenment one usually reviews one's past lives. That there is an end of suffering is also a matter of belief until we find it. Jack said it isn't necessary to believe in past and future lives in order to follow the path, but I disagree. I think this is an integral part of the Buddha's teaching, particularly as it relates to consequences of kamma. On the other hand, past and future lives isn't an object of satipatthana as far as I know. What's a belief? Attachment to a concept. Next to nothing. Larry 32241 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 5:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, I did not say that rebirth is a matter of belief. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi old_dead_wood, > > I agree with Victor that rebirth is a matter of belief like the > roundness of the earth. It is said that on enlightenment one usually > reviews one's past lives. That there is an end of suffering is also a > matter of belief until we find it. [snip] > > What's a belief? Attachment to a concept. Next to nothing. > > Larry 32242 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/16/04 8:13:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Concept is the object of a single sense door, the mind door. Does that > make it an ultimate reality? --------------------------------------------- Howard: I understand that you are thinking of 'concept' in the same way as I always have, namely as a thought. But I now question whether a concept really is a single phenomenon, thought or otherwise. I think that when we say, for example, that the concept/thought of "a tree" has arisen in the mind, that is just a way of speaking. what I think has actually arisen is a whole sequence of differing mental events including mind-pictures, memories of a whole variety of sense objects and sa~n~nic markings and recognitions, sequences of internalized words, and topped off by a higher-level act of sa~n~na marking the entire conglomerate as a unit, possibly with an associated name. That whole business is at best called a "process", but certainly is not a paramattha dhamma. But if your point is that being apprehended through a single sense door is not an adequate basis for considering something a paramattha dhamma, I do agree. I already indicated that in my follow-up post. Being apprehended through a single sense door is a necessary condition, but not sufficient. I am, however, not clear on what additional necessary conditions one must add in order for the bunch of them to constitute a proper and complete testing procedure. -------------------------------------------------- > > I agree that experience seems to be linear but I can't think of a good > reason for that. Certainly the senses are always "on". Otherwise one > sense experience wouldn't interrupt another. Plus it seems to me that > abhidhamma makes a distinction between experience and reality and says > that reality isn't linear. I understand this from the concept of > indivisible groups of rupa and the groups of cetasikas that arise in > consciousness process. Plus it just makes sense that reality isn't > linear. > > I think this idea of multiple events basically has to do with the > concept of sankhara (formation), which I haven't seen a good explanation > of so far. > > Larry > > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32243 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Victor: "I did not say that rebirth is a matter of belief." Hi Victor, My apologies for misinterpreting. I thought the following amounted to belief. How do you see it? V: "I think that understanding how you know something that you accept as true will help you understand one might know that there are rebirths and lifetimes even though he or she might not seen his or her own previous life." Larry 32244 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi Howard, One odd thing about this enterprise is the assumption that reality is superior to concept. What we are supposed to be doing is devalueing reality. Larry 32245 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 8:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, Please note that I also did not say that the earth being round, not flat, is a matter of belief. Avoid further confusion, I would write: "I think that understanding how you know something that you accept as true will help you understand one might know that there are rebirths and lifetimes even though he or she might not seen his or her own previous life." as "I think that understanding how you know something will help you understand how one might know that there are rebirths and lifetimes even though he or she might not see his or her own previous life." Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Victor: "I did not say that rebirth is a matter of belief." > > Hi Victor, > > My apologies for misinterpreting. I thought the following amounted to > belief. How do you see it? > > V: "I think that understanding how you know something that you accept as > true will help you understand one might know that there are rebirths and > lifetimes even though he or she might not seen his or her own previous > life." > > Larry 32246 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, Do you know there is rebirth? If so, how do you know? Larry 32247 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Howard, I just reproduce part of Dhamma Issues I translated from Thai op 16-04-2004 16:42 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > I don't think that one should take the "seven lifetimes" idea too > literally. Issue of Analysis: Will the streamwinner, sotåpanna, not be reborn more than seven times, or more than that? Conclusion regarding the analysis of this issue: The Sotåpanna will not be reborn more than seven times. The sources which support this conclusion: 1. The ³Saddhammappakåsiní², Commentary to the ³Path of Discrimination², Paìisambhidåmagga, Commentary to Treatise II, on Views, 706. 2. The ³Dispeller of Delusion², Commentary to the ³Book of Analysis², Ch 16, Classification of Knowledge, Decads, 2162. 3. The ³Pañcappakaraùatthakathå², Commentary to the fourth Book of the Abhidhamma, the ³Puggalapaññatti², ³Human Types², Ch I, by One, 39, ³single-seeded², ekabíjin. 4.The ³Sumaògalavilåsiní², Commentary to the ³Dialogues of the Buddha², Commentary to the ³Questions of Sakka² (II, no 21). The explanation of the reason for this conclusion: Several texts of the Commentaries explain about the kinds of rebirth of the sotåpanna. 1. We read in the ³Saddhammappakåsiní², Commentary to the ³Path of Discrimination² about three types of sotåpanna: 1. The sotåpanna who is reborn seven times at most, sattakkhattuparama. 2. The sotåpanna who goes from clan to clan, kolankola. 3. The sotåpanna with a single seed, ekabíjin. We read: ³As to the words, of the person who is reborn seven times at most (sattakkhattuparamassa), this means that seven times is the most, and that he will not assume an eighth rebirth after he became this person. Thus he is a sotåpanna who is reborn seven times at most, sattakkhattuparama. As to the words, of the goer from clan to clan (kolankolassa), this means that he is not born in a lower clan, but only in a wealthy family so that he can realize the fruition of the sotåpanna. This is the sotåpanna who goes from clan to clan, kolaòkola. As to the words, with a single seed, ekabíjin, it is said that seed means the seed of the khandhas. This sotåpanna germinates the khandhas only once more 2. He has to assume only one more existence and thus he is called ³single seeded². The Buddha created these different names for these sotåpannas. The person who is called ³seven times at most², sattakkhattuparama, has reached just this status. The person who is called ³who goes from clan to clan², kolaòkola, has reached just this status. The person who is called ³with a single seed², ekabíjin, has reached just this status. These are the names the Buddha gave to those persons. Truly, the Buddha knew what status such and such people would reach and thus he created the appropriate names for them. It is true that the sotåpanna whose understanding is weak will be reborn seven times, and he is called, ³who will be reborn seven times at most². The sotapanna whose understanding is of medium degree will not be reborn after the sixth existence, and he is called ³who goes from clan to clan². The sotåpanna who has strong understanding will only be reborn once, and he is called ³single seeded². The fact that sotåpannas have different degrees of understanding, weak, medium and strong, is determined by conditions stemming from the past. These three kinds of sotåpanna have been referred to as having rebirth in the sensuous planes. However, many of them were reborn also in the planes of rúpa brahmas and arúpa brahmas.² It can be concluded that the sotåpanna does not have an eighth rebirth. He will not be reborn more than seven times, no matter whether he is reborn in the sense planes, in the planes of the rúpa brahmas or arúpa brahmas. 2. The ³Dispeller of Delusion², Ch 16, Classification of Knowledge, Decads, 2162, explains about the remaining rebirths of each class of sotåpannas, and in particular about the sotåpanna who is attached to life in the process of existence (vaììa, the cycle of birth and death).... H:In the > Theravadin tradition as well as the Mahayanist, the Buddha-to-be (and as a > bodhisatta/bodhisattva, he was surely at least a stream enterer) developed > perfections > over many aeons, N: The Bodhisatta did not attain any stage of enlightenment before becoming the Sammasambuddha. See, when he was doing severe ascetical practices in his last life, he was not on the right Path, not on the Middle Way and then he realized that this parctice was wrong. A sotapanna can never be off the Middle Way, he is on the right Path, sure to reach final liberation. He has eradicated all wrong parctice. When the Buddha sat under the Bodhitree he passed through all four stages of enlightenment and became the fully Enlightened One. H:Oh, BTW, one does not have to be a Mahayanist to > aspire to Buddhahood. That is a "career" recognized within Theravada as well. > However, Theravada follows what is given in the original Pali scriptures, and > thus considers a bodhisatta to be *less* than a buddha, because a bodhisatta > is> one who is *on the way* towards Buddhahood. N: Perhaps it is the use of the word bodhisatta for all who will attain enlightenmt. But the bodhisatta who became the Omniscient Fully Enlightened One had to develop the perfections many aeons more than disciples. He cannot be compared to others, he is incomparable. I reflect more on Chris' question. Nina. 32248 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma, 2 Hi Howard, This is well described, but your first post is no problem. In fact, it made me think about experiencing paramattha dhammas through the sense-doors all day long but not realizing them as such. And that is the goal, since that leads to understanding anatta. If we keep on being ignorant of them, no way to reach the goal. Here the sense of urgency Philip was talking about can come in. Nina. op 16-04-2004 16:20 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > While we are "hearing a bell," we *seem* to be hearing other sounds > throughout, and, not only that, we seem to be simultaneously seeing, and > smelling, and touching, and even thinking. But we know, even from modern > biological > science and psychology (I believe), that we do not in fact do these things > simultaneously. So, the "single bell sound" experience is not a single > continuous > experience at all, but consists of (probably tens of thousands of) mind > moments interspersed with mind moments in which occur sights, and tactile > experiences, and olfactory experiences,and yet other sound experiences. > So, I think that on the matter of my post copied below, my grade is > only 50%, which despite grade inflation, can't be construed as passing! ;-)) 32249 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samvega Dear Philip, op 16-04-2004 15:11 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: >. But this morning, I read > this, from Ayya Khema on samvega: > > "When our insights give rise to seeing the whole world on fire > from craving and ourselves burning with it, then urgency will become > a natural part of our our make-up." > N: Here is an extract from what I am writing now and that may help with samvega: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, I used to have doubt about whether there is round of rebirth. How do I come to know that there is indeed rebirth? By learning what the Buddha taught as recorded in the discourses and putting his teaching into practice. Overtime, doubt and uncertainty about the Dhamma diminished, and the result is full confidence in the Buddha and the Teaching. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Do you know there is rebirth? If so, how do you know? > > Larry 32251 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:26pm Subject: The Question Still Remains Hi, Nina and all - I'm still curious as to sufficient (and necessary) criteria for an apparent element of experience, whether mental or physical, to be actual (i.e., a paramattha dhamma). So far I'm aware of two apparently necessary criteria: 1) It is experienced via single sense door, and 2) It is continuous in time (i.e., not occurring off and on, with other phenomena interspersed). Both of these conditions seem to hold for all the standard rupas and cetasikas, but one or the other fails for trees, cars, people, melodies, and even bell sounds (by which I mean full ringings of a bell ranging from a loud beginning and dwindling to nothing, and also waxing and waning throughout in the throbbing manner that is typical). The question I have is whether more is yet required. Is it the case that every standard paramattha dhamma satisfies both of these two criteria, and every pa~n~natti fails to satisfy at least one of them? I feel confident that all paramattha dhammas are covered (i.e., no paramattha dhamma violates either condition), but I wonder whether some mind-constructed dhamma (a pa~n~natti) might *also* satisfy both. If there is such a mental construct, then the two conditions need to be augmented by further criteria. 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) 32252 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 0:37am Subject: in Transit ... Friends: There are these 4 modes of human rebirth: One enters the womb, stays there & leaves the womb unaware of it. Another enters the womb aware of it, yet stays there & leaves it unaware. Another enters the womb & stays there aware of it, yet leaves it unaware. The Bodhisatta enters, stays there & leaves the womb fully aware of it... There are these 4 kinds of generation: There is egg-born generation by breaking out of the shell of an egg. There is womb-born generation by breaking out from the caul. There is moisture-born generation in a rotten fish, corpse, cesspit or sewer. There is spontaneous generation as certain gods, hell, lower & human beings. There are these 6 Destinations: Divine being, Human being, Animal being, hungry Ghost, Demon & Victim in Hell. --oo0oo-- ref: The Lion's Roar http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel390.html : - ] 32253 From: hasituppada Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 0:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Dear Friends, I think it is here that one could differentiate between intellectual undertanding by reading and listening, and realising through experience the truth of what had been learnt by reading and listening. When we know that what we call a being is afterall a continuous rising and falling away of thoughts, we will also understand that this is a thought process , and the last of the thoughts should project itself to continue else where which is (probably) the rebirth. with metta, Hasituppada ___________________________________________________________________ > Hi Larry, > > Please note that I also did not say that the earth being round, not > flat, is a matter of belief. > > Avoid further confusion, I would write: > > "I think that understanding how you know something that you accept as > true will help you understand one might know that there are rebirths > and lifetimes even though he or she might not seen his or her own > previous life." > > as > > "I think that understanding how you know something will help you > understand how one might know that there are rebirths and lifetimes > even though he or she might not see his or her own previous life." > > Metta, > Victor 32254 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:52am Subject: Rebirth (was: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana) Friend Jack, In a message dated 4/16/04 4:27:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, old_dead_wood@y... writes: Can someone tell me HOW you KNOW that there are "rebirths" and "lifetimes"? Is this actually dogma that must be accepted without evidence in order to be considered a member of the sangha? Jack: No this is not dogma that must be accepted. James: Well, of course no one in Buddhism must accept anything, even if they are a member of the Sangha. However, the Buddha did teach that acceptance of rebirth as crucial to his teaching and the holy life: MN 76 "To Sandaka": [Ven. Ananda]: 7. "Here, Sandaka, some teacher holds such a doctrine and view as this: `There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed, not fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously, no good and virtuous recluses and brahamins in the world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world. A person consists of the four great elements. When he dies, earth returns and goes back to the body of earth, water returns and goes back to the body of water, fire returns and goes back to the body of fire, air returns and goes back to the body of air; the faculties are transferred to space. [Four] men with the bier as fifth carry away the corpse. The funeral orations last as far as the charnel ground; the bones whiten; burnt offerings end with ashes. Giving is a doctrine of fools. When anyone asserts the doctrine that there is [giving and the like], it is empty, false prattle. Fools and the wise alike cut off and annihaled with the dissolution of the body; after death they do not exist.' 8. "About this a wise man considers thus: `This good teacher holds this doctrine and view: "There is nothing given…after death they do not exist." If this good teacher's words are true, then both of us are exactly equal here, we stand on the same level: I who have not practiced [this teaching] here and he who has practiced it; I who have not lived [the holy life] here and he who has lived it. Yet I do not say that both of us are cut off and annihilated with the dissolution of the body, that after death we shall not exist. But it is superfluous for this good teacher to go about naked, to be shaven, to exert himself in the squatting posture, and to pull out his hair and beard, since I, who live in a house crowded with children, who use Benares sandalwood, who wear garlands, scents, and unguents, and accept gold and silver, shall reap exactly the same destination, the same future course, as this good teacher. What do I know and see that I should lead the holy life under this teacher?' So when he finds that this way negates the living of the holy life, he turns away from it and leaves it. 9. "This is the first way that negates the living of the holy life that has been declared by the Blessed One who knows and sees, accomplished and fully enlightened, wherein a wise man certainly would not live the holy life, or if he should live it, would not attain the true way, the Dhamma that is wholesome." James: Jack, if there was no rebirth there would be no point for Buddhism at all. The other world's religions teach morality and ethical living in this lifetime, it is Buddhism that turns ones attention toward the larger picture: toward the cosmic consequences of karma, dependent origination, anatta, samsara, and nibbana. None of these teachings would make any sense and would be without merit without the fact of rebirth. Metta, James 32255 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > Jon: > But 'direct looking' is not part of the teachings found in the suttas > (unless it is your own term for something else mentioned there). So > whatever a person experienced or realized as a result of such a > practice would not be the understanding of which the Buddha spoke, > regardless of how great the similarities may appear to the person. > > Jon ========================== Howard: I honestly don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. What is vipassana/satipatthana, then, if not "direct looking" - that is, seeing what actually arises, and not substituted for with concepts? I'm talking about ongoing mindfulness and clear comprehnsion of what actually arises and ceases at any time. Are you saying this is not Dhamma?!! Jon: Well, I have no major argument with 'seeing what actually arises, ... mindfulness and clear comprehension of what actually arises and ceases', although I'm surprised you would use 'direct looking' to describe this, as 'looking' carries quite a different connotation to 'seeing' in this context. But what you said in your previous post was, "when direct looking is practiced along with clear comprehension of what one actually experiences", and there you clearly assign to 'direct looking' quite a different role and function. Have you had a change of heart? ;-)). Jon 32256 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kiriyacittas James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, ... > doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Beings have to be reborn > somewhere and they will each have various levels of panna (wisdom) > and virtue (sila). They cannot necessarily pick and choose where > they will be reborn because the choices are limited. The way you > describe it, there would almost have to exist a cosmic `waiting > room' for those beings with enough panna who wish to be reborn in > the time of a Buddha. ;-)) I look at this matter a bit differently. > > I think it is predominately an impersonal, cosmic phenomenon but > there can be limited influence on the part of individual karma > streams (if you notice, rarely is anything entirely one-sided ;-). As I understand it, a period of ascendancy of a Buddha's teachings tends to be a time of relatively large numbers of people with high levels of panna. The reasons are all 'impersonal' ones, and yes, there is no picking or choosing involved. > ...In summary, I don't think that we should focus on how far we are > from the Buddha's time, but how we have all been born in a time and > on a planet that is very advantageous in many ways. Panna (wisdom) > is not an inherent quality in beings and it can be lost in a > gradual > manner just as it is gained in a gradual manner. It is all up to us > to be diligent and work for the increase of panna rather than its decrease. Right, whether near to or far from the Buddha's time, the task is the same. And in either case we need to realise our limitations (this I think is the relevance in acknowledging that we need more details than did those at the time of the Buddha). > Jon: The deterioration of the teachings is an exacerbating factor > but not the primary one, as I see it. > > James: Okay, I would agree with this statement. However, I wonder > what you do consider the exacerbating factor? From your first > statements it seems that you are implying that each being's > inherent > panna is the main factor. If so, I couldn't disagree more! Panna > is not inherent in beings. As I said, the main factor in our need for details being generally greater than it was for those living at the time of the Buddha is a relative lack of panna. > ... The Buddha taught the proper role of the > teachings: > > MN 70 "At Kitagiri" > 22. "Bhikkhus, I do not say that final knowledge is achieved ... > From this passage, it can be seen that the Buddha intended the > Dhamma to be of a nature so that a person could memorize it. Is it > possible to memorize the Abhidhamma? I don't think so! One would > have to be a literal genius to do such a thing! Any teachings > beyond the ability to memorize them is overkill and unproductive to > the Buddha's path, in my opinion and according to what he taught. Traditionally the memorization of the teachings has included the Abhidhamma and this tradition continues in Buddhist countries to this day. Believe it or not, some people find the Abhidhamma the most fascinating part of the Tipitaka. Our friend Icaro comes to mind. It's a mistake to judge any part of the teachings by one's subjective reaction to it ;-)). Jon 32257 From: Larry Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:05am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, If you have no doubt about rebirth it must be because of either direct experiential knowledge or belief. Do you disagree? Larry 32258 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/17/04 9:41:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > > > >Jon: > >But 'direct looking' is not part of the teachings found in the > suttas > >(unless it is your own term for something else mentioned there). > So > >whatever a person experienced or realized as a result of such a > >practice would not be the understanding of which the Buddha spoke, > >regardless of how great the similarities may appear to the person. > > > >Jon > ========================== > Howard: > I honestly don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. > What is vipassana/satipatthana, then, if not "direct looking" - that > is, seeing what actually arises, and not substituted for with > concepts? I'm talking about ongoing mindfulness and clear > comprehnsion of what actually arises and ceases at any time. Are you > saying this is not Dhamma?!! > > Jon: > Well, I have no major argument with 'seeing what actually arises, ... > mindfulness and clear comprehension of what actually arises and > ceases', although I'm surprised you would use 'direct looking' to > describe this, as 'looking' carries quite a different connotation to > 'seeing' in this context. > > But what you said in your previous post was, > "when direct looking is practiced along with clear comprehension of > what one actually experiences", > and there you clearly assign to 'direct looking' quite a different > role and function. Have you had a change of heart? ;-)). > > Jon > ======================== I have no problem with replacing "looking" by "seeing". To look (in the sense of "to attend"), of course, implies intention, and I'm aware that makes you uneasy! ;-) 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) 32259 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, Although I have no doubt that there is round of rebirth, there is this world and next world, there are spontaneously reborn beings, it is not that I have direct experiential knowledge in the sense that I can see my own or other's past lives. And on the other hand, it is not my belief that there is round of rebirth as you would like to say it is. I think you are approach the issue on rebirth from a framework of either-this-or-that: either direct experiential knowledge or belief. What I am suggesting is to examine how one may understand a truth as it is without resorting to that framework. I think that to examine one's own experience in learning scientific subjects such as physics or chemistry would give you a broader perspective on learning, understanding, and knowledge acquisition. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > If you have no doubt about rebirth it must be because of either > direct experiential knowledge or belief. Do you disagree? > > Larry 32260 From: Larry Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:57am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, Are you suggesting that a good reason is different from a belief? Many people who don't believe in rebirth think they have good reasons for that belief. What determines what is a good reason? Larry 32261 From: Larry Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:07am Subject: Re: The Question Still Remains Hi Howard, You might want to peruse note 68, Vism. VIII in anticipation of Nina's reply. That's the one on own nature (sabhava). I see two characteristics of own nature: becoming and a unique characteristic. There are problems with both. Governments become and "unique" is relative. Not all hardnesses are the same. Larry 32262 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, No, I am suggesting to examine how you learn subjects such as geology, physics, chemitry, or biology etc. I am not talking about whether a good reason is different from a belief or not. You see, knowledge about rebirth, just like knowledge about a country such as India, is acquired, and there are different ways to acquire knowledge. You can learn about India by visiting the country and live there for sometime or you can learn about it through reading or talking to different people who are knowledgeable about India. I have never been to India before and have no direct experience about the country, yet I would not say that there is no such country and what I know about India is not just a belief. Knowledge about rebirth can also be acquired. One might not see his/her own or other's past lives. However, through learning the Buddha's teaching and putting it into practice, one comes to understand rebirth and kamma. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Are you suggesting that a good reason is different from a belief? > Many people who don't believe in rebirth think they have good reasons > for that belief. What determines what is a good reason? > > Larry 32263 From: Larry Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 1:58pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, It seems to me that knowledge acquired through reading is a belief. You believe what you read. What you believe is a belief. Larry 32264 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:09pm Subject: Re: kiriyacittas Friend Jon, Jon: As I understand it, a period of ascendancy of a Buddha's teachings tends to be a time of relatively large numbers of people with high levels of panna. James: `As you understand it' based on what? Jon, I will tend to believe you if you give me something more than simply your opinion. The very first question I asked in this post, which you have not answered, is "Where did you get this information?" I really, really, really want to know where you got this information. I am an information hound, what can I say?? ;-)) Jon: As I said, the main factor in our need for details being generally greater than it was for those living at the time of the Buddha is a relative lack of panna. James: Okay, this is getting very tiresome. It is like I am conversing with a brick wall ;-)). Restating what you stated previously isn't proof or support for anything. You want to know what I think is the deciding factor as to why we have less arahants today? It is your fault!! Hehehe…just kidding. I think it is because we have fewer concentrations of admirable friends. The official Sangha in practically all countries has become a crying shame. No matter how much panna a person has, if he/she isn't surrounded by admirable friends, forget it! (That is why Internet groups like this can be so helpful for those with the proper panna who thirst for admirable friends. BTW, everyone who even bothers to be in this group and to read the posts and to try to understand has the proper amount of panna to 'enter the stream'.). Jon: It's a mistake to judge any part of the teachings by one's subjective reaction to it ;-)). James: Well, if you would give me something other than your subjective reaction to what you determine to be my subjective reaction, we can talk business. ;-)) Otherwise, I will continue to be a thorn in your side. ;-)) Metta, James 32265 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, You might want to clarify you you mean by "belief" and "believe." http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=belief http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=believe Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > It seems to me that knowledge acquired through reading is a belief. > You believe what you read. What you believe is a belief. > > Larry 32266 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:10pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, Belief is different from knowledge, and to know is different from to believe. In addition, the original question that started this conversation is: Can someone tell me HOW you KNOW that there are "rebirths" and "lifetimes"? not Can someone tell me HOW you BELIEVE that there are "rebirths" and "lifetimes"? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > It seems to me that knowledge acquired through reading is a belief. > You believe what you read. What you believe is a belief. > > Larry 32267 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, You might want to review the abhidhamma definition of "belief" below. The short and sweet is "attachment to concept". Larry from Nyanatiloka's "Buddhist Dictionary" http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm ditthi (lit. 'sight'; Ö dis, to see): view, belief, speculative opinion, insight. If not qualified by sammá, 'right', it mostly refers to wrong and evil view or opinion, and only in a few instances to right view, understanding or insight (e.g. ditthi-ppatta, q.v.; ditthi-visuddhi, purification of insight; ditthi-sampanna, possessed of insight). Wrong or evil views (ditthi or micchá-ditthi) are declared as utterly rejectable for being a source of wrong and evil aspirations and conduct, and liable at times to lead man to the deepest abysses of depravity, as it is said in A. I, 22: "No other thing than evil views do I know, o monks, whereby to such an extent the unwholesome things not yet arisen arise, and the unwholesome things already arisen are brought to growth and fullness. No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent the wholesome things not yet arisen are hindered in their arising, and the wholesome things already arisen disappear. No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent human beings at the dissolution of the body, at death, are passing to a way of suffering, into a world of woe, into hell." Further in A. I, 23: "Whatever a man filled with evil views performs or undertakes, or whatever he possesses of will, aspiration, longing and tendencies, all these things lead him to an undesirable, unpleasant and disagreeable state, to woe and suffering." From the Abhidhamma (Dhs) it may be inferred that evil views, whenever they arise, are associated with greed (s. Tab. I. 22, 23, 26, 27). Numerous speculative opinions and theories, which at all times have influenced and still are influencing mankind, are quoted in the sutta-texts. Amongst them, however, the wrong view which everywhere, and at all times, has most misled and deluded mankind is the personality-belief, the ego-illusion. This personality-belief (sakkáya-ditthi), or ego-illusion (atta-ditthi), is of 2 kinds: eternity-belief and annihilation-belief. Eternity-belief (sassata-ditthi) is the belief in the existence of a persisting ego-entity, soul or personality, existing independently of those physical and mental processes that constitute life and continuing even after death. Annihilation-belief (uccheda-ditthi), on the other hand, is the belief in the existence of an ego-entity or personality as being more or less identical with those physical and mental processes, and which therefore, at the dissolution at death, will come to be annihilated. - For the 20 kinds of personality-belief, see sakkáya-ditthi. Now, the Buddha neither teaches a personality which will continue after death, nor does he teach a personality which will be annihilated at death, but he shows us that 'personality', 'ego', 'individual', 'man', etc., are nothing but mere conventional designations (vohára-vacana) and that in the ultimate sense (s. paramattha-sacca) there is only this self-consuming process of physical and mental phenomena which continually arise and again disappear immediately. - For further details, s. anattá, khandha, paticcasamuppáda. "The Perfect One is free from any theory (ditthigata), for the Perfect One has seen what corporeality is, and how it arises and passes away. He has seen what feeling ... perception ... mental formations ... consciousness are, and how they arise and pass away. Therefore I say that the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection and casting out of all imaginings and conjectures, of all inclination to the 'vain-glory of 'I' and 'mine." (M. 72). The rejection of speculative views and theories is a prominent feature in a chapter of the Sutta-Nipáta, the Atthaka-Vagga. The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' (niyata-miccháditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha, q.v.), are the following three: (1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncausedness' of existence (ahetukaditthi), (2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi), (3) nihilism (natthikaditthi). (1) was taught by Makkhali-Gosála, a contemporary of the Buddha who denied every cause for the corruptness and purity of beings, and asserted that everything is minutely predestined by fate. (2) was taught by Púrana-Kassapa, another contemporary of the Buddha who denied every karmical effect of good and bad actions: "To him who kills, steals, robs, etc., nothing bad will happen. For generosity, self-restraint and truthfulness, etc. no reward is to be expected." (3) was taught by Ajita-Kesakambali, a third contemporary of the Buddha who asserted that any belief in good action and its reward is a mere delusion, that after death no further life would follow, that man at death would become dissolved into the elements, etc. For further details about these 3 views, s. D. 2, M. 60; commentarial exposition in WHEEL 98/99, P. 23. Frequently mentioned are also the 10 antinomies (antagáhiká micchá-ditthi): 'Finite is the world' or 'infinite is the world' ... 'body and soul are identical' or 'body and soul are different' (e.g. M. 63). In the Brahmájala Sutta .(D.1), 62 false views are classified and described, comprising all conceivable wrong views and speculations about man and world. See The All-Embracing Net of Views (Brahmájala Sutta), tr. with Com. by Bhikkhu Bodhi (BPS). Further s. D. 15, 23, 24, 28; M. 11, 12, 25, 60, 63, 72, 76, 101, 102, 110; A. II, 16; X, 93; S. XXI, XXIV; Pts.M. Ditthikathá,. etc. Wrong views (ditthi) are one of the proclivities (s. anusaya), cankers (s. ásava), clingings (s. upádána), one of the three modes of perversions (s. vipallása). Unwholesome consciousness (akusala citta), rooted in greed, may be either with or without wrong views (ditthigata-sampayutta or vippayutta); s. Dhs.; Tab I. On right view (sammá-ditthi), s. magga and M. 9 (Trans. with Com. in 'R. Und.'). 32268 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:41pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, The definition you provided below is a definition for the pali term "ditthi", not a definition for the word "belief." Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > You might want to review the abhidhamma definition of "belief" below. > The short and sweet is "attachment to concept". > > Larry > > from Nyanatiloka's "Buddhist Dictionary" > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm > > ditthi (lit. 'sight'; Ö dis, to see): view, belief, speculative > opinion, insight. If not qualified by sammá, 'right', it mostly refers > to wrong and evil view or opinion, and only in a few instances to right > view, understanding or insight (e.g. ditthi-ppatta, q.v.; > ditthi-visuddhi, purification of insight; ditthi-sampanna, possessed of > insight). [snip] 32269 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, "Belief" is a translation of the Pali word "ditthi". Larry 32270 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, And your point is? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > "Belief" is a translation of the Pali word "ditthi". > > Larry 32271 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, Try this on for size. Some things we read are beyond question or doubt, like a dictionary or school textbook. Because these ideas are the voice of authority we simply accept them. This is different from belief. We don't "believe" the definition of a word, for example. Scripture is like this. It is beyond doubt, beyond belief. In Indian philosophy we would say scripture is a valid means of knowledge (pramana). Is this your view? If so, I disagree and I think the Buddha would disagree. I think he said something like verify for yourself the truth of my teaching. No one would say verify for yourself the truth of a dictionary. Unfortunately, the truth of rebirth can't be verified. Also it is obviously not beyond doubt. Otherwise no one would even ask about it. So what is one to do with this concept of rebirth? Larry 32272 From: m. nease Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: MN131 Bhaddekaratta Sutta "A Single Excellent Night" Hi Suan, Thanks as always--the thought occurred to me that realities are always present, concepts never are. I think this is consistent with the pariyatti. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "abhidhammika" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 7:58 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: MN131 Bhaddekaratta Sutta "A Single Excellent Night" My regular dealing with psychiatric patients convinces me of the fact that they are either stuck in the past or worry about the future with the gloomy outlook or with paranoid imaginings (I observed that a few days ago). ... "The wise one who wisely observes the present phenomenon at each point of arising should increase the unimpeded and unfaltering Vipassanaa practice again and again." With regards, Suan 32273 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/17/04 9:10:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > One odd thing about this enterprise is the assumption that reality is > superior to concept. What we are supposed to be doing is devalueing > reality. ---------------------------------------- Howard: I don't agree with that. We are to come to see reality as it is - to become unconfused as to its nature. As far as devaluing it, what could be superior to reality? Illusion? --------------------------------------- > > Larry > ===================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32274 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:07pm Subject: Buddha on bikini ! Hi all, Images of Buddha and Bodhisattva on bikini ! Is this a sacrilege ? http://www2.victoriassecret.com/commerce/application/proðisplay/? namespace=productDisplay&origin=QuickOrderLink.jsp&event=QuickOrderLi nk&cgname=OSCQONAVZZZ&prnbr=IR-173444 KKT 32275 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Howard: "As far as devaluing it, what could be superior to reality?" Hi Howard, I meant devalueing cyclic existence of course. You don't see that in the suttas? Nibbana is said to be better. Larry 32276 From: old_dead_wood Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:50pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi. Thanks to all for responding to my question regarding re-birth. I didn't really want to end up discussing the meaning of words, though. I was looking for maybe any of your personal meditative experiences (absorptions or realizations) that validate (or counter) the scriptures. The reason I asked this question (and this will be rather "rambling" because I don't want too much detail) : I am a weak practitioner, but have had strong Theravada leanings. The more I read about the latest studies in brain science, the more I question the validity of a "spiritual" aspect to reality. If consciousness depends on our body and brain, there seems to be nothing left when the physical support for consciousness is gone. Some studies have shown that meditation shuts down certain brain functions, such as the one that gives us our sense of location in space and time, and might give rise to a sense of "oceanic cosmic consciousness", etc. Stuff like this tells me that bare alteration of brain activity (and nothing else) might alter our perceptions and make it seem like something "spiritual" is going on. Along with scientific reading, I have read the books, "The God Part Of The Brain" and "Denial of Death" (Pulitzer(?) prize winner), both of which suggest that the evolutionary development of awareness of death in humankind has forced us to develop different explanations (religions) for our future (beyond-death) survival. Both books suggest it is our SANITY that is at risk, if we can't accept the fact of our demise, and devices (religions) had to be developed so people would have hope, even if it was false (because negative cynicism and depression due to the pondering of life's end was NOT conducive to the species' survival). Another reason is that I have always been clinically depressed and I KNOW that the brain can produce some hellish states. The last thing that bugs me is whenever on the TV it shows a picture of the space shuttle a MERE few hundred miles above the earth, I look at the earth, knowing all the crap that is going on within everyones' existence, and we seem SO insignificant and the Universe just doesn't care...we are fungus on a rock. Sorry to say these things, but these are the things that bug me, that prevent me from accepting most ANYTHING anymore that appears in a scripture. The only thing I can accept is the FIRST NOBLE TRUTH. Everything else is unknown to me. Somebody puts the following statement at the end of their posts: "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) THIS seems to be ALL of it, whether it gives up comfort or not. 32277 From: old_dead_wood Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:56pm Subject: Anapanasati: Full-Body or Nose-Door ??? My practice is weak. Most of the time I'm too "heebee-jeebeed" to sit. But when I do.... Do you suggest placing attention at the nostrils, the whole "breath- body", the navel ?? Different teachers have given varying opinions. I have read Buddhadasa, Gunaratana, Dhammadharo, Kornfield, Achaan Cha, Ayya Khemma, Jotiko, Thanissaro, etc. What has been your EXPERIENCE? What has worked for you? Thanks 32278 From: old_dead_wood Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:10pm Subject: Re: Buddha on bikini ! I couldn't see the images, but let me guess: sexy bikinis or underwear with the Buddha image on them? Buddhism has been "hip" for awhile, and they need new marketing concepts. I don't like to look at yoga magazine anymore because of the foxy women in them (in different poses). I'm older now and have worked HARD at become sexually dead (depression and poor circulation) and I ENJOY the peace of mind. They are trying to torture me and draw me back in to the world of sex, but it's too late! Sex is Nature's trick to get the sexes together for the survival of the species. How else would we do the things we do for sex and during sex, if it weren't for the powerful bio-chemicals that make us temporarily INSANE? We're just animals....ANIMALS !!! > Images of Buddha and > Bodhisattva on bikini ! > > Is this a sacrilege ? 32279 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:16pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, You came up with some view and asked if it is my view. My reply to you is: No, I don't hold the view you came up with. Let me go back to the question that got this conversation started: Can someone tell me HOW you KNOW that there are "rebirths" and "lifetimes"? Regarding this question, I would say that: I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by learning and practicing the Buddha's teaching. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Try this on for size. Some things we read are beyond question or doubt, > like a dictionary or school textbook. Because these ideas are the voice > of authority we simply accept them. This is different from belief. We > don't "believe" the definition of a word, for example. Scripture is like > this. It is beyond doubt, beyond belief. In Indian philosophy we would > say scripture is a valid means of knowledge (pramana). Is this your > view? > > If so, I disagree and I think the Buddha would disagree. I think he said > something like verify for yourself the truth of my teaching. No one > would say verify for yourself the truth of a dictionary. Unfortunately, > the truth of rebirth can't be verified. Also it is obviously not beyond > doubt. Otherwise no one would even ask about it. So what is one to do > with this concept of rebirth? > > Larry 32280 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:36pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi, Reply in context. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "old_dead_wood" wrote: > Hi. Thanks to all for responding to my question regarding re- birth. No problem! [snip] The more I read about the > latest studies in brain science, the more I question the validity of > a "spiritual" aspect to reality. Please explain what you mean by "spiritual" aspect to reality. If consciousness depends on our > body and brain, there seems to be nothing left when the physical > support for consciousness is gone. > > Some studies have shown that meditation shuts down certain brain > functions, such as the one that gives us our sense of location in > space and time, and might give rise to a sense of "oceanic cosmic > consciousness", etc. Stuff like this tells me that bare alteration > of brain activity (and nothing else) might alter our perceptions and > make it seem like something "spiritual" is going on. Again, what do you mean by "spiritual"? [snip] > Another reason is that I have always been clinically depressed and I > KNOW that the brain can produce some hellish states. > > The last thing that bugs me is whenever on the TV it shows a picture > of the space shuttle a MERE few hundred miles above the earth, I > look at the earth, knowing all the crap that is going on within > everyones' existence, and we seem SO insignificant and the Universe > just doesn't care...we are fungus on a rock. Does the thought "we seem SO insignificant and the Universe just doesn't care...we are fungus on a rock" lead to depression? Is the thought depressing as you keep reflecting on it? > > Sorry to say these things, but these are the things that bug me, > that prevent me from accepting most ANYTHING anymore that appears in > a scripture. The only thing I can accept is the FIRST NOBLE TRUTH. > Everything else is unknown to me. What is the First Noble Truth as you know it? Metta, Victor 32281 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Victor: "I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by learning and practicing the Buddha's teaching." Hi Victor, This is a self view. I suggest you look at this "I know". Larry 32282 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi old_dead_wood, The spiritual in Theravada is mostly a matter of various levels of tranquility. I think making oneself "dead" sexually or any other way is an extreme practice, not the middle way. What you want instead is insight. As for depression, I've had a little taste of that myself and I agree it's difficult. I think it is a matter of body chemistry and mental habits. Larry 32283 From: old_dead_wood Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:39pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Maybe I'll revise the question: What in your personal experience has validated the view that there are lifetimes? Have you had realizations outside the scriptures (while still validating them)? Did something happen during meditation? > I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by learning and > practicing the Buddha's teaching. > 32284 From: old_dead_wood Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:55pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana > Please explain what you mean by "spiritual" aspect to reality. I guess it would be anything beyond our individual personal experience of this life: Gods, heavens, hells, "mechanisms" of re- birth, etc. may be products solely of the human brain. When the brain dies, there may be nothing. > Does the thought "we seem SO insignificant and the Universe just > doesn't care...we are fungus on a rock" lead to depression? Is the > thought depressing as you keep reflecting on it? Sometimes it's "depressing", other times when life gets bad, I'm happy that there might be only this life. CLINICAL depression is something else that may or may not be concomitant with depressing thoughts. "Depression" is not a good word to describe the weirdness and debilitation of the illness. I DO acknowledge thinking patterns can probably aggravate and pre-dispose the condition. > > What is the First Noble Truth as you know it? I guess it would be the realization of the "dis-satisfactoriness" of our personal lives: nothing is stable, everything's constantly changing regardless of our desires. 32285 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:47pm Subject: Bangkok visit wrap-up Dear All Another discussion session yesterday, afternoon only this time, and our last discussion before we head back to Hong Kong tomorrow morning. We have enjoyed the varied views and comments from everyone. Never a dull moment, and hardly a lull in the discussion over 5 half-day sessions. Many topics and details from dsg threads raised, with plenty on satipatthana and other basics in between. At the discussions were 'locals' Sukin, Betty, Ivan, Elle, Peter (who last attended a discussion with A. Sujin some 20 years ago -- he's just the same; still no loopholes), and visitors Chris (from Brisbane via Sydney), Azita (Cairns via Dubai), Shakti & Thomas (from Montana), Tom & Beverly (lurking members & old friends, especially for this occasion from New Hampshire via Detroit & Narita). The connection with old friends continued this morning when we unexpectedly bumped into Vince and Nancy at breakfast, whom we had last seen in exactly the same spot on our visit in January this year, when they were on their way to Burma for a retreat. This time they were on their way back to Sydney, and decided to revisit the same breakfast spot. When Vince heard Azita was also in town he said how much he'd like to see her, so we gave a quick call to her hotel and she dropped everything to dash across the river and join us (and give assistance in the NAG corner). Much lively discussion ensued, with Vince extolling the need for the use of consciousness effort in dealing with kilesa -- some of you would no doubt have approved! Unfortunately Vince and Nancy had a flight to catch, and all too soon they had to leave. But we much appreciated the occasion and the robust exchange of views with good friends. Jon (and Sarah) 32286 From: dsgmods Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 0:10am Subject: Reminder (was, Not entering the Stream in Mahayana) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "old_dead_wood" < old_dead_wood@y...> wrote: > > > Please explain what you mean by "spiritual" aspect to reality. Dear Friend We are pleased to have you as a member of DSG. We ask all members posting to the list to indicate who their post is directed to (even if it's to All), and to sign off with a name (preferably a real one) at the end. This helps keep a friendly tone to things, and is mentioned in the Guidelines. Thanks for your cooperation. Regards, and we hope you enjoy your time with us Jon and Sarah PS We tried sending this off-list, but have been unable to get through to you at the email address given in your messages. 32287 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains Hi Larry, op 17-04-2004 19:07 schreef Larry op LBIDD@w...: > Hi Howard, > > You might want to peruse note 68, Vism. VIII in anticipation of > Nina's reply. That's the one on own nature (sabhava). I see two > characteristics of own nature: becoming and a unique characteristic. > There are problems with both. Governments become and "unique" is > relative. Not all hardnesses are the same. N: We talked before about the word sabhava: we have to think rather of nature, own individual nature. Not of becoming. The word essence, as we have seen, creates confusion (see posts of Michael). Hardness has many shades, but we can say that it is hard all the same. Just as lobha: many shades, but it clings or is attached, it likes the object. Or dosa, idem. It dislikes the object. They are all just dhammas and they are conditioned, sankhaara dhammas. They are conditioned and condition others. When hearing the word sankhaara we do not have to think of a complicated, abstract notion, sankhara dhammas are appearing now. The Visuddhimagga and Tiika stress this in giving all these different classifications of nama and rupa, according to numbers and according to different aspects. But it all amounts to the same, to remind us that they are just dhammas appearing now because of their appropriate conditions. Let us not waste opportunities to profit from all these reminders. Nina Nina. 32288 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Howard, op 17-04-2004 08:26 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: I'm still curious as to sufficient (and necessary) criteria for an > apparent element of experience, whether mental or physical, to be actual > (i.e., a > paramattha dhamma). So far I'm aware of two apparently necessary criteria: 1) > It is experienced via single sense door, and 2) It is continuous in time > (i.e., not occurring off and on, with other phenomena interspersed). N: no 2 , continuous in time? I do not get here what you mean. A citta is momentary and succeeded by the next one. No conditioned dhamma can be continuous. Perhaps you mean something else? My approach is from the opposite direction: I am really concerned that people get stuck in definitions, in the theory, just occupied with words. Not only in the matter of concepts, but also as regards other points. I like to make it concrete and try to explain what citta, cetasika and rupa are, at this moment. Although, I feel rather poorly since I have not directly realized their true nature myself. At least, I have no doubt about the direction to take, I feel sure about this. Once it is clear what a paramattha dhamma is, people will know what is not paramattha dhamma, but a concept. When citta has as object a paramattha dhamma it does not have a concept as object, and vice versa. I am afraid I did not answer your question in a satisfying way. Once I know about your criteria 2, I can think it over again. But no. 1 is good. How could any object be experienced through more than one door at a time. But experiencing is one thing, and panna that directly understands it is another thing. Understanding understands it *as nama* or *as rupa* not as a thing or a person or even a bell sound. These are the things I am concerned about. I try to add what I am *beginning* to understand. When we are dreaming or thinking, the object is a concept. Seeing is different from thinking, seeing is a paramattha dhamma. This sounds too plain, but it has to be known over and over again by sati and panna, by sati-sampaja~n~na, and, at the moment they occur. That is different from just saying this. Any notion of image, details, shape and form is not seeing visible object, it is thinking of concepts. Any self involvement in focussing or trying to know paramattha dhammas is doomed to failure, then there is again thinking, not seeing visible object. Also thinking is a paramattha dhamma that can be known as such. The same with hearing that hears just sound, no bell, no focussing on a special sound. The part on focussing maybe hard to swallow for some Dhamma students. We can learn the difference: when we are self-involved or when we are doing something for someone else, are such moments different? But even in the last case moments of lobha come in because the cittas change so fast. All these things one has to find out oneself, that is the only way. For myself I find it best not to even think about mindfulness, about how many moments of it, and the time of arising, or how to condition it. Self-involvement is there without our knowing it, and that is the worst. We better pay attention to this: is there any *understanding* of what dhamma is? That is the foundation for satipatthana. And only through satipatthana we shall know without fail what dhamma is, what a concept is. You will say, what about a sense of urgency (fire on our head), and the necessary effort and intention? I know what you mean, a conditioned effort and intention, not a self who tries. No problem. The fire on our heads, the sense of urgency occurs in our daily life. Effort is a cetasika and it arises naturally together with sati and panna. Daily life is full of pungent reminders of dhamma that brings us back to reality: dhamma now. Some dhammas are pleasant and we cling, some are unwelcome, like sickness, death, the daily news we read, and on account of them we have sadness, dislike. But we should not despise any of them. If we do, we are really negligent. We often hear, "let it come by conditions, do not force, that is counteractive". And also: "everything is dhamma". That includes the many moments of ignorance and unawareness. No problem, we understand that that also is conditioned. We heard so many, many times: everything is dhamma, but gradually this becomes more meaningful. We can see the power of the Buddha's teachings. Listening, considering, listening again, that is what we read in the Suttas. People kept on listening. And we can consider Dhamma in the midst of our activities. I wrote to Robert Epstein about his work with actors, that this is dhamma. They have many different accumulations coming out in their cittas. With his fine intuition and understanding he knows what is difficult for intellectual people. I quote: To me he got at the heart of the matter. Dhamma is the best medicine. Nina. 32289 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Dear Jonothan, Thank you very much. Lodewijk appreciates your kusala citta very much, and all the trouble you took. But, he still does not understand! It has to sink in, and who knows, the next days when trekking may be favorable for another dialogue. Or, if Howard "says something". ;-)) Some comment, see below. What you say means a great deal to me. op 17-04-2004 02:02 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: It has taken a lot of further study, listening > and discussing since then to get a clearer picture so that at least I > feel I understand what it's supposed to be. Actual moments of > satipatthana are something else again, of course! N: My feelings too. Some Dhamma students may not realize that we should never tire of listening again and again, and not conclude hastily that we have understood in depth what we heard. J: But having got your coherent, logical explanation, what then? The > next step would be just this you mention here -- consideration of the > seeing now, the six doors, etc. It may sound like 'bits and pieces', > but that's because there has to be a start somewhere. Only by making > a start can the full relevance be appreciated. N: I also heard that it is unavoidable to start with the idea of self. Agreed, it is an underlying tendency and conditions wrong view and wrong practice all the time. It is important that understanding detects it. Understanding the right conditions for satipatthana, listening, considering, counteracts wrong practice. We can verify this for ourselves, for sure. A. Sujin also warns not to have an idea of starting. Actually, before we know there is a moment of a degree of awareness of a dhamma. We cannot pinpoint anything at all. After a while we come to realize: yes, all I heard makes much more sense now. >Lodewijk: The answer >> cannot be:"You will know the answer as soon as you canbe aware of > realities >> as they are." Maybe yes, but that is not the way to convince people > like >> Howard [and me] !> end quote. > >J: Well, 'being aware of realities as they are' seems a pretty good > answer to your question. I can't immediately think of a more > coherent, logical explanation of satipatthana! In any event, as > Howard likes to say, discussing the menu is no substitute for > sampling the food ;-)) > N: He finds it very difficult when A. Sujin answers with the example of seeing now or dhamma now. J: The difficulty lies in the nature of the problem and not anything > else. One has to accept the frustration and keep listening, > considering and asking questions until it becomes clearer, which it > will! The dosa is a normal reaction in such situations. Think > about why this occurs. N: This is a fine analysis of the whole problem. Yes, everything is dhamma, it does become clearer, and, it reminds us of dhamma now. Daily life does not distract from the goal! And the frustration, the dosa. Wy? Clinging, the second noble Truth. We do not despise dosa or clinging, they are real. J: ......(snipped) > Direct awareness allows there to be a level of understanding of the > different elements of experience that in themselves are completely > impersonal but which coalesce so as to give the appearance of > individual people and things. N: We learn the difference between concept and what is really there in the ultimate sense. This should not be a conflict as some Dhamma students believe. Thinking of concepts is not forbidden, but it can occur without wrong view of things being permanent, not dukkha and self. J: It is of the nature of the misconceptions from which we all suffer. Any self-conceived attempt to see things as they truly are will > do no more than lead to further misconceptions. N: self-conceived attempt is the key word here, not right effort of the eightfold Path that is always accompanied by right understanding. But the Dhamma student needs to know the difference, and that by being aware of his different cittas. J: It is only with the guidance of the teaching on satipatthana that the > circle of delusion can be broken. N: We need guidance of the suttas but also of the Abhidhamma. Otherwise we do not learn about the fine distinctions between different moments such as kusala dhammas and akusala dhammas. And if we do not know anything about processes of cittas (I do not mean all details) we have no idea how and when there can be awareness of even akusala dhammas. How the characteristic of akusala can still appear to the sati and panna when it has just fallen away. Kusala cannot arise at the same time as akusala but, cittas succeed one another so fast, and this makes it understandable that there can be awareness of akusala. Through the Abhidhamma we learn more about conditions (I do not mean we have to study all details), and this is of immense benefit for the understanding of anatta, no possessor, no self who can manipulate anything. Thank you, with much appreciation, and warmest regards also from Lodewijk, Nina. 32290 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist fundamentalism? Dear Andrew, welcome back :-)) I was so glad to read your good post and will come back to it, after our trekking. So many good posts on past lives (James' quote of a beautiful sutta), on not entering the stream (hardwood, Hasituppada), I like to come back to afterwards. Nina op 17-04-2004 01:36 schreef Andrew op athel60@t...: > Hello everyone > Back again! A big thank you to all who sent kind messages re the > passing of Sandra's father. 32291 From: axtran Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:59am Subject: Victoria's Secret Swim Suit with the Buddha image Dear friends, Perhaps you already heard about a swim suit product named Asian Floral tankini produced by Victoria's Secret with images of the Lord Buddha on the left breast, and Quan Yin at the navel level. The image of the tankini can be viewed in the swim suit section at: http://www2.victoriassecret.com/commerce With Metta, AT 32292 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:37am Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Friend Old Dead Wood, ODW: Hi. Thanks to all for responding to my question regarding re- birth. I didn't really want to end up discussing the meaning of words, though. I was looking for maybe any of your personal meditative experiences (absorptions or realizations) that validate (or counter) the scriptures. James: Through my practice of meditation I have developed the ability to know the past lives of other people (to a limited extent and not my own past lives). I meet periodically with a teacher friend to give her advice and insight based on this ability. She will simply ask me about someone and I will tell her what I sense about his/her past lives and how it has an influence on their current life. According to her, I am amazingly accurate in what I know that she doesn't tell me. She has told me, "Talking to you is like talking to God." (This started because I sensed that she was involved with a person who had a very negative karma stream. I wanted to warn her.) She can maybe verify this if you would like (I haven't asked her). Contact me off-list and I will give you her e- mail. But, would this really `prove' anything to you? Maybe we are both nuts?? ;-)) You need to know for yourself these types of things, and then trust your experience. ODW: The reason I asked this question (and this will be rather "rambling" because I don't want too much detail) : I am a weak practitioner, but have had strong Theravada leanings. The more I read about the latest studies in brain science, the more I question the validity of a "spiritual" aspect to reality. If consciousness depends on our body and brain, there seems to be nothing left when the physical support for consciousness is gone. James: This is nothing new. Even before the advent of science people had these types of beliefs. The brain is not the mind. The brain is simply a physical manifestation to deal with and process a physical world. The 'brain' would be different in a deva realm or non-existent in a non-physical realm (arupa). Anyway, I would suggest you read this article to get a better perspective on this `human secularism" that is creeping into your Buddhist practice: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/response.html Metta, James 32293 From: eireen30 Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma Dear Nina, You asked me about my background, interests ... I am interested in buddhism for many years, first, I tried to find an entrance into buddhism over the tibetain buddhism, but I noticed after a short time, that that's not the right way for me. After that, I changed to the Theravada buddhism. I've had a hard last year, a lot of problems, and the buddhism was the only thing, which really helped me to deal with the conditions/problems, the most where psychical problems ... Some day ago, I visited a retreat for a week, and the teacher have had some discussions about buddhism and psychology, and so I came to the Abhidhamma as basis for these field. Andrea 32294 From: old_dead_wood Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:36pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana > The spiritual in Theravada is mostly a matter of various levels of > tranquility. GOOD! That's what I need! My all-time favorite activity is SLEEP. I think making oneself "dead" sexually or any other way is > an extreme practice, not the middle way. I didn't really make myself that way. It sort of came as I aged. I'd always HATED the sexual desire and tension, so the drop in desire was welcomed. Why not be peaceful rather than agitated? I also remember one remedy for sexual desire was portrayed in some dhamma books as roughly "reflection on the impurity of the body". That works wonders now for knocking out any residual desire. What you want instead is > insight. As for depression, I've had a little taste of that myself and I > agree it's difficult. I think it is a matter of body chemistry and > mental habits. Difficult is not the word. After my first episode, I KNEW why mentally ill people walk the streets muttering to themselves, or commit suicide. The most PROFOUND experience of MY life has been the EXPERIENCE of this thing called, innocently, "depression"...not "God", love, children, music or any other worldly OR unworldly thing. Who could have imagined BEFOREHAND that the brain could produce such states straight out of a science- fiction-horror movie made in hell? Another "chink" in my armor of certainty: an old friend of mine who was a corporate president started in Tibetan Buddhism in the mid- 70's. He had access to well-known gurus and practiced devotedly. He was a pilot, and he got to ferry the Dalai Lama around Northern California during one visit. I used to call him up occasionally to see how his practice progressed. The last time I called him, he told me he had been in the hospital for 6 months due to a nervous breakdown, anxiety, and depression. .......... In these later years, I've read and heard about TOO MANY of THESE stories to believe that ANY personal "practice" or set of views is going to make one immune to the workings of the (apparently) brain. 32295 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:23am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, No, that is not self-view. You misunderstood what self-view is. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Victor: "I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by learning and > practicing the Buddha's teaching." > > Hi Victor, > > This is a self view. I suggest you look at this "I know". > > Larry 32296 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/18/04 12:27:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Howard: "As far as devaluing it, what could be superior to reality?" > > Hi Howard, > > I meant devalueing cyclic existence of course. You don't see that in the > suttas? Nibbana is said to be better. > > Larry > ========================= I misunderstood what you were calling "reality". (I consider samsara to be more a matter of illusion than reality.) With regard to what part of our discussion were you raising this? 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) 32297 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:43am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, Regarding what self view is about, please check the discourse: Samyutta Nikaya XXII.47 Samanupassana Sutta Assumptions http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-047.html Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Victor: "I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by learning and > practicing the Buddha's teaching." > > Hi Victor, > > This is a self view. I suggest you look at this "I know". > > Larry 32298 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Nina - Thank you for the useful reply. I will respond now just to the question you pose near the outset. In a message dated 4/18/04 4:17:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Hi Howard, > > op 17-04-2004 08:26 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > I'm still curious as to sufficient (and necessary) criteria for an > >apparent element of experience, whether mental or physical, to be actual > >(i.e., a > >paramattha dhamma). So far I'm aware of two apparently necessary criteria: > 1) > >It is experienced via single sense door, and 2) It is continuous in time > >(i.e., not occurring off and on, with other phenomena interspersed). > N: no 2 , continuous in time? I do not get here what you mean. A citta is > momentary and succeeded by the next one. No conditioned dhamma can be > continuous. Perhaps you mean something else? > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: By "continuous in time" I don't mean necessarily extended in time, but I do mean uninterrupted. Let me explain by discussing the ringing-bell-sound example. The full tolling of a bell might take, let us say, a minute. If one pays attention, it becomes clear that during that time there occur multiple experiences via several different sense doors interspersed among moments of hearing. But we typically think of the entire bell sound as a phenomenal "reality". What I am saying is that the fact that the interspersing of other sense-door experiences, or for that matter the interspersing of changes in mental concomitants (e.g., changes in attentiveness, changes in concentration, variations in feeling, etc), implies that it is an error to view the entire bell sound as a paramattha dhamma. The "full bell sound", being interrupted, cannot be other than pa~n~natti. With regard to the momentariness of a mindstate, does that imply that a mindstate has zero duration? I thought that later commentaries described a citta as having three phases: growth, maintenance, and decline. (That, BTW, makes sense to me, as I usually picture a mindstate as being describable in part by an "intensity graph" which displays the state as building in intensity from level 0 up to a maximum level that is briefly maintained and then declining back to level 0, with a hill shape like a cosine function, where level 0 is nonexistence.) ========================== 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) 32299 From: Larry Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:27am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, I suggest you read the Visuddhimagga. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Larry, > > No, that is not self-view. You misunderstood what self-view is. > > Metta, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Victor: "I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by learning > and > > practicing the Buddha's teaching." > > > > Hi Victor, > > > > This is a self view. I suggest you look at this "I know". > > > > Larry 32300 From: Larry Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi Howard, Sorry Howard, I'm still not being very clear. By "cyclic existence" I mean the 5 khandhas. I don't think you will find the Buddha praising the breaking through of concept and having a "clean" 5-door experience. In the vast majority of suttas he has only negative things to say about the khandhas. So when we try to define ultimate reality, portraying it as desirable over concept, that seems a little odd to me. I'm not saying it is wrong; I just haven't found the words to shape a view. Baring an interpolated nonduality, it seems to me nibbana is portrayed as other than the 5 khandhas. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry - > > In a message dated 4/18/04 12:27:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... > writes: > > > Howard: "As far as devaluing it, what could be superior to reality?" > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > I meant devalueing cyclic existence of course. You don't see that in the > > suttas? Nibbana is said to be better. > > > > Larry > > > ========================= > I misunderstood what you were calling "reality". (I consider samsara > to be more a matter of illusion than reality.) > With regard to what part of our discussion were you raising this? > > 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) > 32301 From: Larry Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:05am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi old_dead_wood, My only comment is that some problems are best left to a doctor. I can't really speak to your medical condition [actually, it may even have something to do with kundalini energy]. In my case I'm pretty sure the body chemistry associated with depression is consciousness produced rupa. I say this because gradual changes in understanding seem to be making a lasting change in "feeling". It looks to me that you are new to the spiritual "scene" and I urge you to not get carried away by exotic ideas. Objectivity and being honest with oneself is the best approach. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "old_dead_wood" wrote: > > The spiritual in Theravada is mostly a matter of various levels of > > tranquility. > > GOOD! That's what I need! My all-time favorite activity is SLEEP. > > > I think making oneself "dead" sexually or any other way is > > an extreme practice, not the middle way. > > I didn't really make myself that way. It sort of came as I aged. > I'd always HATED the sexual desire and tension, so the drop in > desire was welcomed. Why not be peaceful rather than agitated? I > also remember one remedy for sexual desire was portrayed in some > dhamma books as roughly "reflection on the impurity of the body". > That works wonders now for knocking out any residual desire. > > > What you want instead is > > insight. As for depression, I've had a little taste of that myself > and I > > agree it's difficult. I think it is a matter of body chemistry and > > mental habits. > > Difficult is not the word. After my first episode, I KNEW why > mentally ill people walk the streets muttering to themselves, or > commit suicide. The most PROFOUND experience of MY life has been the > EXPERIENCE of this thing called, > innocently, "depression"...not "God", love, children, music or any > other worldly OR unworldly thing. Who could have imagined BEFOREHAND > that the brain could produce such states straight out of a science- > fiction-horror movie made in hell? > > Another "chink" in my armor of certainty: an old friend of mine who > was a corporate president started in Tibetan Buddhism in the mid- > 70's. He had access to well-known gurus and practiced devotedly. He > was a pilot, and he got to ferry the Dalai Lama around Northern > California during one visit. I used to call him up occasionally to > see how his practice progressed. The last time I called him, he told > me he had been in the hospital for 6 months due to a nervous > breakdown, anxiety, and depression. .......... > > In these later years, I've read and heard about TOO MANY of THESE > stories to believe that ANY personal "practice" or set of views is > going to make one immune to the workings of the (apparently) brain. 32302 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/18/04 11:50:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Sorry Howard, I'm still not being very clear. By "cyclic existence" I > mean the 5 khandhas. I don't think you will find the Buddha praising > the breaking through of concept and having a "clean" 5-door > experience. In the vast majority of suttas he has only negative > things to say about the khandhas. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: My perspective is that this is a misreading of the Buddha. He speaks unfavorably about the five khandhas *affected by clinging*. It is craving, aversion, and attachment (and confusion) that constitute the problem, not five-sensory experience. -------------------------------------------- So when we try to define ultimate > > reality, portraying it as desirable over concept, that seems a little > odd to me. I'm not saying it is wrong; I just haven't found the words > to shape a view. Baring an interpolated nonduality, it seems to me > nibbana is portrayed as other than the 5 khandhas. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Sure nibbana is different from the five khandhas. It is an absence - specifically the absence of avijja, tanha, and upadana (and the absence of dukkha). I do not believe that the Buddha, as arahant, "needed" to escape from experience - he simply had no craving for it or attachment to it, and, thus, if the Theravada understanding is correct, such experience simply ceased beyond the death of the Buddha, there being no motive force for its continuation. --------------------------------------------- > > Larry ======================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32303 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 0:14pm Subject: Re: Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Friend Howard (and Larry), Howard: My perspective is that this is a misreading of the Buddha. He speaks unfavorably about the five khandhas *affected by clinging*. It is craving, aversion, and attachment (and confusion) that constitute the problem, not five-sensory experience. James: I believe that Larry is completely correct in his reading of the Buddha. The five khandhas, affected by clinging or not, are inherently suffering and unsatisfactory (dukkha). The Buddha taught this in many, many different suttas. Material form and clinging consciousness support and lean on each other for samsaric existence. They are both dukkha. The arahant has removed the clinging consciousness but not the material form because the residual kamma will keep it in existence. If the arahant becomes a bhikkhu or is already a bhikkhu, he/she will allow this material form to continue in order to teach other beings the means to escape. If a householder becomes an arahant and cannot become a bhikkhu (because conditions wouldn't allow it), that arahant will immediately die and release the final burden of the material form (parinibbana). For example, the Buddha's father became an arahant but because he was a king and it wasn't feasible for him to become a monk, he immediately died. Larry is also correct that there is far too much emphasis in this group that simply `knowing' namas and rupas, without removing the clinging to them, will lead to enlightenment. I am quite happy that he has pointed out this false view. *Snaps for Larry!* ;-)) Metta, James 32304 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:29pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi old_dead_wood, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "old_dead_wood" wrote: > Maybe I'll revise the question: > > What in your personal experience has validated the view that there > are lifetimes? I used to have doubt about rebirth. You could say that it was a paradigm shift from doubting whether there is rebirth to knowing that there is. An analogy would be the paradigm shift from Newtonian classical mechanics to Einstein's theory of relativity. Theory of relativity is a result of deeper understanding of the space-time relation than that of the classical mechanics. The theory provided new insights into physical phenomena in space and time. Einstein came up with the theory of relativity without ever testing the theory himself experimentally: the theory was validated by other experimental physicists. [1] I have not seen my past lives and the past lives of others. Nevertheless, there are accounts on such experiences of others. > > Have you had realizations outside the scriptures (while still > validating them)? Could you explain your question? > > Did something happen during meditation? Nothing happened during meditation regarding seeing my past lives. However, I do believe that meditation practice over time contributed to removing doubt about rebirth. Metta, Victor PS. I just came across an article on NASA testing Einstein's relativity theory. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news? tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=570&e=1&u=/nm/20040418/sc_nm/science_gravity_ dc_1 32305 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, Why? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > I suggest you read the Visuddhimagga. > > Larry > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi Larry, > > > > No, that is not self-view. You misunderstood what self-view is. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > > Victor: "I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by > learning > > and > > > practicing the Buddha's teaching." > > > > > > Hi Victor, > > > > > > This is a self view. I suggest you look at this "I know". > > > > > > Larry 32306 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi Howard, Please check the following passage: Rupa.m bhikkhave, dukkha.m, vedana dukkha, sa~n~na dukkha, sankhara dukkha, vi~n~na.na.m dukkha.m http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta- Nikaya/Samyutta3/21%20Khandha%20Samyutta/01-02-Aniccavaggo-p.htm Could you find the corresponding passage in Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation? I don't have the text with me at the moment. Thank you. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry - [snip] > Howard: > My perspective is that this is a misreading of the Buddha. He speaks > unfavorably about the five khandhas *affected by clinging*. It is craving, > aversion, and attachment (and confusion) that constitute the problem, not > five-sensory experience. [snip] > With metta, > Howard 32307 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati: Full-Body or Nose-Door ??? In a message dated 4/17/04 10:12:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, old_dead_wood@y... writes: Do you suggest placing attention at the nostrils, the whole "breath- body", the navel ?? Different teachers have given varying opinions. I have read Buddhadasa, Gunaratana, Dhammadharo, Kornfield, Achaan Cha, Ayya Khemma, Jotiko, Thanissaro, etc. What has been your EXPERIENCE? What has worked for you? I use a point maybe 3 inches back from the tip of my nose. At times, I have used my abdomen. I think as you advance in your practice you need to have a point in your nostrils as object because you need to be mindful of a small point where the breath meets the body. The breath's affect on your abdomen over too great an area. jack 32308 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, Re: "why" It would help you to understand self view. When you say "I know..." you are mistaken. There is no "I". When you look at the list of all the realities you can see there is no "I" there. It is just a concept, a word, nothing else. It would teach you that understanding is a matter of seeing things directly, not reasoning. When you say "I know" what is there? Craving and clinging, not understanding impermanence, regarding 'self' and 'knowing' as solid, abiding realities. This craving, clinging, and not understanding is also just a flicker, and it's gone. You can see this directly for yourself. I recommend you start with page 1 and read the whole thing. Larry ---------------------- V: Hi Larry, Why? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: Hi Victor, I suggest you read the Visuddhimagga. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi Larry, No, that is not self-view. You misunderstood what self-view is. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: Victor: "I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by learning and practicing the Buddha's teaching." Hi Victor, This is a self view. I suggest you look at this "I know". Larry 32309 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, Reply in context. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Re: "why" > Larry: It would help you to understand self view. Victor: Really? How? What is self view as you understand it? Larry: When you say "I know..." you are mistaken. Victor: Where did you get that idea? In the following passage, the Buddha also said "..I know...", you wouldn't say that the Buddha was mistaken, having self-view, would you? "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me: 'The recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma (merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him' -- unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.[13] Just as a bhikkhu possessed of virtue, concentration and wisdom would here and now enjoy final knowledge, so it will happen in this case, I say, that unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell." Larry: There is no "I". Victor: Why do you assume that idea "I" in the first place? Larry: When you look at the list of all the realities you can see there is no "I" there. It is just a concept, a word, nothing else. It would teach you that understanding is a matter of seeing things directly, not reasoning. Victor: What list of all the realities? Larry: When you say "I know" what is there? Craving and clinging, not understanding impermanence, regarding 'self' and 'knowing' as solid, abiding realities. Victor: Where did you get that idea? Larry: This craving, clinging, and not understanding is also just a flicker, and it's gone. Victor: Oh?? Where did it go? Larry: You can see this directly for yourself. Victor: Thanks, but no thanks. Larry: I recommend you start with page 1 and read the whole thing. Victor: Is there anything written in Visuddhimagga about self-view that is not found in the discourses? Metta, Victor > Larry 32310 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Larry: You can see this directly for yourself. Victor: Thanks, but no thanks. --------------- Hi Victor, Suit yourself. Larry 32311 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/18/04 8:14:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Please check the following passage: > > Rupa.m bhikkhave, dukkha.m, vedana dukkha, sa~n~na dukkha, sankhara > dukkha, vi~n~na.na.m dukkha.m > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta- > Nikaya/Samyutta3/21%20Khandha%20Samyutta/01-02-Aniccavaggo-p.htm > > Could you find the corresponding passage in Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's > translation? I don't have the text with me at the moment. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't have it handy either. But the Pali is straightforward: It says "Material form, monks, is unsatisfactory, feelings are unsatisfactory, recognition is unsatisfactory, fabrications are unsatisfactory, consciousness is unsatisfactory." There is nothing in this that I find surprising. It is true, as I see it, that, for several reasons, including their impermanence, their being impersonal, their being ungraspable, and their being uncontrollable, none of the khandhas are sources of satisfaction, and clinging to them and seeking satisfaction in them produces only suffering. The "all" is not horrid, nor nauseating, nor worthy of aversion. It is simply not a source of satisfaction. Satisfaction is to be found in only in relinquishment. ------------------------------------------------------ > > Thank you. > > Metta, > Victor > =========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32312 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi again, Victor - In a message dated 4/19/04 12:45:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Upasaka writes: > Satisfaction is to be found in only in relinquishment. > =================== Please drop one occurrence of "in" - you may choose either! ;-) 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) 32313 From: Eznir Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:08pm Subject: Re: Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi Howard, H: In Abhidhamma, a so called paramattha dhamma is an actual experiential phenomenon/condition/event as opposed to so called pa~n~natti, E: To put it differently, the element of extension is paramattha dhamma and the material form derived from the element of extension, ie., earth, is a real concept. Or ear-consciousness(sound) is paramatha dhamma and "bell-sound" is a concept........ H: ....which are purely mental constructs and not direct and actual elements of experience. E: Bell-sound is a mental construct, the identification of the sound (real) as that of a bell(concept). H: Typically, a paramattha dhamma is viewed as never being a complex, but as an elementary, irreducible experiential phenomenon occuring during a discrete and delimited time interval. E: Ideally yes. H: Jack raised the issue of a bell sound being no more real than concepts. This was in response to my pointing out that a concept isn't a single phenomenon, but a complex sequence of events, mentally grouped together and dealt with as a unit. E: "A complex sequence of events", yes. [(1)There is the sound. (2)There is the bell. (3)There is what is not the bell. (4)There is the bell- sound. (5) There is what is not the bell-sound. (1) is in the present (this moment) and the rest (2),(3),(4)and (5)are past events that one has learnt over time. This is just a simplification of the things being considered when hearing the sound.] Like the identification of the sound as that of a bell, and not of any other thing, car, aircraft or whatever. And also the differentiation of each of these separately. H: Jack pointed out that "the arising and falling away of the sound of a bell ringing is no different than the arising and falling away of a thought of a tree." E: Strictly speaking "the sound" is ear-consciousness(understood as the sound when first heard), "of a bell ringing" thinking is involved to identify it as a bell, so concepts, dhammanupassana "the arising and falling away" in sympathy with ear-consciousness, is again dhammanupassana. H: He stated quite correctly that "a sound of a bell is no less or no more real than a thought of a tree." E: "a sound" is real. "a sound of a bell" is a concept. "a thought of a tree" is a concept. H: This has led me to thinking that the Abhidhammic notion of a paramattha dhamma (or an "ultimate reality") not being a complex, but being unitary and "discrete" or "momentary" may not be "quite right". It occurs to me that, for example, there might not actually be a single sound-event that does not consist of parts. Instead, the sound of a bell might well be a phenomenon that occurs across time as a fluctuating, varying, experiential event, so that impermanence may include not only cessation, but change! E: Didn't quite understand you. I think there is confusion here. Impermanence implies change. There is arising. There is disappearance. There is change while standing. Refer Sankhata Sutta Anguttara Nikaya III.47 H: If this is so, then the distinction between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natti (concepts/mind constructs) as it seems to be drawn by Abhidhamma would lose its force. E: This may have to be re-thought. H: Yet there still remains, I believe, a way of distinguishing between paramattha dhamma as an actual and direct element of experience and what is "concept only." What would be the criteria for identifying an apparent phenomenon as an actual one? I think that a critical criterion for a phenomenon being a paramattha dhamma is that it be experienced through a *single* sense door. E: Yes. I think in formal meditation, specially in vipassana mode, this is what is being attempted. One calls it "momentary concentration" when one is able to identify the inputs from the respective sense doors *singly* one by one, in the same sense you mean here, even though in a backdrop of inputs from other senses. But without distorting it(say, the sound), or identifying it with, say "the sound of a bell" for instance. Even if you do see that thought "the sound of a bell" one identifies it *singly*, as before, as that from the mind-door(as thinking, thinking). H: The ringing of a bell seems to satisfy this. E: Not wholly I think. See above. H: A melody, however, does not, because a melody is not just heard - to be a "melody" it must also be cognized through the mind door. To hear sound requires just the ear door, but to "hear" a melody requires the mind door as well. E: If one is not familiar with the melody, not ever heard it before (hence not cognized), like cacophonic noises which may sound melodious to people of a different culture or interest, then it satisfies. But in this case one might just start wondering what the noises are(mind-door on the sly!). H: Hardness, warmth, and bodily movement seem to satisfy this, all being experienced through the body door. E: Exactly. Here too one would identify different parts of the body, concepts slowly creeping in! With practice one trains the mind to see the four great elements, extension, cohesion, motion, heat and not "moving the leg", "adjusting postures" "back-pain" etc. H: Is this criterion of single-door experiencing necessary and sufficient? I welcome comments. E: The function of Concentration, the focus of attention, is to achieve this sense of Single-door experiencing. The degree to which this can be done determines the clarity of vision. Metta eznir 32314 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma Dear Andrea, Thank you for telling us about your background and interests. The Abhidhamma can help us to see conditions, and when we study it, it is good to see that it is not theory, right from the beginning. That is why it is useful to have discussions here in this forum. If one only reads it by oneself one may get mistaken about the real message of the Abhidhamma. Nina. op 18-04-2004 12:11 schreef eireen30 op eireen30@y...: > > Some day ago, I visited a retreat for a week, and the teacher have > had some discussions about buddhism and psychology, and so I came to > the Abhidhamma as basis for these field. 32315 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 0:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma Dear Nina, Andrea & All, Just back - Jon’s dashed off to his office as usual and I’m surrounded by an ‘ocean’ of chores to do (K.Sujin was referring to the ‘ocean of concepts’ we live in). Nina, you mentioned you’re off on a trek today, so I'm sending this in haste to wish you good weather and a pleasant time. Andrea, welcome to the list from me too - I’m very interested to read about your discussions relating to Abhidhamma during your retreat. Sounds unusual! Do you live in Europe? I hope this year is an easier one for you, mentally and physically. Links which I think Nina asked me to give you: Useful posts - just a small sample of the many helpful posts written here and put aside by the moderators - look under subject headings: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Back-up and search function for the list: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ Pali terminology assistance: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html Websites with Nina’s materials and lots of Abhidhamma: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ http://www.abhidhamma.org/ Andrea, as Nina has said, pls feel very free to ask any questions or add any comments, however basic they might seem. Good to see all the other contributions...I’ll be back when I have a little more time (and not so spaced out). I also hope others (locals or visitors) will add their impressions from the weekend of discussions. Metta, Sarah --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Andrea, > Thank you for telling us about your background and interests. The > Abhidhamma > can help us to see conditions, and when we study it, it is good to see > that > it is not theory, right from the beginning. That is why it is useful to > have > discussions here in this forum. If one only reads it by oneself one may > get > mistaken about the real message of the Abhidhamma. > Nina. 32316 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:38am Subject: Re: Video Games? Hi James, > James: There is no problem with being a teacher. I wouldn't mind > if, at times, you were my teacher. Many people in this group are at > times my teachers, either directly or indirectly. Perhaps, > sometimes, I am their teacher. However, in order for you to be my > teacher in this regard I need to have confidence in what you are > trying to teach me. Sukin: Yes, we can and do learn from many sources, not limiting ourselves to any `persons'. However, it seems to me that no one can be persuaded by logical reasoning or even by any evidence, since we usually agree with someone only if the view expressed happens to be one that at one level or the other, we already believe to be the case. So learning seems to be more like re-learning and reinforcing something we have learnt from don't know when. It so happens however, that in our case, wrong view has been accumulated to a much larger extent than right view. So unless we have had the good kamma of coming upon a group like DSG ;-), there is so much higher probability of the wrong views being reinforced hearing the `appropriate' ones that will lead us astray. This reminds me also, of how lobha also always tries to use any `knowledge' right or wrong, almost in the same way as it does any sense object. This is why intellectual right view is never enough; the firm understanding that all is in fact `unsatisfactory' must be achieved. You said in another post, that you believe that anyone who is involved in DSG is capable of achieving Stream Entry, I don't know. Some members seems to me to be not exactly getting it right, however the conditions being so complex that one does not know when what anyone says, can condition in another a turn toward the right direction. In this regard I therefore appreciate the moderators' and Nina's patience in trying to help others. James: > If you want to teach me that meditation is > wrong practice you would need to explain the reason why (I already > know about video games being a diversion and not Buddhist practice. > I have explained that. Don't jump on one thing and try to make a > federal case over it! ;-). So far your reasoning is like a sieve- > it doesn't hold anything. It may look solid from far away but up > close I can see that it is full of holes. ;-)) Sukin: Well, I have to acknowledge and admit my great ignorance and as yet very weak understanding. But like I said above, who knows what anyone says, may be the right condition to change another's mind, so I keep trying. ;-) The holes will definitely be there always, it may however be the case that your own panna might do the extra job of filling in those holes. ;-) I think this is generally the case anyway, the `good friend' being in the ultimate sense, one's own accumulated panna. > Sukin: But I am curious, when you say "Why would I listen to you as > my teacher if you cannot acknowledge reality?" > How have you come to this conclusion about my not acknowledging > reality? > > James: Because you state that formal meditation is wrong practice. > This is not acknowledging reality because the Buddha taught that it > is right practice on numerous occasions and in numerous ways. Sukin: Even if he did teach formal meditation, wouldn't that still be just `concept'? Denying formal practice may reflect a lack of true understanding of the Teachings on my part, however ultimately in principle, isn't the practice supposed to lead to insighting namas and rupas arising now? And even if I have never had insight into nama or rupa, I do at least acknowledge them, no? ;-) James: > Granted, not all forms of meditation are right practice and > sometimes people practice the wrong thing, but that isn't reason to > declare all meditation practice wrong. As the saying goes, "There > is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater" ;-)). Not > all meditation practice is wrong, or dirty. There is a pretty > simple rule to follow: Meditation should only be done to gain wisdom > and release. Meditation is gain supernormal powers is wrong. > Meditation is gain ecstatic states is wrong. Meditation to contact > deva, ghost, or hell realms is wrong. Meditation to align or > strengthen your chakras is wrong. Meditation to become physically > beautiful is wrong. Meditation to cure physical disease is wrong. > Etc. I do not do wrong meditation so I do not believe that you are > dealing in reality. I clearly know the difference between right and > wrong meditation; you do not. That is why I say you do not > acknowledge reality. Sukin: I have no problems with any of those `other' meditation practice. In fact when they claim to lead to supernatural powers, or ecstatic states, kundalini, curing physical disease and so on, I have no reason not to believe them. My concern is with getting at `Right View', with conditioning `Satipatthana'. Here, with my present understanding of conditionality and anatta, I become increasingly convinced that `deliberate doing' this or that practice, even in the present moment of *trying* to feel hardness, hearing sound, being aware of rising and falling of thoughts, etc. as being aspects of silabattaparamasa. > Sukin: Do you acknowledge reality? If so, what are those realities > according to you? > > James: Yes, I acknowledge reality-as much as I am able to (Those > around me tell me that I am more based in reality than just about > anyone they know! ;-)). Sukin: Those around you!!?? Some of the innumerable worldlings? ;-) James: > Reality and `realities' are two different > things. To use a simile, if all you can see are the puzzle pieces > but not the puzzle they form when together, you do not acknowledge reality. Sukin: Yes, Nina's response to Philip and a couple of other posts are reminders about the error of being too carried away by the concept of `ultimate realities' at the expense of everyday conventional ones. One might be too critical of the conventional world and miss seeing lessons in Dhamma in everyday concepts. I agree, and I do feel less and less aversive reaction to concepts. However, Nina's understanding is way above mine, her being comfortable with conventional reality is precisely because the level of wisdom she has gained from understanding ultimate realties, causes her to be less and less misled. I on the other hand do get swayed quite easily, so I don't think being more cautious will hurt that much. ;-) Metta, Sukin. 32317 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:24am Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Sukin, Thank you for the post. I am not quite sure how to respond because you don't seem to be addressing me directly. It is more like you are `thinking out loud' in my general direction ;-)). I am going to take a few observations you have stated, which I consider important, and respond to them. I am not sure where this conversation is supposed to be heading but I might as well give it a try: Sukin: However, it seems to me that no one can be persuaded by logical reasoning or even by any evidence, since we usually agree with someone only if the view expressed happens to be one that at one level or the other, we already believe to be the case. James: I don't agree that everyone is this way. The Buddha taught that there are people who are like `empty vessels' which can then be filled with new ideas. Granted, not the majority of people are this way, but some people are this way. Sukin: You said in another post, that you believe that anyone who is involved in DSG is capable of achieving Stream Entry, I don't know. Some members seems to me to be not exactly getting it right James: One doesn't have to get it `exactly right' to achieve Stream Entry. Stream Entry is a very low level and there is a lot more to achieve after that. Be more specific as to why you think members aren't `getting it right', and I will be more specific as to why I think they are. Sukin: Even if he [the Buddha] did teach formal meditation, wouldn't that still be just `concept'? Denying formal practice may reflect a lack of true understanding of the Teachings on my part, however ultimately in principle, isn't the practice supposed to lead to insighting namas and rupas arising now? And even if I have never had insight into nama or rupa, I do at least acknowledge them, no? ;-) James: Sukin, I don't understand what you mean. What do you mean that meditation is just `concept'? What does that mean? `Namas' and `Rupas' are just concepts also. As soon as you write `nama' and `rupa', as soon as you think `nama' and `rupa' you have entered the world of concepts. [I'm reminded of the old Dr. Pepper jingle, changed a little ;-)): "I'm a concept, you're a concept, he's a concept, she's a concept. Wouldn't you like to be a concept too??" LOL!]. Sukin: Here, with my present understanding of conditionality and anatta, I become increasingly convinced that `deliberate doing' this or that practice, even in the present moment of *trying* to feel hardness, hearing sound, being aware of rising and falling of thoughts, etc. as being aspects of silabattaparamasa. James: Aspects of WHAT? Speak English, please. Sukin: I on the other hand do get swayed quite easily, so I don't think being more cautious will hurt that much. ;-) James: What are you afraid of? You're afraid of concepts?? I don't understand how you could possibly be afraid of such a thing. Conceptaphobia?? ;-)) Metta, James 32318 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor (and Larry), > Larry: This craving, clinging, and not understanding is also just a > flicker, and it's gone. > > > Victor: Oh?? Where did it go? Victor, I think what Larry means is that the craving, clinging, and not understanding, when they arise do so only to fall away immediately, followed by other states, perhaps wholesome ones. Do you agree with this? > Larry: You can see this directly for yourself. > > > Victor: Thanks, but no thanks. Are you saying Victor, that they cannot be seen, even if not so clearly in the beginning? > Larry: I recommend you start with page 1 and read the whole thing. > > > Victor: Is there anything written in Visuddhimagga about self-view > that is not found in the discourses? Do you think it is so plain, simple and easy to understand, what is written in the Suttas? Do you think the Theras' tradition of writing commentaries was wrong and could have been done without? > Metta, > Victor Metta, Sukin. 32319 From: Ken O Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati: Full-Body or Nose-Door ??? Hi old_dead_wood and Chris I not a practitionar of meditation, I only said that pay attention to all the six senses when they arise. As long as you are awake, you cannot escape from it. If you can pay attention to them when they arise and when they cease and knowing then as not me, I or myself, that what I called meditation. So I dont recommended paying any attention to nostril or stream, I only recommended the attention of right here and now of the six senses. In fact if you practise the living moment, every sense door is the door to practise, the door to enlightement. Furthermore, no one can choose whether they wish not to enter certain mind stream, why, because all are anatta, so we do not the power to say, let my thoughts be thus or not thus. Ken O 32320 From: Ken O Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi old_dead_wood to know whether there are rebirths or not, one simply look at one surronding. The changing of seasons, in spring, the sprout of flowers, the buzzing of bees etc, then in winter, the wither of the flower, the sound of the winter wind etc, have shown, all impermanent objects renew themselves for endless cycles, they die and they rebirth again in that sense. These are experiences one can truly see and experience. If there is no rebirth, then this world will be a chaotic world since there is no punishment for bad deeds so why bother to do good then. This is the logic one can think whether there is rebirth Ken O 32321 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi Howard, Thank you for your reply. So the Buddha did teach that Rupa.m dukkha.m, vedana dukkha, sa~n~na dukkha, sankhara dukkha, vi~n~na.na.m dukkha.m, If the Buddha spoke unfavorably about the five khandhas *affected by clinging*, did he also speak unfavorably about the five khandhas? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 4/18/04 8:14:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > Please check the following passage: > > > > Rupa.m bhikkhave, dukkha.m, vedana dukkha, sa~n~na dukkha, sankhara > > dukkha, vi~n~na.na.m dukkha.m > > > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta- > > Nikaya/Samyutta3/21%20Khandha%20Samyutta/01-02-Aniccavaggo-p.htm > > > > Could you find the corresponding passage in Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's > > translation? I don't have the text with me at the moment. > > > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't have it handy either. But the Pali is straightforward: It says > "Material form, monks, is unsatisfactory, feelings are unsatisfactory, > recognition is unsatisfactory, fabrications are unsatisfactory, consciousness is > unsatisfactory." > There is nothing in this that I find surprising. It is true, as I see > it, that, for several reasons, including their impermanence, their being > impersonal, their being ungraspable, and their being uncontrollable, none of the > khandhas are sources of satisfaction, and clinging to them and seeking > satisfaction in them produces only suffering. > The "all" is not horrid, nor nauseating, nor worthy of aversion. It is > simply not a source of satisfaction. Satisfaction is to be found in only in > relinquishment. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Thank you. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > =========================== > With metta, > Howard 32322 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma Hi, Sarah (and Andrea) - In a message dated 4/19/04 3:10:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Andrea, welcome to the list from me too - I’m very interested to read > about your discussions relating to Abhidhamma during your retreat. Sounds > unusual! ======================== A welcome from me also, a fellow list member, Andrea. Yes, Sarah, it is unusual to have Abhidhamma discussions at a retreat (a meditation retreat, I presume). Coincidentally, though, next Sunday I'll be spending my birthday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at a (one-day) "meditation retreat" in Manhattan conducted by a Theravadin meditation teacher, Andrew Olendzki, who is very much Abhidhamma-oriented, and who teaches long retreats relating Abhidhamma to meditation. You might find the description of the "retreat" interesting, so I copy it here from the NY Insight web site: ___________________________ Satipatthana: 108 Mental Objects Andrew Olendzki A comprehensive review of the fourth foundation of mindfulness as described in the Foundations of Mindfulness Discourse (Satipatthana Sutta). This workshop goes systematically through each of the 108 objects of meditation found in this classical textbook on insight meditation, in both analytic (reading, talking, discussing) and experiential (meditation) modes. The subjects covered include the hindrances, aggregates, sense spheres, factors of awakening, and the noble truths. This may not be the way most people are used to practicing insight meditation, but it is the way the Buddha described how to do it in the classical textual tradition. Meditation experience is recommended. ========================== 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) 32323 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains In a message dated 4/16/04 11:27:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: I'm still curious as to sufficient (and necessary) criteria for an apparent element of experience, whether mental or physical, to be actual (i.e., a paramattha dhamma). So far I'm aware of two apparently necessary criteria: 1) It is experienced via single sense door, and 2) It is continuous in time (i.e., not occurring off and on, with other phenomena interspersed). Howard and all, How is a thought/concept as object of attention different than a thought/concept arising from an object of attention that comes from one of the 5 physical senses? I think I know this but I got confused over the weekend about the basic workings of the Abhidhamma. jack 32324 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma In a message dated 4/19/04 6:24:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: Coincidentally, though, next Sunday I'll be spending my birthday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at a (one-day) "meditation retreat" in Manhattan conducted by a Theravadin meditation teacher, Andrew Olendzki, who is very much Abhidhamma-oriented, and who teaches long retreats relating Abhidhamma to meditation. Howard, I hope to hear more about this after you have attended this retreat. Jack 32325 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/19/04 9:13:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Thank you for your reply. So the Buddha did teach that > > Rupa.m dukkha.m, vedana dukkha, sa~n~na dukkha, sankhara > dukkha, vi~n~na.na.m dukkha.m, > > If the Buddha spoke unfavorably about the five khandhas *affected by > clinging*, did he also speak unfavorably about the five khandhas? > > Metta, > Victor > ========================== I think that my reply was reasonably clear, and there really isn't a need for it to be restated into a formulation that is particularly suitable for drawing a desired conclusion. I said that the five khandhas are not sources of satisfaction for sentient beings, that only relinquishment is. I abide by that. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32326 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma In a message dated 4/19/04 6:44:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: I said that the five khandhas are not sources of satisfaction for sentient beings, that only relinquishment is. I abide by that. Howard and all, My view is that the 5 khandhas are also the source (vehicle) for peace and happiness. That is, the human realm, says the Buddha, is the best place for enlightenment as opposed to the heavenly realm. I interpret the human realm as one's having the 5 khandhas while in the heavenly realm one does not. This is not contrary to your statement above. 32327 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Jack - In a message dated 4/19/04 9:28:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jackhat1@a... writes: > How is a thought/concept as object of attention different than a > thought/concept arising from an object of attention that comes from one of > the 5 physical > senses? I think I know this but I got confused over the weekend about the > basic workings of the Abhidhamma. > > jack > ======================= As I see it, the difference is the following: An object of attention arising through any sense door - a *paramatthic* object, that is, such as hardness or pleasantness or a surge of fear - is a single phenomenon, whereas this is not the case for what we usually call an idea or thought or concept. While we seem to think that such a concept is a single mind-door phenomenon, I don't think it really is, but is instead a complex mind-door process composed of a multitude of phenomena. To be explicit - when we seem to have the thought of "a tree", an apparently single mental object, what has really happened is that a series of tree-images, recognitions, associated memories, internalized sounds that form"namings" etc have arisen, topped off by an act of mental grouping-as-a-unit and the possible application of the labeling of "tree". 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) 32328 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains In a message dated 4/19/04 7:10:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: To be explicit - when we seem to have the thought of "a tree", an apparently single mental object, what has really happened is that a series of tree-images, recognitions, associated memories, internalized sounds that form"namings" etc have arisen, topped off by an act of mental grouping-as-a-unit and the possible application of the labeling of "tree". Howard, Yes but when I meditate, at times, "tree" becomes just a thought arising and passing away. There is more "thought-ness" than "tree-ness" if that makes any sense. This seems different than my looking out the window and deciding that there is a tree there. "Tree" as object of meditation does not seem to have to have images, memories, etc. This seems analogous to a bell, at times, just being a sound. Seeing in the seeing being the same as thinking in the thinking. Of course, what I think could be the case might not be. I think part of my problem is that I have somewhat learned to deconstruct my physical situation into ultimates through practice at many material 4-element meditations. I can, though very imperfectly and clumsily, see some cetasikas arise along with physical objects of meditation. But, a thought as object arising and falling away seems different. I can't deconstruct it. jack 32329 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains In a message dated 4/19/2004 7:09:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > As I see it, the difference is the following: An object of attention > arising through any sense door - a *paramatthic* object, that is, such as > hardness or pleasantness or a surge of fear - is a single phenomenon, > whereas this > is not the case for what we usually call an idea or thought or concept. > While > we seem to think that such a concept is a single mind-door phenomenon, I > don't > think it really is, but is instead a complex mind-door process composed of a > > multitude of phenomena. To be explicit - when we seem to have the thought of > > "a tree", an apparently single mental object, what has really happened is > that > a series of tree-images, recognitions, associated memories, internalized > sounds that form"namings" etc have arisen, topped off by an act of mental > grouping-as-a-unit and the possible application of the labeling of "tree". > > With metta, > Howard > Hi Howard My feeling is that this whole topic on Paramattha dhamma's is more or less a "non-issue." There really is no stress whatsoever in the suttas where the Buddha makes an issue out of it. If one wants to try to make an issue out of it by reading things into the suttas, as some abhidhammists have, that's the only way it becomes an issue. I feel its an intellectual "sidetrack" at best... and a distraction to the real issues of breaking free from attachment. Just thought I'd run that by you and see what you thought. TG 32330 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:41am Subject: Re: Video Games? Hi James, > Sukin: However, it seems to me that no one can be persuaded by > logical reasoning or even by any evidence, since we usually agree > with someone only if the view expressed happens to be one that at > one level or the other, we already believe to be the case. > > James: I don't agree that everyone is this way. The Buddha taught > that there are people who are like `empty vessels' which can then be > filled with new ideas. Granted, not the majority of people are this > way, but some people are this way. Sukin: I am not sure which part of the Teachings you are referring to about the `empty vessels', but isn't it true that we all have traveled through samsara over countless lifetimes, hence the accumulated 'views'? A new born baby and a seasoned old man have little difference in terms of accumulated views, isn't it? Only difference is in the ability to communicate based on conventional realities and the corresponding verbal designations? > Sukin: You said in another post, that you believe that anyone who is > involved in DSG is capable of achieving Stream Entry, I don't know. > Some members seems to me to be not exactly getting it right > > James: One doesn't have to get it `exactly right' to achieve Stream > Entry. Stream Entry is a very low level and there is a lot more to > achieve after that. Be more specific as to why you think members > aren't `getting it right', and I will be more specific as to why I > think they are. Sukin: I think, Stream Entry is what requires the more than quantum leap, after that one flows along, no? Regarding 'not getting it right', I think there are so many aspects of it that it would be difficult for me to recall and to list them. I think you have seen through reading the various posts here, where the NAG differ from the FPG(Formal Practice Group). One basic outcome of that difference is in what NAG and FPG imply. If you wish we can discuss what it means to practice?! > Sukin: Even if he [the Buddha] did teach formal meditation, wouldn't > that still be just `concept'? Denying formal practice may reflect a > lack of true understanding of the Teachings on my part, however > ultimately in principle, isn't the practice supposed to lead to > insighting namas and rupas arising now? And even if I have never had > insight into nama or rupa, I do at least acknowledge them, no? ;-) > > James: Sukin, I don't understand what you mean. What do you mean > that meditation is just `concept'? What does that mean? `Namas' > and `Rupas' are just concepts also. As soon as you write `nama' > and `rupa', as soon as you think `nama' and `rupa' you have entered > the world of concepts. Sukin: This is another area where I think the NAG has stressed again and again, i.e. the need to differentiate between concept and reality. And note, I said `formal' meditation and not just `meditation'. In my own case, by the time there is even any awareness of an experience, be it through the sense or mind door, it is always already concept, long before any recognizing or naming. When and if there is direct experience, it would be satipatthana of a much developed level, I think. However, in speaking about this distinction between concept and reality and identifying the latter, verbal designation such as citta, cetasikas and rupa are used. These are `concepts' at this level, however they point to `realities' which *do* exist in the ultimate sense. These contrasts with designation such as `man' or `I', these are unreal and never exist anywhere. And this is the distinction that I try to make. So in the concept of `formal practice', the concept implies a conventional activity bounded by time and space and an illusory self, all of which are mind projected and can never be found in actual experience, though ignorance may label such activities as actual and real. `Meditation' itself may refer to the actual moment when sati arises to experience a reality. However, this cannot be the outcome of deliberate looking, as this looking is with tanha (desire) and if this is consequence of a deliberate `planned' activity, such as `formal meditation', then there is an added layer of `self-view'. It is less a problem if one slips every now and then and from greed try to have mindfulness; in fact it must be so since we have accumulated so much greed, but then we also have good friends to remind us every now and then about the correct practice. It is harder when one *believes* in it, i.e. `formal deliberate looking'. And this may be a result of comparing the moments of what is experienced and understood during formal practice with non-practice times. There must be such a difference! However, this may not be what the Buddha had in mind when he taught us about Dhamma. Allow me to illustrate. In normal everyday life if we are aware, we would know when there is any awareness, that the rest of the time is all ignorance. Sometimes upon hindsight one can know that the ignorance is accompanied with lobha, sometimes with ditthi, with dosa, or with mana, in other words, 99.99% of the times it is akusala of one kind or the other. But then within a very short time when one starts to practice formally, there is a sense of `knowing' or `being aware' of experiences one following the other, in long stretches. Is it reasonable to think this to be `sati'?! Does it so easily come about, especially in light of the fact that not too long ago it was *all* ignorance!!? I think some of us NAG members; have experienced some sati uncalled for. This has indicated to us that sati lasts only for an instant followed by much thinking *and* many, many moments of ignorance and other akusala. The difference qualitatively between moments of sati and no sati is to some extent known. It is also not just through inference that `deliberate doing' is seen to be different from these moments of sati. And `self' via tanha, mana and ditthi is recognized, though only vaguely, when there is any `trying' to be mindful. The attraction to formal practice seems to lie in the apparent difference from the moments of non-practice. But in my estimation, this is an exercise in avijja and is the ideal feeding ground for Mara. Also mana and ditthi grows here. Hope you don't mind the directness. ;-) > Sukin: Here, with my present understanding of conditionality and > anatta, I become increasingly convinced that `deliberate doing' this > or that practice, even in the present moment of *trying* to feel > hardness, hearing sound, being aware of rising and falling of > thoughts, etc. as being aspects of silabattaparamasa. > > James: Aspects of WHAT? Speak English, please. Sukin: Sorry, I thought you would know this by now. This term refers broadly to `adherence to rites and rituals' and I include `formal practice' in this. > Sukin: I on the other hand do get swayed quite easily, so I don't > think being more cautious will hurt that much. ;-) > > James: What are you afraid of? You're afraid of concepts?? I don't > understand how you could possibly be afraid of such a thing. > Conceptaphobia?? ;-)) Sukin: :-) You are right, it is a silly statement. There is no `I' to be afraid of any `concept'. There is either ignorance and wrong view or there is not. What I however wanted to stress is that, with the still weak discriminative ability, "explanations" of all sorts, be they scientific or philosophical will often easily put me off track. For example, my understanding of rupa is still extremely vague and weak. On the other hand, I have been brought up to view materiality the scientific way, which is quite different from the Buddha's understanding. So if I were to read some science book, I may start to be drawn further away from any `real' understanding of rupa. Besides, on a more fundamental level, ignorance happens well before any recognition of `thing' and `events'. The signs and details are good objects for ignorance. And so if our views are not made straight, at least intellectually, ignorance will easily condition wrong view of self and the Buddha's teachings would then be taken as a `thing to do'. Sorry for the abrupt ending James, time I went up to sleep. :-( Metta, Sukin 32331 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains In a message dated 4/19/04 9:35:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: My feeling is that this whole topic on Paramattha dhamma's is more or less a "non-issue." There really is no stress whatsoever in the suttas where the Buddha makes an issue out of it. If one wants to try to make an issue out of it by reading things into the suttas, as some abhidhammists have, that's the only way it becomes an issue. I feel its an intellectual "sidetrack" at best... and a distraction to the real issues of breaking free from attachment. Just thought I'd run that by you and see what you thought. TG, In my practice some of it is very important and I think supported by the suttas. An example, is my 4-element meditation which attempts to break my physical experience into paramattha dhammas. A sutta explains it as analogous to a butcher cutting a cow into meat. As he spreads the cow parts around, they cease being part of a cow and become parts of meat. Just so, my sense of an "I" sitting on a cushion mediating (somewhat) ceases to become an "I" and becomes impersonal hardness, coolness,etc. At times during other meditations, thoughts and emotions also become impersonal, without an "I". jack 32332 From: connie Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 0:45pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Ken O and old_dead_wood, I wonder if we can really say to look at seasons or plants to confirm rebirth since those wouldn't have either life faculty or kamma. For myself, it makes sense that there is the momentary life cycle of each thought moment and that life is really only that long; or to think that the conventional rebirth is like waking from a dream as we do each new day. Why would the rules change at the physical end of life-span death (given that I can't say I know there is no more rebirth for me)? peace, connie 32333 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:59pm Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Sukin, Sukin: I am not sure which part of the Teachings you are referring to about the `empty vessels', but isn't it true that we all have traveled through samsara over countless lifetimes, hence the accumulated 'views'? James: No. Sukin: A new born baby and a seasoned old man have little difference in terms of accumulated views, isn't it? James: No. Sukin: Only difference is in the ability to communicate based on conventional realities and the corresponding verbal designations? James: No. Sukin: I think, Stream Entry is what requires the more than quantum leap, after that one flows along, no? James: No. Sukin: If you wish we can discuss what it means to practice?! James: No. Nothing to discuss: follow the Eightfold Path. Sukin: But then within a very short time when one starts to practice formally, there is a sense of `knowing' or `being aware' of experiences one following the other, in long stretches. Is it reasonable to think this to be `sati'?! James: Yes. Sukin: Does it so easily come about, especially in light of the fact that not too long ago it was *all* ignorance!!? James: Yes. Sukin: The attraction to formal practice seems to lie in the apparent difference from the moments of non-practice. But in my estimation, this is an exercise in avijja and is the ideal feeding ground for Mara. Also mana and ditthi grows here. Hope you don't mind the directness. ;-) James: That is directness? I think I need to give you some lessons in `directness'! LOL! ;-)) Sukin: Sorry, I thought you would know this by now. James: Other than the basic Pali vocabulary, I refuse to learn more advanced Pali vocabulary. I find its use in this type of forum pretentious. Sukin: This term refers broadly to `adherence to rites and rituals' and I include `formal practice' in this. James: Why do you include `formal meditation practice' in this category? That doesn't make any sense. Adherence to rites and rituals is the superstitious belief that doing certain actions will purify oneself, regardless of the reasons of apparent consequences of those actions. For example, during the Buddha's time there were several ascetics who would wash themselves in the river Ganges three times a day to purify themselves; some ascetics would keep various fires burning to purify themselves. This is supersititious behavior that has no basis in reality. Meditation does not fall into this category!! It has a reason and a measurable outcome which matches the reason! It is logical and makes sense. The Buddha taught for the practitioner to sit crosslegged, with the back straight, and to bring mindfulness to the fore. Then the practitioner was to develop vipassana, jhana, or brahama-viharas. What exactly do you see that is superstitious in this behavior? Sukin: And so if our views are not made straight, at least intellectually, ignorance will easily condition wrong view of self and the Buddha's teachings would then be taken as a `thing to do'. James: The Buddha's teachings are `a thing to do'. They aren't pure philosophy to just think about and ponder. The Buddha asked his disciples to be diligent in their effort. If you don't think that the Buddha's teachings are a `thing to do' how do you explain the Vinaya Pitaka? It lists 227 different `things to do' for a monk. Metta, James 32334 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana - Rebirth with genetic Info. Hi, All, My reasoning is: 1. the case of people (like historic figures - Beethoven, Mozart, etc), who exhibited prodigial talents from birth. The prerequisite being - you must first believe firmly in 'Cause & Effect', something no one should dispute because it is all very clear-cut. Okay, with that squared away and firm, we can proceed to say, why ? some people like - Mozart or Beethoven got complex skills with no visible/discernible cause of being taught or tutored. Why ? some infant born with physical deformities, with no cause of it that make them ('most likely, though) suffer from such handicap. All these causes are hidden somewhere -->-> in previous live(s). Remember, we always believe there is a cause to any effect. Now, I have a nagging question. Some 30+ years ago, we have a house guest - a very tall, big framed caucasian back in my oriental home country. I call him a 'caucasian', which he denied, saying he is Chinese, but he does not look like at all. Not a bit. He is blonde or red head. I was later told by his uncle (who has no religion at the time), his mum (a wife of a rich man in a rural village) had a dream in which 2 British pilots (during World War II) appeared to ask for rebirth with her. She told her husband of the dream but was taken lightly. When she had a baby, her husband was extremely furious because the infant has total 'caucasian look'. The wife did a 'I told you so' but no one believed her. She said now the dream was true, she said - then the 2nd one will be like that also. Her husband put her under 'total' surveillance with a lot of maid/servants and confined her only inside the house - a House arrest. Because of small town (Everyone knows everyone) compounded with being an instant celebrity, all eyes were on her. Every of her movements was watched. Sure enough, the 2nd one also was a 'caucasian'. I only saw one of the two, though. Now my question is why the 'genetic information' got passed and came with the rebirth. I wonder if anyone can help me find an explanation. One of my friends suggested maybe she still was able to fool around for a second child. I do not think so because of such celebrity status and small town settings and lots of maids / servants environment in a rich family in oriental country. I do not think so. Anyone can understand what I mean, if you had lived or stayed in such environment. But I do not totally rule out that possibility. She could be lucky. How about the cases of - quite many stories of kids talking about their previous lives with verifiable names, spouses, home towns, even hidden treasures got dug out revealed by 1 or 2 years old kids! ? One such case was featured on Channel 2 or 4 or 7, forgot which one. About a kid talking about his previous life as a US pilot shot down by Japanese, some 60 years ago! Info verified as correct by his father! Thanks, All. Eddie --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Larry, > > I used to have doubt about whether there is round of > rebirth. How [snipped...] > and the Teaching. > > Metta, > Victor 32335 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, TG - In a message dated 4/19/2004 12:31:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458 writes: > > In a message dated 4/19/2004 7:09:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, > upasaka@a... writes: > > > As I see it, the difference is the following: An object of attention > > arising through any sense door - a *paramatthic* object, that is, such as > > hardness or pleasantness or a surge of fear - is a single phenomenon, > > whereas this > > is not the case for what we usually call an idea or thought or concept. > > While > > we seem to think that such a concept is a single mind-door phenomenon, I > > don't > > think it really is, but is instead a complex mind-door process composed of a > > > > multitude of phenomena. To be explicit - when we seem to have the thought of > > > > "a tree", an apparently single mental object, what has really happened is > > that > > a series of tree-images, recognitions, associated memories, internalized > > sounds that form"namings" etc have arisen, topped off by an act of mental > > grouping-as-a-unit and the possible application of the labeling of "tree". > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > > Hi Howard > > My feeling is that this whole topic on Paramattha dhamma's is more or less a > "non-issue." > There really is no stress whatsoever in the suttas where the Buddha makes an > issue out of it. If one wants to try to make an issue out of it by reading > things into the suttas, as some abhidhammists have, that's the only way it > becomes an issue. I feel its an intellectual "sidetrack" at best... and a > distraction to the real issues of breaking free from > attachment. > > Just thought I'd run that by you and see what you thought. > > TG ============================= I agree that the Buddha didn't explicitly make the paramattha dhamma vs pa~n~natti distinction in the suttas. However, he said that all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything there is partakes of only one of these domains. Thus the Buddha countenanced only paramattha dhammas in the suttas. (A tree, being able to be seen, touched, heard (leaves rustling), smelled, etc, falls into none of these categories, and is, thus, according to the Buddha in the suttas, not a part of "the all". Pointing out that what the Buddha did countenance as existing does not at all consist of the usual inventory of worldly "objects" is, IMO, an extremely important zeroing in on a fundamental and central aspect of the Dhamma. With metta, Howard 32336 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Jack - In a message dated 4/19/2004 12:31:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jackhat1 writes: > In a message dated 4/19/04 7:10:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... > writes: > To be explicit - when we seem to have the thought of > "a tree", an apparently single mental object, what has really happened is > that > a series of tree-images, recognitions, associated memories, internalized > sounds that form"namings" etc have arisen, topped off by an act of mental > grouping-as-a-unit and the possible application of the labeling of "tree". > Howard, > > Yes but when I meditate, at times, "tree" becomes just a thought arising and > passing away. There is more "thought-ness" than "tree-ness" if that makes any > sense. This seems different than my looking out the window and deciding that > there is a tree there. > "Tree" as object of meditation does not seem to have to have images, > memories, etc. This seems analogous to a bell, at times, just being a sound. Seeing in > the seeing being the same as thinking in the thinking. Of course, what I > think could be the case might not be. > > I think part of my problem is that I have somewhat learned to deconstruct my > physical situation into ultimates through practice at many material 4-element > meditations. I can, though very imperfectly and clumsily, see some cetasikas > arise along with physical objects of meditation. But, a thought as object > arising and falling away seems different. I can't > deconstruct it. > > jack ============================= I *do* understand what you mean. It isn't different fo me most of the time. but I do think that that a more "microscopic" look would allow for that deconstruction. Of course I could well be wrong in this. With metta, Howard 32337 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Howard and TG, TG, well said! Sadhu! Howard, please check the idea "all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything there is partakes of only one of these domains." against the following passage Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist [1] went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?" "'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." "Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?" "'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Oneness?" "'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Manyness?" "'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering. in Samyutta Nikaya XII.48 Lokayatika Sutta The Cosmologist http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-048.html Please also check note [2] 2. "Everything" may also be translated as "the All." Concerning this term, SN XXXV.23 says, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This is termed the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his assertion, would be unable to explain, and furthermore would be put to grief. Why is that? Because it lies beyond range." For more on this topic, see The Mind Like Fire Unbound, Chapter 1. Please note that Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, TG - > > In a message dated 4/19/2004 12:31:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458 writes: > [snip] > > Hi Howard > > > > My feeling is that this whole topic on Paramattha dhamma's is more or less a > > "non-issue." > > There really is no stress whatsoever in the suttas where the Buddha makes an > > issue out of it. If one wants to try to make an issue out of it by reading > > things into the suttas, as some abhidhammists have, that's the only way it > > becomes an issue. I feel its an intellectual "sidetrack" at best... and a > > distraction to the real issues of breaking free from > > attachment. > > > > Just thought I'd run that by you and see what you thought. > > > > TG > ============================= > I agree that the Buddha didn't explicitly make the paramattha dhamma vs pa~n~natti distinction in the suttas. However, he said that all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything there is partakes of only one of these domains. Thus the Buddha countenanced only paramattha dhammas in the suttas. (A tree, being able to be seen, touched, heard (leaves rustling), smelled, etc, falls into none of these categories, and is, thus, according to the Buddha in the suttas, not a part of "the all". Pointing out that what the Buddha did countenance as existing does not at all consist of the usual inventory of worldly "objects" is, IMO, an extremely important zeroing in on a fundamental and central aspect of the Dhamma. > > With metta, > Howard 32338 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Victor - I'm sorry. I don't get your point in the following. I do understand dependent origination, the middle way, and emptiness, and I understand the Sabba Sutta, but I fail to understand the point you want to make. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/19/04 8:56:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard and TG, > > TG, well said! Sadhu! > > Howard, please check the idea > > "all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear > and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory > object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything > there is partakes of only one of these domains." > > against > > the following passage > > > Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist [1] went to the > Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. > After an exchange of friendly greetings &courtesies, he sat to one > side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, > then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?" > "'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." > > "Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?" > > "'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, > brahman." > > "Then is everything a Oneness?" > > "'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman." > > "Then is everything a Manyness?" > > "'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, > brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the > Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come > fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes > consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes > name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six > sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes > contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From > feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a > requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From > clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From > becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a > requisite condition, then aging &death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, > distress, &despair come into play. Such is the origination of this > entire mass of stress &suffering. > > > in > > Samyutta Nikaya XII.48 > Lokayatika Sutta > The Cosmologist > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-048.html > > Please also check note [2] > > > 2. "Everything" may also be translated as "the All." Concerning this > term, SN XXXV.23 says, "What is the All? Simply the eye &forms, ear > &sounds, nose &aromas, tongue &flavors, body &tactile > sensations, intellect &ideas. This is termed the All. Anyone who > would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if > questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his assertion, > would be unable to explain, and furthermore would be put to grief. > Why is that? Because it lies beyond range." For more on this topic, > see The Mind Like Fire Unbound, Chapter 1. > > > Please note that > > > Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via > the middle > > > Metta, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, TG - > > > >In a message dated 4/19/2004 12:31:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > TGrand458 writes: > > > [snip] > >>Hi Howard > >> > >>My feeling is that this whole topic on Paramattha dhamma's is > more or less a > >>"non-issue." > >>There really is no stress whatsoever in the suttas where the > Buddha makes an > >>issue out of it. If one wants to try to make an issue out of it > by reading > >>things into the suttas, as some abhidhammists have, that's the > only way it > >>becomes an issue. I feel its an intellectual "sidetrack" at > best... and a > >>distraction to the real issues of breaking free from > >>attachment. > >> > >>Just thought I'd run that by you and see what you thought. > >> > >>TG > >============================= > > I agree that the Buddha didn't explicitly make the paramattha > dhamma vs pa~n~natti distinction in the suttas. However, he said > that all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, > ear and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and > gustatory object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. > Everything there is partakes of only one of these domains. Thus the > Buddha countenanced only paramattha dhammas in the suttas. (A tree, > being able to be seen, touched, heard (leaves rustling), smelled, > etc, falls into none of these categories, and is, thus, according to > the Buddha in the suttas, not a part of "the all". Pointing out that > what the Buddha did countenance as existing does not at all consist > of the usual inventory of worldly "objects" is, IMO, an extremely > important zeroing in on a fundamental and central aspect of the > Dhamma. > > > >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) 32339 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Howard, It is OK. Now I would like to draw your attention to the connection between the following idea "all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything there is partakes of only one of these domains." and the Buddha's reply to the brahman cosmologist's question in the following passage Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist [1] went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings &courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?" "'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-048.html Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > I'm sorry. I don't get your point in the following. I do understand > dependent origination, the middle way, and emptiness, and I understand the Sabba > Sutta, but I fail to understand the point you want to make. > > With metta, > Howard 32340 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/19/04 10:58:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > It is OK. > > Now I would like to draw your attention to the connection between > the following idea > > "all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear > and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory > object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything > there is partakes of only one of these domains." > > and the Buddha's reply to the brahman cosmologist's question in the > following passage > > > Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist [1] went to the > Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. > After an exchange of friendly greetings &courtesies, he sat to one > side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, > then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?" > > "'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-048.html > > > Metta, > Victor > ===================== As I said, Victor, I understand the middle way of dependent origination. I understand that there are no self-existent dhammas, and I do not take paramattha dhammas to be self-existent, mrely ctually experienced. They are dependent, ephemeral phenomena which have no existence whatsoever *in and of themselves*. You have seen me talk against the notion of sabhava often, you should know that the Kaccayangotta sutta is one of my favorites, and I should think you would understand my position on this matter by now. Also, I would appreciate it, Victor, if, when you wish to make a point, you would make it straight out rather than throwing a few quotations at me and leaving it for me to deduce the teaching you hope to impart. For that matter, I think it would be far preferable if matters were discussed rather "teachings being imparted". 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) 32341 From: Eznir Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:53pm Subject: Re: Video Games? Dear Sukin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi James, > > > Sukin: > This is another area where I think the NAG has stressed again and > again, i.e. the need to differentiate between concept and reality. > And note, I said `formal' meditation and not just `meditation'. > In my own case, by the time there is even any awareness of an > experience, be it through the sense or mind door, it is always > already concept, long before any recognizing or naming. eznir: How can there be concepts, long before any recognizing or naming? I thought the Javana thought moments, where these concepts are fabricated, is the last to come just before the retentive thought moments, in the train of thoughts, am I right? Moreover, how can you say "recognizing and naming" when "naming" itself involves conceptualizing and still say there are concepts "long before recognizing or naming"? By the way, how does those in the NAG follow the Teachings of Lord Buddha as given in the Tripitaka in order to attain stream-entry let alone Nibbana? Please understand that I am only trying to comprehend the thought patterns that underlie this idea of non-action(ie, if NAG means Non-Action Group). Metta eznir 32342 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 0:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: the self. . . how ? #1. Dear Eznir, > I see that you have reviewed your post. I too did the same and wish > to say something about it. :-) > We seem to have discussed the dhamma from two different platforms, > Abhidhamma and The Suttas. Perhaps this may be the reason why our > views do not tally. It's like you are seated on top of a tall wall > with an admirable view and I, at the foot of this wall, peeping > through the crevices and discussing the same view. The Abhidhamma has been for me, a great help. But I am probably one of the least read in this group. At the top of the wall or at the foot of it, Abhidhamma or Sutta, the Dhamma is about everyday life. And here, there is no difference between your life and my own. Only the correct interpretation and application is required. As you say: > Our views should tally in an ultimate sense. It's just the > defilements that stands in the way. I hope we will one day overcome our defilements enough to come to agreement about the Dhamma. ;-) Metta, Sukin. 32343 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 0:01am Subject: Re: Video Games? Hi James, > James: Why do you include `formal meditation practice' in this > category? That doesn't make any sense. Adherence to rites and > rituals is the superstitious belief that doing certain actions will > purify oneself, regardless of the reasons of apparent consequences > of those actions. For example, during the Buddha's time there were > several ascetics who would wash themselves in the river Ganges three > times a day to purify themselves; some ascetics would keep various > fires burning to purify themselves. This is supersititious behavior > that has no basis in reality. Sukin: This is one aspect of it, but only the gross one. One may have for an instant had an experience, say jhana. And may have noticed that prior to that there was a nimita or something which was the object of citta. One then seeks to simulate the situation, perhaps experimenting or seeking guidance and then slowly developing the right conditions to achieve it. This is possible, because it requires the kind of panna which sees danger in sense objects and fixing the attention on a `conceptual' object. This object can be reproduced with practice. However when it comes to the perception and understanding of nama and rupa, it is altogether different. If indeed there has been a moment of satipatthana, one may like to have it again. The wanting may then seek to create a situation or believe in a practice which is supposed to get one there. So one has `clung' to some projected method, failing to appreciate the fact that `sati' is a conditioned reality and cannot be made to arise by following some conventional activity or even the lead of `volition'. In other words, if there is an idea of `doing something' to condition satipatthana, it is believe in a form of rules or ritual. James: > Meditation does not fall into this > category!! It has a reason and a measurable outcome which matches > the reason! It is logical and makes sense. The Buddha taught for > the practitioner to sit crosslegged, with the back straight, and to > bring mindfulness to the fore. Then the practitioner was to develop > vipassana, jhana, or brahama-viharas. What exactly do you see that > is superstitious in this behavior? Sukin: What does for example `sitting cross-legged' have anything to do with the arising of mindfulness? What is the causal connection? And `bringing mindfulness to the fore', is it so easily aroused? Or is volition so powerful in bringing about any desired state of mind? I understand that the experience during formal sitting appears different from the everyday activity of being caught in one sense or mind object or the other, like a monkey jumping here and there. But is it any less being `caught' when there is a sense of now being able to observe those activities more closely. Is there any awareness of the characteristic of ignorance, attachment, and aversion and such, i.e. independent of any `self' doing the noting? Is such kind of awareness in essence any different from generally being aware of one's experiences? Except for perhaps, attempting to relate them to the concept of Anatta and conditionality? Does the knowledge of the teachings validates the quality of experience or could it in fact be used to justify any wrong practice? Lobha can appear calm and peaceful like sati, is one mistaking one for the other? Panna is accompanied by detachment, why does one seek to continue sitting? For more sati and panna? Is one equally calm being interrupted during meditation or not having any chance to meditate at all? These are some questions that come to mind, what do you think? > James: The Buddha's teachings are `a thing to do'. They aren't pure > philosophy to just think about and ponder. The Buddha asked his > disciples to be diligent in their effort. If you don't think that > the Buddha's teachings are a `thing to do' how do you explain the > Vinaya Pitaka? It lists 227 different `things to do' for a monk. Sukin: The institution of the Bhikkhu is indeed an important outcome of the advent of the Buddha. The Buddha understood the full implications of such a life, and in the beginning, most if not all the bhikkhus lived perfectly without any rules. The rules were made as more and more `weaker' people joined the sangha who lived less perfect lives. However then, as it should be ideally now and forever, a person who joins the sangha, should have the panna enough not to follow these rules as `rules', but rather as `guide and reminder'. The monk should have enough panna to see the urgency of developing satipatthana all the time. These rules remind him about this fact and also about other forms of kusala. But since no one is perfect, the rules can and do help to wake the monk up. It is true that a monk, who by supporting conditions following the 227 rules perfectly, will outwardly appear no different from an arahat. And even though this would more likely be with a good level of panna, there is no guarantee that this will lead to enlightenment. The bhikkhu could have enough panna of the kind that sees danger in akusala of other kinds, but have little of the kind that sees danger in *ignorance* and seeks to eradicate it. Metta, Sukin. 32344 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 0:10am Subject: Re: The Question Still Remains Hi Jack, I am glad to see, as you told TG, that some of the Abhidhamma is very important to your practice. But there is no need for you to break your "physical experience into paramattha dhammas." The paramattha dhammas are already there. You explained: ---------------------- > As he spreads the cow parts around, they cease being part of a cow and become parts of meat. Just so, my sense of an "I" sitting on a cushion meditating (somewhat) ceases to become an "I" and becomes impersonal hardness, coolness, etc. At times during other meditations, thoughts and emotions also become impersonal, without an "I". ---------------------- It is not while they are being spread around that parts of meat become 'not cow,' they were 'not cow' to begin with. Similarly, it is not during meditations that thoughts and emotions become impersonal; they are impersonal (anatta) by their own inherent nature. Another characteristic of thoughts, emotions and all other conditioned dhammas is their fleetingness (anicca): they last less than a billionth of a second. No amount of quiet concentration can catch them. But again, they don't need to be caught. If understanding (panna) arises with them, then all the necessary mindfulness, effort and concentration is taken care of – long before the concept "this is a paramattha dhamma" can be conceived. What I am getting at is; before there can be satipatthana, you have to understand there is no self who can bring it about. Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jackhat1@a... wrote: > > In my practice some of it is very important and I think supported by the > suttas. An example, is my 4-element meditation which attempts to break my physical > experience into paramattha dhammas. A sutta explains it as analogous to a > butcher cutting a cow into meat. 32345 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:10pm Subject: The 6 Great Councils ! Friends: How were the actual Words of the Buddha preserved until today ? 'Ananda, the Dhamma & Vinaya explained & established, that itself shall be your teacher after my going beyond.' Councils where the Buddha's words were recited in large groups: ~year location: duration: comments: -483 Rajagaha 7 months I: 3 months after Buddhas death, 500 arahats assembled & recited the complete Dhamma & Vinaya as we know it today. Mahakassapa presided. Ananda & Upali answered. The earth trembled when finished. By that the Dhamma will last 5000 years. -383 Vesali 8 months II: ~ 100 years after Buddhas death 700 arahats assembled & unanimously rejected 10 schismatic Vinaya points: eg; whether monks can accept money. No disagreement about the Dhamma is recorded! The Elder Yasa presided. Since then, have no-one of the 227 rules guiding the life of bhikkhus, been called into question... -265 Patna 9 months III: ~218 years after Buddhas death Asoka became Emperor in India I8 years after his coronation he convened a council, where the Elder Tissa spoke the 7th AbhiDhamma book: Points of Controversy, thus refuting 218 controversial theories emerged among the 18 schools. -236 Sri Lanka Emperor Asoka send his Arahat son & daughter: The Elder Mahinda & the Bhikkhuni SanghaMitta to Sri Lanka. They convert the island to Buddhism & plant a sibling of the Bodhi Tree in Anuradhapura. -23 Sri Lanka, Aluvihare IV: Due to famine & war the monks decide to write down the Tipitaka on palm leaves in the Aluvihara cave temple still existing & working. This Tipitaka ~ 60 volumes is hereafter essentially unchanged... !!! The tradition says that it was engraved on gold-plates too, still hidden. 100 Kashmir, India King Kanishka. Text & Commentary is engraved on copper plates which hidden in a stupa is still undiscovered. 430 Sri Lanka During King Mahanama Buddhagosa translates the commentaries. ~ Sri Lanka Many centuries of Tipataka rehearsal twice yearly, North & South. 1165 Sri Lanka King Parakramabahu convenes Council in Polonaruwa. Tikas. 1477 Chaing Mai, Thailand King Tiloka convenes council and rehearse the entire Tipitaka text. 1788 Bangkok, Thailand King Rama I restores the Sangha & rehearses the Tipitaka text. 1868 Mandalay, Burma V: King Mindon-Min convenes council and rehearse the Tipitaka. The complete text is engraved on 729 stone slaps arranged around Kutho-Daw pagoda still standing. 1954-6 Rangoon, Burma VI: 6th Council: Chattasanghayana. International panel, The elder Revata presided. The complete text in many editions is critically compared, edited & printed. This canonical Pali text is today freely available: http://www.tipitaka.org/ http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/palicanon.html http://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/budsir-main.html Because of this unprecedented critical effort, the words of the Buddha have so far survived 2500 years, with the remarkable stability of a variation of less than 5 words/page, when different editions are compared. Even today there are monks, who by heart can recite several thousand text pages without error... Consequently one can therefore place some confidence in this ancient strictly conservative line of tradition. ___________________________________________________________________________________ All yours in the Dhamma. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma 32346 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 0:59am Subject: Re: Video Games? Dear Eznir, > eznir: > How can there be concepts, long before any recognizing or naming? I > thought the Javana thought moments, where these concepts are > fabricated, is the last to come just before the retentive thought > moments, in the train of thoughts, am I right? :-) I just wrote to you that my knowledge of Abhidhamma, i.e. the technical details, is quite low. I don't know the answer to your second question above. :-( But I don't have any urgent need to find out, because as far as I am concerned, if the perception and mindfulness is not of a paramattha dhamma, then whatever else is perceived is `not real'. I classify this as concept, this may be a wrong term, but I am not sure. Also if there is any sense experience, by the time I realize it, it is a `thought' about what has just been experienced. So I am dealing with only shadows, even though there may not be any labeling and that other experiences occur before there is any recognition. > Moreover, how can you say "recognizing and naming" when "naming" > itself involves conceptualizing and still say there are > concepts "long before recognizing or naming"? As above, I believe the cittas dart amongst not only realities, but alternately, the signs and details, before any apparent `thing' becomes arammana and this is before recognition and labeling. And those signs and details may not be paramattha dhammas, and most likely informed by akusala cittas. What do you think? > By the way, how does those in the NAG follow the Teachings of Lord > Buddha as given in the Tripitaka in order to attain stream-entry let > alone Nibbana? Please understand that I am only trying to comprehend > the thought patterns that underlie this idea of non-action(ie, if NAG > means Non-Action Group). :-/ This is tough, especially when I can't really speak for other NAG members. I wish Sarah could say something. I refer you to my latest post to James to at least see what I believe to *not* be the correct practice. However, with reference to `attainment' and `goal', I think of none. There is some intimation every now and then, of how much ignorance there is, so I only seek to understand more the Buddha's teachings. This is all I feel like saying now. But if you want me to say more, let me know and I will try to sort my thoughts out and lay them before you. Metta, Sukin 32347 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:06am Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Sukin, Sukin: ….So one has `clung' to some projected method, failing to appreciate the fact that `sati' is a conditioned reality and cannot be made to arise by following some conventional activity or even the lead of `volition'. In other words, if there is an idea of `doing something' to condition satipatthana, it is believe in a form of rules or ritual. James: This is silly. Not only does it not make logical sense it doesn't follow the teachings of the Buddha. Please quote where the Buddha taught this. Your ponderous explanations and questions, based on seemingly nothing but personal opinion, are getting very tiresome to me. Sukin: What does for example `sitting cross-legged' have anything to do with the arising of mindfulness? What is the causal connection? And `bringing mindfulness to the fore', is it so easily aroused? Or is volition so powerful in bringing about any desired state of mind? I understand that the experience during formal sitting appears different from the everyday activity of being caught in one sense or mind object or the other, like a monkey jumping here and there. But is it any less being `caught' when there is a sense of now being able to observe those activities more closely. Is there any awareness of the characteristic of ignorance, attachment, and aversion and such, i.e. independent of any `self' doing the noting? Is such kind of awareness in essence any different from generally being aware of one's experiences? Except for perhaps, attempting to relate them to the concept of Anatta and conditionality? Does the knowledge of the teachings validates the quality of experience or could it in fact be used to justify any wrong practice? Lobha can appear calm and peaceful like sati, is one mistaking one for the other? Panna is accompanied by detachment, why does one seek to continue sitting? For more sati and panna? Is one equally calm being interrupted during meditation or not having any chance to meditate at all? James: Why do you keep asking me these ridiculous questions? Honestly, I can't tell if you are playing dumb to see how I will answer or if you genuinely don't know the basics of Buddhism. Why don't you read this small booklet about Buddhism, get the basics, and then come back and ask me more intelligent and useful questions: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/nutshell.html You may think I am angry at you or something but that isn't the case. I am in this group to discuss Buddhism, and only Buddhism. I am only interested in what the Buddha taught. I have no problems with the Abhidhamma as long as it doesn't conflict with what the Buddha taught. (And I don't think it really does). You don't seem to be addressing what the Buddha taught; you are coming up with a lot of weird ideas and presenting them as if they are Buddhism, and then you expect me to respond. This group is called `Dhamma Study Group'- whose Dhamma are we supposed to be studying and discussing? On the home page of this group is this description, "A discussion forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings as found in all three baskets of the Tipitaka, the original record of the Buddha's word in the Theravada tradition, and as further elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition." Therefore, this is a scholarly type of group that looks toward the Pali Canon as a basis for discussion. You aren't quoting the Pali Canon or referring to it at all. You are asking me a lot of leading questions based on your opinion. If you want to present your opinion, without bothering to get support from the Pali Canon, I suggest you join a group called "Dhamma List". Its description is, "A constructive and inspiring list for all who're interested in Buddhism (particularly Theravada Buddhism)." There you don't have to support your opinions with actual support from the Pali Canon, you only have to have an interest in Buddhism. Here is the link to join that group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhamma-list/ Sukin: However then, as it should be ideally now and forever, a person who joins the sangha, should have the panna enough not to follow these rules as `rules', but rather as `guide and reminder'. James: A rule is a guide and reminder, and a guide and reminder is a rule. Anyway, we were talking about rites and rituals. How is a rule a rite or a ritual? I do not think that a rule is a rite or a ritual. Metta, James 32348 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:05am Subject: Re: Video Games? Hi James, > James: Why do you keep asking me these ridiculous questions? > Honestly, I can't tell if you are playing dumb to see how I will > answer or if you genuinely don't know the basics of Buddhism. Why > don't you read this small booklet about Buddhism, get the basics, > and then come back and ask me more intelligent and useful questions: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/nutshell.html Sukin: Do I have to? I just checked the link and saw that the article is quite long. I don't usually have time to read anything more than the posts here and a little on another list. Could you give me a summary of what you think Buddhism is, or perhaps a shorter article than the above one? James: > You may think I am angry at you or something but that isn't the > case. I am in this group to discuss Buddhism, and only Buddhism. I > am only interested in what the Buddha taught. I have no problems > with the Abhidhamma as long as it doesn't conflict with what the > Buddha taught. (And I don't think it really does). You don't seem > to be addressing what the Buddha taught; you are coming up with a > lot of weird ideas and presenting them as if they are Buddhism, and > then you expect me to respond. Sukin: I try to understand reality. For me there is only one true authority in this regard, and that is the Buddha's Teachings, and I don't rely on any other. What I express is my interpretation of the little I have read, which is the best I can do. I don't however think that comprehensive knowledge and proficiency in quoting the Scriptures is necessarily a sign of any real understanding. So if I am off, it would make little difference trying to gather more details, I will after all interpret whatever I may read with the corresponding level of understanding/ misunderstanding. In fact if indeed I am wrong, it may become even more frustrating, if conveniently I am able to quote and counter quote any part of the Teachings to support my views. James: > This group is called `Dhamma Study > Group'- whose Dhamma are we supposed to be studying and discussing? > On the home page of this group is this description, "A discussion > forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings > as found in all three baskets of the Tipitaka, the original record > of the Buddha's word in the Theravada tradition, and as further > elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition." > Therefore, this is a scholarly type of group that looks toward the > Pali Canon as a basis for discussion. You aren't quoting the Pali > Canon or referring to it at all. Sukin: Luckily for me, a few days ago I expressed to Sarah my opinion about how everyone should be allowed to express their understandings freely, no control. I did not then have myself in mind, but from now on I will. ;-) James: > You are asking me a lot of leading > questions based on your opinion. If you want to present your > opinion, without bothering to get support from the Pali Canon, I > suggest you join a group called "Dhamma List". Its description > is, "A constructive and inspiring list for all who're interested in > Buddhism (particularly Theravada Buddhism)." There you don't have to > support your opinions with actual support from the Pali Canon, you > only have to have an interest in Buddhism. Here is the link to join > that group: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhamma-list/ Sukin: But do the members there have any understanding of reality? If I went in and talked the way I do here, they may not feel any need to ask for reference, but would their wavelength match with mine? If not, wouldn't `frustration' arise anyway? > James: A rule is a guide and reminder, and a guide and reminder is a > rule. Anyway, we were talking about rites and rituals. How is a > rule a rite or a ritual? I do not think that a rule is a rite or a > ritual. Sukin: But the adherence to, and ignorant approach to the rules can become ritualistic. It is OK if you do not want to respond to this post. Metta, Sukin. 32349 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma Hi Howard (& Jack), > upasaka@a... > writes: > Coincidentally, though, next Sunday I'll be > spending my birthday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at a (one-day) > "meditation > retreat" in Manhattan conducted by a Theravadin meditation teacher, > Andrew > Olendzki, who is very much Abhidhamma-oriented, and who teaches long > retreats > relating Abhidhamma to meditation. > Howard, > J: > I hope to hear more about this after you have attended this retreat. .... S: I hope you have a good day and meaningful birthday. I also look forward to your comments and summary afterwards. Perhaps you can encourage Andrew Olendzki (or any of the participants) to join in our discussions here as well. Metta and Best Wishes for many more wise birthdays in advance. Sarah p.s Glad to see you reminding everyone about paramattha dhammas in the suttas too;-). ====== 32350 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Victoria's Secret Swim Suit with the Buddha image Hi Alex (& KKT). --- axtran wrote: > Dear friends, > Perhaps you already heard about a swim suit product .... .... Alex, it's really great to hear from you again (though I have no interest in checking out the swim-suit;-)). For others, Alex was one of our very first members on DSG. Alex, have you been lurking? Are you still reading the texts and how is your family going now? I remember when you sadly lost your mother - must be a few years now already. KKT, I'm always glad to read your messages too. I don't think we need to concern ourselves so much with others' actions and their appropriateness (such as with the swim-suit line) so much as with our own. What do you think? Maybe better not to advertise it? Metta, Sarah ======= 32351 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Connie, KenO, ODW, Victor, Larry & All, I agree with these comments of Connie's: --- connie wrote: > Hi Ken O and old_dead_wood, > > I wonder if we can really say to look at seasons or plants to confirm > rebirth since those wouldn't have either life faculty or kamma. For > myself, it makes sense that there is the momentary life cycle of each > thought moment and that life is really only that long; .... S: By understanding more about this moment, I think we understand better that it always has to be like this - conditioned dhammas arising and falling away, conditioning each other and subsequent dhammas too. This is why the understanding of D.O. always comes back to present understanding which can develop so that doubts about rebirth or self will be eradicated. .... C: >or to think that > the conventional rebirth is like waking from a dream as we do each new > day. Why would the rules change at the physical end of life-span death > (given that I can't say I know there is no more rebirth for me)? ... S: Yes, a good analogy and not even each day, but each moment with a new experience! No self involved. ODW, thanks for all your honest and sincere sharing posts and questions. Perhaps you'll kindly tell us where you live and anything else you wish to share. I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties with depression. As you say, we never know what may be conditioned at any time. On our last morning in Bangkok we were discussing various mental problems with friends and the role that views and ideas of practice can play too. I hope you continue to participate here. I appreciated Larry's kind comments too. Metta, Sarah ======= 32352 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: greetings from Rob Epstein. Dear Nina & Rob Ep, S: Nina, thank you for forwarding Rob's news. I miss him on list a lot! .... --- nina van gorkom wrote: > For those who know Rob Epstein, here are his greetings and familiy news. > Maybe Sarah could react? .... S: For others, Rob Ep keeps the No 1 spot in the photo album;-) .... R:>I do miss my > friends > at dsg, but I have felt that dropping in every now and then just to say > hello or > throw in a comment was a bit annoying to some of the more serious > posters. > The > dsg discussions tend to move with great energy and intensity, which I > always > enjoyed, but I haven't wanted to "interrupt the flow" after trying it a > few > times. .... S: I've never known any posters (serious or not) to be annoyed when old friends drop in.....Rob, pls 'interrupt the flow' whenever the mood takes you;-) Let us know your news and latest reflections. It's good to hear from you. .... R:> Well, it is so nice to hear from you. Thank you for thinking of me. It > is > very > nice to know that I am not completely removed from my dsg comrades! > Please > give > my best wishes to all of my friends on dsg, and tell them I miss them > too! ... S: As I mentioned, we think of you whenever we open the photo album. Pls drop by directly from time to time. Glad Emily is doing well and hopefully your wife too. Metta, Sarah ======= 32353 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Chris C, Welcome here. Your question was interesting and has generated some useful discussion. Please share a little more about your background and where you live if you care to. (As there is another Chris and also Christine who is sometimes called Chris, I've added a 'C', but let us know if this is not right). Also, let us know if you have any other questions or difficulties in finding your way around. --- Christopher wrote: > Hello, > > This (rather strange) question is actually about Mahayana Buddhism. > Please forgive me for asking it here, I have often received lots of > friendly > help in here, and I'm not sure where else I might find an answer. So > any help is appreciated.. ... I hope you've found the responses helpful. I liked Ken O's recent comments (post 32319): "Furthermore, no one can choose whether they wish to enter certain mind stream, why, because all are anatta, so we do not the power to say, let my thoughts be thus or not thus." I'll look f/w to any further comments you make. Metta, Sarah ======= > > When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the > stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help other > beings. I am wondering if there is a certain way that a meditator does > this, and if so, how? Would there come a point in meditation where it is > obvious that entering the stream is possible, and a person can simply > choose not to advance? Or is it possible to 'accidentally' enter the > stream, only realizing afterwards what has happened? If so, what does > a Mahayanist do about this? 32354 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Howard and all, The idea "all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything there is partakes of only one of these domains." is the senior cosmology 'Everything exists' that the Buddha spoke of in Samyutta Nikaya XII.48, Lokayatika Sutta. And that idea has nothing to do with the teaching of dependent origination. Comments are welcome. Metta, Victor [snip] > As I said, Victor, I understand the middle way of dependent > origination. I understand that there are no self-existent dhammas, and I do not take > paramattha dhammas to be self-existent, mrely ctually experienced. They are > dependent, ephemeral phenomena which have no existence whatsoever *in and of > themselves*. You have seen me talk against the notion of sabhava often, you should > know that the Kaccayangotta sutta is one of my favorites, and I should think > you would understand my position on this matter by now. > Also, I would appreciate it, Victor, if, when you wish to make a > point, you would make it straight out rather than throwing a few quotations at me > and leaving it for me to deduce the teaching you hope to impart. For that > matter, I think it would be far preferable if matters were discussed rather > "teachings being imparted". > > With metta, > Howard 32355 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi, Sukin (and James) - In a message dated 4/20/04 3:06:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@k... writes: > > Hi James, > > >James: Why do you include `formal meditation practice' in this > >category? That doesn't make any sense. Adherence to rites and > >rituals is the superstitious belief that doing certain actions > will > >purify oneself, regardless of the reasons of apparent consequences > >of those actions. For example, during the Buddha's time there > were > >several ascetics who would wash themselves in the river Ganges > three > >times a day to purify themselves; some ascetics would keep various > >fires burning to purify themselves. This is supersititious > behavior > >that has no basis in reality. > > Sukin: > This is one aspect of it, but only the gross one. > One may have for an instant had an experience, say jhana. And may > have noticed that prior to that there was a nimita or something > which was the object of citta. One then seeks to simulate the > situation, perhaps experimenting or seeking guidance and then slowly > developing the right conditions to achieve it. This is possible, > because it requires the kind of panna which sees danger in sense > objects and fixing the attention on a `conceptual' object. This > object can be reproduced with practice. > However when it comes to the perception and understanding of nama > and rupa, it is altogether different. If indeed there has been a > moment of satipatthana, one may like to have it again. The wanting > may then seek to create a situation or believe in a practice which > is supposed to get one there. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: The Buddha provided such a practice, the noble eightfold path. ----------------------------------------- So one has `clung' to some projected > > method, failing to appreciate the fact that `sati' is a conditioned > reality and cannot be made to arise by following some conventional > activity or even the lead of `volition'. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Not "projected," but taught by the Buddha. and, yes, sati is conditioned - and the Buddha taught how to go about setting up the condtions. And the "conventional activity" that you disdain was exactly taught by the Buddha, and realities underlie that conventional activity as is the case with all conventional activity. ------------------------------------------- In other words, if there is > > an idea of `doing something' to condition satipatthana, it is > believe in a form of rules or ritual. -------------------------------------------- Howard: That would be news to the Buddha. The Buddha gave training in sila, he gave rules for the behavior of monks and nuns, and he trained his followers in guarding the senses and in meditation. None of that was an instruction to engage in ritual. I would imagine the Buddha would be amazed to see how adherents to his Dhamma are critical of what he taught. Whether it is those who say the Buddha didn't teach anyone to do anything or those who say the Buddha was just kidding when he talked about rebirth (or didn't know better) or those who say that nothing need be done for liberation except master the jhanas or those who say that jhanas are dangerous and should not be cultivated, there seem to be loads of Buddhists who want to dismantle and throw overboard core parts of the raft of the Dhamma before reaching the other shore. ------------------------------------------- > > James: > >Meditation does not fall into this > >category!! It has a reason and a measurable outcome which matches > >the reason! It is logical and makes sense. The Buddha taught for > >the practitioner to sit crosslegged, with the back straight, and > to > >bring mindfulness to the fore. Then the practitioner was to > develop > >vipassana, jhana, or brahama-viharas. What exactly do you see > that > >is superstitious in this behavior? > > Sukin: > What does for example `sitting cross-legged' have anything to do > with the arising of mindfulness? What is the causal connection? > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: A stable position, not prone to tipping over, is good to have when a jhana is entered, and one that is balanced and comfortable for a lengthy period, and conducive to alertness, is supportive of the task of meditation. But it is not necessary. ----------------------------------------------- > And `bringing mindfulness to the fore', is it so easily aroused? Or > is volition so powerful in bringing about any desired state of mind? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Hmm, guess not. So, better to give up instead of taking the time and making the effort to develop the needed skills. (Hey, remember when the Buddha said "This is not easy - better forget it!"? ;-) ------------------------------------------------- > I understand that the experience during formal sitting appears > different from the everyday activity of being caught in one sense or > mind object or the other, like a monkey jumping here and there. But > is it any less being `caught' when there is a sense of now being > able to observe those activities more closely. Is there any > awareness of the characteristic of ignorance, attachment, and > aversion and such, i.e. independent of any `self' doing the noting? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. -------------------------------------------- > Is such kind of awareness in essence any different from generally > being aware of one's experiences? > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. One does better when there is increased calm, concentration, and mindfulness - much better. -------------------------------------------- Except for perhaps, attempting to > > relate them to the concept of Anatta and conditionality? Does the > knowledge of the teachings validates the quality of experience or > could it in fact be used to justify any wrong practice? Lobha can > appear calm and peaceful like sati, is one mistaking one for the > other? Panna is accompanied by detachment, why does one seek to > continue sitting? For more sati and panna? Is one equally calm being > interrupted during meditation or not having any chance to meditate > at all? > These are some questions that come to mind, what do you think? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think this is all just nay-saying as regards what the Buddha directly taught. ----------------------------------------------- > > >James: The Buddha's teachings are `a thing to do'. They aren't > pure > >philosophy to just think about and ponder. The Buddha asked his > >disciples to be diligent in their effort. If you don't think that > >the Buddha's teachings are a `thing to do' how do you explain the > >Vinaya Pitaka? It lists 227 different `things to do' for a monk. > > Sukin: > The institution of the Bhikkhu is indeed an important outcome of the > advent of the Buddha. The Buddha understood the full implications of > such a life, and in the beginning, most if not all the bhikkhus > lived perfectly without any rules. The rules were made as more and > more `weaker' people joined the sangha who lived less perfect lives. > However then, as it should be ideally now and forever, a person who > joins the sangha, should have the panna enough not to follow these > rules as `rules', but rather as `guide and reminder'. The monk > should have enough panna to see the urgency of developing > satipatthana all the time. These rules remind him about this fact > and also about other forms of kusala. But since no one is perfect, > the rules can and do help to wake the monk up. It is true that a > monk, who by supporting conditions following the 227 rules > perfectly, will outwardly appear no different from an arahat. And > even though this would more likely be with a good level of panna, > there is no guarantee that this will lead to enlightenment. The > bhikkhu could have enough panna of the kind that sees danger in > akusala of other kinds, but have little of the kind that sees danger > in *ignorance* and seeks to eradicate it. > > Metta, > Sukin. > > > ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32356 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains Hi, Ken (and Jack) - In a message dated 4/20/04 3:11:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Jack, > > I am glad to see, as you told TG, that some of the Abhidhamma is > very important to your practice. But there is no need for you to > break your "physical experience into paramattha dhammas." The > paramattha dhammas are already there. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, but Jack, through his practice, comes to be clearly aware of them, and not just memorize the claim of their presence. ------------------------------------------------- You explained:> > ---------------------- > >As he spreads the cow parts around, they cease being part of a cow > and become parts of meat. Just so, my sense of an "I" sitting on a > cushion meditating (somewhat) ceases to become an "I" and becomes > impersonal hardness, coolness, etc. > > At times during other meditations, thoughts and emotions also become > impersonal, without an "I". > ---------------------- > > It is not while they are being spread around that parts of meat > become 'not cow,' they were 'not cow' to begin with. Similarly, it > is not during meditations that thoughts and emotions become > impersonal; they are impersonal (anatta) by their own inherent > nature. -------------------------------------------- Howard: The meditation instructions given by the Buddha were not for the purpose of creating paramattha dhammas - they were for the purpose of creating vijja. --------------------------------------------- > > Another characteristic of thoughts, emotions and all other > conditioned dhammas is their fleetingness (anicca): they last less > than a billionth of a second. No amount of quiet concentration can > catch them. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh, there you go - the Buddha was wrong. Well, that's sure good to know. The Buddha certainly taught that rupas come and go quickly, and the mind still more quickly. But isn't it that quick mind that comes to see? The Buddha taught people how to cultivate the mind. ------------------------------------------------ But again, they don't need to be caught. If > > understanding (panna) arises with them, then all the necessary > mindfulness, effort and concentration is taken care of – long before > the concept "this is a paramattha dhamma" can be conceived. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes - IF pa~n~na arises. Did the Buddha teach people to read about pa~n~na arising and hope for the best - after all, it's all just random? I don't think so. ------------------------------------------------- > > What I am getting at is; before there can be satipatthana, you have > to understand there is no self who can bring it about. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay - understood. (If that's all you mean.) Or do you mean that before the means for liberation can be developed, liberation must already have occurred? To get to the goal one must already be there? -------------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards, > Ken H > ======================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32358 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:41am Subject: Non-action? Hi all, Please check the following passage regarding non-action: "Monks, there are these three sectarian guilds that -- when cross- examined, pressed for reasons, & rebuked by wise people -- even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in [a doctrine of] inaction. Which three? "There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful -- that is all caused by what was done in the past.' There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful -- that is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation.' There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful -- that is all without cause & without condition.' "Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past?' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.' When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those priests & contemplative who hold to such teachings, such views. "Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation?' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being's act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being's act of creation.' When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplative who hold to such teachings, such views. "Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all without cause, without condition,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all without cause, without condition?' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings without cause, without condition. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views without cause, without condition.' When one falls back on lack of cause and lack of condition as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my third righteous refutation of those priests & contemplative who hold to such teachings, such views. "These are the three sectarian guilds that -- when cross-examined, pressed for reasons, & rebuked by wise people -- even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in inaction. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an03-061.html Metta, Victor 32359 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 5:02am Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Sukin, Sukin: Do I have to? James: No, you don't have to. It would just be for your benefit. Sukin: I just checked the link and saw that the article is quite long. I don't usually have time to read anything more than the posts here and a little on another list. Could you give me a summary of what you think Buddhism is, or perhaps a shorter article than the above one? James: The summary of Buddhism is: Don't do evil, do only good, and purify the mind. For a more detailed explanation, but not too detailed, I recommend the article I linked to you. It isn't really that long. Take it a little at a time. Judging from the length of your posts, I'm sure you could find the time ;-). Sukin: I try to understand reality. For me there is only one true authority in this regard, and that is the Buddha's Teachings, and I don't rely on any other. What I express is my interpretation of the little I have read, which is the best I can do. James: That is admirable but I am telling you that I think you are either reading the wrong things or not reading enough. I come to this conclusion by your questions and statements. They don't even match the most basic tenets of Buddhism. (See Howard's post, also). First, if you read just what is on the Internet that is going to lead you astray. All of these people positing their opinions are suffering from the taint of delusion! You should only go to what the Buddha taught. Sukin: I don't however think that comprehensive knowledge and proficiency in quoting the Scriptures is necessarily a sign of any real understanding. James: That is very true. I could quote the Buddha extensively, and even explain what he meant with summaries, analogies, and examples, but that doesn't mean I really `know' what he taught. But at least I go to a pure source. As Einstein said, "I see so far because I stand on the shoulders of giants." Sukin: So if I am off, it would make little difference trying to gather more details, I will after all interpret whatever I may read with the corresponding level of understanding/ misunderstanding. In fact if indeed I am wrong, it may become even more frustrating, if conveniently I am able to quote and counter quote any part of the Teachings to support my views. James: Well, this could be worked out over time. Of course you may misunderstand the Buddha, and I may also, but if we stick to what he taught eventually we will get to the right understanding. Actually, even in the time of the Buddha when an arahant was teaching disciples, he always referred to the Buddha. When Sariputta or Ananda gave a sermon they would always state, "As the Buddha has taught.." etc. Now, if arahants still cite the Buddha when teaching or discussing the dhamma don't you think us worldlings should even more so? Sukin: Luckily for me, a few days ago I expressed to Sarah my opinion about how everyone should be allowed to express their understandings freely, no control. I did not then have myself in mind, but from now on I will. ;-) James: I still think you should have freedom to express your opinions in whatever fashion you think. And I should have the same right. But, just consider, this isn't an `opinion' type of subject. It's not like we are discussing our favorite movies or something. ;-)) There is a right and a wrong and an authority to consult to determine which is which. Sukin: But do the members there have any understanding of reality? James: Some do and some don't. You wouldn't be in the group to get someone else's `understanding of reality', you would be in the group to develop your own understanding. If you don't jibe with that group, stay in this group. But just understand that your view of Buddhism doesn't jibe with me and you won't be able to make it jibe unless you reference what the Buddha taught. Sukin: But the adherence to, and ignorant approach to the rules can become ritualistic. James: You haven't explained why you think this; you have just restated what you stated earlier. A restatement isn't explanation or support. Sukin: It is OK if you do not want to respond to this post. James: Of course I wanted to respond. Like I wrote, I am not angry at you, I am just explaining to you my perspective. Metta, James 32360 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 6:09am Subject: hello from Cha-am Dear group, Seems ages since I wrote to dsg. Am currently at a seaside resort about 2-3 hrs slow bus ride from Bkk. The ocean is just across the road from where I'm staying. Looking at the water reminded me of Acharn Sujin's comment about the 'ocean of concepts' which we float along on. All day -and night- we float along like a leaf on the water, not knowing realities as they really are altho they are all around us, they are what we take for 'us'. Realities such as seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and touching, the object of seeing etc. attachment to what is seen, heard etc. dislike of what is seen etc. wrong view of what is seen, heard etc. Generally not much awareness or understanding of these realities even tho our whole life is made up of these realities, but we take it all for 'me or mine'. Acharn also spoke about 'whispering lobha' [and apologies if all this has been mentioned before, I have not yet read any other posts from the recent trip to T/land] this is the lobha that we don't even know we have. Attachment to hearing the Dhamma and then wanting to hear more, often thinking that this will hasten the arising of awareness, and maybe it will and maybe it won't, just depends on the conditions at any given moment, no amount of 'trying' will make awareness arise, that is generally classed as wrong practice. The more I hear about this Dhamma, the more I see how very subtle the teachings of the Buddha are and that 'trying' is a great hindrance to Sati. May we all have patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 32361 From: Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains In a message dated 4/19/04 4:35:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > I think part of my problem is that I have somewhat learned to deconstruct my > physical situation into ultimates through practice at many material 4-element > meditations. I can, though very imperfectly and clumsily, see some cetasikas > arise along with physical objects of meditation. But, a thought as object > arising and falling away seems different. I can't > deconstruct it. > > jack ============================= I *do* understand what you mean. It isn't different fo me most of the time. but I do think that that a more "microscopic" look would allow for that deconstruction. Of course I could well be wrong in this. Howard and all, I'm not clear what the Abhidhamma and Visud. say about the ultimates of a thought as object of attention, i.e., that which we can deconstruct a thought into. Cetasaikas arise with the object of attention but I am talking about the object itself. Ideas? jack 32362 From: Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Jack - In a message dated 4/20/04 9:21:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jackhat1@a... writes: > I'm not clear what the Abhidhamma and Visud. say about the ultimates of a > thought as object of attention, i.e., that which we can deconstruct a > thought > into. Cetasaikas arise with the object of attention but I am talking about > the > object itself. Ideas? > ======================= Yes, I agree with you. It seems that almost nothing is said in Abhidhamma or commentaries about "cognitive" paramatthic arammana. Perhaps it is acts of sa~n~na, at various "levels", that are what these are, at least in part. It seems so to me. (We probably should read up more on sa~n~na.) 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) 32363 From: Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi again, Jack - With regard to the relationship between sa~n~na and cognitive paramattha dhamma, look at Nyanatiloka's 3rd meaning for 'sa~n~na': > 3. saññá may also refer to the 'ideas', which are objects of meditation, > e.g. in a group of 7 ideas, of impermanence (anicca-s. ), etc. (A. VII, 46); of > 10: impurity (asubha-s.), etc. (A. X, 56), and another set of 10 in A. X. > 60; or to wrong notions, as in nicca-, subha-s. (the notion of permanence, > beauty), etc. ========================== 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) 32364 From: Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 5:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains In a message dated 4/20/04 6:50:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: Yes, I agree with you. It seems that almost nothing is said in Abhidhamma or commentaries about "cognitive" paramatthic arammana. Perhaps it is acts of sa~n~na, at various "levels", that are what these are, at least in part. It seems so to me. (We probably should read up more on sa~n~na.) Howard, Thanks for the sanna references. I will do some reading on this tonight. Maybe some of the others here will jump in here and add something in the meantime. jack 32365 From: Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 5:29am Subject: A Question About Sa~n~na/Nina Hi, Nina - In "Cetasikas" I have read the following: The proximate cause of sanna is an object, in whatever way that appears. The object can be a paramattha dhamma, i-e nama or rupa, or a concept (pannatti). ------------------------------------- Howard: One question I have here is exactly what, according to Abhidhamma, is meant by 'pannatti'/'concept'. It seems to me that most of the concepts that arise in the mind are not single mental events, but sequences of mental events, and thus their experiencing must also involve a series of mindstates, each with its own sa~n~na, and possibly a "capping" recognition at the end. (You seem to imply something along these lines a little further on.) --------------------------------------- Whatever object citta cognizes, sanna recognizes and marks it. Sanna performs its function through each of the six doors. There is sanna at this moment. When there is seeing there is sanna and it recognizes and marks visible object. When there is hearing there is sanna which recognizes and marks sound. There is sanna when there is smelling, tasting, touching or when there is the experience of objects through the mind-door. cittas experience objects through the six doors and the sanna which accompanies citta experiences the object through the same doorway and performs its function accordingly. When we recognize someone's voice, this is actually the result of different processes of cittas which experience objects through the sense-door and through the mind-door. ------------------------------------- Howard: It is this last sentence that I was referring to in my previous remark. ========================= 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) 32366 From: Philip Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 10:00am Subject: Re: hello from Cha-am (plus more Misuzu Kaneko) Hello Azita, and all > The ocean is just across the > road from where I'm staying. Looking at the water reminded me of > Acharn Sujin's comment about the 'ocean of concepts' which we float > along on. All day -and night- we float along like a leaf on the water, > not knowing realities as they really are altho they are all around us, they > are what we take for 'us'. Thank you for this. James said recently that we should only study dhamma at this group by studying sutta (the S in DSG bit) but I think that that is a shortsighted view of things. Taking a journey with one's nose in the map is the analogy I used elsewhere - we can't set out on the journey without the map, and we need to refer to the map often along the way - but becoming thoroughly absorbed in the map will lead to a deadening of experience - and we know that experience leads to insight. Sitting on the patio after breakfast and gazing on the ocean can teach us a lot, and I am quite confident that the Buddha wanted us to be studying realities in and around us. Thus "investigation of phenomena" is one of the factors of awakening. I would like to share another Misuzu Kaneko poem (in a very fast translation) that I think gets at "not knowing realities as they really are" as Azita put it. The Sea and the Seagull I believed the sea was blue and the gull white but now I look and both the wings of the gull and the sea are grey everyone else believed it too but it wasn't true I believe sky is blue and snow is white everyone looks and thinks it's true but that might be mistaken too. Metta, Phil 32367 From: Philip Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 4:52pm Subject: Re: hello from Cha-am (plus more Misuzu Kaneko) Hello all An afterthough to my own post > James said recently that we should only study > dhamma at this group by studying sutta (the S in DSG bit) but I > think that that is a > shortsighted view of things Now re-reading the introduction to the group that James referred to in another post, I see that he may be right. The group is to discuss based on the triple basket and commentary. In the light of that, I will want to reconsider what I posted previously about the need to refer to sutta and/or commentary, and stop quoting non-Theravadin material. Or look for another group to do so. It's very interesting how the Abhidhamma and its emphasis on direct experience has made me interested in Zen - I used to be a real Zenophobe because ofZen's reluctance to use clear, explicit references to the Buddha's teaching, and because of how my desire to do so got me branded as a bookish snob in Zen dominated groups. Now I'm swinging in the opposite direction - all part of the middle way. I'll eventually find a healthy balance between sutta study and direct experience. Metta, Phil 32368 From: Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 7:23pm Subject: mind-door process Hi Howard and Jack, Here's something from "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" that may be of interest. It's a bit long (9 paragraphs) and I've left out the Pali. Guide to the Limited Javana Process, p.163// 1. The mind-door process: When cognitive process occurs in one of the sense doors, two doors are actually involved: the physical sense door and the mind door, which is the bhavanga from which the cognitive process emerges. What is called the mind-door process is a cognitive process that occurs exclusively through the mind door, without any admixture of the sense doors. This kind of process is also called, for the sake of clarity, a bare mind-door process. 2. The mind-door process includes both the "limited" or sense-sphere process and the cognitive process in absorption pertaining to the sublime and supramundane attainments. 3. The limited or sense-sphere mind-door process is itself twofold: (1) that consequent to a five-door process, and (2) the independent process. 4. (1) Just as when a gong is struck once by a baton, the gong sends forth a continuous stream of reverberations, so when one of the five sense doors has been impinged upon once by a sense object, after the five-door process has ceased the past sense object comes into range at the mind door and sets off many sequences of mind-door processes. Because these cognitive processes come as the sequel to a five-door process, they are known as 'consequent processes'. They are counted as fivefold by way of the five sense-door processes which they follow. 5. Ledi Sayadaw explains that it is in these consequent processes that distinct recognition of the object occurs; such recognition does not occur in a bare five-door process itself. An eye-door process, for example, is followed first by a conformational mind-door process, which reproduces in the mind door the object just perceived in the sense-door process. Then comes a process grasping the object as whole; then a process recognizing the colour; then a process grasping the entity; then a process gasping the name; then a process recognizing the name. 6. "The process grasping the object as a whole" is the mind-door process perceiving as a whole the forms repeatedly perceived in individual frames by the two preceding processes, the original sense-door process and the conformational mind-door process. This process exercises a synthesizing function, fusing the perception of distinct "shots" of the object into the perception of a unity, as in the case of a whirling firebrand perceived as a circle of fire. It is only when this has occurred that recognition of the colour is possible. When the recognition of the entity occurs, one recognizes the entity or shape. When the recognition of the name occurs, one recognizes the name. Thus, Ledi Sayadaw asserts, it is only when a recognitional process referring to one or another specific feature occurs that one knows, "I see this or that specific feature." 7. (2) An 'independent mind-door process' occurs when any of the six objects enters the range of cognition entirely on its own, not as a consequence of an immediately preceding sense-door process. The question may be raised how an object can enter the range of the mind door independently of a proximate sensory impingement. Ledi Sayadaw cites various sources: through what was directly perceived earlier, or by inference from what was directly perceived; through what was learnt by oral report, or by inference from what was learnt by oral report; on account of belief, opinion, reasoning, or reflective acceptance of a view; by the power of kamma, psychic power, disturbance of the bodiy humours, the influence of a deity, comprehension, realization, etc. He explains that if one has clearly experienced an object even once, at a later time--even after a hundred years or in a future life--dependent on that object a condition may be set for the vibration of the bhavanga. The mind that has been nurtured on such an input of prior experiences is extremely susceptible to their influence. When it encounters any sense object, that object may trigger off in a single moment mental waves extending to many thousands of objects previously perceived. 8. The mental continuum, constantly being excited by these causal influences, is always seeking an opportunity to emerge from the bhavanga and acquire a clear cognition of an object. Therefore the mental factor of attention present in the bhavanga repeatedly cases the bhavanga to vibrate, and it directs consciousness again and again to advert to objects which have gained conditions to appear. Even though the bhavanga citta has its own object, Ledi Sayadaw explains, it occurs in the mode of inclining towards some other object. As a result of this perpetual "buzz" of activity in the bhavanga, when an object acquires sufficient prominence through other operative conditions, it draws the continuum of consciousness out of the bhavanga, and then that object comes into the range of cognition at the mind door. 9. The independent process is analyzed as sixfold: the process based on what was directly perceived; the process based on inference from what was directly perceived; the process based on oral report; the process based on inference from oral report; the process based on the cognized; the process based on inference from the cognized. "The cognized" here includes belief, opinion, comprehension, and realization; "inference from the cognized" includes judgements arrived at by inductive and deductive reasoning. 32369 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 7:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains Hi Howard (and Steve), We were talking about paramattha dhammas: --------------------------- H: > Yes, but Jack, through his practice, comes to be clearly aware of them, and not just memorize the claim of their presence. > ------------------------------------------------- Do you accept the " one billionth of a second" description of dhammas? Are you saying that you or Jack -- or anyone we know -- can be clearly aware of an object that appears and disappears in a billionth of a second? -------------------------------------------- Howard: >The meditation instructions given by the Buddha were not for the purpose of creating paramattha dhammas - they were for the purpose of creating vijja. > --------------------------------------------- Vijja? Is that a form of panna? If so, it is a paramattha dhamma. And, I agree, meditation does not create paramattha dhammas. -------------------- < . . . > Howard: > Ahh, there you go - the Buddha was wrong. Well, that's sure good to know. > --------------------------- I did not say the Buddha was wrong. But I understand the frustration that led you to accuse me of such a hideous thing. This morning, after reading certain posts from James, Victor and yourself, I was visibly furious. Isn't that ridiculous? When there is so much evil and injustice in the world, I direct my rage at a group of Buddhists! :-) I have deserved your ridicule and, perhaps, I should apologise. In my previous two posts (to you and Jack), I used language that I knew could be infuriating. In like-minded, NAG, company, it would not be infuriating. I remember a discussion led by Azita (at one of the Cooran meetings), which went something like: "There is only the present moment, nothing more." "Yes, I know, but we have to . ." "No! There is only the present moment." "Yes, but . ." "No buts!" "Bt" "No!" And so it went. My point is; all of us who took part in that conversation enjoyed it and there was no frustration. No one impersonated Homer Simpson throttling the life out of Azita: "Why you little . . . !" :-) --------------------- H: > The Buddha certainly taught that rupas come and go quickly, and the mind still more quickly. But isn't it that quick mind that comes to see? The Buddha taught people how to cultivate the mind. > --------------------- If I could cultivate a very, very, very quick mind – that could catch paramattha dhammas – what would I see? I would see what I see now: visible object, audible object, ignorance, self-view, conceit and so on. In the absence of panna, those dhammas would mean nothing to my thinking mind: they would be replaced by concepts – just like now. ------------ < . . . > Howard: > Did the Buddha teach people to read about pa~n~na arising and hope for the best - after all, it's all just random? I don't think so. ------------ Nor do I. That would be an extreme view held by annihilationists. ----------------------- KH: >> What I am getting at is; before there can be satipatthana, you have to understand there is no self who can bring it about. >> Howard: > Okay - understood. (If that's all you mean.) Or do you mean that before the means for liberation can be developed, liberation must already have occurred? To get to the goal one must already be there? -------------------------------------------------- Good question, but one that could expose me to ridicule. In that, like-minded, company I was talking about I would have a stab at it. :-) At another Cooran meeting, Steve was asked a question along the same lines – "Can there be right understanding when there is no right understanding to condition it?" He said, when the Buddha's sasana has completely died out, there can be no right understanding: There can be right understanding now only because the Buddha has introduced it into the world. That doesn't explain the potential for self-enlightened, non- teaching Buddhas. Sorry if I have misquoted you Steve: please butt in with a correction. Kind regards to you both, Ken H 32370 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 0:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hello from Cha-am (plus more Misuzu Kaneko) HI Phil & All, --- Philip wrote: > Thank you for this. James said recently that we should only study > dhamma at this group by studying sutta (the S in DSG bit) but I > think that that is a > shortsighted view of things. .... S: I think it depends on what we understand by ‘study’. We’re used to associating ‘study’ with book-study and accumulating theoretical knowledge. When it comes to ‘dhamma study’, as I see it, it always has to refer to the present direct understanding, regardless of the activity. It is this development of wisdom which is stressed throughout the texts, rather than the amount of book study. On the other hand, our guidance comes from the Dhammavacara, the Buddha’s teachings as spelled out in the home page description. Without this guidance(whether in textual or paraphrased form), it would be impossible to develop an understanding of anatta whilst ocean gazing or reading poetry. .... P: >Taking a journey with one's nose in the > map is the analogy I used elsewhere - we can't set out on the journey > without the map, and we need to refer to the map often along the way - > but becoming thoroughly absorbed in the map will lead to a deadening > of experience - and we know that experience leads to insight. Sitting > on the patio after breakfast and > gazing on the ocean can teach us a lot, and I am quite confident that > the Buddha wanted us to be studying realities in and around us. > Thus "investigation of phenomena" is one of the factors of awakening. .... S: I agree with your comments. Of course if we went to gaze at the ocean thinking that this would bring any wisdom, it would be wrong again too;-) Please note that it’s also stressed in the home page description: “The discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim of developing precise understanding of the realities of the present moment.” In other words, book study on its own without any development of understanding of what is read will not be of assistance. In one discussion at the weekend, we discussed the meaning of various words that we read about repeatedly in the texts, such as in the extract quoted before from the Kitagiri sutta which I was discussing with James, referring to the right conditions for wisdom to develop: ..... MN 70 "At Kitagiri" 22. "Bhikkhus, I do not say that final knowledge is achieved all at once. On the contrary, final knowledge is achieved by gradual training, by gradual practice, by gradual progress. 23. And how is final knowledge achieved by gradual training, gradual practice, and gradual progress? Here one who has faith [in a teacher] visits him; when he visits him, he pays respect to him; when he pays respect to him, he gives ear; one who gives ear hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorizes it;he examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorized; when he examines their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those teachings;.....” .... S: One ‘hears the dhamma’ through any means - by listening, reading or reflecting on different words, more or less depending on inclinations how, when and so on. The purpose is for understanding the meaning, not for accumulating more or less academic knowledge, for example. We can also see the role of sa~n~na ‘marking’ the sounds rightly or wrongly and playing its part too with each citta. When the citta is kusala (wholesome), so is the sa~n~na and vice versa. So there may be conventional forgetfulness, but kusala ‘marking’ or conventional memorizing, but with akusala cittas and ‘marking’ by sa~n~na as I see it. By ‘memorizes’, I take it to refer to the firm development of satipatthana as understanding develops, not to the ability to be able to repeat or recite. With understanding, the Dhamma can be ‘remembered’ and ‘recalled’ even if there is no ability to find particular suttas or recall particular names. We also discussed the meaning of ‘anussati’ which refers to often having sati, to not forgetting or following the object which appears with detachment, but without any ‘whispering lobha’ which Azita mentioned. As she also said, ‘no amount of ‘trying’ will make awareness arise’. So on the one hand, we can appreciate the benefit and value of hearing more, giving ear, reading the texts and wise considering and yet we can know that there is only any wise considering or hearing when panna understands the present namas and rupas and is accompanied by detachment. Nina also raised this topic (post 32100). She wrote "it depends again on conditions: inclination and circumstances of life, and these are also conditioned. Good to discuss. What if there is no time for any listening, only hurry to work? Reading a sutta now and then, following a discussion on dsg? Is that enough? But circumstances cannot be forced. And all the time: we have to be on the look out for lobha." S: When we read about ‘bahassuta’ - hearing a lot, it always implies 'with understanding'. We don’t need to memorize anything or to repeat any stanzas. It just depends on how much we get from what we hear. All enlightened beings are ‘bahassuta’, they’ve heard a lot with wisdom, but this doesn’t mean they are necessarily the ones with the greatest book knowledge at all. It means they've considered deeply and developed satipatthana. We shouldn't set any such rules about quantity at all.One person may read one line with good understanding, another may recite the entire Tipitaka with no understanding. Phil, this is a wordy answer to say that I think you’re very much on the right track with your considered reading and reflection and appreciation that sati can arise anytime, whether sitting by the ocean, reading poetry or teaching in class. As Sukin wrote so helpfully (I thought): Sukin: “If indeed there has been a moment of satipatthana, one may like to have it again. The wanting may then seek to create a situation or believe in a practice which is supposed to get one there. So one has `clung' to some projected method, failing to appreciate the fact that `sati' is a conditioned reality and cannot be made to arise by following some conventional activity or even the lead of `volition'. In other words, if there is an idea of `doing something' to condition satipatthana, it is belief in a form of rules or ritual.” Metta, Sarah p.s re your post 32227, pls also see samvega in U.P. and follow the thread. You mentioned ‘sensing of a kind of ecstasy in rising and falling of paramattha dhammas...’ - remember any state can be known and that it has to be a path of detachment from the start. ============== 32371 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 0:26am Subject: Re: The Question Still Remains Friend Ken H, Ken H: Do you accept the " one billionth of a second" description of dhammas? Are you saying that you or Jack -- or anyone we know -- can be clearly aware of an object that appears and disappears in a billionth of a second? James: I am a little confused about this issue. The Buddha said in the Sankhata Sutta: "Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is discernible. "These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. "Now these three are unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated. Which three? No arising is discernible, no passing away is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible. "These are three unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an03-047.html James: I am confused as to if, according to the Abhidhamma, a dhamma is supposed to be considered `fabricated'? Or is it a completely different category? If a dhamma is fabricated then there must be some kind of change while it is persisting, according to the Buddha. Even if it lasts for one billionth of a second there must be some change happening within that short space of time. It doesn't simply go on and off does it? From my meditation experience, I perceive change while dhammas are persisting but I must admit that my concentration is not to the level of perceiving dhammas that last only a billionth of a second! ;-)) Is it necessary to perceive dhammas at that minute level of change? Ken H: This morning, after reading certain posts from James, Victor and yourself, I was visibly furious. James: I am very sorry to read this. I have been trying very hard not to upset anyone in this group by using harsh or unfair speech. If you would like to tell me how I have offended you, either on-list or off, I will try my best to rectify the situation. Sorry again :-( Metta, James 32372 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 1:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana - Rebirth with genetic Info. Hi Eddie, --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Hi, All, > > My reasoning is: > 1. the case of people (like historic figures - > Beethoven, Mozart, etc), who exhibited prodigial > talents from birth. > The prerequisite being - you must first believe firmly > in 'Cause & Effect', something no one should dispute > because it is all very clear-cut. Okay, with that > squared away and firm, we can proceed to say, why ? > some people like - Mozart or Beethoven got complex > skills with no visible/discernible cause of being > taught or tutored. > Why ? some infant born with physical deformities, with > no cause of it that make them ('most likely, though) > suffer from such handicap. .... S: Just as you said above - Cause and Effect or rather innumerable complex conditions and causes from the past and present which only a Buddha could ever fully comprehend. I think that when we study more about conditions and realize how this moment has been 'formed up' from past causes over aeons, nothing is so surprising anymore. > > All these causes are hidden somewhere -->-> in > previous live(s). Remember, we always believe there is > a cause to any effect. > > > Now, I have a nagging question..... ... S: Your story is interesting and the answer is the same - causes and conditions which meant the features, hair colour and so on had to be just this way and not another way. I've no idea about the wife's actions, but I've read about similar cases which seem to defy the odds. Whatever surprising things occur, the path remains the same....;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 32373 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Eznir, Jack, Howard & All, --- Eznir wrote: > How can there be concepts, long before any recognizing or naming? I > thought the Javana thought moments, where these concepts are > fabricated, is the last to come just before the retentive thought > moments, in the train of thoughts, am I right? .... S: I understand you to be referring to the sequence of cittas in a mind-door process and the fact that the javana cittas occur just before the tadarammana or registration consciousness at the end of the process. As I understand, there are a multitude of mind-door processes occurring before there is any recognizing or naming. So as Sukin was suggesting, there are many mind-door processes long before there is any idea of naming or thinking in words when the sense object is just marked and the details attended to. In a single mind-door process, the cittas, with the assistance of sa~n~na and other mental factors, will take the same concept as object. I’m not sure we can refer to concepts being ‘fabricated’ by the javana cittas. Remember that only sankhara (i.e conditioned) dhammas are sankhata (formed up), not concepts. However, it is true that it is during these javana cittas that the object (in this case a concept) is attended to with various mental states such as attachment, aversion, wrong view or wholesome states. ..... E: > Moreover, how can you say "recognizing and naming" when "naming" > itself involves conceptualizing and still say there are > concepts "long before recognizing or naming"? .... S: Because there have to be many, many mind-door processes attending to and marking what was a sense-door experience before there is such recognizing and naming, by attending to the colour or shape or smell and so on. If you check ‘processes of cittas’ in UP for lots of detail: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts This is one fairly simple and clear post by RobM to give an idea: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/25755 ..... > By the way, how does those in the NAG follow the Teachings of Lord > Buddha as given in the Tripitaka in order to attain stream-entry let > alone Nibbana? Please understand that I am only trying to comprehend > the thought patterns that underlie this idea of non-action(ie, if NAG > means Non-Action Group). .... S: in an ultimate sense there is no one in the NAG to do or not do anything;-) Attaining stream-entry depends on the development of the eightfold path factors led by right understanding. These factors can never be developed by understanding of concepts, but only by understanding the conditioned dhammas, the namas and rupas appearing now as not-self. This is the same for all, regardless of any Group we may be categorized as being in;-). On your other post to me about the essence of sankhara, I get your gist and I always appreciate your well-considered comments. I think it’s very important to clarify that the dhamma in ‘sankhata dhamma’ refer to the 5 khandhas, i.e to paramattha dhammas only. The conditions for these sankhata dhammas to arise are usually realities, but when it comes to arammana paccaya (object condition), the object or arammana may also be a concept as discussed above. In D.O, it is abhi-sankhara that is specified as being sankhara, here referring to cetana (kamma) capable of bringing results. Under the khandhas, sankhara khandha refers to the 50 cetasikas. All references are to conditioned dhammas only, but we need to be clear on the context, I think. ***** Jack & Howard, you’re having a useful discussion on concepts and sanna. Whether the concepts are concepts about concepts or concepts about paramattha dhammas only the category of the concept is affected. They shouldn’t be confused with sanna which arises with each citta marking its object, regardless of whether it’s a reality or a concept or what kind of concept it is. Jack, as soon as there is ‘deconstructing’ of ‘an ultimate’, the object of the citta is a concept, however valid it may be. It doesn’t mean that this has to be unwise attention - in the development of samatha or the brahma vihara, concepts are the object, but the cittas are wholesome. However, this shouldn’t be confused with the development of satipatthana which directly knows realities or ‘ultimates’. Howard, as you say, ‘most of the concepts that arise in the mind are not single mental events, but sequences of mental events...’etc. Again we’re referrring to a great many mind door processes. Each citta in each process is accompanied by sanna marking its object, like the showing of a cartoon story. I think we can only refer to a ‘capping’ recognition conventionally in this regard as the ‘picture’ continues to move on. I remember you also explained this well with the ‘rose’ example. Comments most welcome. Metta, Sarah ===== 32374 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Dear Hasituppada, --- hasituppada wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I think it is here that one could differentiate between intellectual > undertanding by reading and listening, and realising through > experience the truth of what had been learnt by reading and > listening. .... S: Agreed, as I understand you. .... > When we know that what we call a being is afterall a continuous > rising and falling away of thoughts, we will also understand that > this is a thought process , and the last of the thoughts should > project itself to continue else where which is (probably) the > rebirth. .... S: Good points. So we can begin to understand that the plane of rebirth depends on the citta and the object. Now it's the kaamaavacara plane for us because sensesphere objects are experienced by the cittas (as opposed to rupajhana, arupajhana or lokuttara cittas with their respective objects). So the cittas continue on and the 31 planes are a conventional description detailing the cittas and objects experienced according to kamma and other conditions. I hope you can add more comments on this or other topics. Someone mentioned at the weekend that I hadn't replied to you before, but I said you were 'an old friend';-) Of course I'd be glad if you clarified on this for them too. Metta, Sarah ====== 32375 From: bodhi2500 Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:45am Subject: Re: The Question Still Remains wrote: > At another Cooran meeting, Steve was asked a question along the same > lines – "Can there be right understanding when there is no right > understanding to condition it?" He said, when the Buddha's sasana > has completely died out, there can be no right understanding: There > can be right understanding now only because the Buddha has > introduced it into the world. > > That doesn't explain the potential for self-enlightened, non- > teaching Buddhas. Sorry if I have misquoted you Steve: please butt > in with a correction. > > Kind regards to you both, > Ken H Hi Ken H and all, I may have said this, but I'm not sure I agree with it. :o) Like you said there are Pacceka Buddhas that realize Nibbana without hearing the teachings in that lifetime. I think perhaps what i may have been referring to (or what my understanding is now) was that for savaka's, hearing the Dhamma is a essential condition for the arising of lokutara pa~n~na. As the Buddha re-introduced the spoken Dhamma to the world, ultimately it was this re-introduction, and the hearing of it, that is an essential condition for the arising of lokutara pa~n~na for all except Pacceka and Sammasambuddhas. Looking forward to see you and the rest of the SEQLDDSG folks soon. :o) Take care Steve 32376 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hello from Cha-am (plus more Misuzu Kaneko) Dear All, A couple of typos I’d like to correct and apologise for: > comes from the Dhammavacara, the Buddha’s teachings as spelled out in > the > home page description. ... This should have referred to: ‘dhamma-vicaya’(investigation of the teachings) or ‘Dhamma-Vinaya’ (the entire teachings as rehearsed at the Councils). I could also have used ‘Buddha-vacana’(word of the Buddha). .... > S: When we read about ‘bahassuta’ - hearing a lot, .... This should be ‘bahussuta’, ‘bahu’ meaning much or many, ‘suta’ meaning heard. Metta, Sarah ===== 32377 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti, Q. Bgk Nina I'm just starting to catch up on messages received before or during our time away. My apologies to you and others for the delay in responding. --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon and Howard, > First, Jon, about concepts. I asked A. Sujin: when we reflect in the right > way on paramattha dhammas, the object is still a concept so long as panna > does not directly realize the dhamma that appears. We are still > thinking > *about* realities. Answer: yes. This is a good subject to discuss. Thus we > have to make this distinction: when does a concept represents > conventional > truth and when ultimate truth, she also stressed that point. We are thinking > anyway. Should't we know what the object of thinking is? Yes, I've heard this said too. A concept can represent a dhamma, for example, when we are discussing aspects of the teachings. At such times there may or may not be an appreciation that the concept represents a reality, i.e., something that can be directly experienced, even perhaps at that very moment, given the right conditions. As I understand it, any kusala occurring at such moments would be kusala of the level of samatha. As to whether there is any understanding of kusala and akusala by their respective characteristics, this is another matter altogether. In my own case the understanding of that distinction by direct experience (i.e., other than by assumption or deduction) is not well developed. I don’t know of this is the experience of others also. Jon 32378 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Nina and Lodewijk) - ... > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Here's just one example, Jon. There is the same for all the higher > jhanas through the sphere of nothingness: > > *********************** > Again, bhikkhus, Saariputta, dispelling pleasantness and > unpleasantness, ... > beyond this. With much practise they come to him. > ************************ > I particularly point out "contact, feelings, perceptions, intentions, > interest, resolution, effort" as cetasikas conducive to analysis of dhammas. > When, in the context of equanimity, concentration, and purified > mindfulness > there are also present contact, recognition, volition, interest, > and resolve, then cetasikas adequate to vipassana are present. > --------------------------------------------------- Cetasikas such as contact, feeling, perception and intention are among the universals that arise with every citta (including akusala cittas and vipaka cittas), so it would not be correct to think of them as cetasikas that are *conducive to analysis of dhammas*. I may be wrong, but I think none of the cetasikas you mention here occur exclusively with kusala cittas. But even if we take the cetasika panna, which is present during jhana and arises exclusively with kusala cittas, it would still not be correct to refer to this 'adequate to vipassana', since panna of the particular kind that accompanies jhana does not perform quite the same function as the panna that arises at moments of vipassana. To put this another way, ability in mundane jhana does not predispose a person to vipassana; those who are able to attain enlightenment based on jhana must still have developed insight to the necessary level, just like anyone else, since that is the 'only way'. In my view, nothing in the passage you have quoted says or should be read as suggesting that the cetasikas required for vipassana are present at momens of jhana. Jon 32379 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon and All, ... > Again, this all goes back to what the Buddha taught. We all need to > take a personal inventory of ourselves to determine where the three > poisons influence our thoughts/feelings, actions, and words. ... My advice is that you determine where you are the weakest and go from > there. Create a plan of self-improvement: don't just meditate or > study the dhamma and have no idea why you are doing it. Don't just > expect results like pennies from heaven ;-)). Be proactive in your > Buddhist practice. If you do this I don't think anyone could call > you a member of the NAG anymore ;-). To my understanding, whenever there is the understanding of a presently arising dhamma there is mundane insight, and this is the development of the path; it makes no difference whether the dhamma that is object of insight is kusala or akusala or neither (for example, a rupa). This being so then any taking if a 'personal inventory' or focusing on our worst areas, whatever merit that may have, is not a *necessary* part of the development of the path. What I'm saying is there can be the development of the path without implementing the kind of 'proactive' approach that you advocate. Insight is a matter of understanding, and understanding is not a matter of doing. Jon 32380 From: Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi, Larry (and Jack) - The following is great. I'm amazed it didn't catch my attention at times that I looked over the Abh-Sangaha. One thing that isn't totally clear to me in this material, is the nature of the "objects" involved, whether in the limited or independent mind-door processes. The first line of # 7 does seem to suggest paramatthic objects, not pa~n~natti. That line reads "An 'independent mind-door process' occurs when any of the six objects enters the range of cognition entirely on its own, not as a consequence of an immediately preceding sense-door process." I take the object as paramatthic because it is described as "any of the six objects," which means a sight, sound, taste, etc. So I'm not entirely sure this material quite elucidates the relationship between sa~n~na and pa~n~natti. It certainly does go into what one might call the rudimentary stage (or base case) of the process of concept formation - the "percept" level rather than the "concept level". If the same sort of processing comes to operate on a "higher level" (of abstraction and hierarchical grouping) it would, I suppose, then become true concept formation. I see concept formation as the construction of high-level tags/marks (created by sa~n~na), and I tend to see the "arising of a concept" in the mind as being the occurrence of a sequence (or collection) of related paramatthic phenomena or concepts, followed by a triggered occurrence of the tag that serves as a mental "capping" of that sequence. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/20/04 10:25:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard and Jack, > > Here's something from "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" that may be > of interest. It's a bit long (9 paragraphs) and I've left out the Pali. > > Guide to the Limited Javana Process, p.163// > > 1. The mind-door process: When cognitive process occurs in one of the > sense doors, two doors are actually involved: the physical sense door > and the mind door, which is the bhavanga from which the cognitive > process emerges. What is called the mind-door process is a cognitive > process that occurs exclusively through the mind door, without any > admixture of the sense doors. This kind of process is also called, for > the sake of clarity, a bare mind-door process. > > 2. The mind-door process includes both the "limited" or sense-sphere > process and the cognitive process in absorption pertaining to the > sublime and supramundane attainments. > > 3. The limited or sense-sphere mind-door process is itself twofold: (1) > that consequent to a five-door process, and (2) the independent process. > > 4. (1) Just as when a gong is struck once by a baton, the gong sends > forth a continuous stream of reverberations, so when one of the five > sense doors has been impinged upon once by a sense object, after the > five-door process has ceased the past sense object comes into range at > the mind door and sets off many sequences of mind-door processes. > Because these cognitive processes come as the sequel to a five-door > process, they are known as 'consequent processes'. They are counted as > fivefold by way of the five sense-door processes which they follow. > > 5. Ledi Sayadaw explains that it is in these consequent processes that > distinct recognition of the object occurs; such recognition does not > occur in a bare five-door process itself. An eye-door process, for > example, is followed first by a conformational mind-door process, which > reproduces in the mind door the object just perceived in the sense-door > process. Then comes a process grasping the object as whole; then a > process recognizing the colour; then a process grasping the entity; then > a process gasping the name; then a process recognizing the name. > > 6. "The process grasping the object as a whole" is the mind-door process > perceiving as a whole the forms repeatedly perceived in individual > frames by the two preceding processes, the original sense-door process > and the conformational mind-door process. This process exercises a > synthesizing function, fusing the perception of distinct "shots" of the > object into the perception of a unity, as in the case of a whirling > firebrand perceived as a circle of fire. It is only when this has > occurred that recognition of the colour is possible. When the > recognition of the entity occurs, one recognizes the entity or shape. > When the recognition of the name occurs, one recognizes the name. Thus, > Ledi Sayadaw asserts, it is only when a recognitional process referring > to one or another specific feature occurs that one knows, "I see this or > that specific feature." > > 7. (2) An 'independent mind-door process' occurs when any of the six > objects enters the range of cognition entirely on its own, not as a > consequence of an immediately preceding sense-door process. The question > may be raised how an object can enter the range of the mind door > independently of a proximate sensory impingement. Ledi Sayadaw cites > various sources: through what was directly perceived earlier, or by > inference from what was directly perceived; through what was learnt by > oral report, or by inference from what was learnt by oral report; on > account of belief, opinion, reasoning, or reflective acceptance of a > view; by the power of kamma, psychic power, disturbance of the bodiy > humours, the influence of a deity, comprehension, realization, etc. He > explains that if one has clearly experienced an object even once, at a > later time--even after a hundred years or in a future life--dependent on > that object a condition may be set for the vibration of the bhavanga. > The mind that has been nurtured on such an input of prior experiences is > extremely susceptible to their influence. When it encounters any sense > object, that object may trigger off in a single moment mental waves > extending to many thousands of objects previously perceived. > > 8. The mental continuum, constantly being excited by these causal > influences, is always seeking an opportunity to emerge from the bhavanga > and acquire a clear cognition of an object. Therefore the mental factor > of attention present in the bhavanga repeatedly cases the bhavanga to > vibrate, and it directs consciousness again and again to advert to > objects which have gained conditions to appear. Even though the bhavanga > citta has its own object, Ledi Sayadaw explains, it occurs in the mode > of inclining towards some other object. As a result of this perpetual > "buzz" of activity in the bhavanga, when an object acquires sufficient > prominence through other operative conditions, it draws the continuum of > consciousness out of the bhavanga, and then that object comes into the > range of cognition at the mind door. > > 9. The independent process is analyzed as sixfold: the process based on > what was directly perceived; the process based on inference from what > was directly perceived; the process based on oral report; the process > based on inference from oral report; the process based on the cognized; > the process based on inference from the cognized. "The cognized" here > includes belief, opinion, comprehension, and realization; "inference > from the cognized" includes judgements arrived at by inductive and > deductive reasoning. > /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) 32381 From: Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains Hi, Ken - In a message dated 4/20/04 10:57:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > <. . . > > Howard: >Ahh, there you go - the Buddha was wrong. Well, that's > sure good to know. > > --------------------------- > > I did not say the Buddha was wrong. But I understand the > frustration that led you to accuse me of such a hideous thing. This > morning, after reading certain posts from James, Victor and > yourself, I was visibly furious. Isn't that ridiculous? When there > is so much evil and injustice in the world, I direct my rage at a > group of Buddhists! :-) > > I have deserved your ridicule and, perhaps, I should apologise. In > my previous two posts (to you and Jack), I used language that I knew > could be infuriating. > =========================== No, I apologize. Ridicule and sarcasm are never good, and especially not when directed at inappropriate targets! I'm sorry. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32382 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] The 6 Great Councils ! Venerable Bhante Samahita, Thank you very much for your post on the six Councils, I shall keep it so that I can consult it. With respect, Nina. op 20-04-2004 07:10 schreef Bhikkhu Samahita op bhikkhu_samahita@y...: > > How were the actual Words of the Buddha preserved until today ? 32383 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma for birthday Hi Howard, I join Sarah in her good wishes for your birthday. My wish, and also Lodewijk's is: may you see evermore that the Abhidhamma is not abstract but that all of it pertains to daily life now. Nina. P.S. Before answering your Q on sanna, I have to wrestle through an ocean of mails, finishing some urgent work, and arranging all Lodewijk's good remarks on Dhamma during the discussions we had these days. He says Sujin's Concepts and Realities (Part of the Survey, on Rob K' s web) may be of help to you. op 20-04-2004 11:10 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > S: I hope you have a good day and meaningful birthday. I also look > forward to your comments and summary afterwards. Perhaps you can encourage > Andrew Olendzki (or any of the participants) to join in our discussions > here as well. > > Metta and Best Wishes for many more wise birthdays in advance. 32384 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Howard, just a short answer. I read in the co to Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, about anicca sanna: WEe have to look under which heading a dhamma is. Nina. op 20-04-2004 15:49 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > With regard to the relationship between sa~n~na and cognitive > paramattha dhamma, look at Nyanatiloka's 3rd meaning for 'sa~n~na': > >> 3. saññá may also refer to the 'ideas', which are objects of meditation, >> e.g. in a group of 7 ideas, of impermanence (anicca-s. ), etc. (A. VII, 46); >> of >> 10: impurity (asubha-s.), etc. (A. X, 56), and another set of 10 in A. X. >> 60; or to wrong notions, as in nicca-, subha-s. (the notion of permanence, >> beauty), etc. 32385 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 1:23pm Subject: Re: The Question Still Remains Hi James, You wrote: --------------- > I am confused as to if, according to the Abhidhamma, a dhamma is supposed to be considered `fabricated'? Or is it a completely different category? If a dhamma is fabricated then there must be some kind of change while it is persisting, according to the Buddha. Even if it lasts for one billionth of a second there must be some change happening within that short space of time. It doesn't simply go on and off does it? > ---------------- Like you, I find it confusing (I'm not even sure I understand your question), but the Dhamma isn't easy. If, as we are told, a dhamma is changing even while it is persisting, then that is its characteristic – part of its inherent nature. There may not always be conventional examples of absolute realities but that should not mislead us into thinking dhammas do not really exist – that they are something nebulous. ----------------- J: > From my meditation experience, I perceive change while dhammas are persisting > --------------- Well there you are: no problem :-) ---------------- J: > but I must admit that my concentration is not to the level of perceiving dhammas that last only a billionth of a second! ;-)) Is it necessary to perceive dhammas at that minute level of change? ---------- Panna, sati and other cetasikas can perceive dhammas. As Howard was saying, they are equally as fast (or faster) than their objects. When we start thinking that you or I can perceive them, we are getting a little ahead of ourselves, I think. ---------- < . . . > J: > If you would like to tell me how I have offended you, either on- list or off, I will try my best to rectify the situation. Sorry again :-( ---------------- At a superficial level, my problem is that my Dhamma friends (if not the Dhamma itself) are being shunned and ridiculed. I don't like to see them being told, in effect, "I haven't listened to a single word you have said," and I don't like to see them called silly names. At a deeper level, I am being my own worst enemy: At any moment of partiality, or of anger, or of heedlessness, there is no respect for the Dhamma and no respect for any of you, here at dsg. So; enough about me and my problems, let's get on with the discussions. :-) Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > "Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is > fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is > discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is > discernible. > "These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. > "Now these three are unfabricated characteristics of what is > unfabricated. Which three? No arising is discernible, no passing > away is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible. > "These are three unfabricated characteristics of what is > unfabricated." 32386 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:40pm Subject: Re: The Question Still Remains/Cooran Hi Steve, Thanks for your prompt reply – nice to know you are on the ball. ------------- S: > I may have said this, but I'm not sure I agree with it. :o) Like you said there are Pacceka Buddhas that realize Nibbana without hearing the teachings in that lifetime. ------------------------ Fair enough, but I will remind you of what you said when we meet at Cooran. Note to interested dsg members: The Cooran group is meeting on the Mayday weekend. (What a pity the rest of you live so far away.) It will be our first three-day meeting. How dedicated is that? Andrew has advised us to bring togs, ready for Stream-entry. (!) We will be having a talk to him. ----------------------- S: > I think perhaps what i may have been referring to (or what my understanding is now) was that for savaka's, hearing the Dhamma is a essential condition for the arising of lokutara pa~n~na. As the Buddha re-introduced the spoken Dhamma to the world, ultimately it was this re-introduction, and the hearing of it, that is an essential condition for the arising of lokutara pa~n~na for all except Pacceka and Sammasambuddhas. --------------- There's a lot if information in that, thank you, perhaps you could say more on it at Cooran (or here, of course). Christine and Andrew have each prepared several discussion papers. I have made a lot of promises but none that I look like keeping. :-) The surf has been good lately, have you noticed? I have yet to see you, or your longboard (shudder), at Noosa. Hopefully one day. Kind regards, Ken H 32387 From: Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Howard, I really haven't figured out concept according to abhidhamma. The bare bones definition of concept is "word and/or meaning". 'Word' seems straight forward enough; it is 'meaning' that is vague and contradictory. Does 'meaning' include any combination, synthesis, mental formation? All of these are obviously conditioned in multiple ways; so that contradicts the abhidhamma idea that concepts are not conditioned. The object of jhana is said to be a concept. Does this mean the mental image (nimitta)? There are detailed instructions on how to _create_ a nimitta. Maybe 'meaning' is just the convention of pointing to a reality and has nothing to do with formations. If we have a mental image of a tree, maybe we have to say the image is real, like the visible data of a mirage is real. It is the interpretation that is a concept. Even this is unsatisfactory. 'Interpretation' seems obviously conditioned; ask any teacher;-) I think the 'not conditioned' characteristic of concept is very problematical; but if concept is conditioned, that would make it a reality, right? Larry ps: I think the difference between sanna and sati is that sanna is mistaken according to the buddhadhamma, while sati perceives correctly, especially as regards the three general characteristics. Both are concerned with identifying. 32388 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:52pm Subject: Mundane jhana and Supramundane jhana? Hi all, I have some questions regarding jhana: What is mundane jhana? What is supramundane jhana? I have not come across any reference regarding mundane jhana and supramundane in the discourses. Metta, Victor 32389 From: Beverly Westheimer Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:50pm Subject: It's so easy ? Hello Everyone: Tom and I are back home after a wonderful 10 days in Bangkok, the best of which were spent with Dhamma friends in a discussion group with Ajan Suchin. The 2 1/2 days spent with the group certainly made the 30+ hours travelling from the US to Thailand more than worthwhile. It is always good to be reminded to be aware of the realities appearing through the sense-doors and the mind-door in the present moment. How simple it sounds, yet so difficult to practice! Tom and Bev 32390 From: Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? In a message dated 4/21/04 2:25:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: Jack, as soon as there is ‘deconstructing’ of ‘an ultimate’, the object of the citta is a concept, however valid it may be. It doesn’t mean that this has to be unwise attention - in the development of samatha or the brahma vihara, concepts are the object, but the cittas are wholesome. However, this shouldn’t be confused with the development of satipatthana which directly knows realities or ‘ultimates’. Sarah, What do you mean when you say deconstucting of an ultimate? By definition an ultimate can't be deconstucted. Do you mean deconstucting into ultimates? Using my previous example, I look at a situation and then start to reduce the situation into ultimates. For example, I am nervous waiting in a dentist's office. I then say to myself, look at what is really happening. I check what is at each of my 5 sense doors and there isn't a problem. As long as I keep in touch with the object of these 5 sense doors instead of letting my imagination run wild, no problem. This is not that complicated or hard to do. jack 32391 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] It's so easy ? Bev It's great to see you here, as it was to see you and Tom in Bangkok (and a total surprise). I'm glad you found the discussion useful -- I certainly did. I hope you find your time here useful also. Reading your message is itself a reminder, so thanks for that. Like you say, it sounds so simple but it's not! Jon PS Sorry not to have had a chance to say good-bye before we left, but there was the usual general melee at the end of the session. Please pass my best on to Tom. --- Beverly Westheimer wrote: > Hello Everyone: > Tom and I are back home after a wonderful 10 days in Bangkok, the > best > of which were spent with Dhamma friends in a discussion group with > Ajan > Suchin. The 2 1/2 days spent with the group certainly made the 30+ > hours travelling from the US to Thailand more than worthwhile. It > is > always good to be reminded to be aware of the realities appearing > through the sense-doors and the mind-door in the present moment. > How > simple it sounds, yet so difficult to practice! > Tom and Bev 32392 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Jack, Thankyou for responding. Apologies for any confusion in my comments without directly quoting you. I see I may have partially misunderstood your original comment inserted here: ..... Jack: >> I'm not clear what the Abhidhamma and Visud. say about the ultimates of > a > thought as object of attention, i.e., that which we can deconstruct a > thought > into. Cetasaikas arise with the object of attention but I am talking > about the >> object itself. Ideas? ...... Sarah: >> Jack, as soon as there is ‘deconstructing’ of ‘an ultimate’, the > object of > the citta is a concept, however valid it may be. It doesn’t mean that > this > has to be unwise attention - in the development of samatha or the brahma > vihara, concepts are the object, but the cittas are wholesome. However, > this shouldn’t be confused with the development of satipatthana which >> directly knows realities or ‘ultimates’. ***** Jack: > What do you mean when you say deconstucting of an ultimate? By > definition an > ultimate can't be deconstucted. .... S: Exactly. We’re agreed - I misread you. .... J:Do you mean deconstucting into > ultimates? .... S: I think you’re suggesting above that thoughts can be deconstructed into ultimates. I’m suggesting that again this is merely more thinking about concepts. For example, thinking about how the body consists of elements is a conceptual analysis, even though in this case it’s a correct conceptual analysis. ..... J: > Using my previous example, I look at a situation and then start to > reduce the > situation into ultimates. For example, I am nervous waiting in a > dentist's office. > I then say to myself, look at what is really happening. I check what is > at > each of my 5 sense doors and there isn't a problem. .... S: This may well be helpful reflection, but I’m suggesting that thinking in this way or ‘reducing the situation into ultimates’ is thinking about concepts of ultimates, not satipatthana which has ultimate realities as objects of awareness. Of course, even whilst thinking like this (or on the contrary, nervously pacing up and down), satipatthana can arise and know any ultimates directly without any special ‘reducing’ or ‘deconstructing’. ..... >As long as I keep in > touch > with the object of these 5 sense doors instead of letting my imagination > run > wild, no problem. This is not that complicated or hard to do. .... S: I agree and I don’t think this kind of concentration on the sense door objects is unique to those who have heard the Buddha’s teachings. I don’t understand it to be the same as directly understanding conditioned dhammas with detachment and without any idea of self. For example, whether the imagination runs wild or we feel nervous or there is ‘keeping in touch’ with sense objects, there are realities (‘ultimates’) arising and falling away which can be known regardless without anything special ‘to do’. I’d be grateful for any further comments, Jack. You’ll be doing others a favour by keeping the dialogue open, however frustrating it may seem;-). Metta, Sarah ===== 32393 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 0:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] It's so easy ? Hi Tom & Bev (Nina & All), Thank you so much for touching base after your very long trip home to New Hampshire. For us, it was a weekend of pleasant surprises, the first of which was finding you’d specially come to join the dhamma sessions. I appreciated your contributions very much. Let’s hope it’s not another 21 years before I see you again!! .... --- Beverly Westheimer wrote: > Hello Everyone: > Tom and I are back home after a wonderful 10 days in Bangkok, the best > of which were spent with Dhamma friends in a discussion group with Ajan > Suchin. The 2 1/2 days spent with the group certainly made the 30+ > hours travelling from the US to Thailand more than worthwhile. .... S. Perhaps you’ll encourage others to do the same:-) Christine’s regular commute from Queensland no longer seems so extraordinary and far less so our weekend hops from Hong Kong. .... >It is > always good to be reminded to be aware of the realities appearing > through the sense-doors and the mind-door in the present moment. How > simple it sounds, yet so difficult to practice! .... S: Another pleasant surprise was when our old friend, Peter, turned up to a session, not having done so for 20years. As he said, the message stays the same, and there are still no ‘loop-holes’;-) I hear K.Sujin saying ‘develop a little until it gets used to that reality’. On Lodvijk’s qu about satipatthana and the difficulty of understanding its meaning, she stressed that no term is needed. We merely use this or any other word to differentiate awareness of realities, not for thinking about concepts. Sati has to be aware of a characteristic of reality accompanied by understanding. In the beginning awareness is stressed because the characteristic of awareness has to be known first in order for understanding to develop. When it seems that we’re just hearing ‘fragments’ or that part of the picture is missing, it shows that it’s a self at these times who is reading or developing, looking for more. Repeatedly the ‘clinging to results’ with an idea of self was stressed over the weekend. It creeps in all the time. Whispering lobha again as Azita reminded us. Nina, I also repeated your message in which you asked K.Sujin for some encouraging comments for when one is sick. While she responded, I was reflecting on how what is conventionally encouraging is so very different from what is considered encouraging from an abhidhamma understanding. The latter can seem quite sharp and tough when one is not able to hear the truth. Sukin also stressed at the weekend that abhidhamma was the best medicine for any difficulties and I appreciated his keen ability to hear the truth at such times. When sick or diagnosed with any disease, K.Sujin stressed that it depends on whether ignorance or panna arises at any moment. Nothing can be done. It depends on satipatthana. One would like just to have pleasant feeling but this is just wishing or more attachment to the self. The reality at that moment is not-self and is arising and falling away in a moment. While we are thinking about friends and people in life, in truth there is no one, no name, no disease, no cancer. At the moment of bhavanga cittas, there is no story of anyone or any disease at all. I suggested the doctor might say otherwise and that one needs to take actions, but K.Sujin stressed ‘never mind what the doctor says’ and one follows various actions accordingly, but never mind about the name or label. In other words, we do what needs to be done anyway. We don’t need to hear the teachings for this. However, while leading our lives accordingly, the development of satipatthana and the understanding of realities is the only real cure of our problems. Usually we float along on the ocean of concepts forgetting about the sense-door and mind-door realities. Can we swallow the medicine of satipatthana at this moment? Metta, Sarah p.s Hope to hear more from you Bev, now you’ve broken the ice.....perhaps even a little about how you came to be so very interested in the Dhamma......and of course, how nice if you decide to join the India trip, though I realize it’s not long since your last one (with Jon, Nina & 100+ others;-)). Did you read my other post about the last big surprise of our weekend?? (Vince & Nancy!!). ========== 32394 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 0:55am Subject: Re: dialogue on satipatthana Friend Jon, Jon: To my understanding, whenever there is the understanding of a presently arising dhamma there is mundane insight, and this is the development of the path; James: But Jon, there isn't any understanding of a presently arising dhamma. You don't have ANY real understanding of ANY presently arising dhammas. Your mind is suffering from the taint of delusion, just as mine is, so you don't have any real understanding. Understanding presently arising dhammas isn't development of the path- it is completion of the path. The only way to have understanding of presently arising dhammas is to be enlightened already. Jon: it makes no difference whether the dhamma that is object of insight is kusala or akusala or neither (for example, a rupa). James: The object of insight cannot be akusala (unwholesome) unless it is recognizing unwholesomeness in someone else (like what a Buddha recognizes). The akusala states in your own mine cannot be the object of insight because they are the antithesis of insight. Insight can only arise when the mind is pure and wholesome. For example, people kill other people because they do not know that it is wrong. It would not be possible for a person to develop insight by being mindful while killing someone else. The two cancel each other out. Jon: This being so then any taking if a 'personal inventory' or focusing on our worst areas, whatever merit that may have, is not a *necessary* part of the development of the path. James: As I have explained, this isn't so. We all should take a `personal inventory' as often as possible. We also should be proactive in eliminating unwholesome states of mind so that insight can arise. Jon: Insight is a matter of understanding, and understanding is not a matter of doing. James: Well, I agree with you that one cannot `force' or `choose' to have insight, but one can take actions to cultivate wholesome states of mind so that insight can naturally arise. Metta, James 32395 From: Ken O Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Larry I beg to differ on Ledi Sayadaw comments, when he said that recognition is not at the five door process that why did Buddha say that eye and form, eye consciousness arise and when eye consciousness arise, so does sanna cetasikas that arise with the eye consciousness. When sanna arise, recogntion arise. I suspect he mixed it up with pannati, because only recognition of concept (he said the process of grasping the object as a whole) can only appear in mind door but not sense door process. Ken O 32396 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains/Cooran Hi KenH & Cooranites, --- kenhowardau wrote: > Note to interested dsg members: The Cooran group is meeting on the > Mayday weekend. (What a pity the rest of you live so far away.) It > will be our first three-day meeting. How dedicated is that? Andrew > has advised us to bring togs, ready for Stream-entry. (!) We will > be having a talk to him. .... S: We’ll be looking forward to hearing about the secrets of your success;-) Remember, no halting, no straining and no standing still when you meet any contrary currents;-) You captured Azita perfectly in that little conversation. She's a good friend to us all. Perhaps you should record her and play it to the ignorant wordlings anytime they suggest you’re lacking in diplomacy;-) When she joins you, I’m sure you’re a formidable team. .... >Christine and Andrew > have each prepared several discussion papers. I have made a lot of > promises but none that I look like keeping. :-) ..... S: KenH, I think we all know that it would be a major upset to the routine if you were to drop the surfboard and get organised;-) .... > The surf has been good lately, have you noticed? I have yet to see > you, or your longboard (shudder), at Noosa. Hopefully one day. .... S: Perhaps he’s also read about your surf rage when it comes to those poor longboarders and is keeping his distance. Chris I’m sure will be giving you a full report on the discussions at the weekend (Chris, hope you’re back safely and patiently looking forward to any of your comments and humourous anecdotes). Talking of surf rage reminds me that we talked about how there may be conditions for a lot or a little of any particular kilesa (defilements) in this lifetime, but we really don’t know our accumulations from the past at all and can only know that which is conditioned now. For example, on our last morning, Vince and Nancy recounted how they were stopped at gun-point on a trip in Italy and how Nancy who is usually very quiet and calm, grabbed hold of the gun and wouldn’t let it go in sheer fright. She said she realized she was capable of anything at that instant. We really never know. K.Sujin (in passing) referred to a Jataka story about Big prince and Little prince and something about giving away his kingdom and later claiming it back. Maybe Nina or someone can give us the source. In other words, we may think we don’t get into rages or even have a lot of accumulated generosity like Big prince, but we never know. Defilements can be conditioned to arise anytime, but the stream-enterer understands there’s no ‘me’ or ‘them’, just conditioned dhammas. I think when kilesa or any other realities are seen with detachment as ‘just conditioned dhammas’ for an instant, even whilst one is upset or lost in attachment, there is a little taste of the teachings and it no longer matters what is conditioned at this moment. We discussed how the stream-enterer doesn’t kill because there is full understanding about conditioned dhammas, no‘me’ and ‘them’. Jealousy is also eradicated because again there is no ‘me’ and ‘them’ when it comes to fame, wealth and other wordly conditions and no hoping or wishing for anything by a ‘self’ or for a ‘self’. So attachment and other defilements can only be reduced by understanding, not by force or wishing, even if there may seem to be temporary improvements. I hope you all have a good weekend then and we’ll look forward to hearing more about the preparations and the various accounts afterwards which we’ve now come to expect;-) KenH, please report back any more exchanges too and I hope they all continue to take what you have to say in such good humour unlike our unruly mob here who insist on challenging your every word;-). Metta, Sarah ====== 32397 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Ken O and Larr, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > I beg to differ on Ledi Sayadaw comments, when he said that > recognition is not at the five door process that why did Buddha say > that eye and form, eye consciousness arise and when eye consciousness > arise, so does sanna cetasikas that arise with the eye consciousness. > When sanna arise, recogntion arise. I suspect he mixed it up with > pannati, because only recognition of concept (he said the process of > grasping the object as a whole) can only appear in mind door but not > sense door process. Perhaps I can help here to explain Ledi Sayadaw's point. Sanna as a cetasika arises in every citta; it's function is to mark an object and "recognize" an object by its mark. This is not "memory" where we match a current object with a previous experience. As an analogy, consider what happens when we watch TV. In reality, there are coloured dots coming from a screen. Our "low level" sanna allows us to take in multiple dots, remember their colour and position and then create a complete image for us to "see". Only once this "low level" process is complete can the function of matching the actor's face with our previous experiences arise; this matching of the actor's face is "high level" memory. When Ledi Sayadaw (or Bhikkhu Bodhi) uses the term "recongition" in this section, they are referring to "high level" memory which is quite different from "low level" sanna. Hope this helps... let me know if clarification is required. Metta, Rob M :-) 32398 From: Suravira Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 5:30am Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher" wrote: > Hello, > > This (rather strange) question is actually about Mahayana Buddhism. > Please forgive me for asking it here, I have often received lots of friendly > help in here, and I'm not sure where else I might find an answer. So > any help is appreciated.. > > When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the > stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help other [Suravira] The experience of stream entry is not discouraged in Mahayana practice. In that stream entry dispells doubt in the efficacy of the dharma and also eradicates false views of individuality, it is embraced in all Mahayana traditions, not avoided. > beings. I am wondering if there is a certain way that a meditator does > this, and if so, how? Would there come a point in meditation where it is > obvious that entering the stream is possible, and a person can simply > choose not to advance? Or is it possible to 'accidentally' enter the > stream, only realizing afterwards what has happened? If so, what does > a Mahayanist do about this? [Suravira] The Mahayana meditator does not aspire to avoid stream entry. Dispelling doubt in the efficacy of the dharma and the eradication of false views of individuality are critically important accomplishments along the path to enlightenment. For example, in Zen traditions, kensho is highly valued - kensho is equivalent to stream entry. And in Vajhrayana traditions, 'seeing the clear nature of mind' is highly valued - that is equivalent to stream entry. When the conditions are suitable, stream entry occurs. All Buddhist meditation practices, regardless of their lineage, have as their aim facilitating stream entry - and eventually enlightenment. With metta, Suravira > > Thanks, > > Chris. 32399 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Hi, James and Jon - In a message dated 4/22/04 3:56:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > Friend Jon, > > Jon: To my understanding, whenever there is the understanding of a > presently arising dhamma there is mundane insight, and this is the > development of the path; > > James: But Jon, there isn't any understanding of a presently arising > dhamma. You don't have ANY real understanding of ANY presently > arising dhammas. Your mind is suffering from the taint of delusion, > just as mine is, so you don't have any real understanding. > Understanding presently arising dhammas isn't development of the > path- it is completion of the path. The only way to have > understanding of presently arising dhammas is to be enlightened > already. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: James, this position strikes me as an all-or-nothing-at-all position which isn't correct. If, along the way, we were entirely bereft of insight, how could there be further progress? Even the realization that things are not perfect involves a degree of insight. In total blackess, one can't even see the light switch. The path culminates with the perfection of right intention and right understanding, but it must begin with a modicum of these as well. --------------------------------------------------- > > Jon: it makes no difference whether the dhamma that is object of > insight is kusala or akusala or neither (for example, a rupa). > > James: The object of insight cannot be akusala (unwholesome) unless > it is recognizing unwholesomeness in someone else (like what a > Buddha recognizes). The akusala states in your own mine cannot be > the object of insight because they are the antithesis of insight. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: So, while we are angry, or, better said, when we momentarily take that anger as an object (and not as a concomitant), can we not see it clearly for what it is? If not, are we not then lost, consigned to slavery to our base emotions? -------------------------------------------------- > Insight can only arise when the mind is pure and wholesome. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: That given, cannot moments of insight be interspersed? Is it not insight that spurs letting go of harmful states? ---------------------------------------------------- For > > example, people kill other people because they do not know that it > is wrong. It would not be possible for a person to develop insight > by being mindful while killing someone else. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: But mindstates go by quickly, and many kusala and akusala states, it appears to me, can be rapidly alternating in what seem to us to be but a moment. Heightened concentration, mindfulness, and comprehension must be developed, the lighting must be turned up in all states, so that our vision may become clearer, sharper, and more penetrating, and we can come to *see* kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. ----------------------------------------------------- The two cancel each other> out. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree - they couldn't co-occur. When taking an akusala feature as object with clear understanding, that momentary state is, itself, kusala. At a moment that the immediately passed anger of the last moment is fleetingly seen as painful, that is a kusala moment. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Jon: This being so then any taking if a 'personal inventory' or > focusing on our worst areas, whatever merit that may have, is not a > *necessary* part of the development of the path. > > James: As I have explained, this isn't so. We all should take > a `personal inventory' as often as possible. We also should be > proactive in eliminating unwholesome states of mind so that insight > can arise. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I very much agree with you on this, James. This is certainly a part of what the Buddha was talking about when he taught right effort. From ATI, there is the following: The definition (the four Right Exertions): > "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk > generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent > for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not > yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, > upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful > qualities that have arisen. [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates > persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful > qualities that have not yet arisen. [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, > activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, > non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities > that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." > >> -- SN XLV.8 > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jon: Insight is a matter of understanding, and understanding is not a > matter of doing. > > James: Well, I agree with you that one cannot `force' or `choose' to > have insight, but one can take actions to cultivate wholesome states > of mind so that insight can naturally arise. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I strongly concur, James. If I dd not think so, I would find little interest in the Dhamma except as pleasant philosophy. -------------------------------------------------- > > Metta, James > > =========================== 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)