32800 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 6, 2004 3:08am Subject: Subrahma's Problem Dear All, Subrahma: "Always anxious is this mind, the mind is always agitated, about problems present and future; please tell me the release from fear." Buddha: "Not apart from awakening and austerity, Not apart from sense restraint, Not apart from relinquishing all, Do I see any safety for living beings." http://www.purifymind.com/SubrahmaProblem.htm metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 32801 From: Date: Thu May 6, 2004 0:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, Phil - In a message dated 5/6/04 2:22:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > HI Howard, and all > > Please allow me to slip in a beginner's pov on this. > > >All conditioned dhammas, when > >afflicted by clinging, produce distress. This includes pleasant > feeling!! When > >pleasant feeling is clung to, unpleasant mental feeling is > produced. ;-) > > Isn't it that "separation from the loved" is conditioned by the > pleasant feeling, dissatisfcation from not having it next time? Or is > the passage you quoted pointing at a much more immediate response? > That would be a bit of a bummmer. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I think it's both. Your point about the distress of separation from the loved is right on the mark. But more immediately in time may come the distress resulting from *anticipating* that separation. And even more immediately comes the distress resulting from the almost simultaneous clinging to the pleasant feeling. Clinging, itself, even to a "good feeling", is unpleasant - at best bittersweet.) ---------------------------------------------- > If I'm going to feel dissatisfied I expect it to take a few hours > at least! ;) I've become aware these days when I'm enjoying the sun > (I'm a sun worshipper) that I'm planting the seed for feeling > dissatisfaction on cloudy days, for example. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think it may set in as soon as clinging does. But with subtle clinging, the resultant distress will also be subtle. ------------------------------------------------- > > >P.S. Can one cling to metta? I suppose so! ;-)) > > This is an interesting one! I was clinging to what I > called "metta" and using it as a conceptual tool to try to paint "my" > world in rosy colours and mmake it a cozier place to be, but now I am > beginning to see- just beginning to see - metta as a dhamma that > arises more as a result of defilements being cleared out of the way > rather than intention to have it arise on my part. > Eager to read what others will have to say about this. > > Metta (for want of a better word) > Phil > ==================== 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) 32802 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 6, 2004 5:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reverse Word Index to the Visuddhimagga Hi Suan, Many thanks indeed from me as well for your very comprehensive reply and for shedding light on our ignorant speculations;-)It makes good sense now. Metta, Sarah --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Suan, > > Thanks for the clarification. Clearly there are other books from PTS > that are higher on my Christmas wish list. > > I genuinely hope that some day, I can Pali-literate enough to feel > the need for this type of reference text. 32803 From: Philip Date: Thu May 6, 2004 5:28am Subject: Re: Root cetasikas and minor cetasikas Hi Rob, and all Rob: > The roots are the core, the heart of the mental state. Just as the > roots form the foundation for a tree, so too the root cetasikas are > the fundamental character, the base of the mental state. > > When an idea of conceit (mana) arises, this idea is built on a base > of moha (not seeing things as they truly are) and lobha (attachment > to self). Moha are lobha are the roots supporting every mental state > with conceit. Phil: This is very helpful. I will look at the minor (I think that's the word Nina uses) cetasikas as being built on and supported by the root cetasikas. I can see that I needn't think hard now about exactly how the roots combine to be this base for other cetasikas. It's enough for me now to have had it confirmed that that's the way it works. Something just popped into my head. I can intellectually understand/conceive of attachment and aversion as dhammas, as real mental factors, but moha is harder to understand for me in that sense. It seems like an absence rather than a presence, and I have thought of cetasikas as presences, as in realities that form the present moment. I guess it's easier for me to see ignorance ("not seeing things as they truly are") as caused by -attachment which by comforting, distracting or stupefying causes us to forget to try see things as they are, -or aversion which because of fear, irritation, disgust or whatever turns us away from trying see things as they are. But I have more trouble understanding moha as a root with an intrinsic existence of its own. Do you know what I mean? It seems to me at this moment that ignorance would result from aversion and/or attachment rather than being a presence of its own. That just popped into my head. Of course I'm not suggesting that the the roots be edited down to 4 from 6! ;) just making that comment as a way of better understanding moha. Maybe it's easier to understand moha starting from amoha. It's easier for me to think of panna as a presence, but that's probably wrong view too. Not sweating it though. This is fun! I hope I'm not wearing out my welcome with all these speculative posts. Thanks again for your help. I really appreciate your guidance. Metta, Phil 32804 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu May 6, 2004 0:02am Subject: No Agent inside ! Friends: Impersonal Processes: Action without an Actor: Who feels ? - Nobody feels ! What feels ? - Feeling itself feels ! What does feeling feel ? Feeling feels pain, pleasure & neutral indifference. Who perceives ? - Nobody perceives ! What perceives ? - Perception itself perceives ! What does perception perceive ? Perception perceives forms, colours, sounds, smells, tastes, touches and ideas, thoughts & mental states. Who (re)cognizes ? - Nobody cognizes ! What cognizes ? - Consciousness itself cognizes ! What does consciousness recognize ? Consciousness cognizes feelings, perceived experiences and all the other various mental states as joy, anger etc. These imprints arise & cease incessantly. Obervable this is! In this passing flux of discrete mental states - exactly like the single still pictures of a rolling film, passing in between the lens & lamp, causing a projection - neither a 'feeler' nor a 'experiencer' as 'Observing Agent' can be found, assumed, constructed, concluded or deposited... Feeling itself does not per se imply any 'feeler' as often assumed! Perception does not itself imply any 'experiencer' as often assumed! Just like we cannot conclude from the 2 facts: 1: That there is a cinema. 2: There is a film projected inside this cinema. That there actually are anybody 'inside' this cinema !!! This 'cinema' of mere experience is empty of any 'Self', empty of any 'Person', empty of any 'Soul', empty of any 'Entity' apart from the projected experience itself... !!! ________________________________________________________ Is the self identical with the body ? - No ! Is the self hidden inside the body ? - No ! Is the self outside apart from the body ? - No ! Does the self own & posses a body ? - No ! Does the body own & posses a self ? - No ! Is the self identical with the feeling ? - No ! Is the self hidden inside the feeling ? - No ! Is the self outside apart from the feeling ? - No ! Does the self own & posses a feeling ? - No ! Does the feeling own & posses a self ? - No ! Is the self identical with the experience ? - No ! Is the self hidden inside the experience ? - No ! Is the self outside & apart from experience ? - No ! Does the self own & posses an experience ? - No ! Does the experience own & posses a self ? - No ! Is the self identical with the mental construction ? - No ! Is the self hidden inside the mental construction ? - No ! Is the self outside apart from mental construction ? - No ! Does the self own & posses a mental construction ? - No ! Does the mental construction own & posses a self ? - No ! Is the self identical with the consciousness ? - No ! Is the self hidden inside the consciousness ? - No ! Is the self outside apart from consciousness ? - No ! Does the self own & posses a consciousness ? - No ! Does the consciousness own & posses a self ? - No ! Why not ? Because all these phenomena arise, change & cease. If the propositions above are affirmed, then the: 'Identical, Same & Unchanging Self' should arise, change & cease... Which is absurd, contradictory & inconsistent! Is the self then a collective conglomerate of body, feeling, experience & consciousness ? - No ! Why not ? If self is not in the parts, it cannot either be in any collection of the same parts! In Conclusion: All 'Egoism' is based on an assumed & long cherished idea of an 'agent inside' called self, which does not exist except as a mental construction we fall in love with & violently defend... This falsehood is fatal! The assumed 'self', 'agent', 'identity', 'soul' or 'personality' does not exist as an unchanging substance. Freed of such self-Obsession, one is freed of the first hindrance blocking all ways to Nibbana: Personality-belief! This -the Buddha's doctrine of No-Self- is called Anatta. May all come to see & be calmed thereby. Subtle & complex, yet true & freeing. My forest return is today. Never give up! : - ] 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 32805 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu May 6, 2004 6:38am Subject: RE: [dsg] Appreciating Abhidhamma (was abhidhamma and citta #2206) Hi Philip, I am sorry I couldn't correspond more at the moment. I am going thru a necessary career transition that takes lots of time and efforts --- I am only doing the things that just allow me to survive for the moment. The following are comments about your recent discussion... > > > Ph: I'd assumed that the suttas were taught by the Buddha to a > > variety of people, including "beginners". That probably comes from > > my short interest in the Christian Gospel, in which Christ teaches > > the masses, so to speak, without any consideration of whether or not > > they have sufficient accumulations. Of course in Buddhism there are > > no beginners, because of accumulations from countless past lives. So > > if the Buddha were to teach a shepherd, or a prince, there would be > > no inherent distinction between their ability to understand based on > > their social rank in that one lifetime, is that right? Buddha is known to have the supreme knowledge about each person's accumulation and what teachings would benefit them both short terms and long terms. People have different accumulations, even nowadays. Two people listen to the dhamma, each understands differently about what was said. When we hang out with people who learn dhamma nowadays long enough, it is obvious that it is not primarily because of their education, backgrounds, wealth, that they understand dhammas the way they do. I personally found non-college-degree individuals who understand dhamma very well, and college-degree people who don't even want to hear more about it even when they conceptually "understand" the teaching of anattaness. >> On the other > > hand, the Buddha surely used technical language that only those > > trained in certain meditation etc practices at that time could > > understand. > > Did the Buddha tailor his language in some suttas in a way that they > > could be appreciated by people who had the right accumulations to > > understand, but no knowledge of the necessary technical terms in that > > lifetime? The Buddha tailors his teachings to his audience. There is no doubt about that. For those accumulated to develop anapanasati, he teaches the dhammas in that format. For those who are interested in development of asubha meditation, he also teaches the dhamma in that format. For those many more who haven't accumulated to develop tranquil meditation, he teaches about dana, sila, and the everyday's descriptions of conducts that would bring them growth. For all, he teaches them about the dhamma, about the way towards the liberation from sufferings. > > > > Ph: I am feeling this is true these days. I printed out the entire > > Anguttara Nikaya with its numerical lists, and read through them, and > > was profoundly inspired by some of them – and some of them are > > indisputably clear, such as the one about "letters written in > > water" – but I always felt aware that I was kind of trying to amass > > "my" wisdom by beginning to have a lot of knowledge of suttas that > > I could impress people with by referring to at just the right point > > in a discussion to prove my point. When we read the suttas, etc., we read about persons, places, things one "should do", and it is easy for us who are already very tuned toward believing in self, believing that "we" can do this, we can do that, we own this, we own that, it is us who do --- which are all the things I believe the Buddha didn't teach. When we read about the 5 kandhas, the ayatanas (the sense bases), the dhatus (the 18 elements), we begin to understand a little that all there really is is these paramatha dhammas with their own distinct characteristics, that they come and go according to their own conditions. Without the proper conditions, a dhamma doesn't arise. Once arisen, it immediately goes away. There is really no self, no person who really does this and that, but materiality and mentality that arise according to their own conditions, and then immediately fall away. It is hard to accept this, because there is not yet wisdom that sees that this is absolutely true, and all the accumulations of ignorance for eons kicks in and sway us back toward the thought that it is me, and I can do this, and I can do that. > > > > Ph: I am still fighting a tendency to want to interpret Abhidhamma > > the way I like, thus my questions (complaints?) about citta being not > > considered more random/by chance. Think about what you see, hear, smell, taste, and touch in daily life. Doesn't that seem rather random to you? You don't even really know what you would see, hear a few minutes for now. There is a bird chirping outside my window, when am I going to hear its noise next? Unclear... Yet, there seems to be "our" thoughts that weave in and weave out of the consciousness, which seems very much like "ours," as we more or less seem to be in control of it. But when we look at that carefully, we can clearly see that that is false. When I hear a sound, I think about what the sound is, without "me" doing anything active about the thinking --- cittas (thoughts) have already arisen according to their own conditions. When we read about the dhammas, our thoughts about how things are starting to change (hopefully, for the more accurate versions!), again cittas conditioned by their own conditions. But yet all the mean while, we keep thinking these are all us who are doing, who are gaining wisdom, because we do not yet clearly see and comprehend that these are all conditioned dhammas... The more we truly understands the dhammas, that are arising now, not just stories and words and labels, the more we truly understand the Master's teachings. kom 32806 From: Michelle Vellin Date: Thu May 6, 2004 6:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hello Larry, As I'm indonesian, I mostly get the knowledge of buddhism in indonesian language. But, I read most of the buddhism book in english, it is a word 'attachment' refers to 'tanha'. It is what I interpret the word....maybe there will be any correction from others? --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Michelle, > > Welcome to the group and thanks for coming in on > this question of what > is dukkha and how does it arise. "Attachment" is an > interesting word. Is > it real or imaginary? > > 32807 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 6, 2004 8:21am Subject: Re: Root cetasikas and minor cetasikas Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > This is very helpful. I will look at the minor (I think that's the > word Nina uses) cetasikas as being built on and supported by the root > cetasikas. ===== Not sure about the term "minor"; haven't heard it before. ===== > Something just popped into my head. I can intellectually > understand/conceive of attachment and aversion as dhammas, as real > mental factors, but moha is harder to understand for me in that > sense. It seems like an absence rather than a presence, and I have > thought of cetasikas as presences, as in realities that form the > present moment. > > I guess it's easier for me to see ignorance ("not seeing things as > they truly are") as caused by > -attachment which by comforting, distracting or stupefying causes us > to forget to try see things as they are, > -or aversion which because of fear, irritation, disgust or whatever > turns us away from trying see things as they are. > > But I have more trouble understanding moha as a root with an > intrinsic existence of its own. ===== Moha is translated as delusion, ignorance or dullness. The characterisitic of moha is mental blindness or unknowing; opposition to knowledge. The function of moha is the concealment of the true nature of an object; non-penetration. Moha is manifested when there is an absence of right understanding; opposition to right practice (patipatti) causing mental blindness. Moha arises when we have unwise attention (ayoniso manasikara). Moha is truly the root of all immoralities. Moha is like the director of a film; it directs everything that is unwholesome but we do not see moha directly. Moha arises when there is no right understanding. Moha is not the same as lack of worldly or scientific knowledge. Moha is the mental blindness which conceals the true nature of things: - Mental blindness to nama and rupa as they truly are - Mental blindness to anicca, dukkha and anatta - Mental blindness to the four noble truths There are two kinds of moha: - Latent moha: Just as there is poison in a tree that bears poisonous fruit, latent moha is the element that conceals the Dhamma. Even at moments of performing good deeds, latent moha still exists. Latent moha is not a cetasika; it is an accumulation. Only an Arahant has uprooted latent moha. - Rising-up moha: All unwholesome states of mind include rising-up moha. Because of the concealing nature of rising-up moha, the unwholesome nature of the current state of mind is not understood and the future consequences of one's actions are not understood. Rising- up moha is a cetasika that only arises in unwholesome states of mind. Moha is also known as avijja, the first link in the chain of dependent origination. Though avijja is the first link in the chain, it is not a "causeless first cause". Moha cannot be eradicated merely by thinking about realities; it can eventually be eradicated by the wisdom that knows the true nature of realities (Study -> Practice -> Realization). ===== > Do you know what I mean? It seems to me at this moment that > ignorance would result from aversion and/or attachment rather than > being a presence of its own. > That just popped into my head. Of course I'm not suggesting that > the the roots be edited down to 4 from 6! ;) just making that comment > as a way of better understanding moha. Maybe it's easier to > understand moha starting from amoha. It's easier for me to think of > panna as a presence, but that's probably wrong view too. > ===== You see lobha and dosa as supporting moha, when in fact it is the other way arround. The only way that attachment or aversion can arise is if one first takes for permanent that which is impermanent (moha). If one truly understands impermanence, then how could one have lobha or dosa. If realities arise and fall away in an instant does it make sense to cling to them or have aversion to them? Metta, Rob M :-) 32808 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 6, 2004 8:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Michelle, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michelle Vellin wrote: > As I'm indonesian, I mostly get the knowledge of > buddhism in indonesian language. But, I read most of > the buddhism book in english, it is a word > 'attachment' refers to 'tanha'. It is what I interpret > the word....maybe there will be any correction from > others? ===== My wife is Indonesian. We were married in a small vihara in Menteng, Jakarta. ===== > > > > Welcome to the group and thanks for coming in on > > this question of what > > is dukkha and how does it arise. "Attachment" is an > > interesting word. Is > > it real or imaginary? ===== Larry knows a lot of dhamma; his question is challenging you to think. Put aside your books for a moment and consider for yourself, "is attachment real or imaginary?" and how do you know this? On what basis do you make this decision? Sometimes the simplest sounding questions are the best... and sometimes they are just a pain :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 32809 From: icarofranca Date: Thu May 6, 2004 9:22am Subject: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Dear Michelle > As I'm indonesian, I mostly get the knowledge of > buddhism in indonesian language. Welcome to the most noble company of Dhamma students from here to Brahmaloka! But, I read most of > the buddhism book in english, it is a word > 'attachment' refers to 'tanha'. It is what I interpret > the word....maybe there will be any correction from > others? Tanha is usually translated by "Craving", a more or less ugly word. But you can take Craving or Attachment without so many doubts... it's the real fuel that feed Dukkha and teh samsara wheel. Mettaya, ícaro > > > > > --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Hi Michelle, > > > > Welcome to the group and thanks for coming in on > > this question of what > > is dukkha and how does it arise. "Attachment" is an > > interesting word. Is > > it real or imaginary? > > 32810 From: Date: Thu May 6, 2004 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) In a message dated 5/6/04 9:24:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, icarofranca@y... writes: But, I read most of > the buddhism book in english, it is a word > 'attachment' refers to 'tanha'. It is what I interpret > the word....maybe there will be any correction from > others? Tanha is craving or wanting or desiring and upadana is clinging or attachment. Tanha is sometimes described as analogous to reaching for a glass of water. Upadana is holding onto the glass. jack 32811 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu May 6, 2004 11:39am Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Sarah: Sarah: Nothing that can be done by a self, I should add, but plenty that can be done by undestanding or seeing those objects in the lake clearly for what they are. James: Oh, I don't recall you giving me your impression of what you thought the objects in the lake were. Did you post to me about this and I missed it??? So, how is one supposed to see those objects in the lake, clearly? What is the `plenty that can be done' you mention? Please enumerate these things for me and please be as specific as possible. (Of course, in my mind I am thinking "What needs to be done is follow the Eightfold Path", but I doubt that you aren't thinking that. So I am curious as to what your answer will be. ;-) Maybe your answer will be: Listening, Thinking, and Posting to DSG?? ;-)) Sarah: I don't explain things very well, but it's very obvious to me that understanding and detachment lead to more wholesome states such as metta and compassion for others, rather than the reverse. For a start, we are less likely to be fooled by the near and far enemies as these states are seen for what they are and it's not `my' kindness or caring, but conditioned dhammas that again are not worthy of being clung to or conceited about at all. James: From my reading of the suttas, specifically the Karanaya Metta Sutta "Hymn of Universal Love", the development of metta, just like the development of wisdom, goes through stages. It isn't either complete and pure metta or selfish lust and desire: there are gradations in the development. Contrary to what you write here, metta must be developed first as one living being to other living beings, even though the near enemies of Metta (Greed, lust, worldly affection, sensuality) might be present. One is to project love and compassion to all living beings just as a mother projects love to it's only infant (This is the Buddha's description. Note: The Buddha mentions nothing about knowing dhammas as dhammas). Not only that, this state of mind is supposed to be actively pursued and developed throughout one's waking hours with zeal and concentrated effort. It isn't until the end of the practice, when sensual desire has been eradicated, that the metta will become universal and complete. (Did you know that upon waking, the Buddha usually had this early-morning routine: 1. Meditate on Nibanna; 2. Meditate on the Brahma-Viharas; 3. Search the universe with his divine eye for the beings most in need of help which he could help that day? Don't know if this specifically relates, but I think it is a nice thing to know! ;-)) Sarah: Thank you for these fine and honest comments, James. James: You're welcome. I just wanted to show that it isn't necessary to be perfect to follow the path. They didn't have quite the effect I wanted though: I wanted to lead you off that anatta high-horse you are always riding, but it didn't work! ;-)) Maybe next time. ;-) Metta, James 32812 From: Andrew Date: Thu May 6, 2004 4:17pm Subject: Re: The Practical View of Anatta Dear Suravira Thank you for replying to my post. Sorry it has taken so long to respond - this is often a problem I have, being around long enough to do a single post but not to carry on much of a conversation! You wrote: The term anatta is, regretably, commonly interpreted to > mean "not-self", or "no-self" or "non-self". This is a very > regretable translation, as the term (and notion of) "self" is > multifaceted within western cultures. A more preferable definition > would be "false views of individuality." An interesting definition which I have not come across before. > You also wrote: As regards Prof. Harvey's position that anatta is "... not a denial > of the existence of a permanent self ...", this assertion is both > incorrect and partially correct. > > It is incorrect in that the Buddha clearly negated the notion of a > permanent self (and of any permanent phenomena) through his > teachings on dependent origination. > > Prof. Harvey's assertion is partially correct only in the sense that > the Buddha never negated the subjective, individual, experience of > life - of reality. Andrew: I'm not convinced that defining anatta as "false views of individuality" is, however, all that useful. As you say, Buddha did deny the existence of a permanent self. The "subjective, individual, experience of life - of reality" which he never negated I can only take to mean a present moment of nama-rupa. What else could individuality attach to? That moment is also, of course, impermanent. To refer to it as some sort of subjective individuality doesn't help me to intellectually dispel the notion of a "me" or "mine". > [Suravira] Is this matter of engaging in exercises adequate proof > that the "self" does not exist? Or, is it first necessary to present > absolute proof that this "self" does in fact exist - in a manner > that cannot be disputed by someone whose percieves things correctly? > Why accept the challenge of negating the existance of something that > has not been proven to exist? Andrew: As an ex-lawyer, I feel very at home with arguments about the onus of proof. But when I study Dhamma, I am more interested in understanding than the rhetoric of who has to prove what. The fact is that the illusion of a permanent self is a very strong one which calls for proper understanding - even by way of negation. My reading has led me to believe that Buddha was often content to describe things by way of stating what they are not. Nibbana is a classic example, I suppose, but that's getting off track. I take your point to be, though, that people who firmly believe in the existence of a permanent self should demonstrate their belief rather than just say "it's so obvious". I agree. Suravira: We all have this perceived experience of life - of being in > time/space - correct? This is a universal state of all sensient > beings. > > Nevertheless, is this notion of "self" merely an abstraction that we > project onto the experience of life? > > Do we percieve something beyond this individual experience of life - > do we percieve something ever so slightly more that this being in > time/space? > > This perception of the experience of being in time/space exists - no > more and no less than any other phenomena. In fact all known > phenomena arise within this mode of experience. > > However, is there really anything even slightly more than this mode > of existance - than this perception of the experience of being in > time/space? > > Does it just appear that there is? Or, is it that within this > experience of being there recurrently arises this need to believe > that there is? And, is it this deeply ingrained need that imprints > this notion of "self" onto this perception of the experience of > being. Andrew: Do you not think that this series of questions is in some respects similar to the series of questions Buddha said we should ask about "self" and which you suggest (if I am reading your post correctly) that we needn't bother with unless and until someone proves the existence of a permanent self? Are not your questions also "exercises"? > [Suravira] The main trap is sprung when translating anatta as "not- > self". This erroneous trap can be avoided, as well as all ancilliary > concerns/issue regarding this dharma (e.g., rebirth, etc.), by > promoting the term "false views of individuality" > Andrew: I see anatta as difficult to comprehend - a "trap" if you must. But I think that changing the English definition is not going to make understanding any easier. Using the word "individuality" has, I think, pitfalls of its own. > Suravira: To construct a negating term, such as "not-self" one has the > responsiblity for first providing a bullet-proof definition for the > term "self". It seems that too many people approach this dharma of > anatta bass ackward. Sorry, but "bass ackward" has me intrigued. Back-to-front, do you mean? Is your criticism of the way the anatta doctrine is presented a criticism of people? Is it not also a criticism of the Buddha as he gave the anatta teaching without first having a bullet-proof definition of the term "self"? Can I ask you to clarify your point with particular reference to the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta in the Samyutta Nikaya? Best wishes Andrew 32813 From: Philip Date: Thu May 6, 2004 4:50pm Subject: Radiating Metta? ( was Re: Video Games?) Hi James, Sarah, and all > James: From my reading of the suttas, specifically the Karanaya > Metta Sutta "Hymn of Universal Love", the development of metta, just > like the development of wisdom, goes through stages. It isn't > either complete and pure metta or selfish lust and desire: there are > gradations in the development. Contrary to what you write here, > metta must be developed first as one living being to other living > beings, even though the near enemies of Metta (Greed, lust, worldly > affection, sensuality) might be present. One is to project love and > compassion to all living beings just as a mother projects love to > it's only infant (This is the Buddha's description. Note: The > Buddha mentions nothing about knowing dhammas as dhammas). James, I'm very interested in what you have to say about metta below. I'm very intrested in brahma-viharas, as I've said often enough before, and came to realize some unskillful ways I was practicing that were really aiming at making the world a cozy place to be in. One of the things that misled me was, I think, the famous line in the Metta Sutta about "radiating metta" (or "projecting" as you put it) through the world, in all directions. Lately, I've been having trouble understanding how the Buddha could have possibly taught about radiating/projecting metta. I'm really beginning to see metta as something that arises when deflilements or other obstacles to it have been cleared away. Is is then radiant? I can see that. But do we intend to radiate it? I just can't understand that, though if I find out that it is a practice that was truly taught by the Buddha I will get back to it! I'm rushing off to work, but I was wondering about the Pali that was used in that sutta and did a quick Google search and came up with this translation by a Bhikku P ...can't remember now, and can't provide a link. But am just posting this to see if anyone else has insight on the original Pali of this sutta. This fellow uses "cultivate", and that is seen in the "bhavaye" I think. (But maybe the word that comes before or after it qualifies it in a way that introduces a sense of projecting or radiating.) I don't think cultivate is the same as radiate or project and I think cultivate can be done while coming to understand metta as a paramattha dhamma, and without an intention to radiate metta. Here's that fellow's translation : Mettañca sabbalokasmi,9 mānasam bhāvaye aparimānam; Uddham adho ca tiriyañca, asambādham averamasapattam. Let one cultivate thoughts of boundless love for the whole world: above, below, and across without any obstruction, without any hatred, without any enmity. Metta, Phil P.S I'm beginning to think there's a lot of confusion in studying sutta when we don't understand Pali. How can we say for sure whether we are receiving the Buddha's teaching in a pure form or an interpretation of it by, for example, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, as wonderful as he is? p.p.s I also wonder why I write "metta" when I sign off, since I don't at this time believe it to be something that can be projected. But it seems like the best word to use to get at the state of mind I am "in" when discussing dhamma with "admirable friends" like James and Sarah! :) 32814 From: Date: Thu May 6, 2004 5:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Howard and all, I think Christine's quote clears the air on what is suffering (suffering of painful feeling, formations [conditionality/sankhara], and change). As such, I think we have to say the entire course of dependent arising is dukkha and it is caused either by ignorance, the first link, or the aasavas (biases), sense desire, continued existence, and ignorance. These three being the cause of the first link. So there we have dukkha and the cause of dukkha in dependent arising. Also it seems to me dukkha continues after the attainment of arahantship insofar as conditioned arising continues. I suppose the difference for an arahant is that he is no longer identified with it. Also I don't know if an arahant can experience unpleasant mental feeling??? A couple of other thoughts on feeling: The only unpleasant bodily feeling is tangible data. An unpleasant taste or harsh sound is actually dosa (aversion) with unpleasant mental feeling. I'm wondering if there can be an adosa version of wholesome unpleasant mental feeling when there is insight into the "own nature" of sound or taste. Similarly can beauty be either wholesome or unwholesome? Is there an alobha beauty? Anyone know this stuff? Larry ------------------- C: "Friend Saariputta, it is said, 'suffering, suffering.' What now is suffering?" There are, friend, these three kinds of suffering: the suffering due to pain, the suffering due to formations, the suffering due to change. These are the three kinds of suffering." [note 274] Samyutta Nikaya The Book of the Six Sense Bases (Salaayatanavagga) 38 Jambukhaadakasamyutta 14 Suffering (p. 1299 Bhikkhu Bodhi) Note 274: The three types are explained at Vism 499, 14-21 (Ppn. 16:34-35). Briefly, suffering due to pain (dukkha-dukkhataa) is painful bodily and mental feeling; suffering due to the formations (sankhaaradukkhataa) is all conditioned phenomena of the three planes, because they are oppressed by rise and fall; and suffering due to change (viparinaamadukkhataa) is pleasant feeling, which brings suffering when it comes to an end." 32815 From: Date: Thu May 6, 2004 5:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Michelle, Not to worry. I was just having a bit of fun and giving you something to think about. I was mostly interested in the English word "attachment" but you can do the same with the Indonesian equivalent. It is interesting to try to see what these words we take for granted really mean in our experience. Larry ------------------- M: "As I'm indonesian, I mostly get the knowledge of buddhism in indonesian language..." 32816 From: Date: Thu May 6, 2004 2:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, Larry (and Christine) - In a message dated 5/6/04 8:34:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard and all, > > I think Christine's quote clears the air on what is suffering (suffering > of painful feeling, formations [conditionality/sankhara], and change). > As such, I think we have to say the entire course of dependent arising > is dukkha and it is caused either by ignorance, the first link, or the > aasavas (biases), sense desire, continued existence, and ignorance. > These three being the cause of the first link. So there we have dukkha > and the cause of dukkha in dependent arising. Also it seems to me dukkha > continues after the attainment of arahantship insofar as conditioned > arising continues. I suppose the difference for an arahant is that he is > no longer identified with it. Also I don't know if an arahant can > experience unpleasant mental feeling??? > > A couple of other thoughts on feeling: The only unpleasant bodily > feeling is tangible data. An unpleasant taste or harsh sound is actually > dosa (aversion) with unpleasant mental feeling. I'm wondering if there > can be an adosa version of wholesome unpleasant mental feeling when > there is insight into the "own nature" of sound or taste. Similarly can > beauty be either wholesome or unwholesome? Is there an alobha beauty? > Anyone know this stuff? > > Larry > ------------------- > C: "Friend Saariputta, it is said, 'suffering, suffering.' What now is > suffering?" > There are, friend, these three kinds of suffering: the suffering due to > pain, the suffering due to formations, the suffering due to change. > These are the three kinds of suffering." [note 274] Samyutta Nikaya The > Book of the Six Sense Bases (Salaayatanavagga) 38 Jambukhaadakasamyutta > 14 Suffering (p. 1299 Bhikkhu Bodhi) > Note 274: The three types are explained at Vism 499, 14-21 (Ppn. > 16:34-35). Briefly, suffering due to pain (dukkha-dukkhataa) is painful > bodily and mental feeling; suffering due to the formations > (sankhaaradukkhataa) is all conditioned phenomena of the three planes, > because they are oppressed by rise and fall; and suffering due to change > (viparinaamadukkhataa) is pleasant feeling, which brings suffering when > it comes to an end." > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I have a little problem with the foregoing. One minor problem I have is with the commentary to the effect that " suffering due to the formations (sankhaaradukkhataa) is all conditioned phenomena of the three planes, because they are oppressed by rise and fall." This certainly overlaps suffering due to change. But my main problem is that this material does *not* define dukkha. It merely categorizes it according to *cause*. Dukkha may be *due* to pain or *due* to formations (dispositions? inclinations?) or *due* to change. To me it is clear that the root meaning of 'dukka' is "distress", and the secondary meaning, as applied to dhammas, is "unsatisfactory", for what doesn't satisfy leads to distress. When it is said that all conditioned phenomena are dukkha, this doesn't mean that all conditioned phenomena are suffering, but that they are conditions for suffering, they are unsatisfactory, they don't satisfy (and thus craving for them and clinging to them causes mental pain). And always, the primary causes for suffering are tanha and upadana. Oh, BTW, I believe that the Buddha was *through* with distress, through with mental pain, when he became an arahant, and I believe that this is so for all arahants. The death of an arahant is not required for there to be no second dart in his/her mindstream. ======================= 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) 32817 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu May 6, 2004 7:25pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi Jon, Do you mean that breaths are not bodily fabrications? Or do you mean that you are not sure whether breaths are bodily fabrications or not? What does the commentary say regarding whether breaths are bodily fabrications or not? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > > What is your reading of the sutta pitaka regarding whether in-&- out > > breaths are bodily fabrications or not? > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > I think you're referring to the comment in my last post? What I > meant there was that my reading of the tipitaka is that there is no > actual dhamma called 'breath', but that what we take for breath is > mostly the dhammas of hardness/softness and heat/cold and > motion/pressure experienced through the body-door (in terms of the > five aggregates, these are dhammas of the rupa aggregate). > > Now in some suttas, such as the Satipatthana Sutta, where 'body' and > aspects of the body (including 'breath' ) are mentioned, these are to > be understood as referring to all rupas. > > So in the case of the particular sutta you mention, I would need to > check the commentary before coming to a view regarding the intended > meaning of the reference to breathing as bodily fabrications. > > Jon 32818 From: Date: Thu May 6, 2004 7:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Howard, H: "To me it is clear that the root meaning of 'dukka' is "distress", and the secondary meaning, as applied to dhammas, is "unsatisfactory", for what doesn't satisfy leads to distress. When it is said that all conditioned phenomena are dukkha, this doesn't mean that all conditioned phenomena are suffering, but that they are conditions for suffering, they are unsatisfactory, they don't satisfy (and thus craving for them and clinging to them causes mental pain). And always, the primary causes for suffering are tanha and upadana." L: I thought the end of conditioned arising is the end of dukkha. What about that? Larry 32819 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 6, 2004 8:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Howard, > > H: "To me it is clear that the root meaning of 'dukka' is "distress", > and the secondary meaning, as applied to dhammas, is "unsatisfactory", > for what doesn't satisfy leads to distress. When it is said that all > conditioned phenomena are dukkha, this doesn't mean that all conditioned > phenomena are suffering, but that they are conditions for suffering, > they are unsatisfactory, they don't satisfy (and thus craving for them > and clinging to them causes mental pain). And always, the primary causes > for suffering are tanha and upadana." > > L: I thought the end of conditioned arising is the end of dukkha. What > about that? I don't think that conditioned arising can ever end because anicca is a fundamental characteristic of all realities except Nibbana. However, an enlightened person has no clinging to that which is impermanent and therefore no conditions for dukkha to arise. Metta, Rob M :-) 32820 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu May 6, 2004 8:57pm Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Sukin, -------------- S: > I think both pariyatti and patipatti must always go hand in hand. There must be I believe, moments of direct experience, though they may be too little to be noticed, otherwise I think, there cannot be the confidence in and to continue with pariyatti. [*Ken H. is this what you are referring to on another thread? I have always wondered about this, but never asked anyone.] --------------------------- I think you have hinted at this at various times over the years, if not actually `asked anyone.' For example, when people have accused you of advocating non-action, you have talked about a fine line between pariyatti and patipatti. That strikes a chord with me too; it seems like something that should be understood. The way I look at it; since the Buddha was good enough to teach, the kusala response would be to listen. Conventionally speaking, listening can range from a mere, cursory pretence at one extreme to a genuinely honest, respectful interestedness at the other. I would imagine that 100 percent pure listening would be a skill developed by (conditioned in), only the very wise. To different degrees, genuine listening (and studying) would be kusala and it would qualify as pariyatti. Moments of pariyatti would be basically mind-door moments with concepts as object (in the form of words). But Nina and Sarah have been saying that we shouldn't oversimplify: there are billions of citta processes intermingled (sharing in the action, so to speak). I think you and I are asking, `will there be a degree of patipatti in there as well?' In other words, in all those billions of sense-door and mind- door cittas (mixed in with the kusala listening-to-words cittas), are there any that directly see rupa as rupa or nama as nama? Would that be too much to expect? Sarah seems to concede that there will be some kusala cittas with paramattha dhammas as object. That means they directly experience dhammas with alobha and adosa but not necessarily with amoha. That's a start. :-) You seem to be going a step further and suggesting that pariyatti will always involve a degree of patipatti. I hope you're right; I'm willing to be convinced. Kind regards, Ken H 32821 From: Date: Thu May 6, 2004 9:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Rob, R: "I don't think that conditioned arising can ever end because anicca is a fundamental characteristic of all realities except Nibbana. However, an enlightened person has no clinging to that which is impermanent and therefore no conditions for dukkha to arise." L: That's just it. Impermanence isn't a characteristic of nibbana. There's the end. Also, dependent arising is described as the problem and its reverse order as the extinguishing of that problem. I agree it's not 100% common-sensical but that's what the suttas say. Larry 32822 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 6, 2004 9:52pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > R: "I don't think that conditioned arising can ever end because anicca > is a fundamental characteristic of all realities except Nibbana. > However, an enlightened person has no clinging to that which is > impermanent and therefore no conditions for dukkha to arise." > > L: That's just it. Impermanence isn't a characteristic of nibbana. > There's the end. Also, dependent arising is described as the problem and > its reverse order as the extinguishing of that problem. I agree it's not > 100% common-sensical but that's what the suttas say. The method of dependent arising in the forward direction shows how ignorance binds us to samasara. The method of dependent arising in the reverse direction shows how one is freed from samsara by uprooting ignorance; without ignorance as a base, craving has no foothold. Seems common sense to me. Metta, Rob M :-) 32823 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu May 6, 2004 11:18pm Subject: Radiating Metta? ( was Re: Video Games?) Friend Phil: Phil: I'm very intrested in brahma-viharas, as I've said often enough before, and came to realize some unskillful ways I was practicing that were really aiming at making the world a cozy place to be in. James: What is wrong with wanting to make the world a cozy place to live in? Philip, the goal of Buddhism is to eradicate suffering, not to accept and endure it. Projecting metta through metta meditation, as the Buddha taught, is a way to create change on the mundane level; enlightenment affects change on the supramundane level. We should all try to make this world as pleasant as possible. Phil: Lately, I've been having trouble understanding how the Buddha could have possibly taught about radiating/projecting metta. James: This must be because other conditions are leading you to a false view (Abhidhamma studies??) because the Buddha did teach the importance of radiating/projecting metta. I do not know how this fits in with the Abhidhamma, but I do know that the Vis. contains detailed instructions on how to do this type of meditation because it is part of the `Path of Purification'. Phil: I'm really beginning to see metta as something that arises when deflilements or other obstacles to it have been cleared away. Is is then radiant? I can see that. But do we intend to radiate it? James: Phil, these types of questions are like the series of questions that Sukin asked me which made me tired and cranky. ;-)) When I think about answering these questions for you, which I really do want to do, I see a large knot of false views which underlie the questions that I would have to untie first, before I could even attempt to answer the question! But, I do not think that doing this would be fruitful for either or us. I When the Buddha was asked questions like this, he would just remain quiet, so that is what I will do. I will just reiterate what I wrote before, the Buddha taught the practitioner to radiate and project metta. Phil: I just can't understand that, though if I find out that it is a practice that was truly taught by the Buddha I will get back to it! James: Good, I hope that you will. When you first joined this group, I had suggested that you stop all meditation and Buddhist study because your approach appeared to be on the frantic side. It seems to me now that you have calmed down considerably. I would suggest that you again pick up your morning practice of the Brahma- Viharas and you will find it so much more productive than it was in the past. BTW, I am so confident that the Buddha did teach the meditator to radiate metta throughout the physical universe that I challenge anyone to prove otherwise!! Philip, you might want to read this article: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel365.html Metta, James PS. It may be difficult to believe in the ability to `radiate' metta without some belief in psychic ability. If you don't have an open- mind toward psychic ability, it will be difficult to do this practice properly. 32824 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 7, 2004 0:17am Subject: Superior Persons (was: Cooran Thanks) Dear Christine, other Qld DSGers and All. Christine: > > (iii) According to the sutta discussing the 'factors for Stream Entry' - what is a Superior Person? << .... Sarah:> Sappurisa - lit. good or great person, i.e Buddhas & Ariyans. Does this mean one has to ‘meet’ and ‘hear’ an ariyan or the Buddha face to face? No. “Dogs and jackals,etc., see Ariyans by the eye, but are not perceivers of the Ariyans.” (Expositor, The Triplets).< ***** S: AN, 4s, 246, ‘the Growth of Wisdom’, Bodhi transl in ‘Numerical Discourses of the Buddha’: “These four things, O monks, are conducive to the growth of wisdom. What four? Association with superior persons (sappurisasa.nsevo) , hearing the good Dhamma (saddhammasavana.n), proper attention (yoniso manasikàro) and practice in accordance with the Dhamma (dhammànudhammapa.tipatti). These four things are conducive to the growth of wisdom (sotaapattiya”nga)...." ..... In other translations, we read ‘good’, ‘great’, ‘righteous man/men’ instead of ‘superior persons’. We often read about how only one with wisdom and other wholesome qualities will recognise the same in another. For example, in MN110, Cuu.lapu.n.nama Sutta,( ~Naa.namoli, Bodhi transl here), we read about recognising a true man (sappurisa) and an untrue man (asappurisa). An untrue man would not recognise an untrue man or a true man: “But would an untrue man know of a true man: ‘this person is a true man?’ - ‘No, venerable sir.’ - ‘Good, bhikkhus. it is impossible, it cannot be that an untrue man should know of a true man: ‘this person is a true man.’” Later we read that a ‘true man’ would recognise another true man: ‘This person is a true man’.Also, we read that a true man would recognise the untrue man: ‘this person is an untrue man’. We then read about all the qualities of a true man, about his good qualities, associates, speech, actions and views. ‘Here a true man has faith, shame, and fear of wrongdoing; he is learned, energetic, mindful, and wise.’ He associates with others alike, offers good advice, abstains from wrong speech and action and has developed right understanding about conditions, kamma, rebirth, generosity and so on. In other words, he is one with full confidence in the teachings, an Ariyan. In DN 33, 2.3 we can also read about the seven qualities of the ‘true man’ (sappurisa-dhammaa) starting with being a ‘knower of the Dhamma’. In Dhs, 1003, it also refers to the ‘ignorant, average man’ (puthujjano) who doesn’t comprehend, ‘nor is trained according to the doctrine of the Noble Ones, who percieves not good men (sappurisaa)’ and therefore has all the usual wrong views regarding self. The Atthasaalinii (transl as the Expositor, PTS) gives a wealth of detail in further explanation on this. The common, average man ‘perceives not the Ariyans’, being ‘far away’ because of defilements. Good men (sappurisa) are defined here specifically as: “silent Buddhas, Tathaagatas and disciples. Because they from being yoked with transcendental virtues are lovely men, therefore are they ‘good men’.” ..... It also clarifies that there are two ways of not seeing Ariyans: “He who does not perceive them by the eye, and he who does not perceive them by insight. Of them the latter is here meant. Ariyans are both seen and not seen when the carnal or the psychic eye merely seizes an outward complexion, and is unable to take Ariyanship as object. Dogs and jackals, etc., see Ariyans by the eye, but are not perceivers of the Ariyans.” .... So in summary, ‘association with superior persons’ (sappurisasa.nsevo) refers to the appreciation and knowledge of the truth as taught by the wise (the Ariyans) and in particular, by the Buddha. Later the same text clarifies that ‘good men’ refers to Ariyans. “There is no difference in meaning, as it has been said: - ‘Whatever Ariyans there are, are called good men; whatever good men there are, are called Ariyans.......they are interchangeable, they are one, of one meaning, identical.” ... The Atthasaalinii also gives the story of Vakkali who used to follow the Buddha around and which has been discussed before. (See Khandhasamyutta, SN22:87). Reference to Vakkali also came up in the Satipatthana sutta & commentary with regard to the balancing of the faculties. Vakkali had extremely strong faith or confidence (saddha) and followed the Buddha around everywhere until commanded by the Buddha to leave. Vakkali was depressed and lived on the Gijjhakuta mountain (Vulture’s Peak), Raajagaha before becoming an arahant as he committed suicide). http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m18513.html In the Atthasaalinii it reports how Vakkali asked an Elder what the Ariyans are like and was told that even though one may go around with Ariyans, performing all duties for them, they are not known. ‘Friend, Ariyans are difficult to know’. Vakkali didn’t understand the meaning and that ‘seeing is not by the eye but by insight’. It then repeats the well-known quote from SN22:87: “Vakkali, what good to thee is this [my] visible foul body? Verily, Vakkali, he who sees the Law sees me.” ..... The Atthasaalinii continues: “Hence not seeing the characteristic signs of impermanence, etc, seen by the Ariyans with insight, not arriving at the Law arrived at by the Ariyans, not seeing Ariyanship or the states which bring about Ariyanship, he, though he sees by the eye, should be known ‘to perceive not the Ariyans.’ 'Who comprehends not the Ariyan doctrines’:- is unskilled in the Ariyan doctrines such as the different kinds of application of mindfulness, etc.” ..... I think this is another example of the depth of the teachings in a few words which could otherwise so easily suggest a following around of ‘superior persons’ as Vakkali originally understood. There are many more descriptions in this text elaborating further, but this is enough for now;-). Thanks for the great question. Comments most welcome. Metta, Sarah ===== 32825 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 7, 2004 0:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi KenH (and Sukin), --- kenhowardau wrote: > But Nina and Sarah have been saying that we > shouldn't oversimplify: there are billions of citta processes > intermingled (sharing in the action, so to speak). I think you and > I are asking, `will there be a degree of patipatti in there as > well?' In other words, in all those billions of sense-door and mind- > door cittas (mixed in with the kusala listening-to-words cittas), > are there any that directly see rupa as rupa or nama as nama? .... S: I thought Sukin’s was a beautifully written post and I agreed with all his comments (a minority view of course;-)). The practice has to begin with moments of awareness of realities, but being few and far between, there may not be any understanding of the characteristic of awareness or knowledge about such moments, let alone clear understanding of nama and rupa. There are bound to be doubts. Like Sukin, I see pariyatti and patipatti developing together, the one reinforcing the other, with the proviso that there cannot be any patipatti or development of satipatthana without hearing about the dhammas to be known first. .... > Would that be too much to expect? .... S: Expectations?? .... >Sarah seems to concede that there > will be some kusala cittas with paramattha dhammas as object. That > means they directly experience dhammas with alobha and adosa but not > necessarily with amoha. That's a start. :-) .... S: An ambiguous paraphrase of what I say gets my attention fast;-). I forget what I said, but if I was talking about kusala cittas with paramattha dhammas as objects (as opposed to concepts of realities), I’m sure I would have been referring to the development of satipatthana with amoha. It’s bound to be very weak in the beginning. .... > You seem to be going a step further and suggesting that pariyatti > will always involve a degree of patipatti. I hope you're right; I'm > willing to be convinced. .... S: The only way to know is by developing insight;-) The text (Atthasalini) I just quoted (p451ff in the transl, the Expositor) on sappurisa (good men) continues with discussion on insight and knowledges and ‘elimination, namely, of the theory of individuality by means of determining mind and matter’, understanding conditions and ‘insight transcending doubt subsequent to the preceding insight, of such atachment to a view as I, mine, by means of insight contemplating the group of mind and matter’, determining the right and the wrong path and so on, realizing all the stages of insight before the ‘Ariyan doctrines’ can be comprehended. Lots of excellent detail. I need to read it again more carefully when I have time. Metta, Sarah ===== 32826 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 7, 2004 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Radiating Metta? ( was Re: Video Games?) Hi Phil, This has been a pretty popular topic here;-) --- Philip wrote: > > I'm rushing off to work, but I was wondering about the Pali that > was used in that sutta and did a quick Google search and came up with > this translation by a Bhikku P ...can't remember now, and can't > provide a link. But am just posting this to see if anyone else has > insight on the original Pali of this sutta. ... S: and I'm expecting students any minute, so this is a rushed one. ... >This fellow > uses "cultivate", and that is seen in the "bhavaye" I think. (But > maybe the word that comes before or after it qualifies it in a way > that introduces a sense of projecting or radiating.) > I don't think cultivate is the same as radiate or project and I > think cultivate can be done while coming to understand metta as a > paramattha dhamma, and without an intention to radiate metta. ..... S: I agree - bhaavaye - would cultivate, develop, increase, I think from bhaaveti - to increase, cultivate, develop. bhaavanaa - development, meditation, increase bhaavita - developed (I’m looking at the small handy dict of Buddhadatta’s.) I'm going to take an easy option and repeat a discussion we had before on this with the comy note: --- Philip wrote: > Here 's a verse from the Metta sutta: > > > Metta~n ca sabba-lokasmim > Manasam bhavaye aparimanam > Uddham adho ca tiriyanca > Asambadham averam asapattam > > Cultivate an all-embracing mind of love > For all throughout the universe, > In all its height, depth and breadth -- > Love that is untroubled > And beyond hatred or enmity. > > The "bhavaye" must be something like cultivate/develop. But since > the suffix is different I guess it's referring to a different > practice than bhavana. .... >S: Let me quote a little from the commentary on this verse (Paramatthajotikaa, comy on the Minor Readings, PTS, Loving Kindness Discourse, stanza8): “Herein, he fattens (mejjati) and tends (taayati), thus he is a friend (mitta); the meaning is that by his inclination to welfare he acts as a lubricant (siniyhati) and protects from harm’s coming. The state of a friend (mittassa bhaavo) is love (mettaa=loving kindness). For all (sabba-): unreservedly for. the world (lokasmi’m): the world of creatures. Thought (maanasa’m): a [state of] being that is in the mind (manasi bhava’m); for that is said because it is asociated with cognizance. He would maintain (bhaavaye): would increase. It has no measure (bound), thus it is [done] unboundedly (aparimaa.na’m); it is stated thus as an object consisting of measureless [numbers of] creatures.”< You might like to read posts under metta in U.P. and follow links. If you keyed in radiate or radiating in escribe you'd get a lot more. Look for one of Kom's with lots of commentary detail. ‘Mai pen rai’ - no Pali Jon knew of. Conditions, anatta, ‘whatever will be, will be’;-). Good post. Samvegga, urgency, fire on the head - still conditions, anatta, only ever this moment to develop understanding;-). Btw, there's obviously some incompatibility between our computer systems - you get psychotic Chinese symbols and I get occasional frog noises as in the quote below:-). Metta, Sarah ====== > Mettañca sabbalokasmi,9 > ma¯nasam bha¯vaye aparima¯nam; > Uddham adho ca tiriyañca, > asamba¯dham averamasapattam. 32827 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri May 7, 2004 1:22am Subject: [dsg] Radiating Metta? ( was Re: Video Games?) Hello Philip, Sarah, and all, Three and a bit years ago, there was quite a lively discussion on dsg about whether metta could be radiated to self or others. The practice of radiating metta to individual other beings as a way to change their conditions isn't mentioned in the Suttas as I understand it. Metta as a practice is discussed in the Visuddhimagga from the point of view of remembering how one feels in certain situations in order to sensitise oneself to the feelings of others in similar situations - that is, to create a mind (citta) of good will. (I would welcome any correction with supporting sutta references). metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 32828 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri May 7, 2004 1:54am Subject: [dsg] Radiating Metta? ( was Re: Video Games?) Friend Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Philip, Sarah, and all, > > Three and a bit years ago, there was quite a lively discussion on > dsg about whether metta could be radiated to self or others. The > practice of radiating metta to individual other beings as a way to > change their conditions isn't mentioned in the Suttas as I > understand it. Metta as a practice is discussed in the > Visuddhimagga from the point of view of remembering how one feels in > certain situations in order to sensitise oneself to the feelings of > others in similar situations - that is, to create a mind (citta) of > good will. (I would welcome any correction with supporting sutta > references). > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- I would be quite happy to give some sutta references, commentary notes, and analysis to prove my contention that metta is radiated from a living being to other living beings (off the top of my head, I am thinking of metta meditation used to protect oneself from others, like snakes and devas, as taught by the Buddha) but I ask that you provide some sutta references to support your contentions. Here, you make some points, provide no support, and then ask that if anyone wants to disagree they have to provide support. Does that seem fair to you? ;-)) Metta, James 32829 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri May 7, 2004 2:02am Subject: Radiating Metta? ( was Re: Video Games?) Hi Sarah, Sarah: and I'm expecting students any minute, so this is a rushed one. James: I don't understand why you write a post if you don't have the time to focus on it. What is the rush? Is this a race? LOL! Why not wait to write the post until you have the time to explain thoroughly? Anyway, I only state this because this post contains a lot of quotes from various sources and I have little idea what they are supposed to mean. You don't provide any analysis to link them together or explain how they are related to this topic. Please come back to this post later when you have the time to explain. Thanks. Metta, James 32830 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri May 7, 2004 2:38am Subject: Radiating Metta? ( was Re: Video Games?) Hello James, I expect you are referring to the Ahina sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an04-067.html The use of metta as a generalised paritta, by creating a mind of good will, is well-known. This was not what was being discussed. What was being discussed was treating metta as a systematic targeted form of psychic lightning. Christine: >The practice of radiating metta to individual other beings as a way >to change their conditions isn't mentioned in the Suttas. In your post to Philip you made the following comments: "Projecting metta through metta meditation, as the Buddha taught, is a way to create change on the mundane level;" and "It may be difficult to believe in the ability to `radiate' metta without some belief in psychic ability. If you don't have an open- mind toward psychic ability, it will be difficult to do this practice properly." I don't know of any suttas that would support your contentions. I would be interested if you could produce any. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 32831 From: Michelle Vellin Date: Thu May 6, 2004 10:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Michelle, >> > My wife is Indonesian. We were married in a small > vihara in Menteng, > Jakarta. > m_vellin : Hello too... I come from a Medan....quite far from Jakarta Nice to know you... > > Larry knows a lot of dhamma; his question is > challenging you to > think. Put aside your books for a moment and > consider for > yourself, "is attachment real or imaginary?" and how > do you know > this? On what basis do you make this decision? > Sometimes the simplest > sounding questions are the best... and sometimes > they are just a > pain :-) > m_vellin: yeah...a challengin question. According to me, attachment is imaginary, because all the greed, love, and any kind of feeling come from our mind. Attachment itself (in my opinion) is the state of mind of wanting something in which if it's not fulfilled, can cause dukkha. Therefore, in my life, I try to avoid the self attachment to anything to prevent dukkha, and it works. Hope can hear any comment from you. NB: sorry if this email was double sent, something wrong with the server here. > Metta, > Rob M :-) > 32832 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri May 7, 2004 3:32am Subject: Nibbana Dear Dhamma Friend, I have just written on paramattha dhamma and there have been 29 pages. If there is any query it should be the point for discussion. Even though it is written in a style of single side, I intend all these pages as discussion. There may contain some ambiguous things. http://www.geocities.com/htootintnaing/patthana29.html is currently the latest and there will be some more coming. Page 29 is about nibbana. In that page I link page one which is the first page and it will draw you from page to page till you reach the page 29. Page 29 has not been written. Have dhamma piti and benefit from that site. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 32833 From: Philip Date: Fri May 7, 2004 5:30am Subject: Re: Root cetasikas and minor cetasikas Hi Rob Thanks for your kind feedback on my inquiries re moha Rob : > Moha is translated as delusion, ignorance or dullness. > > The characterisitic of moha is mental blindness or unknowing; > opposition to knowledge. > > The function of moha is the concealment of the true nature of an > object; non-penetration. Ph: This last bit helps me to see moha more clearly. Since we come to see the true nature of objects gradually, moha is also eradicated very, very gradually as well. I know there is a sutta entitled "Penetrative" in the translations at Access to Insight. I wonder if it is about the way wisdom pentrates the nature of objects and eradicates ignorance. You needn't answer that. I will go have a look at it. Rob: > You see lobha and dosa as supporting moha, when in fact it is the > other way arround. The only way that attachment or aversion can arise > is if one first takes for permanent that which is impermanent (moha). > If one truly understands impermanence, then how could one have lobha > or dosa. If realities arise and fall away in an instant does it make > sense to cling to them or have aversion to them? Ph: Nicely stated. Thanks. Rob: > Moha is truly the root of all immoralities. > Moha is like the director of a film; it directs everything that is > unwholesome but we do not see moha directly. Ph: I find this bit hard to understand. It sounds almost sinister. I wonder what the relationship in the suta is between Mara and moha. Did Mara use ignorance as a weapon to try to confound the Buddha, or did his knowledge of the existence of moha allow him to lead people in the direction of its trap? Rob: > There are two kinds of moha: > - Latent moha: Just as there is poison in a tree that bears poisonous > fruit, latent moha is the element that conceals the Dhamma. Even at > moments of performing good deeds, latent moha still exists. Latent > moha is not a cetasika; it is an accumulation. Only an Arahant has > uprooted latent moha. > - Rising-up moha: All unwholesome states of mind include rising-up > moha. Because of the concealing nature of rising-up moha, the > unwholesome nature of the current state of mind is not understood and > the future consequences of one's actions are not understood. Rising- > up moha is a cetasika that only arises in unwholesome states of mind. Ph: This rising up moha is very interesting. "Because of the concealing nature of rising-up moha, the unwholesome nature of the current state of mind is not understood and the future consequences of one's actin are not understood." I wonder if moha has a phyiological aspect. The way we behave in a foolish way when our blood or other saps begin to boil. Aggresion caused by testesterone must involve a lot of rising-up moha. Rob: > Moha cannot be eradicated merely by thinking about realities; it can > eventually be eradicated by the wisdom that knows the true nature of > realities (Study -> Practice -> Realization). Ph: I can sense how long it takes, but I feel very patient these days. I am no longer thinking in terms of getting completely rid of ingorance in this lifetime. No longer having visions of being a wise old man who has solved all the mysteries of life and is therfore free from suffering. It's good that I've gotten rid of that goal. The first wise thing I'm going to do is be more diligent about my reading. I must have read the ADL chapter on Ignorance in Moha a couple of months ago, but *completely* forgot about it. Time for a brief break from posting to reread ADL and catch up with all the responses that have been sent in response to my posts. Thanks again, Rob. Metta, Phil 32834 From: Philip Date: Fri May 7, 2004 5:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Appreciating Abhidhamma (was abhidhamma and citta #2206) Hi Kom > I am sorry I couldn't correspond more at the moment. I am going thru a > necessary career transition that takes lots of time and efforts --- I am > only doing the things that just allow me to survive for the moment. The > following are comments about your recent discussion... Ph: THank you for taking the time when you are busy. Kom: > Buddha is known to have the supreme knowledge about each person's > accumulation and what teachings would benefit them both short terms and long > terms. People have different accumulations, even nowadays. Two people > listen to the dhamma, each understands differently about what was said. > When we hang out with people who learn dhamma nowadays long enough, it is > obvious that it is not primarily because of their education, backgrounds, > wealth, that they understand dhammas the way they do. I personally found > non-college-degree individuals who understand dhamma very well, and > college-degree people who don't even want to hear more about it even when > they conceptually "understand" the teaching of anattaness. Ph: I find a lot of aversion to the idea of making understanding annata a central point of one's understanding of dhamma, even amoung Theravadins at another group I go to. They are all Westerners and have devoted theselves to studying sutta and doing a lot of meditation.. My wife, who is Japanese, claims that the idea of no- self is very clear to her, thugh she has no explicit interest in studying dhamma now. Now, I have no idea of how deeply she undertands annata, but it is still interesting to think that those who ahve studied a lot cannot or will not grasp annata, but someone who hasn't studied or meditated can take it as a common-sense kind of thing. This could be the accumulations inherent in living in an Asian country? No, I guess not. Surely if one is Asian in this life it doesn't mean that one lived in an Asian country in the past. I'm very interested by the way I've responded with such enthusiasm to Abhidhamma. I liked what you said about "inferior accumulations" maybe making it necessary to get the detailed and very explicit teaching in the Abhidhamma. > The Buddha tailors his teachings to his audience. There is no doubt about > that. For those accumulated to develop anapanasati, he teaches the dhammas > in that format. For those who are interested in development of asubha > meditation, he also teaches the dhamma in that format. For those many more > who haven't accumulated to develop tranquil meditation, he teaches about > dana, sila, and the everyday's descriptions of conducts that would bring > them growth. For all, he teaches them about the dhamma, about the way > towards the liberation from sufferings. Ph: This is a healthy and tolerant description of things. There is no need for us to try to decide which is the true Buddhism. The true Buddhism depends on our accumulations. Oh, I'm getting sleepy. Can't finish now. Thank you again, Kom. Will print out your note and read it carefully. Metta, Phil 32835 From: Date: Fri May 7, 2004 3:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/6/04 10:52:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > L: I thought the end of conditioned arising is the end of dukkha. What > about that? ======================= In previous posts, I gave an interpretation of the "unraveling" aspect of dependent origination. That unraveling phase certainly leads directly to nibbana (the end of dukkha). Whether my interpretation of the unraveling/cessation phase is a good one or not, I definitely believe that carefully contemplating that phase of dependent origination and cessation will present many problems in understanding and will call out for considerable additional analysis and effort being made in interpreting and reinterpreting what is involved. This is material that is critically important and extraordinarily deep. 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) 32836 From: Larry Date: Fri May 7, 2004 7:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > The method of dependent arising in the forward direction shows how > ignorance binds us to samasara. > > The method of dependent arising in the reverse direction shows how > one is freed from samsara by uprooting ignorance; without ignorance > as a base, craving has no foothold. > > Seems common sense to me. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Hi Rob, Dependent arising _is_ samsara. There is no "us" apart from dependent arising. no samsara = no dependent arising = no "us". A living arahant lives dependently arising free from samsara. That's the part that isn't so common sense. Larry 32837 From: Larry Date: Fri May 7, 2004 8:26am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Howard, I had another thought. I forgot that dukkha is a concept, as is impermanence and anatta. Even Nina accepts this:-))) So, on further consideration, I agree that dukkha is unsatisfactory. But I think we should say it is unsatisfactory not as a variety of aversion (dosa), but rather conceptually unsatisfactory. I think this would jive with your interpretation that unpleasant feeling, conditionality, and change are not dukkha itself. However, unlike impermanence and anatta, dukkha has a cause. We don't usually say impermanence or anatta has a cause. But I wonder if we could. Can we say impermanence (conditional arising) is caused by desire? How about anatta? Abhidhamma says concepts don't have causes. Maybe this means they don't have root causes. So dukkha isn't kamma result. I think we need to find out what "cause of dukkha" means in abhidhamma. My first thought is that "cause" in this sense means "reason". Don't know if that will fly or not. Larry 32838 From: Date: Fri May 7, 2004 4:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/7/04 11:27:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I had another thought. I forgot that dukkha is a concept, as is > impermanence and anatta. Even Nina accepts this:-))) So, on further > consideration, I agree that dukkha is unsatisfactory. But I think we > should say it is unsatisfactory not as a variety of aversion (dosa), > but rather conceptually unsatisfactory. I think this would jive with > your interpretation that unpleasant feeling, conditionality, and > change are not dukkha itself. > > However, unlike impermanence and anatta, dukkha has a cause. We don't > usually say impermanence or anatta has a cause. But I wonder if we > could. Can we say impermanence (conditional arising) is caused by > desire? How about anatta? > > Abhidhamma says concepts don't have causes. Maybe this means they > don't have root causes. So dukkha isn't kamma result. I think we need > to find out what "cause of dukkha" means in abhidhamma. My first > thought is that "cause" in this sense means "reason". Don't know if > that will fly or not. > > Larry > ======================== I'll have to get back to you on much of this. However, right now I'll say the following: There is a general concept of "dukkha" - a rather fuzzy one. But I see the core aspect of dukkha not as concept only, but as a reality. Dukkha, in the fundamental sense, is distress/mental pain, a paramattha dhamma. I certainly don't think that it was the Buddha's intention in speaking of putting an end to dukkha to be referring to removing a concept or fixing it up. He was referring to the actual cessation of suffering. 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) 32839 From: Larry Date: Fri May 7, 2004 9:25am Subject: Re: Nibbana Hi Htoo, Thanks for this essay. Very interesting and good. One question: you wrote, "Appanihita nibbana means nibbana is not to be craving for as in cases of tanha, raga, kilesa, etc etc. When ariya-to-be was viewing dhamma at magga citta, if he saw dhamma as dukkha or suffering then the nibbana that he saw is called appanihita nibbana. Because nibbana is free of tanha, raga, and any defilements. Even though these are contemplated, there is only a single nibbana in terms of its character and in ultimate sense." L: On another thread we are discussing what is the ultimate meaning of "dukkha" and how does it fit into dependent arising. The above quote suggests to me the ultimate meaning of "dukkha" is "not desirable". This contrasts with other meanings such as pain and suffering. Which is the best meaning? How is desire the cause of dukkha? Does "cause" mean root cause? Is dukkha kamma vipaka? Is dependent arising dukkha? How does an arahant live dependently arising but free from dependent arising? Is dukkha paramattha dhamma? Thanks for your help, Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: > Dear Dhamma Friend, > > I have just written on paramattha dhamma and there have been 29 pages. If there is any query it should be the point for discussion. Even though it is written in a style of single side, I intend all these pages as discussion. There may contain some ambiguous things. > http://www.geocities.com/htootintnaing/patthana29.html is currently the latest and there will be some more coming. Page 29 is about nibbana. In that page I link page one which is the first page and it will draw you from page to page till you reach the page 29. Page 29 has not been written. Have dhamma piti and benefit from that site. > > With Unlimited Metta, > > Htoo Naing > 32840 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri May 7, 2004 9:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Appreciating Abhidhamma (was abhidhamma and citta #2206) Hi Philip, A friend reminded me responding to my previous post that what I should have said was that materiality or mentality rises because of its conditions, performs its individual functions together with its own characteristics, and then falls away. He stresses the importance of the dhamma now conditioning the arising of dhamma of the future, because without that, then no development of panna/kusala dhamma is possible. > > Ph: I find a lot of aversion to the idea of making understanding > annata a central point of one's understanding of dhamma, even amoung > Theravadins at another group I go to. They are all Westerners and > have devoted theselves to studying sutta and doing a lot of > meditation.. My wife, who is Japanese, claims that the idea of no- > self is very clear to her, thugh she has no explicit interest in > studying dhamma now. Now, I have no idea of how deeply she undertands > annata, but it is still interesting to think that those who ahve > studied a lot cannot or will not grasp annata, but someone who hasn't > studied or meditated can take it as a common-sense kind of thing. > This could be the accumulations inherent in living in an Asian > country? No, I guess not. Surely if one is Asian in this life it > doesn't mean that one lived in an Asian country in the past. > I believe the commentaries expounded on the uniqueness of the teaching of anattaness. It says that even the teachers not a Buddha can teach about impermanence and suffering (perhaps not in such explicit details), but none other than the buddha can teach about the anattaness of all realities. It is not only the conceptual understanding of anattaness that the Buddha taught, but ultimately, it is the reality arising now, and the wisdom that realizes it directly, what anattaness is all about. Saying that one understands the concepts of anattaness is not the same as directly realizing it, experiencing it directly. Do we truly understand anattanewss? Then, we need to ask if there is panna knowing what's going on now. Is there a direct understanding of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking, aversion, attachment, ignorance, that is rising now? That what arisese are just characteristics or realities or just dhamma? If we still believe, that I think this, and I think that, and that I control this thought, and this emotion. Is that an understanding? We shouldn't underestimate the subtlety and profundity of the Buddha's teachings -- - it is not just words, and concepts that make sense, but these are the most accurate and subtle descriptions of what arises now, about what all there really is. All the Buddha teachings in all the 3 tipitakas lead to one thing: liberation from suffering, but for some, we really need the explicit instructions of the abhidhamma to even begin to understand that the Buddha was talking about the dhamma, not the self that we holds so dear. kom 32841 From: icarofranca Date: Fri May 7, 2004 9:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Dear Upasaka > I'll have to get back to you on much of this. However, right now I'll > say the following: There is a general concept of "dukkha" - a rather fuzzy > one. But I see the core aspect of dukkha not as concept only, but as a reality. Exact! > Dukkha, in the fundamental sense, is distress/mental pain, a paramattha dhamma. Wrong! Buddha was very assertive about The Paramattha Dhammas. All existent, conditioned beings are rooted on Dukkha, under Lobha, dosa and Moha; but the ultimate realities goes beyond ( or better, through ) all delusion of concepts and the samsara itself. You can get a unwholesome Rupa or Cetasika, but not a Nibbana. IMHO, Rupa and cetasika are Paramattha Dhamma if they can be assigned as wholesome. Cf. The last book of Dhammasangani - "What are the Kusala Dhammas ? The Five bhumisu Vipakas, the three components, Rupa (Rupañca) and Nibbana"(corrections are welcome, since I am quoting the book by memory!). The text stresses words as "Bhumisu", as a positive declaration that Dukkha IS a cause and IS only a illusion. > I certainly don't think that it was the Buddha's intention in speaking of > putting an end to dukkha to be referring to removing a concept or fixing it up. > He was referring to the actual cessation of suffering. Exact again! Buddha was pragmatic: human beings suffer under many causes and conditions. So, the solution (Niroddha) is the cessation or extinction of suffer. All His preaching was on this direction: smart solutions and smart strategies for any human affair... (if you get some problem or hardship on sleeping peacefully, a good plunge on Anapasati Sutta will be as good as counting sheeps!) Mettaya, ícaro 32842 From: icarofranca Date: Fri May 7, 2004 9:51am Subject: Re: Nibbana Dear Larry > L: On another thread we are discussing what is the ultimate meaning > of "dukkha" and how does it fit into dependent arising. The above > quote suggests to me the ultimate meaning of "dukkha" is "not > desirable". This contrasts with other meanings such as pain and > suffering. Which is the best meaning? How is desire the cause of > dukkha? Does "cause" mean root cause? Is dukkha kamma vipaka? Is > dependent arising dukkha? How does an arahant live dependently > arising but free from dependent arising? Is dukkha paramattha dhamma? Dukkha can be translated as suffering, while "non-desirable"is more alike "Akusala". The relation between them seems to be rather incidental: Buddha always spoke about Niroddha, or the end of suffering as a real pragmatic way. If unwholesome or akusala things or feelings or thoughts are cause of suffering, so they fall on a set which has Dukkha as a main constitutive note. And Dukkha is not a Paramattha Dhamma, because Dukkha is cause of suffering and is only an illusion. Mettaya, ícaro > > Thanks for your help, > > Larry > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing > wrote: > > Dear Dhamma Friend, > > > > I have just written on paramattha dhamma and there have been 29 > pages. If there is any query it should be the point for discussion. > Even though it is written in a style of single side, I intend all > these pages as discussion. There may contain some ambiguous things. > > http://www.geocities.com/htootintnaing/patthana29.html is > currently the latest and there will be some more coming. Page 29 is > about nibbana. In that page I link page one which is the first page > and it will draw you from page to page till you reach the page 29. > Page 29 has not been written. Have dhamma piti and benefit from that > site. > > > > With Unlimited Metta, > > > > Htoo Naing > > > > 32843 From: Date: Fri May 7, 2004 7:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, Icaro - In a message dated 5/7/04 12:55:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, icarofranca@y... writes: > >Dukkha, in the fundamental sense, is distress/mental pain, a > paramattha dhamma. > > > Wrong! > Buddha was very assertive about The Paramattha Dhammas. All > existent, conditioned beings are rooted on Dukkha, under Lobha, dosa > and Moha; but the ultimate realities goes beyond ( or better, > through ) all delusion of concepts and the samsara itself. You can > get a unwholesome Rupa or Cetasika, but not a Nibbana. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't get it. So what? Of course nibbana is not unwholesome. What is the point? Most particularly, what has that to do with whether or not dukkha is a paramattha dhamma? ---------------------------------------------- > IMHO, Rupa and cetasika are Paramattha Dhamma if they can be > assigned as wholesome. Cf. The last book of Dhammasangani - "What are > the Kusala Dhammas ? The Five bhumisu Vipakas, the three components, > Rupa (Rupañca) and Nibbana"(corrections are welcome, since I am > quoting the book by memory!). The text stresses words as "Bhumisu", > as a positive declaration that Dukkha IS a cause and IS only a > illusion. > > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't follow you. Here it seems you are saying that only kusala phenomena are paramattha dhammas. That is not so. ============================ I must be missing something here, Icaro. 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) 32844 From: icarofranca Date: Fri May 7, 2004 0:37pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Dear Howard > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't get it. So what? Of course nibbana is not unwholesome. What is > the point? Most particularly, what has that to do with whether or not dukkha > is a paramattha dhamma? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard, it seems to me that the Paramattha Dhammas are very alike the Aristotelic "Praedicamenta", the first book of Organon. Buddha, or the Abhidhamma's author, if other (?), had classified all experiences under His perceptions in many ways, one of these were the duality between sammuit-Sacca ( concepts, relative realities under our personal knowledge of exterior world ) and Paramattha-Sacca, ultimate realities, Lokiya, Cetasika, Rupa and Nibbana. Lokiya is a "mundane"consciousness, that keeps a faithful registry stating that all conditioned states are Dukkha, above and beyond our interpretation of sensorial datum. As the Aristotelic Praedicamenta, the Paramattha Dhamma is a structural formatting of all reality, untouchable by Lobha, Dosa and Moha. Well, unwholesome states of mind, affairs or realities, if cause of Dukkha, are kept out of our Paramattha Dhammas, because they are a ill-posed picture of reality and not a ultimate one. >> ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't follow you. Here it seems you are saying that only kusala > phenomena are paramattha dhammas. That is not so. > ============================ > I must be missing something here, Icaro. --------------------------------------------------------------------- You see, formally speaking neither Kusala or Akusala patterns are inside the paramattha Dhamma set. But can you conceive a Kusala pattern that causes Dukkha ? If you find one of these bad Kusalas, put it off our Paramattha Dhamma's circle imediately!!! Mettaya, Ícaro 32845 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri May 7, 2004 0:39pm Subject: PHOTOS from the April 2004 meeting Dear Group, Tom and Bev Westheimer (from New Hamshire) :-)) have added a couple of photos to the DSG Meetings photo folder: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst The first photo shows Bev, Betty and K. Sujin. The second photo is of the Foundation taken from the carpark. Click on the '3DSG Meetings' folder, click on 'show all' and then click on the thumbnail photo to enlarge. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 32846 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri May 7, 2004 1:22pm Subject: Radiating Metta? ( was Re: Video Games?) Friend Christine, Christine: I expect you are referring to the Ahina sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an04-067.html James: Yea, I was thinking of that one (and a few others). Thanks for linking to it. I will make some further references to it later in this post. Christine: The use of metta as a generalised paritta, by creating a mind of good will, is well-known. This was not what was being discussed. What was being discussed was treating metta as a systematic targeted form of psychic lightning. James: What is `paritta'? Could you please define this Pali word for me and what you mean by its use? Second, I don't think of metta as being used as a form of `psychic lightning'. I didn't use that phrase. The Buddha taught to `radiate' metta, not to shock the hell out of people with it! LOL! Christine: In your post to Philip you made the following comments: "Projecting metta through metta meditation, as the Buddha taught, is a way to create change on the mundane level;" and "It may be difficult to believe in the ability to `radiate' metta without some belief in psychic ability. If you don't have an open- mind toward psychic ability, it will be difficult to do this practice properly." I don't know of any suttas that would support your contentions. I would be interested if you could produce any. James: Well, Christine, you produced the sutta yourself. I am not sure how you are interpreting this sutta but it seems to be saying exactly what I stated to Philip: "Then it's certain, monks, that that monk didn't suffuse the four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will. For if he had suffused the four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will, he would not have died after having been bitten by a snake. James: The Buddha is saying that the monk should `suffuse' the snake families with a mind of good will. There is a subject: mind, and an object: snake families. Good will is going from one to the other and the result is that the snake families will be suffused with good will. If this good will isn't projected from the mind to the snake families, they won't be suffused and they may bite and kill the monk. I think this supports my contention that metta meditation is a way to affect change on a mundane level: project metta to the snakes and they won't kill you. "There is a limit to creeping things: snakes, scorpions, centipedes, spiders, lizards, & rats. I have made this safeguard, I have made this protection. May the beings depart." James: This is again affecting change on a mundane level. Christine, if you contend that this change is only in the mind of the practitioner, and nothing is really being transferred from the mind to the snake families, then you are in fact contending that the Buddha taught empty rites and rituals. You need to be careful of what you state...a snake may bite you! ;-)) (just kidding). Metta, James 32847 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri May 7, 2004 3:19pm Subject: Radiating Metta? ( was Re: Video Games?) Hello James, The sutta is a generalised paritta. A Paritta is a protective charm/invocation designed to produce calmness and a peaceful mind state in the chanter. Snakes are like dogs and can sense fear or calmness in a person. Calmness in itself is a protection. But that sutta is not about altering the *existing* unhappy circumstances of *another person or their life*. If you have a sutta that specifically and unequivocally supports that the Buddha taught that a person should sit and 'radiate' metta as a practice to alter the current physical circumstances of another individual person's life, please post it. Otherwise I doubt continuing the thread is likely to be constructive. For your convenience, just about all the significant quotes on metta 'Loving-Kindness' in the Pali Canon can be found in this article by Nanamoli Thera: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel007.html metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 32848 From: Date: Fri May 7, 2004 4:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Hi Icaro, Is dependent arising dukkha? Is there a dependent arising that is not dukkha? How is dukkha caused, what conditions? Larry 32849 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri May 7, 2004 4:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Hello Larry, Icaro, Howard and all, I'm a little confused. I'm sure I've been taught that Dukkha is a *characteristic* of all conditioned dhammas? Not entirely sure what being a characteristic entails. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Icaro, > > Is dependent arising dukkha? Is there a dependent arising that is not > dukkha? How is dukkha caused, what conditions? > > Larry 32850 From: Date: Fri May 7, 2004 0:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Hi, Christine (and all) - In a message dated 5/7/04 7:42:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Hello Larry, Icaro, Howard and all, > > I'm a little confused. I'm sure I've been taught that Dukkha is a > *characteristic* of all conditioned dhammas? Not entirely sure what > being a characteristic entails. > > metta and peace, > Christine > ============================ Where were you taught that? Sure all conditioned dhammas are unsatisfactory. That means they don't satisfy. It's a relational matter, or, rather, the lack of a satisfaction relation holding. People can't find satisfaction in any conditioned dhammas. That's why they lead to distress in humans, because we cling to them. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32851 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 7, 2004 4:58pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Howard and all, Regarding the conceived paradox pertaining to dukkha, I will try to put it in light of the Noble Truth of the Dukkha and the Noble Truth of the Origination of the Dukkha. Teaching the Noble Truth of the Dukkha, the Buddha taught that: "Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of [the] dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." The Buddha taught that which is dukkha. He was not defining what dukkha is. He was not defining dukkha as distress/mental pain. While distress/mental pain is dukkha, that which is dukkha is not necessarily distress/mental pain. For instance, birth is dukkha, but birth is not distress/mental pain. Teaching the Noble Truth of the Origination of the Dukkha, the Buddha taught that: "And this, monks is the noble truth of the origination of [the] dukkha: the craving that makes for further becoming -- accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there -- i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non- becoming." The Buddha taught that which is the origination of the dukkha; namely, craving that makes for further becoming. Now, 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. Because of craving, the round of rebirth. In the round of rebirth, ignorance, fabrications, consciousness, name-&-form, the six sense media, contact, feeling, craving, clinging/sustenance, becoming, birth, aging & death, is dukkha. While distress/mental pain is dukkha, not everything in the round of rebirth is distress/mental pain. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry - [snip] > I'll have to get back to you on much of this. However, right now I'll > say the following: There is a general concept of "dukkha" - a rather fuzzy > one. But I see the core aspect of dukkha not as concept only, but as a reality. > Dukkha, in the fundamental sense, is distress/mental pain, a paramattha dhamma. > I certainly don't think that it was the Buddha's intention in speaking of > putting an end to dukkha to be referring to removing a concept or fixing it up. > He was referring to the actual cessation of suffering. > > With metta, > Howard [snip] 32852 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri May 7, 2004 4:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Hi Howard, Have to go out to the hairdressers right now :-) Will think about it and get back to you this arvo (oz time). cheers, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Christine (and all) - > > In a message dated 5/7/04 7:42:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > cforsyth@v... writes: > > > Hello Larry, Icaro, Howard and all, > > > > I'm a little confused. I'm sure I've been taught that Dukkha is a > > *characteristic* of all conditioned dhammas? Not entirely sure what > > being a characteristic entails. > > > > metta and peace, > > Christine > > > ============================ > Where were you taught that? Sure all conditioned dhammas are > unsatisfactory. That means they don't satisfy. It's a relational matter, or, rather, > the lack of a satisfaction relation holding. People can't find satisfaction in > any conditioned dhammas. That's why they lead to distress in humans, because we > cling to them. > > With metta, > Howard 32853 From: Date: Fri May 7, 2004 2:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reverse Word Index to the Visuddhimagga In a message dated 5/6/04 1:00:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: This is because the last latters are where the operations of the Pali grammar mainly happen. In the case of Pali nouns, the last letters show their different genders such as masculine, neuter, and femenine. Thus, we know instantly the noun "naasikaggam" , (nasikagg' 273-22) given by Rob as an example, to be a neuter noun because it ends in "-m" (niggahita kaaranta, it is not the consonant "m"). In the case of Pali verbs, the verbal suffixes also need to blend in with the last letters of Pali verbs. suan, I understand what you said above but still don't understand the order of Pali-English glossaries or dictionaries. For instance, take the Bh. Nanamoli edition of the Visuddhimagga, page 873 if you have a copy. It lists rupavacara and its definition followed immediately by lakkhana and its definition. jack 32854 From: Date: Fri May 7, 2004 2:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi All Any affliction or any state(s) with potential to lead to affliction is Dukkha. This is the way I understand it. TG 32855 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri May 7, 2004 7:05pm Subject: [dsg] Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Sarah (Sukin and Christine (and Suravira)) , You wrote: --------------------- S: I thought Sukin's was a beautifully written post and I agreed with all his comments (a minority view of course;-)). ---------------------- I thought so too and I hope I didn't give the opposite impression. I seem to find it harder to discuss something I agree with than something I disagree with. There are so many inspiring and agreeable posts here that it is a shame not to respond to them all. Especially when the writer says, "I will be interested to hear other members' opinions on this." My problem with writing is a very real one. It takes time to arrange the words in a decipherable fashion. At the moment, for example, I am half way through conversations with you and Christine on other threads and there are more notes from Cooran that I promised to post. I either rush in and say something confusing, misleading or maybe even insulting; or I take my time (possibly never sending anything) and give the impression of having lost interest. :-( ------------------------ S: > The practice has to begin with moments of awareness of realities, but being few and far between, there may not be any understanding of the characteristic of awareness or knowledge about such moments, let alone clear understanding of nama and rupa. There are bound to be doubts. Like Sukin, I see pariyatti and patipatti developing together, the one reinforcing the other, with the proviso that there cannot be any patipatti or development of satipatthana without hearing about the dhammas to be known first. -------------- Me too. -------------- KH: > > Would that be too much to expect? .... S: > Expectations?? -------------- Well, yes, them as well, but I what I meant was; `When we beginner Dhamma-students are considering Dhamma with right intellectual understanding, is it totally unlikely that there might be moments of satipatthana, however weak?' -------------- KH: > > Sarah seems to concede that there > will be some kusala cittas with paramattha dhammas as object. That > means they directly experience dhammas with alobha and adosa but not > necessarily with amoha. That's a start. :-) > > .... S: > An ambiguous paraphrase of what I say gets my attention fast;-). ------------------------ Oh dear, what have I said now? :-) --------------------------- S: > I forget what I said, but if I was talking about kusala cittas with paramattha dhammas as objects (as opposed to concepts of realities), I'm sure I would have been referring to the development of satipatthana with amoha. It's bound to be very weak in the beginning. ---------------------------- I've just been searching for that quoted passage where "Sarah seems to concede that there will be some kusala cittas with paramattha dhammas as object. That means they directly experience dhammas with alobha and adosa but not necessarily with amoha". That is not what I found. (!!!): KH (to S): > > > That prompts me to ask, "What is meant by, `at the intellectual level?'" I think you and Nina would maintain that the intellectual level is not solely at the mind door with concepts as objects. > > > ... S: > > It is, but just momentary panna again with concepts (or realities) as objects, eg thinking now with panna about how seeing, no self, experiences visible object. > > . . . So you were right, you did say there could be `panna with realities as objects.' And so it was kind of you to call my quote an `ambiguous paraphrase.' You could have called it a `blatant falsification.' :-) Thanks for your answers to my questions and my apologies for getting them "bass ackward." :-) Kind regards; Ken H 32856 From: Date: Fri May 7, 2004 3:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/7/04 9:41:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi All > > Any affliction or any state(s) with potential to lead to affliction is > Dukkha. > > This is the way I understand it. > > TG > ======================= If by "affliction" you mean distress, I agree with you. I think that "distress" is the primary sense of 'dukkha', and whatever dhammas are condtions for its arising - which includes all conditioned dhammas - are also said to be "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) 32857 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri May 7, 2004 7:48pm Subject: Radiating Metta? ( was Re: Video Games?) Friend Christine, Christine: The sutta is a generalised paritta. A Paritta is a protective charm/invocation designed to produce calmness and a peaceful mind state in the chanter. Snakes are like dogs and can sense fear or calmness in a person. Calmness in itself is a protection. But that sutta is not about altering the *existing* unhappy circumstances of *another person or their life*. James: Thank you for defining what you were meaning. On the surface, your explanation sounds like a reasonable and logical explanation; however, it doesn't match the words of the sutta. The Buddha SPECIFICALLY said that the monk was to SUFFUSE the snake families with good will. There is nothing generalized about the sutta. The Buddha taught some suttas about metta which were generalized, and some which were very specific. This sutta is one which is very specific. The Buddha said that the monk in question got bitten by the snake and died because he had not suffused the four snake kingdoms with good will. The Buddha didn't say that the monk had gotten bitten and died because the monk was nervous and he should have been calmer. From my experience, even the most agitated of monks are calmer than most. How nervous do you think this particular monk was? Frankly, I am not convinced by your explanation and I think it is directly contradictory to what the Buddha stated. Not only that, you have used no canonical support whatsoever, only your personal opinion. You haven't quoted a single line from the sutta to explain and illustrate why it is a generalized paritta. Christine: If you have a sutta that specifically and unequivocally supports that the Buddha taught that a person should sit and 'radiate' metta as a practice to alter the current physical circumstances of another individual person's life, please post it. James: LOL! Hello!? We have already been discussing such a sutta! People are going to see what they want to see so it would be impossible for me to provide you with a sutta which would change your mind. Even if the Buddha had spoken a sutta which stated, "Oh Monks, in the year 2004, in an Internet group named DSG, a member named Christine will falsely state that I haven't taught the radiation of metta…" You would turn around and say, "I'm sure the Buddha wasn't talking about me because that isn't exactly what I stated, and he didn't mention that the Christine in question is from Australia; if he didn't mention Australia then it might not have been me because there are many Christines in the world. Actually, he would also have to mention what street I live on, my house number, my weight and height, and my age. Then if he mentioned my genetic code I might be convinced!" ;-)) Christine: Otherwise I doubt continuing the thread is likely to be constructive. James: Yea, unfortunately I agree with you there. Metta, James 32858 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri May 7, 2004 8:01pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Friend Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Christine (and all) - > > In a message dated 5/7/04 7:42:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > cforsyth@v... writes: > > > Hello Larry, Icaro, Howard and all, > > > > I'm a little confused. I'm sure I've been taught that Dukkha is a > > *characteristic* of all conditioned dhammas? Not entirely sure what > > being a characteristic entails. > > > > metta and peace, > > Christine > > > ============================ > Where were you taught that? Sure all conditioned dhammas are > unsatisfactory. That means they don't satisfy. It's a relational matter, or, rather, > the lack of a satisfaction relation holding. People can't find satisfaction in > any conditioned dhammas. That's why they lead to distress in humans, because we > cling to them. > > With metta, > Howard > I believe that you are establishing an unnecessary dichotomy. There is no subject and object when it comes to dhammas (transient phenomena) because we are also dhammas. You write of people and dhammas as if they are two different things, but they are the same thing. According to the Buddha, transient dhammas are unsatisfactory whether they are clung to or not, the only dhamma that is satisfactory is nibbana. Metta, James 32859 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 7, 2004 8:28pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Hi James, Howard, and all, The idea "we are also dhammas" is a self-identify view. Whatever is transient, inconstant, subject to change, is dukkha. What is dukkha is not self: It is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Indeed, what is inconstant is dukkha, whether it is clung to or not. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Friend Howard, [snip] > > Where were you taught that? Sure all conditioned dhammas > are > > unsatisfactory. That means they don't satisfy. It's a relational > matter, or, rather, > > the lack of a satisfaction relation holding. People can't find > satisfaction in > > any conditioned dhammas. That's why they lead to distress in > humans, because we > > cling to them. > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > > I believe that you are establishing an unnecessary dichotomy. There > is no subject and object when it comes to dhammas (transient > phenomena) because we are also dhammas. You write of people and > dhammas as if they are two different things, but they are the same > thing. According to the Buddha, transient dhammas are > unsatisfactory whether they are clung to or not, the only dhamma > that is satisfactory is nibbana. > > Metta, James 32860 From: Date: Fri May 7, 2004 5:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Hi, James - In a message dated 5/7/04 11:35:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > I believe that you are establishing an unnecessary dichotomy. There > is no subject and object when it comes to dhammas (transient > phenomena) because we are also dhammas. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, if you really want to be technical James, that is false. "We" are not dhammas, because there is no "we"! But we can't go around being walking, talking Abhidhhama texts! To speak we have to use normal speech conventions. ------------------------------------------------ You write of people and > > dhammas as if they are two different things, but they are the same > thing. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: So you don't get what I'm saying? Don't you follow my meaning? The dukkha that the Buddha says nibbana is the end of is *suffering*! That's what it is, James. He's not saying that hardness will end, nor pleasant feelings, nor mindfulness, nor sights, nor sounds, nor tastes, nor smells. He is saying there will be no more suffering. That's the goal, that's what will be achieved. ------------------------------------------------ According to the Buddha, transient dhammas are > > unsatisfactory whether they are clung to or not, the only dhamma > that is satisfactory is nibbana. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: What do *you* mean when you say that transient dhammas are unsatisfactory? ======================== 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) 32861 From: Date: Fri May 7, 2004 5:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/7/04 11:40:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Indeed, what is inconstant is dukkha, whether it is clung to or not. > ===================== Can you say in clear English exactly what you mean by that, and why it is so? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32862 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 7, 2004 9:09pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi TG, Howard, and all, I agree with you that both affliction and distress and what leads to affliction and distress are dukkha. However, they don't emcompass the all that is dukkha. The Noble Eightfold Path is a fabricated path. It is dukkha. Nevertheless, it is the path leading to the cessation of the dukkha. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, TG - > > In a message dated 5/7/04 9:41:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... > writes: > > > Hi All > > > > Any affliction or any state(s) with potential to lead to affliction is > > Dukkha. > > > > This is the way I understand it. > > > > TG > > > ======================= > If by "affliction" you mean distress, I agree with you. I think that > "distress" is the primary sense of 'dukkha', and whatever dhammas are condtions > for its arising - which includes all conditioned dhammas - are also said to > be "dukkha". > > With metta, > Howard 32863 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri May 7, 2004 9:19pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Friend Victor, Victor: The idea "we are also dhammas" is a self-identify view. Whatever is transient, inconstant, subject to change, is dukkha. What is dukkha is not self: It is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." James: Yes, yes, yes…I know, I know. ;-)) I simply used that wording for the sake of convenience and to set up the appropriate parallelism. Metta, James 32864 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri May 7, 2004 9:24pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Friend Howard, Howard: What do *you* mean when you say that transient dhammas are unsatisfactory? James: I mean that they are inconstant, unsatisfactory, and non- self. What do you mean what do I mean?? ;-)) Metta, James 32865 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 7, 2004 9:44pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Hi Howard (and James and all), The idea "we are dhammas" is a self-identity view. It is an assumption. This assumption is to be abandoned by seeing those dhammas as they actually are with right discernment thus: "These are not mine. These I am not. These are not my self." The idea "there is no we" is another assumption, an entangled view, result of speculative thoughts. Perception is dukkha. Perceiving hardness is dukkha. Feeling is dukkha. Feeling pleasantness is dukkha. Fabrications are dukkha. Fabricating mindfulness is dukkha. Sights are dukkha. Sounds are dukkha. Tastes are dukkha. Smells are dukkha. Suffering is dukkha. Mental pain is dukkha. Distress is dukkha. The goal is the cessation of the dukkha, the cessation of all that which is dukkha. And the path leading to the cessation of the dukkha is the Noble Eightfold Path. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > In a message dated 5/7/04 11:35:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > > > I believe that you are establishing an unnecessary dichotomy. There > > is no subject and object when it comes to dhammas (transient > > phenomena) because we are also dhammas. > > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, if you really want to be technical James, that is false. "We" > are not dhammas, because there is no "we"! But we can't go around being walking, > talking Abhidhhama texts! To speak we have to use normal speech conventions. > ------------------------------------------------ > You write of people and > > > dhammas as if they are two different things, but they are the same > > thing. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > So you don't get what I'm saying? Don't you follow my meaning? The > dukkha that the Buddha says nibbana is the end of is *suffering*! That's what it > is, James. He's not saying that hardness will end, nor pleasant feelings, nor > mindfulness, nor sights, nor sounds, nor tastes, nor smells. He is saying > there will be no more suffering. That's the goal, that's what will be achieved. > ------------------------------------------------ > > According to the Buddha, transient dhammas are > > > unsatisfactory whether they are clung to or not, the only dhamma > > that is satisfactory is nibbana. > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > What do *you* mean when you say that transient dhammas are > unsatisfactory? > ======================== > With metta, > Howard 32866 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 7, 2004 9:55pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Hi Howard and all, What is it in the following: "Indeed, what is inconstant is dukkha, whether it is clung to or not." that is not clear to you? Is what is inconstant dukkha? Is what is inconstant and is clung to dukkha? Is what is inconstant and is not clung to dukkha? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 5/7/04 11:40:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Indeed, what is inconstant is dukkha, whether it is clung to or not. > > ===================== > Can you say in clear English exactly what you mean by that, and why it is so? > > With metta, > Howard 32867 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 7, 2004 10:00pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Hi James, OK :-) Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Friend Victor, > > Victor: The idea "we are also dhammas" is a self-identify view. > Whatever is transient, inconstant, subject to change, is dukkha. > What is dukkha is not self: It is to be seen as it actually is with > right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not > my self." > > James: Yes, yes, yes…I know, I know. ;-)) I simply used that wording > for the sake of convenience and to set up the appropriate > parallelism. > > Metta, James 32868 From: Date: Fri May 7, 2004 6:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha In a message dated 5/7/2004 7:42:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: If by "affliction" you mean distress, I agree with you. Hi Howard. By affliction I mean precisely affliction. The term appeals to me because... in the way I think of it, it has a broad scope that can fit any definition of Dukkha I have come across. To me, distress is more like the term suffering in its connoting a more extreme affliction. Distress seems a little more narrow as a particular type of psychological Dukkha. For example... the Buddha could be afflicted by physical dukkha yet he would not be distressed by it. I would like to hear your reasons for liking distress if you have the time. Thanks. TG 32869 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat May 8, 2004 1:59am Subject: Radiating Metta? ( was Re: Video Games?) Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" ,. > > James: LOL! Hello!? We have already been discussing such a sutta! > People are going to see what they want to see so it would be > impossible for me to provide you with a sutta which would change > your mind. Even if the Buddha had spoken a sutta which stated, "Oh > Monks, in the year 2004, in an Internet group named DSG, a member > named Christine will falsely state that I haven't taught the > radiation of metta…" You would turn around and say, "I'm sure the > Buddha wasn't talking about me because that isn't exactly what I > stated, and he didn't mention that the Christine in question is from > Australia; if he didn't mention Australia then it might not have > been me because there are many Christines in the world. Actually, > he would also have to mention what street I live on, my house > number, my weight and height, and my age. Then if he mentioned my > genetic code I might be convinced!" ;-)) Sorry for the tone of this message. I was reminded by Jon off-list to watch my tone and I thought about this part of the post a second time and realized that I was getting too personal. Honestly, when I wrote this part I didn't intend to get personal or even to accuse you of falsely attributing things to the Buddha. I just kind of meant it to be a colorful example of a point I wanted to make. I guess I am not getting this posting thing down very well. Despite my best efforts, I keep being a naughty boy! ;-)). Metta, James 32870 From: abhidhammika Date: Sat May 8, 2004 2:44am Subject: The System Of Pali Sound Groups (Was :Reverse Word Index to the Visuddhimagga) Dear Jack, Nina, Chris, Sarah and all How are you? Jack wrote: "I understand what you said above but still don't understand the order of Pali-English glossaries or dictionaries. For instance, take the Bh. Nanamoli edition of the Visuddhimagga, page 873 if you have a copy. It lists rupavacara and its definition followed immediately by lakkhana and its definition." Pali-English and Pali-Burmese dictionaries arrange the word entries according to the following grouping of Pali sounds described in the traditional Pali grammar texts. Bhikkhu N(y)aa.namoli also followed that grouping when he listed Visuddhimagga glossaries. The following is the Rule 2 of Kaccaayanabhaakara.nam and its explanation. 2, 2. Akkharaapaadayo ekacattaaliisam. Te ca kho akkharaa api akaaraadayo ekacattaa liisa suttantesu sopakaaraa. Tam yathaa? A aa i ii u uu e o, ka kha ga gha nga, ca cha ja jha ña, .ta .tha .da .dha .na, ta tha da dha na, pa pha ba bha ma, ya ra la va sa ha .la am, iti akkharaa naama. 2, 2. The fourty-one sounds starting with 'a' are letters. Those fourty-one sounds starting with 'a' well beneficial to the Tipi.taka are also called letters. What are they? Those named as letters are "A aa i ii u uu e o, ka kha ga gha nga, ca cha ja jha ña, .ta .tha .da .dha .na, ta tha da dha na, pa pha ba bha ma, ya ra la va sa ha .la and am." 1. A aa i ii u uu e o 2. ka kha ga gha nga, 3. ca cha ja jha ña 4. .ta .tha .da .dha .na, 5. ta tha da dha na, 6. pa pha ba bha ma 7. ya ra la va sa ha .la and am The letters in line 1 are Pali vowels while the letters in lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are Pali consonats. The last letter 'am' in line 7 is called niggahita, and usually written with a dot on a letter. For example, the English word "Ram" has niggahita sound "-m". If we transliterate ram into Pali letters in Burmese script, we would write a dot on the letter "r". If you study the above Pali letters according to the arrangement in the above 7 lines, you will know how to look up the Pali-English and Pali-Burmese dictionaries. When you closely look at the line 7, you will see "la" follows "ra". That is how rupavacara was listed before lakkhana in the glossary of Visuddhimagga by Bhikkhu N(y)anamoli. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jackhat1@a... wrote: > In a message dated 5/6/04 1:00:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, In a message dated 5/6/04 1:00:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: This is because the last latters are where the operations of the Pali grammar mainly happen. In the case of Pali nouns, the last letters show their different genders such as masculine, neuter, and femenine. Thus, we know instantly the noun "naasikaggam" , (nasikagg' 273-22) given by Rob as an example, to be a neuter noun because it ends in "-m" (niggahita kaaranta, it is not the consonant "m"). In the case of Pali verbs, the verbal suffixes also need to blend in with the last letters of Pali verbs. suan, I understand what you said above but still don't understand the order of Pali-English glossaries or dictionaries. For instance, take the Bh. Nanamoli edition of the Visuddhimagga, page 873 if you have a copy. It lists rupavacara and its definition followed immediately by lakkhana and its definition. jack 32871 From: Date: Fri May 7, 2004 11:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/8/04 12:09:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi TG, Howard, and all, > > I agree with you that both affliction and distress and what leads to > affliction and distress are dukkha. > > However, they don't emcompass the all that is dukkha. > > The Noble Eightfold Path is a fabricated path. It is dukkha. > Nevertheless, it is the path leading to the cessation of the dukkha. > > Metta, > Victor > ========================= Okay. What remains as needed for our *understanding* of the teaching of dukkha is, inasmuch as Pali is not our native tongue, to know exactly what the word 'dukkha' means. If we were to hear, for example, that everything that is associated with the field of medicine is "syzmyzhig", we wouldn't know what to make of it until we knew what the word 'syxmyzhig' meant. We would need to know its literal meaning, its connotations, and its normal usages in various contexts. The Buddha ceratainly did say "Sabbe sankhara dukkha". The question is exactly what does that mean. There are such alternative possibilities for 'sankhara' as conditioned dhammas, conditions, fabricated phenomena, fabricating operations, dispositions, inclinations, dispositionally conditioned phenomena, formations, constructions, formative operations, constructing operations, farications, fabricating operations, and surely more. For 'dukkha', there are at least such alternatives as suffering, imperfect, unsatisfactory, imperfection, unsatisfying, dissatisfaction, pain, off kilter, distress, and conducive to distress. It's all well and good to say that all X are Y, and to list instances of X, but unless we have a good understanding of what X, and especially Y, mean in various contexts, we only *think* we understand what "All X are Y" is asserting. Let me give an English example. We have the word 'happy' in English. On the one hand we may say "Howard is happy". On the other hand hand we may say "Winning the lottery is a happy turn of events" or "John returned home under happy circumstances". The usage of 'happy' in the first sentence carries the meaning of "experiencing of joy". The usage in the other two sentences is related to that of the first, but is not the same. The usage there is along the lines of "being conducive to the experiencing of joy". If a person who was not a native speaker of English didn't understand this distinction, s/he might take "turns of events" and "circumstances" to be sentient phenomena that can experience joy! 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) 32872 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat May 8, 2004 4:01am Subject: Re: Nibbana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: Hi Htoo, Thanks for this essay. Very interesting and good. One question: you wrote, "Appanihita nibbana means nibbana is not to be craving for as in cases of tanha, raga, kilesa, etc etc. When ariya-to-be was viewing dhamma at magga citta, if he saw dhamma as dukkha or suffering then the nibbana that he saw is called appanihita nibbana. Because nibbana is free of tanha, raga, and any defilements. Even though these are contemplated, there is only a single nibbana in terms of its character and in ultimate sense." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- L: On another thread we are discussing what is the ultimate meaning of "dukkha" and how does it fit into dependent arising. The above quote suggests to me the ultimate meaning of "dukkha" is "not desirable". This contrasts with other meanings such as pain and suffering. Which is the best meaning? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dukkha is not desirable. Dukkha is to be voided. What did you ask for what meaning? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- L: How is desire the cause of dukkha? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Here 'desire' the word is not accurate word for the cause of dukkha. The cause of dukkha is tanha or craving. Not desire. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- L: Does "cause" mean root cause? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Not exactly here. Cause here is just the cause of dukkha sacca. If you say root, there are 6 roots. They are craving, aversion, delusion, non-craving, non-aversion, and non-delusion. It is not just craving which is root cause. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- L: Is dukkha kamma vipaka? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dukkha has two meanings. One for vedana which is feeling. One for sacca and that sacca is characteristics-like. So dukkha is more than kamma vipaka. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- L: Is dependent arising dukkha? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dependent arising is just dhamma. It does not need to be labeled. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- L: How does an arahant live dependently arising but free from dependent arising? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dependent arising is part of dependent origination. If there is an origion there will be dependent arising. Arahats are living partly in dependent origination. And they are free partly from dependent arising as they do not have any more tanha which is the cause. As there is no tanha, there will not be upadana and then no bhavo and then jati and the circle has been cut out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- L: Is dukkha paramattha dhamma? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: As I said there are two separate meanings for dukkha. One is for vedana and one is for sacca. If dukkha is to mean dukkha vedana then vedana which is a cetasika is a paramattha dhamma. If dukkha here is sacca, it is not a citta, it is not a cetasika, it is not a rupa and it is not nibbana. So dukkha is not in paramattha dhamma. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for your help, Larry 32873 From: Date: Sat May 8, 2004 0:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Hi, James - In a message dated 5/8/04 12:25:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Friend Howard, > > Howard: What do *you* mean when you say that transient dhammas are > unsatisfactory? > > James: I mean that they are inconstant, unsatisfactory, and non- > self. What do you mean what do I mean?? ;-)) > > Metta, James > ======================= What's the problem with being inconstant? Unsatisfactory for what? Why would it be "good" to be self? That's what I mean. :-) 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) 32874 From: Date: Sat May 8, 2004 0:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/8/04 12:48:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard (and James and all), > > The idea "we are dhammas" is a self-identity view. It is an > assumption. This assumption is to be abandoned by seeing those > dhammas as they actually are with right discernment thus: "These > are not mine. These I am not. These are not my self." The > idea "there is no we" is another assumption, an entangled view, > result of speculative thoughts. > > Perception is dukkha. Perceiving hardness is dukkha. Feeling is > dukkha. Feeling pleasantness is dukkha. Fabrications are dukkha. > Fabricating mindfulness is dukkha. Sights are dukkha. Sounds are > dukkha. Tastes are dukkha. Smells are dukkha. Suffering is > dukkha. Mental pain is dukkha. Distress is dukkha. The goal is > the cessation of the dukkha, the cessation of all that which is > dukkha. And the path leading to the cessation of the dukkha is the > Noble Eightfold Path. > > Metta, > Victor ======================= Yes - I've seen the lists before. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32875 From: Date: Sat May 8, 2004 0:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/8/04 1:56:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > In a message dated 5/7/2004 7:42:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, > upasaka@a... > writes: > If by "affliction" you mean distress, I agree with you. > Hi Howard. > > By affliction I mean precisely affliction. The term appeals to me > because... > in the way I think of it, it has a broad scope that can fit any definition > of > Dukkha I have come across. To me, distress is more like the term suffering > in its connoting a more extreme affliction. Distress seems a little more > narrow as a particular type of psychological Dukkha. > > For example... the Buddha could be afflicted by physical dukkha yet he would > > not be distressed by it. > > I would like to hear your reasons for liking distress if you have the time. > > Thanks. > > TG > =========================== There may be better choices than 'distress'. I intend the word to range from very mild to very strong. Perhaps 'unhappiness' would serve better. 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) 32876 From: axtran Date: Sat May 8, 2004 5:33am Subject: Kamma or Not Kamma Dear friends, I'd like to say hello to everyone in the forum. Please help! Someone just told me that some actions without intention will not create kamma, but they will give results. Ex: a person standing on a high ladder accidentally drops a brick, which kills someone else standing below. Because he did not do it intentionally, he does not bear the kamma of killing. However, as a result of that death, in one of his future re-births, he will meet a death caused by an accident. Is it true? Thank you for your help. Metta, Alex Tran 32877 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 8, 2004 5:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Michelle, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michelle Vellin > > > > Larry knows a lot of dhamma; his question is > > challenging you to > > think. Put aside your books for a moment and > > consider for > > yourself, "is attachment real or imaginary?" and how > > do you know > > this? On what basis do you make this decision? > > Sometimes the simplest > > sounding questions are the best... and sometimes > > they are just a > > pain :-) > > > > m_vellin: yeah...a challengin question. According to > me, attachment is imaginary, because all the greed, > love, and any kind of feeling come from our mind. > Attachment itself (in my opinion) is the state of mind > of wanting something in which if it's not fulfilled, > can cause dukkha. Therefore, in my life, I try to > avoid the self attachment to anything to prevent > dukkha, and it works. How do you "avoid the self attachment to anything to prevent dukkha"? Are there special techniques that you use? Is there some concept that you bring to mind to help you prevent dukkha? Metta, Rob M :-) 32878 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 8, 2004 6:11am Subject: Re: Kamma or Not Kamma Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "axtran" wrote: > Dear friends, > I'd like to say hello to everyone in the forum. > Please help! > Someone just told me that some actions without intention will not > create kamma, but they will give results. Ex: a person standing on > a high ladder accidentally drops a brick, which kills someone else > standing below. Because he did not do it intentionally, he does not > bear the kamma of killing. However, as a result of that death, in > one of his future re-births, he will meet a death caused by an > accident. > Is it true? Thank you for your help. According to the Atthasalini (Buddhaghosa's Commentary to the Dhammasangani, the first book of the Abhidhamma), Book I (Risings of Consciousness), Part III (Discourse on Doors), Chapter V (Discourse on Courses of Immoral Action), there are five criteria that must be met for there to be "killing": 1. A living being 2. Knowledge that there is a living being 3. Intention to kill 4. Effort to kill 5. Consequential death If a brick is dropped by accident and causes a death, this does not constitute killing. According to the Patthana (Conditional Relations, the seventh book of the Abhidhamma), there are two types of conditions that have conditioning states in the past: - Asynchronous kamma condition: the conditioniong states are the 33 past wholesome and unwholesome volitions (in other words, past intentions) - Natural decisive support condition: the conditioning states are strong past cittas, strong past cetasikas, strong past rupas, strong past concepts The conditioned states for asynchronous kamma condition are vipaka cittas and kamma-born matter (eye sensitivity, etc.). The conditioned states for natural decisive support condition are later cittas and cetasikas. In other words, there is nothing that will cause a future accident. A future accident will arise because of conditions, but actions from the victim's past life are not one of the conditions. Hope that this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) 32879 From: axtran Date: Sat May 8, 2004 7:23am Subject: Re: Kamma or Not Kamma Hi Rob, Thank you for the answer. It must be one of the Mahayanin concepts which is not included in the Theravadin Teachings. Metta, Alex 32880 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 8, 2004 7:55am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Howard, Let me put it this way: While distress or mental pain is dukkha, what is dukkha is not necessarily distress or mental pain. For instance, mental pleasant feeling is dukkha; nevertheless, mental pleasant feeling is not mental pain. Furthermore, form is dukkha; however, form is not distress or mental pain. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 5/8/04 12:09:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi TG, Howard, and all, > > > > I agree with you that both affliction and distress and what leads to > > affliction and distress are dukkha. > > > > However, they don't emcompass the all that is dukkha. > > > > The Noble Eightfold Path is a fabricated path. It is dukkha. > > Nevertheless, it is the path leading to the cessation of the dukkha. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > ========================= > Okay. What remains as needed for our *understanding* of the teaching > of dukkha is, inasmuch as Pali is not our native tongue, to know exactly what > the word 'dukkha' means. If we were to hear, for example, that everything that > is associated with the field of medicine is "syzmyzhig", we wouldn't know what > to make of it until we knew what the word 'syxmyzhig' meant. We would need to > know its literal meaning, its connotations, and its normal usages in various > contexts. > The Buddha ceratainly did say "Sabbe sankhara dukkha". The question is > exactly what does that mean. There are such alternative possibilities for > 'sankhara' as conditioned dhammas, conditions, fabricated phenomena, fabricating > operations, dispositions, inclinations, dispositionally conditioned phenomena, > formations, constructions, formative operations, constructing operations, > farications, fabricating operations, and surely more. For 'dukkha', there are at > least such alternatives as suffering, imperfect, unsatisfactory, imperfection, > unsatisfying, dissatisfaction, pain, off kilter, distress, and conducive to > distress. It's all well and good to say that all X are Y, and to list instances > of X, but unless we have a good understanding of what X, and especially Y, > mean in various contexts, we only *think* we understand what "All X are Y" is > asserting. > Let me give an English example. We have the word 'happy' in English. > On the one hand we may say "Howard is happy". On the other hand hand we may say > "Winning the lottery is a happy turn of events" or "John returned home under > happy circumstances". The usage of 'happy' in the first sentence carries the > meaning of "experiencing of joy". The usage in the other two sentences is > related to that of the first, but is not the same. The usage there is along the > lines of "being conducive to the experiencing of joy". If a person who was not a > native speaker of English didn't understand this distinction, s/he might take > "turns of events" and "circumstances" to be sentient phenomena that can > experience joy! > > With metta, > Howard 32881 From: Date: Sat May 8, 2004 4:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/8/04 11:10:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Let me put it this way: > > While distress or mental pain is dukkha, what is dukkha is not > necessarily distress or mental pain. For instance, mental pleasant > feeling is dukkha; nevertheless, mental pleasant feeling is not > mental pain. Furthermore, form is dukkha; however, form is not > distress or mental pain. > > Metta, > ===================== Agreed. But what does 'dukkha' mean? I think it means "unhappiness" or "conducing to unhappiness". 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) 32882 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat May 8, 2004 9:44am Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Ken H and Sarah, Thanks both of you for your support. I was a bit puzzled over the `amoha' thing, but now that is clear, I think. Ken, you wrote: > The way I look at it; since the Buddha was good enough to teach, the > kusala response would be to listen. Conventionally speaking, > listening can range from a mere, cursory pretence at one extreme to > a genuinely honest, respectful interestedness at the other. I would > imagine that 100 percent pure listening would be a skill developed > by (conditioned in), only the very wise. > > To different degrees, genuine listening (and studying) would be > kusala and it would qualify as pariyatti. Moments of pariyatti > would be basically mind-door moments with concepts as object (in the > form of words). But Nina and Sarah have been saying that we > shouldn't oversimplify: there are billions of citta processes > intermingled (sharing in the action, so to speak). I think you and > I are asking, `will there be a degree of patipatti in there as > well?' In other words, in all those billions of sense-door and mind- > door cittas (mixed in with the kusala listening-to-words cittas), > are there any that directly see rupa as rupa or nama as nama? I have found the above helpful, I hope Rob feels the same too. I do like your posts very much, not only because we more or less agree, but also because your particular way of looking at points on dhamma and the way you express them, is fascinating. Talking about listening or for the matter reading, I am not sure how much of kusala is involved in my case. I do notice that hardly had I read a sentence and my mind is already thinking about something else. At other times, I am involved in trying to put into my own words whatever new I learn and imagining myself explaining it to other people, and this seems so much a self-centered activity. The process itself is no different from the time I was holding on to views I now reject. Much of this thinking involves using `reasoning' and `logic', but I do wonder if I am not trying to convince myself and also then expect that others will be too. It seems wrong view provides a sense of comfort, so no amount of reasoning and logic can dislodge it. It works I guess, only between those who think more or less alike. When I first heard about saccannana, I realized how different it is for someone who has developed wisdom to the level of `not being drawn' into any elaborate mental chatter "about" dhamma, but instead seeing more the importance of knowing the arising dhamma in the moment. Someone of this level would be one who really listens deeply and with respect. But those like me, hardly hear a sentence, and already are driven to write a commentary :-(. > Would that be too much to expect? Sarah seems to concede that there > will be some kusala cittas with paramattha dhammas as object. That > means they directly experience dhammas with alobha and adosa but not > necessarily with amoha. That's a start. :-) > > You seem to be going a step further and suggesting that pariyatti > will always involve a degree of patipatti. I hope you're right; I'm > willing to be convinced. Actually I wasn't going so far. What I wanted to know was if moments of patipatti arose without any notice and if this was in fact more common than we otherwise think. But today, I was reminded by Betty with regard to another question of mine, about the need to have a `definite answer'. Why is there not enough confidence to leave it all to sati and panna to shed the light? If there is no panna to know the fact now, at least we can remember to have patience, courage and good cheer. ;-) Metta, Sukin. 32883 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 8, 2004 10:46am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Howard, Again, while unhappiness is dukkha and what is conducing to unhappiness is dukkha, not everything that is dukkha is unhappiness or conducing to unhappiness. For instance, form is dukkha; however, it is neither happy nor unhappy. Furthermore, skillful action or what is skillful is conducive to happiness; nevertheless, it is still dukkha. (However, skillful action or what is skillful being dukkha does not mean that one should not do or develop what is skillful.) There is no one word that can completely capture the meaning of the word 'dukkha'. Given Samyutta Nikaya XXXVIII.14 Dukkha Sutta Stress http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn38-014.html something is dukkha as it is either painful, or fabricated/of fabrication, or subject to change. For example: Distress or mental pain is dukkha as it is painful, unpleasant. Action, skillful or unskillful, is dukkha as it is of fabrication, stressful. (Consider any kind of work or doing any kind of work.) Pleasant feeling is dukkha as it is subject to change, imperfect. The word 'dukkha' cannot be completely rendered by one word. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 5/8/04 11:10:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > Let me put it this way: > > > > While distress or mental pain is dukkha, what is dukkha is not > > necessarily distress or mental pain. For instance, mental pleasant > > feeling is dukkha; nevertheless, mental pleasant feeling is not > > mental pain. Furthermore, form is dukkha; however, form is not > > distress or mental pain. > > > > Metta, > > > ===================== > Agreed. But what does 'dukkha' mean? I think it means "unhappiness" or > "conducing to unhappiness". > > With metta, > Howard 32884 From: Larry Date: Sat May 8, 2004 10:47am Subject: Re: Nibbana Hi Htoo, How's this: tanha (craving) as the cause of the truth of dukkha encompasses all the root consciousnesses (lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, amoha). But what is dukkha itself? It seems to me all the various kinds of dukkha can be reduced down to unpleasant feeling, bodily and mental. Bodily unpleasant feeling accompanies tangible data and mental unpleasant feeling accompanies dosa (dislike). Bodily unpleasant feeling is kamma result of unwholesome root consciousnesses. How does tanha cause mental unpleasant feeling? In other words, why do I dislike something (a taste or a sound for example)? Larry 32885 From: Suravira Date: Sat May 8, 2004 11:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] What are the 2nd and 3rd discourses given by the Buddha? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Suravira, > > In his general introduction to SN, p.35, B. Bodhi writes, "Thus we find > three SN suttas of geat importance also recorded in the Vinaya > Mahavagga, represented as the first three discourses given by the Buddha > at the dawn of his ministy: the Dhammacakkappavattana, the > Anattalakkhana, and the Addittapariyaya (56:11; 22:59; 35:28). > > Larry > ----------------- > Suravira: "Can someone tell me the names of the 2nd and 3rd discourses > of the Buddha?" Larry, Thank you for your responce to my request. You assistance is greatly appreciated. With metta, Suravira 32886 From: Suravira Date: Sat May 8, 2004 0:00pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana > welcome you here to DSG. Please share anything else on your background and > interest in Buddhism if you'd care to. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ===== > Sarah, Thank you for your warm welcome. As regards my current focus on the dharma, I am preparing a series of scripts (for broadcast on our local public access channel) on the practices of Dana & Sila. On the advise of Venerable Bhikkhu Buddha Rakkhita, the program series on Buddhism is following the general sequence of teachings given by Buddha to lay practioners - 1st Dana, next Sila and then Bhavana. As the notions of generosity, charity, almsgiving, virtue, morality and ethics in a Christian-based western tradition are different in important aspects from that of Buddhism, it is very challenging to construct a clear presentation of these disciplines from a Buddhist perspective to a comtemporary American audience. Some contrasts are easily presented, while other, being more subtle are very challenging. For example, in Christian-based western traditions morality is rules-based where the rules are given to a covenant from a creator deity. Such is not the case in Buddhism. A more subtle issue is the causal relationship between the discipline of morality and well-being. In all cultures the practice of morality results in one's well-being, yet in the west well-being is fundamentally all about the satisfaction of desire - I get what I want and then I am happy and therefore in a state of well-being. In contrast, well-being in a Buddhist perspective is all about liberation from dukkha that is created by clinging and craving to delusional discerments - the primary delusion being the pursuit of the satisfaction of desires. So a lot of time is spent defining what generosity, charity, almsgiving, virtue, morality and ethics mean within a pluralistic American culture and using that as a bridge from which the talking- head and the audience cross over into the domain of Buddhist dharma relating to dana & sila. So far I have the scripts of 14 28 minute shows in final draft. It now looks like the presentation of dana and sila will finish at around 20 28 minute shows. With metta, Suravira 32887 From: Suravira Date: Sat May 8, 2004 1:13pm Subject: Re: The Practical View of Anatta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Dear Suravira > > Thank you for replying to my post. Sorry it has taken so long to > respond - this is often a problem I have, being around long enough to > do a single post but not to carry on much of a conversation! > > You wrote: > The term anatta is, regretably, commonly interpreted to > > mean "not-self", or "no-self" or "non-self". This is a very > > regretable translation, as the term (and notion of) "self" is > > multifaceted within western cultures. A more preferable definition > > would be "false views of individuality." > > An interesting definition which I have not come across before. > > > You also wrote: As regards Prof. Harvey's position that anatta > is "... not a denial > > of the existence of a permanent self ...", this assertion is both > > incorrect and partially correct. > > > > It is incorrect in that the Buddha clearly negated the notion of a > > permanent self (and of any permanent phenomena) through his > > teachings on dependent origination. > > > > Prof. Harvey's assertion is partially correct only in the sense > that > > the Buddha never negated the subjective, individual, experience of > > life - of reality. > > Andrew: I'm not convinced that defining anatta as "false views of > individuality" is, however, all that useful. As you say, Buddha did > deny the existence of a permanent self. The "subjective, individual, > experience of life - of reality" which he never negated I can only > take to mean a present moment of nama-rupa. What else could > individuality attach to? That moment is also, of course, > impermanent. To refer to it as some sort of subjective individuality > doesn't help me to intellectually dispel the notion of a "me" > or "mine". > [Suravira] Seeing how the phrase "false views of individuality" is helpful stems from understanding the typical person's response to the terms 'not-self,' 'non-self' or 'no-self.' Most people who encounter these's terms immediately doubt their credibility - which is unfortunate. In distinct contrast, most people are amenable to entertaining the concept that they, or that we, may have false, or mistaken, views of our own individuality. In that this "false views of individuality" is more amenable, it is easier to continue to share with them teachings relating to anatta. As regards one's capacity to dispel the notion of "I", "me" and "mine", that capacity is a function of the heart moreso than the intellect. It is a function of the heart in that one gradually becomes dispassionate about "I" "me" and "mine" and the dramas that whirl around them. Once the heart is more peaceful in relation to that whirling drama, the mind opens of its own accord to this dharma of anatta. > > [Suravira] Is this matter of engaging in exercises adequate proof > > that the "self" does not exist? Or, is it first necessary to > present > > absolute proof that this "self" does in fact exist - in a manner > > that cannot be disputed by someone whose percieves things > correctly? > > Why accept the challenge of negating the existance of something > that > > has not been proven to exist? > > Andrew: As an ex-lawyer, I feel very at home with arguments about the > onus of proof. But when I study Dhamma, I am more interested in > understanding than the rhetoric of who has to prove what. The fact > is that the illusion of a permanent self is a very strong one which > calls for proper understanding - even by way of negation. My reading > has led me to believe that Buddha was often content to describe > things by way of stating what they are not. Nibbana is a classic > example, I suppose, but that's getting off track. I take your point > to be, though, that people who firmly believe in the existence of a > permanent self should demonstrate their belief rather than just > say "it's so obvious". I agree. > > Suravira: We all have this perceived experience of life - of being in > > time/space - correct? This is a universal state of all sensient > > beings. > > > > Nevertheless, is this notion of "self" merely an abstraction that > we > > project onto the experience of life? > > > > Do we percieve something beyond this individual experience of life - > > > do we percieve something ever so slightly more that this being in > > time/space? > > > > This perception of the experience of being in time/space exists - > no > > more and no less than any other phenomena. In fact all known > > phenomena arise within this mode of experience. > > > > However, is there really anything even slightly more than this mode > > of existance - than this perception of the experience of being in > > time/space? > > > > Does it just appear that there is? Or, is it that within this > > experience of being there recurrently arises this need to believe > > that there is? And, is it this deeply ingrained need that imprints > > this notion of "self" onto this perception of the experience of > > being. > > Andrew: Do you not think that this series of questions is in some > respects similar to the series of questions Buddha said we should ask > about "self" and which you suggest (if I am reading your post > correctly) that we needn't bother with unless and until someone > proves the existence of a permanent self? Are not your questions > also "exercises"? > [Suravira] Good points. Perhaps I can express it better in this way - to apply these exercises in an analytical method is somewhat beneficial, but it is not possible to directly realize anatta with the intellect, as this matter is resolved only upon stream entry. > > [Suravira] The main trap is sprung when translating anatta as "not- > > self". This erroneous trap can be avoided, as well as all > ancilliary > > concerns/issue regarding this dharma (e.g., rebirth, etc.), by > > promoting the term "false views of individuality" > > > Andrew: I see anatta as difficult to comprehend - a "trap" if you > must. But I think that changing the English definition is not going [Suravira] The trap lies in asserting "not-self" (or its other equivalent phrases) without first establishing a valid definition of "self". To engage in the act of negating an object for which an unassailable definition has not been provided is to fall into a trap. What definition of "self" are you proposing? > to make understanding any easier. Using the word "individuality" > has, I think, pitfalls of its own. > [Suravira] Yes, agreed. What do you find lacking in its use? Let me also define individuality as the experience of being in time/space, and a "view of individuality" is defined as a perception of the experience of being in time/space. > > Suravira: To construct a negating term, such as "not-self" one has > the > > responsiblity for first providing a bullet-proof definition for the > > term "self". It seems that too many people approach this dharma of > > anatta bass ackward. > > Sorry, but "bass ackward" has me intrigued. Back-to-front, do you > mean? > [Suravira] Yes. "Bass ackward" is twist on the phrase for "ass backward" > Is your criticism of the way the anatta doctrine is presented > a criticism of people? [Suravira] This is not a criticism of people. It is a criticism of how the doctrine of anatta is being transmitted into western cultures. Seldom does one ever read/hear in a presentation of anatta, a rigorous presentation of the notion of "self". > Is it not also a criticism of the Buddha as > he gave the anatta teaching without first having a bullet-proof > definition of the term "self"? Can I ask you to clarify your point > with particular reference to the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta in the > Samyutta Nikaya? [Suravira] The importance of providing a bullet-proof definition of the term "self" is critical within pluralistic cultures - such as those that exist in contemporary western societies. This is so in as much as it is reckless to assume that everyone in the audience has the same understanding of self. For example, most Christians would equate (or even base) the notion of self on a soul, while aetheists would not. As regards the presentation of anatta in the cited sutta by the Buddha, I offer no criticism of his conduct. Yet, as I understand the background of his discourse, the audience was a homogeneous culture (was composed of 5 monks) in which atta was well defined and about which a uniform concensus existed. Hence, because of these two factors, perhaps the Buddha did not need to first establish a definition of atta for his audience's benefit. As I understand the referenced sutta, the Buddha negated form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, and consciousness as equivalents of "self". In addition he asserted that anything which is impermanent is also unsuitable as an equivalent of "self". In that none of the 5 monks raised a concern about some other equivalent for "self" it is safe to infer that they shared the same cultural consensus of what "self" was conventionally understood to be. Such a consensus does not exist in contemporary western civilization, nor is an audience hearing a discourse on anatta a homogeneous culture - instead it is more than likely pluralistic (heterogeneous). > > Best wishes > Andrew Thank you for your thoughtful responces. With metta, Suravira 32888 From: Suravira Date: Sat May 8, 2004 1:28pm Subject: Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hello Howard, > So, we have the paradox: "All pleasant feelings are dukkha." > How is this to be explained? I think there are these two In that all phenomena is impermanent, the experience of that which is pleasant will pass away. And, in as much as we tend (in the present moment) to cling passionately to the memory of that previous pleasant experience, that pleasant experience in our past contributes to our current experience of dukkha (in as much as we experience the loss of the previous pleasant experience). With metta, Suravira 32889 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 8, 2004 2:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Suravira, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Suravira" wrote: > Thank you for your warm welcome. As regards my current focus on the > dharma, I am preparing a series of scripts (for broadcast on our > local public access channel) on the practices of Dana & Sila. On the > advise of Venerable Bhikkhu Buddha Rakkhita, the program series on > Buddhism is following the general sequence of teachings given by > Buddha to lay practioners - 1st Dana, next Sila and then Bhavana. > > As the notions of generosity, charity, almsgiving, virtue, morality > and ethics in a Christian-based western tradition are different in > important aspects from that of Buddhism, it is very challenging to > construct a clear presentation of these disciplines from a Buddhist > perspective to a comtemporary American audience. > > Some contrasts are easily presented, while other, being more subtle > are very challenging. For example, in Christian-based western > traditions morality is rules-based where the rules are given to a > covenant from a creator deity. Such is not the case in Buddhism. > > A more subtle issue is the causal relationship between the > discipline of morality and well-being. In all cultures the practice > of morality results in one's well-being, yet in the west well-being > is fundamentally all about the satisfaction of desire - I get what I > want and then I am happy and therefore in a state of well-being. In > contrast, well-being in a Buddhist perspective is all about > liberation from dukkha that is created by clinging and craving to > delusional discerments - the primary delusion being the pursuit of > the satisfaction of desires. > > So a lot of time is spent defining what generosity, charity, > almsgiving, virtue, morality and ethics mean within a pluralistic > American culture and using that as a bridge from which the talking- > head and the audience cross over into the domain of Buddhist dharma > relating to dana & sila. > > So far I have the scripts of 14 28 minute shows in final draft. It > now looks like the presentation of dana and sila will finish at > around 20 28 minute shows. This sounds fascinating! I teach a weekly class introducing Abhidhamma at our local temple in Kuala Lumpur (my class notes are included in the files section of DSG). I would be very interesting in reading your scripts. There are many westerners (I am Canadian) on DSG who could give valuable input. My guess is that the script for a 28 minute show would be too long to be posted as a single message; perhaps you could break each script into multiple segments. Alternatively, you could get permission from Sarah & Jon to upload the scripts to the files section of DSG. If you do not want to put the scripts into the public domain at this time, then perhaps you could email them to me at rob.moult@j... and we could discuss them together off-line. Metta, Rob M :-) 32890 From: Date: Sat May 8, 2004 11:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] The System Of Pali Sound Groups (Was :Reverse Word Index to the Vis... In a message dated 5/8/04 2:45:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: Pali-English and Pali-Burmese dictionaries arrange the word entries according to the following grouping of Pali sounds described in the traditional Pali grammar texts. Bhikkhu N(y)aa.namoli also followed that grouping when he listed Visuddhimagga glossaries. Suan, Many thanks for your reply. I have printed out your explanation and am keeping it handy. This has puzzled me for years. jack 32891 From: dharmajim Date: Sat May 8, 2004 3:29pm Subject: Master Mou on the Vastness of the Buddhist Scriptures Good Friends: In the Chinese Canon there is an early Chinese Buddhist work that is a defense of Buddhism against Confucian critics by one Master Mou (Mou Tzu). The work has been translated as "How Master Mou Removes Our Doubts". Master Mou lived during the Han Dynasty, which ended about 200 our era. So Master Mou lived at a time when Buddhism was very new to the Chinese. It appears that Master Mou was a Confucian literati who took a serious interest in the Dharma. His friends, also Confucians, were disturbed by this. The record of their exchange gives us a revealing glimpse into the arguments that early Chinese Buddhism encountered as it began to sink its roots into the Chinese cultural soil. In several sections Master Mou responds to criticisms of the Buddhist Canon and I thought I would share some of them since they shed light on our own interaction with the Canon at this time; because the Dharma is so new in the west, as it was new in China at the time of Master Mou. This is from Section 5, which is subtitled "Buddhist Verbosity": A critic asked: What is most important is not flowery, and the best words are not ornate. Words are beautiful when concise and well chosen. Deeds are illustrious when few and carried to completion. Thus jewels and jade, being rare, are precious, while pieces of tile, being plentiful, are cheap. The (Confucian) sages established the texts of the Seven Classics at not more than thirty thousand words, yet everything is complete in them. But the scrolls of the Buddhist scriptures are reckoned by the tens of thousands and their words by many hundreds of thousands. This is byeond the capability of any individual. I consider them troublesome and not important! Mou-tzu said: Because of their depth and breadth, rivers and oceans differ from the rain flowing in the gutter. Because of their height and size, the five mountains differ from hillocks and mounds. If the height of the mountains did not exceed that of the hilly mounds, a lame goat could cross over their peaks. If the depths of the oceans did not exceed that of brooks and streams, a small child could bathe in their deepest pools. Race horses do not dwell in fenced pastures. Fish that swallow ships do not sport in narrow gorges. You will be disappointed if you try to find bright pearls by splitting half-inch oysters, or a phoenix's brood by searching for its nest in the brambles. This is because the small cannot contain the large. The Buddhist scriptures presage the events of a hundred thousand generations and in retrospect lay open the basics of another ten thousand generations. Before the great simplicity had arisen and the great beginning had begun, when heaven and earth had just started to emerge, their subtlety could not be grasped and their intricacy could not be penetrated. Yet in his scriptures Buddha entirely fills up the exterior of their magnitude and interpenetrated the interior of thier silent, obscure mystery. Since there is nothing not recorded in them, the scriptural scrolls are reckoned by tens of thousands and their words are counted by hundreds of thousands. Their very abundance makes them complete and their vastness makes them rich. Why do you not deem them important? They are indeed important, although they are beyond the grasp of any single individual. Isn't it enough that when you approach a river to take a drink, your thirst is quenched? Why fret about the rest? Best wishes, Dharmajim 32892 From: Michelle Vellin Date: Sat May 8, 2004 10:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) > > m_vellin: yeah...a challengin question. According > to > > me, attachment is imaginary, because all the > greed, > > love, and any kind of feeling come from our mind. > > Attachment itself (in my opinion) is the state of > mind > > of wanting something in which if it's not > fulfilled, > > can cause dukkha. Therefore, in my life, I try to > > avoid the self attachment to anything to prevent > > dukkha, and it works. > > How do you "avoid the self attachment to anything to > prevent dukkha"? > Are there special techniques that you use? Is there > some concept that > you bring to mind to help you prevent dukkha? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > Hello Rob, In life, I use the simplest way to prevent dukkha, although sometimes I can't prevent dukkha to exist in my life(I'm still a human being with all the impurity) . My favourite way is the positive thinking. With the positive thinking in mind, we will be able to face the problems around. I just try to think positively whenever my emotion exists in the circumstances. But, the concept of anicca also should be invested in mind, everything is not immortal (somebody should correct my language :P). With the concept of anicca, and always try think positively, I slowly can get away of dukkha. Of course, there are so many ways to get out of dukkha in life.....let others share their experience... ===== Regards, m_vellin 32893 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 8, 2004 5:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] my vacation Nina I hope you and Lodewijk had a good vacation. --- nina van gorkom wrote: ... > Jon, I admired your Vis in small booklets for on a journey. What is its > ISBN, I like to order from my bookshop, not by internet. I give the ISBN number below. The booklets you saw me with in Bangkok were made by me from a single volume: I undid the binding, re-grouped the pages into 3 parts (Introduction plus Notes and indices; Parts I & II; Part III), and re-bound these 3 parts using that plastic binding system. Quite a lot of work, but very convenient once done. The copy I used to do this is the paperback version published by Pariyatti in the USA. I think it's slightly more compact than the BPS edition (same typesetting and pagination, just different paper, binding, cover), but either edition would do. Jon ISBN: 1-928706-01-0 Publisher: BPS Pariyatti Editions 32894 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat May 8, 2004 5:32pm Subject: Re: Nibbana Hello Howard (Htoo,Larry,TG,Suravira)and all, I think it was from the writings of Bhikkhu Bodhi and Mahasi Sayadaw. Perhaps I am misunderstanding them though?: Bhikkhu Bodhi: "To make it clear that Dukkha means more than ordinary suffering: The Buddha divides Dukkha into three types, depending on the depth: (a) Dukkha as ordinary suffering. as bodily or mental pain (b) Dukkha due to change. This is a step remote from felt suffering. At this level we see that all pleasant experiences are Dukkha because they are subject to change. This does not mean that suffering arises due to the change of pleasure, rather it means that the pleasant experiences themselves and the things that give pleasure are already Dukkha, even while we are enjoying them. Health can be undermined by disease and therefore even when we are healthy, the state of health is dukkha. Youth has to give way to old age. Therefore our youthfulness is still Dukkha, unsatisfactory. (c) The Dukkha of Conditioned Formations. This is what Buddha intends when he declares that the five aggregates of clinging are dukkha. Our individuality is simply a combination of conditioned phenomena and all conditioned phenomena are impermanent and undergo constant transformation. As a result we have no mastery over them, we have no control over them, they go their way. For one with wisdom they are experienced as dukkha. http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/dh_main22.htm Mahasi Sayadaw: "Since it has been taught that dukkha means: "Yadani - cam tam dukkham - which is transient and therefore, 'suffering'; the five khandhas not being lasting, are dukkha (suffering). Of these khandhas, only dukkhavedana, the sensation of suffering which is one of the constituents of vedanakhandha, is misery, for being distressful. The rest of the four khandhas and sukhaupekkha are not the miserable conditions which are causing harm and distress. However, since they are devoid of pleasure for being impermanent or transitory by nature, they are to be termed "dukkha". http://www.buddhanet.net/brahmaviharas/bvd062.htm metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > > I'm a little confused. I'm sure I've been taught that Dukkha is a > > *characteristic* of all conditioned dhammas? Not entirely sure what > > being a characteristic entails. > > > > metta and peace, > > Christine > > > ============================ > Where were you taught that? Sure all conditioned dhammas are > unsatisfactory. That means they don't satisfy. It's a relational matter, or, rather, > the lack of a satisfaction relation holding. People can't find satisfaction in > any conditioned dhammas. That's why they lead to distress in humans, because we > cling to them. > > With metta, > Howard 32895 From: Date: Sat May 8, 2004 1:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha In a message dated 5/8/2004 2:08:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, cbclifford@e... writes: Hello Howard, > So, we have the paradox: "All pleasant feelings are dukkha." > How is this to be explained? I think there are these two In that all phenomena is impermanent, the experience of that which is pleasant will pass away. And, in as much as we tend (in the present moment) to cling passionately to the memory of that previous pleasant experience, that pleasant experience in our past contributes to our current experience of dukkha (in as much as we experience the loss of the previous pleasant experience). With metta, Suravira Hi Suravira Regarding this point there is no need hypothesis or speculation. The Buddha clarified it directly and this is what he said... “Whatever is felt is included within suffering. That has been stated by me with reference to the impermanence of formations.â€? (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 1, pg. 569 – 570) TG 32896 From: Date: Sat May 8, 2004 3:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/8/04 1:48:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Again, while unhappiness is dukkha and what is conducing to > unhappiness is dukkha, not everything that is dukkha is unhappiness > or conducing to unhappiness. For instance, form is dukkha; however, > it is neither happy nor unhappy. Furthermore, skillful action or > what is skillful is conducive to happiness; nevertheless, it is > still dukkha. (However, skillful action or what is skillful being > dukkha does not mean that one should not do or develop what is > skillful.) > > There is no one word that can completely capture the meaning of the > word 'dukkha'. Given > Samyutta Nikaya XXXVIII.14 > Dukkha Sutta > Stress > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn38-014.html > > something is dukkha as it is either painful, or fabricated/of > fabrication, or subject to change. > > For example: Distress or mental pain is dukkha as it is painful, > unpleasant. Action, skillful or unskillful, is dukkha as it is of > fabrication, stressful. (Consider any kind of work or doing any kind > of work.) Pleasant feeling is dukkha as it is subject to change, > imperfect. > > The word 'dukkha' cannot be completely rendered by one word. > > Metta, > Victor > ======================== Even skillful action is conducive to unhappiness when clung to. Multiple conditions are required for the arising of any dhamma, and craving or clinging is a necesary one for the arising of dukkha, that being the content of the 2nd noble truth. 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) 32897 From: Date: Sat May 8, 2004 3:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, Suravira - In a message dated 5/8/04 5:08:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cbclifford@e... writes: > > Hello Howard, > > > So, we have the paradox: "All pleasant feelings are dukkha." > > How is this to be explained? I think there are these two > > In that all phenomena is impermanent, the experience of that which > is pleasant will pass away. And, in as much as we tend (in the > present moment) to cling passionately to the memory of that previous > pleasant experience, that pleasant experience in our past > contributes to our current experience of dukkha (in as much as we > experience the loss of the previous pleasant experience). > > With metta, > Suravira > ========================= Yes! I entirely agree! 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) 32898 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 8, 2004 8:45pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Howard, Let me put it this way: The Noble Eightfold Path leads to the cessation of the dukkha; nevertheless, even the Noble Eightfold Path is dukkha as it is a fabricated path. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 5/8/04 1:48:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > Again, while unhappiness is dukkha and what is conducing to > > unhappiness is dukkha, not everything that is dukkha is unhappiness > > or conducing to unhappiness. For instance, form is dukkha; however, > > it is neither happy nor unhappy. Furthermore, skillful action or > > what is skillful is conducive to happiness; nevertheless, it is > > still dukkha. (However, skillful action or what is skillful being > > dukkha does not mean that one should not do or develop what is > > skillful.) > > > > There is no one word that can completely capture the meaning of the > > word 'dukkha'. Given > > Samyutta Nikaya XXXVIII.14 > > Dukkha Sutta > > Stress > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn38-014.html > > > > something is dukkha as it is either painful, or fabricated/of > > fabrication, or subject to change. > > > > For example: Distress or mental pain is dukkha as it is painful, > > unpleasant. Action, skillful or unskillful, is dukkha as it is of > > fabrication, stressful. (Consider any kind of work or doing any kind > > of work.) Pleasant feeling is dukkha as it is subject to change, > > imperfect. > > > > The word 'dukkha' cannot be completely rendered by one word. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > ======================== > Even skillful action is conducive to unhappiness when clung to. > Multiple conditions are required for the arising of any dhamma, and craving or > clinging is a necesary one for the arising of dukkha, that being the content of the > 2nd noble truth. > > With metta, > Howard 32899 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 8, 2004 9:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Nina (and Lodewijk) --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon, > I printed this out again for Lodewijk, thank you very much. I think he is > getting there. He only thinks that when a newcomer asks what > satipatthana is > there should be a more clearcut definition. He understands that > dhamma now > is very important. But he thinks that it may unnecessarily rebuke people. He > would like to tell A. Sujin this. I think I know just how Lodewijk feels, and I think many of us have been through the same thing, first as a bewildered and frustrated newcomer ourselves hearing this message for the first time and then as the somewhat uncomfortable onlooker watching others squirm ;-)). But I have to say that in the vast majority of cases of the latter instance the penny gradually dropped and within a short time the person was able to enjoy a meaningful exchange. I now see their discomfort as a passing annoyance/anguish as a minor irritation, much like my own was. > So, we were discussing > why Kh Sujin starts the conversation immediately with the > development of > understanding of this very moment. Lodewijk understands now why. It also > happened when Achan Jose visited her, that she begun with > understanding now, > is there any understanding, she asked. Life is so short, and we do > not know whether someone has an opportunity to listen again. We can get theoretical > answers elsewhere, but what about now? > It can hit hard, because panna develops so slowly, and meanwhile we are here > with our problems of disease and death. No wonder some people > become > impatient (in Thai:cai ron). But Lodewijk agreed that even a > beginning panna > is beneficial: we see the cause of our aversion, the clinging to self and persons. Yes, A. Sujin always pitches her comments at the level of paramattha dhammas, and she does this because she knows it is the most useful thing for the other to hear, if there is the capability to appreciate it (which there usually is to some degree or other). And because her style is to encourage a two-way exchange, she is able to gauge the other person's capability and modify her comments accordingly. So no harm done. I'm inclined to see the kind of reaction we are discussing here as a reflection of the difficulties we ourselves have had, or perhaps are still having, in 'getting it' (I know in my own case this was the case). But it's really like watching another person taking medicine: one can see it's a little unpleasant for them at the time but one knows they will be much the better for it in the long run. Jon 32900 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 8, 2004 9:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (again) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I wouldn't take it upon myself to judge the Buddha or his explanations. He does include the following in this sutta: "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for Awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for Awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." Oh, and the words "when developed AND PURSUED" [emphasis mine] suggests to me prescription and not just description. ----------------------------------------------------- I agree that mindfulness of breathing is given a strong recommendation, but then so are many other aspects of the teachings in the suttas, so we need to go beyond the mere words of that single sentence to see its true import. In addition to the general context of the occasion, we should pay particularly close attention to what the Buddha said about *how* mindfulness of breathing is to be developed and pursued, since this will cast light on exactly what is meant by mindfulness of breathing. Personally, I don’t find the word 'pursued' to be any more (or less) prescriptive than 'developed' ;-)) ... --------------------------------------------- Howard: You might find it interesting, as modern support for the commentarial view (and yours) that anapanasati is not just mindfulness of the actualities underlying breath, that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's detailed book on this sutta is entitled "Mindfulness While Breathing" - "while" and not "of". ---------------------------------------------- Jon: Yes, this is interesting. Thanks. Jon 32901 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 8, 2004 10:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (again) Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: ... Rob: Jon, addressing you for a moment, when you say that the Buddha used the name of former or popular practices to announce or name a new one, and that this seems to you the probably explanation of calling the Buddha's mindfulness practice while breathing "mindfulness of the breath," this seems extremely tortured to me. ... Why not just accept the idea that there is more than one practice proposed by the Buddha, and that one of them is mindfulness meditation, just as he says? ... If there is a contradiction between some sutta and some of the Abhidhamma commentaries, and if those in the Abhidhamma community come down on the side of the coms, then why not face this possibility, rather than trying to re-callibrate the context of the Buddha's own words in order to make it a fit? Jon: My comment about the possible reason for using the term 'mindfulness of breathing' was simply offered as an explanation for those who might have wondered about the question. It didn't form the basis of any of the comments I made on the sutta itself -- for that I have regard only to the text of the sutta and its commentaries, and perhaps other writings that seek to elucidate these 2 sources. I suggest that's the best way for us to go in this discussion, too. So unless there's anything in what you've said above that you would particularly like me to comment on, I'll move on to your next set of comments. Rob: Buddha's words in the anapanasati sutta constantly refer to the breath as the object of meditation. "When having a long exhalation, he thinks: "This is a long exhalation," etc. The whole first part of the sutta establishes the mindfulness of the breath as object in all of its specifics, paying careful attention to exactly what each breath is doing, and then establishes this mindfulness as the basis for going on to the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. It is another angle, one that is breath-centered, on the satipatthana sutta. You cannot twist the meaning of the sutta to ignore the majority of its content and try to erase the word "breath" from the procedure. This issue should finally be faced square on, and the Buddha's own words and emphasis and theme should be acknowledged. Jon: Well I agree with much of what you say, as far as it goes ;-)) As you know, the sutta is in 4 tetrads (sections of groups-of-4). You are correct in pointing to the presence of 'breath' throughout. However, as I think you also know, the sutta is about both samatha bhavana (development of serenity) and vipassana bhavana (development of insight), and much depends on knowing which passages refer to which of these 2 forms of bhavana (development), or how the same passage applies differently to each of the 2 forms of bhavana. So when you say that the sutta refers constantly to 'the breath as the object of meditation', I would agree as far as the references are to samatha bhavana, but not necessarily as far as the references are to vipassana bhavana, although that depends to some extent on exactly what you mean by 'breath as object'. It needs a close reading of the text and commentary (closer than I have done to date) to sort all this out. Nina has written in much detail on this, and I'll try to dig up some material on the first tetrad, the one you've quoted from in your post. Rob: Anyway, I apologize for appearing combative and perhaps rude, after being away for so long, but I figure that I will do more justice to the topic by being clear and straightforward about it than by dancing around it. By doing so, I intend to pay you the respect of getting your best and most considered response, and do not at all intend to insult you. And I am braced for whatever you may think of my opinion. Jon: I appreciate a direct style, so don't worry. You can un-brace yourself ;-)). I'd just like to add some remarks on a comment you make to Howard. Rob: I think we should just admit that the breath as object of discernment and contemplation does have special properties, as it is a central and most intimate focus for all living beings, and I think the Buddha intended it that way. While all cittas may theoretically have equal value for dicernment, some may have more of a charged content for arising consciousnesses, based on their continued and repeated apprehension - breathing being "locked in" as a continually arising object for consciousness -- and may also have more accumulated experiences and meanings passed on by the cetasikas responsible, and thus may have more of a "charge" for awakening the arising consciousness. Whether this last is seen to be somewhat "far out" or not, the argument for breath being an important object for mindfulness according to Buddha, still stands. Jon: As usual, you make a great case, Rob ;-)) But it is a case built on speculative reasoning rather than a study of the texts themselves, and in the end you are suggesting making an assumption on something that goes to the very heart of the matter (i.e., that breath as object of insight development has special properties). Assumptions based on speculative reasoning, no matter how well argued, are still just assumptions and, if not correct, will only serve to influence (distort?) our reading of the sutta. To my reading of the Tipitaka as a whole and its commentaries, the idea of any particular dhamma having special qualities as object of discernment (awareness/insight) is not something put forward by the Buddha, so we should be very careful about jumping to any conclusions along these lines as regards the Anapanasati Sutta. Of course it's a different matter when it comes to samatha bhavana of the level of absorption/jhaana, where the choice of object is crucial. Hence the importance (mentioned earlier) of distinguishing between samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana in analyzing the sutta. Jon 32902 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 8, 2004 10:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Listening, considering etc (was, Pannatti (Concept)) James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, ... James: This is not entirely true. Actually, the Buddha was the one to teach the Brahma-Viharas; this practice was not in existence before the enlightenment of the Buddha. Before the enlightenment of the Buddha, the ascetics of his time were trying different methods to be united with Brahma. After the Buddha became enlightened, he taught that practicing the Brahma-Viharas was the only way to be reborn in the Brahma realm. No one else had taught this practice prior to the Buddha, so the Brahma-Viharas are not a form of kusala outside the teachings of the Buddha. However, the jhanas were present and practiced before the Buddha, so you are correct about that aspect. Still, I don't understand your point anyway. The Buddha said that these practices were important, end of story. Why are you second guessing the Buddha? Jon: Thanks for these comments. Yes, there are aspects of samatha bhavana that are not known outside the dispensation of a Buddha (I'm not sure if these include the Brahma-viharas), but samatha bhavana itself is not unique to the teaching of a Buddha. All kusala is important, but not all kusala leads directly to the goal of nibbana. Only the kusala that is the arising of a moment of awareness of the true nature of a presently arising dhamma (which is unique to the teaching of a Buddha) leads ultimately to nibbana. My comments were meant to suggest that we need to keep in mind this distinction, that's all. Jon 32903 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 8, 2004 10:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (again) Robert --- Robert Epstein wrote: ... <<<<< Rob: Okay, here is Thich Nath Hanh's translation. Somebody ought to sort out who's got the literal meaning and who doesn't: 1. Breathing in a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a long breath." Breathing out a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a long breath." 2. Breathing in a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a short breath." Breathing out a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a short breath." Jon, this is how the sutta starts, the first two stanzas. There is no other substantive way to translate this, as there is no other object of mindfulness mentioned here other than the breath. So the breath is indeed the object of discernment or contemplation here, what I would call "meditation." Then it assumes the awareness of the breath has been established and starts adding other objects of mindfulness while maintaining the awareness of the breath in the background. I don't see any other way to interpret the sutta. Why keep mentioning the breath as the foundation for every stanza? It can't just be a coincidence! >>>>> Jon: Correct, it's no coincidence that breath is mentioned in every stanza. But that could be for any of a number of reasons, and we shouldn't just jump to a conclusion on this. To my reading of the sutta and commentary, the reason the sutta is centered around the breath is that it's given particularly for the benefit of those who have developed a level of competence in samatha bhavana with breath as object. <<<<< Rob: 3. "I am brething in and am aare of my whole body. I am breathing out and am aware of my whole body." The awareness of the body, and then various other increasingly less physical objects [such as the mind, which the Buddha also mentions] are added to the awareness of the breath. The breath is the foundation and main object of this sutta. I don't see any other way to interpret it without twisting its meaning. >>>>> Jon: As I've mentioned already, we need to distinguish between the references to samatha bhavana and the references to vipassana bhavana. Without this, any discussion of the sutta is pretty well meaningless. <<<<< Rob: And he also makes the statement which Howard has quoted: "The practice of Full Awareness of Breathing, if developed and practiced continuously, will lead to the perfect accomplishment of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness." It is clearly a call to practice continuously the full awareness of breathing, ... >>>>> Jon: On the face of it the statement you quote here is a straightforward instance of the frequently found 'If X, then Y'. So while it is obviously spoken in an approving manner, we'd need to look a lot more closely into the text before concluding that it's a call to you and me to practice continuously the full awareness of breathing ;-)) Just on a point of translation, the TB version of the same passage reads: "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination." No mention of "practice" (mentioned twice in your quoted version). <<<<< Rob: ... and to include in that awareness, all of the arising objects within the four foundations of mindfulness. It includes what you would include as the arising rupas in everyday life as objects of mindfulness, ... >>>>> Jon: Rupas, yes, and namas too of course. <<<<< Rob: ... as well as an admonition that to practice such in conjunction with full awareness of breathing is a most effective way of doing so. >>>>> Jon: I think the 'admonition' aspect of this sutta, as you put it, is the encouragement for those who have already developed samatha with breath as object to also develop awareness of the four foundations of mindfulness *to the point of enlightenment*. Also, I don't find in the texts any reference to mindfulness of breathing being the 'most effective way'. Could you perhaps elaborate on this aspect further? <<<<< Rob: I would invite an investigation from whatever view you like as to why the Buddha felt the breath was such a centrally important object of awareness, but to deny that he thought so would be a serious misinterpreation of his own words. >>>>> Jon: Yes, I'd be glad to investigate further. As a starting point, we could look at some of the more introductory parts of the sutta. You'll have noticed that the four tetrads are preceded by reference to a person who "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." To such a person, well practiced in samatha with breath as object, and also with developed mindfulness, breath is indeed 'centrally important' as an object. But what such a person may not know is how enlightenment can be attained with jhana as base, so this would be one possible explanation for the recurring theme of breath as object. Only a closer study of the texts will give us the confidence to know we are reading the sutta correctly. Jon 32904 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat May 8, 2004 11:17pm Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Rob (and * for Ken H.), > > > > A couple of general responses: > > > > 1/ I think it is important not to confuse the nature of activities > > with our concepts about them. It may be that in the theoretical > > scheme of things that contemplating sutta is not a "practice," but in > > the ordinary sense of the word, it is. It is an activity, a task, > > with a specific purpose. > > Sukin: > I think this is why we must differentiate and come to determine exactly > what the reality is and what we mean by them in the conventional > sense. I don't think we can rely on the latter, since it is based on the > idea of `self', `situations' and `activity', none of which have any ultimate > status and all of which are infused with our personal and distorted > understandings. Hi Sukin! Interspersing my comments... My idea here was just to say that both reading and sitting are activities, planned activities. I am not saying that this qualifies either one as a "practice" in the sense of paripatti. I am saying that they are equal in the sense that they are both repeated, planned activities, which makes them both "practices" in the same sense. We can use a different word since "practice" has a technical meaning in Abhidhamma -- the arising of satipatthana. That's all I was clarifying, not trying to give either one an elevated status in terms of the arising of satipatthana. I am still looking for a principled reason why reading in order to understand is inherently different in intent or character from sitting in order to understand. Why is intellectual understanding as an intention better than sitting to follow Buddha's words and allow discernment to arise? To the same extent that one can allow intellectual understanding to arise and allow moments of direct understanding, however weak, to arise, same can be said for sitting to allow observation and discernment to take place. So what is the inherent difference, assuming that one can have Right View or Wrong View in either case? I would also like to pose the instance in which the person might spontaneously just start sitting and concentrating on the moments of the breath or mind-moments or another object, as the expression of the arising of Right Concentration. Is it impossible, in your view, for this to be the expression of such? If someone who was sitting were to say "I just had the urge to do it" would you then accept it as a non-purposeful activity without prejudice? > > That is how I would define practice. In a > > sense, I think you are confusing two different meanings of the same > > word, one a technical term in the Buddhist path, distinguishing > > between intellectual study and the accomplishment or presence of full > > mindfulness, which you are calling the "practice;" and the ordinary > > sense in which "practice" merely means a directed activity. Surely, > > in that sense, both intellectual study of sutta and meditation are > > "practices." > > Whatever it means by `practice' in the conventional sense, and how we > ever create situations out of our experience through the six doorways, > through ignorance or through panna, in the end if we are to come to > appreciate the Buddha's teachings, we must be able to determine what > behind all this, the `ultimate realities' are. I believe otherwise, we will > not make any progress. Well if it comes through panna it would be in that direction, would it not? > > At the same time, you do have a valid point in that you are saying > > that meditation purports to grant direct insight, which pariyatti does > > not. You could say that pariyatti is a preliminary practice, while > > paripatti is the actual practice. > > I think both pariyatti and patipatti must always go hand in hand. There > must be I believe, moments of direct experience, though they may be > too little to be noticed, otherwise I think, there cannot be the confidence > in and to continue with pariyatti. Well I am very happy to hear this. I was really under the impression that you and perhaps others were saying that there is no direct experience to be had for most of us in this lifetime and that we were really going to be content with intellectual understanding, and even this dim. I think there are places in sutta where the Buddha does say that without a belief in the possibility of liberation that progress is also blocked. This kind of faith, supported by some kind of personal experience that portends continued progress, is really necessary I think to continue on the path. It is not "hope of a better future" but experience of reality to whatever extent that directs one properly towards further moments as they arise. If there is no accumulation of skill and knowledge, there would be no hope of stronger apprehension of the moments. [*Ken H. is this what you are referring > to on another thread? I have always wondered about this, but never > asked anyone.] So I don't think that pariyatti is preliminary and patipatti > is the subsequent step, as in one following the other. I think we do have > a tendency to draw lines and in the process take what is not real to be > real, namely the conventional activities. Dhammas arise and fall by > conditions, and none of us have directly seen enough of this to go > beyond doubt that this is quite different from what we usually think. > Attachment to our conventional view can only make it harder to > appreciate this fact, I think. > > This is why I wanted us to be clear from the very beginning what > pariyatti is, and how it relates to patipatti. I wanted to show you in the > last post, that `study' is not the matter of accumulation of words, but > the `understanding' which is something that arises because of conditions > and cannot be willed. Of course it does involve `words' on one level, > whether this is apprehended through the eye door, the ear door or the > mind. And each time there is any understanding, it is `verbalized' > mentally. But note that this does not happen automatically when one > reads or hears the teachings, it must depend on other conditions as > well, the primary of which is the accumulated panna, from hearing and > reflecting in the past. Yes, yes. But certainly one of the conditions that allows for understanding is the activity of reading itself. I don't think we should underestimate the importance of the exposure to the object. Though words do not guarantee understanding, they do lead to it. Even though you do not want to think in terms of future, but of the present moment, we still need to understand that citta does depend on accumulations to increase understanding, and that the present reading does prepare the way for a later present understanding. Although understanding will arise when conditions cause it to, we do not need to ignore what some of these conditions may be. Does that mean that we must ignore conditions that are part of the arising of understanding? Of course we do not say "Well all reading must be random, otherwise it is willful and invokes the self." We sit down to read purposefully, and this does not prevent the kusala effects of the kusala moments of reading to have their impact. Same with sitting meditation. > > In that sense, what is the > > preliminary practice prior to meditation, if meditation is the > > practice? What is the preparation, which would be the meditator's > > equivalent of pariyatti? I suppose it would also be the basic > > comprehension of sutta or appropriate scripture. And then putting it > > into practice through mindfulness meditation. In that sense the paths > > seem somewhat similar. > > Again, I don't think that they should be compared. And just as it > requires panna to `understand' the meaning of the words, it is panna > which is involved in `patipatti'. No `self' can intend to have satipatthana, > if conditions are right, it will happen. Just as one cannot > will `understanding' while reading, listening or thinking over the words, > similarly one cannot will satipatthana by `intending to apply'. Well then it's the same. One must release this expectation from reading as from sitting. Sati, just > like panna, depends on conditions from past accumulations; `intention' is > not one of the factors to condition it. Rather, the primary conditions > would be, having heard about the Teachings in the past, particularly > about the objects of sati, which is the paramattha dhammas. Having heard about the objects of sati is the primary condition for panna to arise? Does the Buddha say this, or is this an understanding from the coms? This gives a very intellectual-seeming base for the arising of panna. Does Abhidhamma hold that intellectual understanding which has the concepts of Dhamma as its object is the basis for the arising of panna? > And because so much wrong view and other akusala have been > accumulated from the past, that we need to be reminded again and > again through pariyatti about realities and their conditioned nature. If > we forget that sati and panna arises due to conditions other than > intention, then wrong view will make us believe that we can `do' > something to condition sati. Again, isn't reading and being reminded about realities all "doing" something? How is it *not* doing something? It seems an arbitrary distinction to me to say that reading and being reminded are not doings, but sitting meditation is. > Rob, when you decide to "apply" the theory, how sure are you that at > that instant, that there is panna which makes the decision? If you decide to read sutta or com to be reminded of the nature of arising realities, what makes you think that at that instant, there is panna which makes the decision? I don't mean this in a flip way; I am seriously trying to find out what the distinction is, because i don't see any. It seems to me that the practices that you think are proper ones, have all the same dangers as meditation, which you say invokes the self through being a purposeful intentional doing with hopes of future progress. It seems like that is true of reading, understanding, reminding, etc. These all have clear intentions for the future. I don't personally think that's a problem. I don't think there is a path at all without intention, and I don't see intention as meaning that there must be a self. Why can't intention arise due to conditions just like everything else? If you agree > that it is not panna, then what is the reality of the moment? Is it kusala, > or is it desire? And if it is the latter, then by what miracle do you think > that satipatthana can ever be conditioned to arise later on, except > probably, a highly developed panna accumulated from the past. In > which case I think, it would realize the futility of deliberate practice, > because it would at that time see that conditions other than the sitting, > caused it to arise. I know this sounds like a mantra, but isn't reading and understanding and studying and discussing, all deliberate practice? How is it *not* deliberate practice. See, there is a tradition in Abhidhamma just like in every sect of Buddhism, to practice a certain way, and whatever you call those practices, there are "good" practices and "bad" practices to be avoided. For reasons of philosophy, Abhidhamma defines all sutta study as "good" even though there may be akusala motives or moments, and all meditation "bad" even though there may be kusala moments of discernment. So I want to know, beyond the prejudices of philosophy and tradition, what is the principled reason why one intentional activity is "good" and the other is "bad." You can't say that reading sutta is not a deliberate practice, that is torturing the truth of how we do it as human beings. Of course it is deliberate and of course we want to get liberated. I mean, let's be honest about it. We're interested in Buddhism not because we are all so naturally interested in the structure of arising of rupas and namas, but because that is supposed to lead to liberation. Otherwise I'm sure we would all rather go to the movies. Some of us may fall in love with sutta study and that's fine, but of course in that case it is an attachment, and so there are some at least akusala moments being bred. So those who do it to gain liberation are no worse off in their attachment than those who do it because they enjoy it. In either casee, I'll bet it's pretty rare to find someone who studies sutta not out of enjoyment or out of desire to be liberated, but just because they are spontaneously called to study sutta with no intervening akusala motives. Almost impossible I would say. So I would say that the kusala moments that arise in sutta study or com study arise in spite of the reasons why we are doing it, not because of them. And that would be exactly the same for meditation. At worst, meditation may be the expression of Right Concentration, or it may be attachment or desire. But in any case, kusala moments will arise despite the desire to meditate on the truth of the moments, just as it will in sutta study. It will be equally slow. Unless you are saying that there is some magic in the suttas that is not in meditation and that magic will allow for kusala whereas meditation is a "bad" activity that is akusala. Not because it is "intentional" since they both are, but because you are saying that sutta itself is "good" and sitting itself is "bad." You would then be saying that there is a property to the activity itself that allows for kusala understanding, and that there is a lack of that property in some other activities. The kusala is not then in the mere concurrence of arising conditions, but in the nature of the activity. And I take it that Abhidhamma is shy of saying that? Yet some activities are frowned upon, and others get the nod. So what is the reason, other than tradition and philosophical predisposition. And once this happens, you will also see that the so > called sati apparent during formal practice is not in fact satipatthana as > taught by the Buddha, the characteristic being quite different. What about during formal sutta study or com study?? What is the difference? Either you have moments of understanding legitimately arising that lead to confidence in the path in either activity or in neither. It can't be dependent on the activity. > > I am still confused however, if paripatti is your equivalent of > > meditation in our comparison, what exactly does paripatti entail as a > > practice? If one does not meditate, what exactly is the practice of > > satipatthana? I suppose it is the discernment of arising moments of > > everyday life, which to me is basically the same thing as meditation, > > except that you have the stipulation that one must not do it as a > > specific purposeful practice, as one does in meditation. > > And everyday life may include `sitting', if that is our normal activity! And how would it become so unless one started to sit and it became a normal activity? > However, we can't decide to `discern the arising moments in daily life' > any more than we can do it during `formal sitting'. The main problem > is `wrong view', and this can believe that there is a `self' who can apply > either in `normal everyday activity' or `formal sitting' or even this very > moment "now". This is the `self' which Sarah and others so often talk > about, and is not bringing in a dualistic category, but is a reality of the > moment, in this case `lobha mula citta accompanied by wrong view'. What about sitting meditation with Right View? You said that panna arising would not engage in formal sitting because it would see this as an impediment, but if Right View were to arise why would sitting impede it? Why not indeed sit and allow the moments to arise for panna if they do? Why would this be Wrong View? > > But this too is confusing: If one practices mindfulness as a stage > > following pariyatti, then it seems like it really is a purposeful > > practice to gain the result of full mindfulness of the object, and so > > it is just as intentional as meditation. And the distinction seems > > even more artificial when you imagine that the only real difference > > between paripatti and meditation is that the meditator is "assuming a > > sitting position," while the practitioner of paripatti practices his > > "meditation" wherever and under whatever conditions happen to > arise. > > Surely, the physical positioning of the practitioner cannot create > > such a great theoretical rift? > > I hope you now understand that the core matter is Right / Wrong View. > Sitting and not sitting is just side issues, though reflective of this > primary one. And this is why on DSG so much emphasis is on Rt. View. And Right View comes from what? Sutta study? > > Even more confusing is the fact that every meditation practice > > includes both walking meditation, and the admonition that the practice > > of mindfulness should be extended into a 24-hour a day operation, > > where one is always conscious of both the breath and whatever is > > arising for consciousness. In many ways, both paths seem to come > > around to the same place by a different route. > > Why the `breath' when we know that we have so much ignorance and > wrong view regarding it? Why would any serious practitioner want to > give importance to that which only conditions more akusala? Anything at > all that we as worldlings give special importance to, that becomes > immediately an object of clinging. And no matter how we rationalize > about `breath' being neutral and so on, the clinging is there and > becomes in fact, an object of `wrong view' when associated with right > practice. Why do you assume there has to be clinging? And more importantly, however you look at it, the Buddha prominetly mentions breathing on many occasions as the occasion for contemplation of the four foundations of Mindfulness. You seem to be saying that the Buddha set us up for a wrongful obsession with the breath as object. The Buddha was pretty skillful I'd say, and if he mentions the breath on a number of occasions as the ground from seeing the nature of dhammas, why not take him at his word? How can you rail against an object that he so strongly recommends. And I personally do not agree with the convolutions and twisting of the Buddha's clear words in order to make it seem like all the mention of the breath is coincidental to the message he delivers on those occasions. But that is back to the anapanasatti sutta which gives us so much trouble here. Only in Abhidhamma does anyone doubt that this sutta is about mindfulness of and through the breathing process. It is an anomaly. > > So what exactly does paripatti entail? And if it is indeed a > > practice, how is this not a "doing" with a doer involved? I am > > sincerely interested in the answer to this. > > Any moment of satipatthana is a moment of patipatti. So, just as one > cannot will satipatthana because it will arise when the conditions are > right, there is no one who `practices'. But also there is really no practice per se. You are saying that the result of the practice, satipatthana, is also the practice. So really there is only the result and no practice, which comes as a gift rather than an acquisition of Right Effort as one would think. > > > > > To me all of the above is "the practice." Now if one is *not* > > discerning, but hallucinating, and going down an akusala path without > > knowing it, well, that's a big problem. But I would like to know, > > Sukin, how is one to know this anyway, if one does not trust his own > > sense of whether detachment, insight, clarity of discernment, etc. are > > developing? Who do you trust to tell you you are seeing the real > > moment arising, if you yourself are not training your own citta to do > > this? I think without development of faith in one's own evaluation of > > what is occurring on the path, the path must be lost. > > Sanna, citta and ditthi vipallasa is the norm for most of us. We may > believe that a certain characteristic trait qualifies as `hallucination' etc. > However anytime there is attachment to result which motivates a > measuring of one's progress along the path, and involving hindsight, > how can we be certain that we are not hallucinating? I don't put much > faith in my own evaluation based on the past, but there are moments of > faith based on understanding the meaning of the Buddha's teachings > and what can be verified in the moment. This keeps me going, at least > more confident in the particular interpretation as taught by K. Sujin and > expressed by many members of this list. But have I gone beyond > doubt? Surely a big NO!! And yet it sounds to me that the basis for faith is essentially understanding of concept, albeit the Buddha's concept. I find it very hard to reconcile this because Abhidhamma's whole philosophy is about direct understanding of the moment by citta. Yet it seems that we mainly are to be content with intellectual understanding of the Buddha's verbal concept, with occasional glimpses of weak satipatthana. This may be a realistic view, but it may also be a disempowering one, in which we really cannot expect to get anywhere much in this lifetime. Aside from the fact that there is "nowhere to get" but to understand the moment, it still seems to me that it puts the practitioner in the position of doing little and hoping that eventually satipatthana will arise through continued intellectual involvement. The result is really an intellectual path with a dream of direct discernment. This does not seem satisfactory to me as the practice itself should be in the pursuit of direct understanding. That's my view anyway. I would think that Abhidhamma would be much more directly realizing by paying attention to the moment and allowing whatever insight or direct view may arise to come to the cittas for which this is possible. Instead, one is consumed by intellectual pursuit of sutta. I think this is very difficult to reconcile and I would like to know why the goal of the path - direct perceptual-mental discernement should then be put aside for what is essentially its opposite, intellectual study. It seems that black has become white here and white has become black. I await your response. Perhaps I am being too direct about my view; I don't mean to be rude. Truly this list and this discussion brings it out of me, so perhaps there are conditions beyond my control that are asking for this. Best Regards, Robert Ep. > > I will appreciate your response, hoping that these points are not also > > too far flung to give the basis for a good exchange. : ) > > Hope you are not disappointed. ;-) > > Metta, > > Sukin. 32905 From: bodhi2500 Date: Sun May 9, 2004 1:16am Subject: Re: Cooran Thanks Hi All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > (i) When discussing the 'dispelling of three things' the > term "Immobility of Mind" was mentioned. What does this mean? The pali for "immobility of the mind" is 'cetaso liinatta.m' which seems to refer to the 'Sloth and Torpor' aspect of the 5 hindrances. The Dispeller of Delusion: 'And mental lassitude'(cetaso ca liinatta.m) is a name for the sluggish state of mind. Tayodhammasutta.m. Bhikkhus, without dispelling three things, it is not possible to dispel the view of a self, doubts and grasping virtues as the highest aim. What three? Unwise attention, practising in the wrong path and the mind's immobility, Bhikkhus, without dispelling these three things, it is not possible to dispel the view of a self, doubts and grasping virtues as the highest aim. > One of us wondered, "Is Right View a synonym for Panna in ALL > cases? What kind of Right View arises outside the Buddha's > dispensation? e.g. in Jhana practitioners before the Buddha? One query i have is in regards to the pa~n~na of a jhana practitioner. It is said that to attain jhana there must be a very high degree of Pa~n~na(Right View) that is able to discern kusala from akusala mental states. To me, this sounds like there must be some kind of satipatthanic insight(but without anatta insight?) into kusala and akusala paramattha dhammas? Steve. 32906 From: Date: Sat May 8, 2004 11:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/8/04 11:47:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Let me put it this way: > > The Noble Eightfold Path leads to the cessation of the dukkha; > nevertheless, even the Noble Eightfold Path is dukkha as it is a > fabricated path. > > Metta, > Victor > =========================== Yes, Dukkha, because even that can be (inappropriately) clung to. There is this: What is the Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering? It is craving which renews being and is accompanied by relish and lust, relishing this and that: in other words, craving for sensual desires, craving for being, craving far non-being. But whereon does this craving arise and flourish? Wherever there is what seems lovable and gratifying, thereon it arises and flourishes. There is this Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering: such was the vision, insight, wisdom, knowing and light that arose in me about things not heard before. This Noble Truth must be penetrated to by abandoning the origin of suffering ... This Noble Truth has been penetrated to by abandoning the origin of suffering: such was the vision, insight, wisdom, knowing and light that arose in me about things not heard before. [Sammyutta Nikaya LVI, 11] 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) 32907 From: Andrew Date: Sun May 9, 2004 4:04am Subject: Re: The Practical View of Anatta Hello again Suravira Thanks for your further comments. I have interspersed some remarks below which I hope are of relevance. > [Suravira] Seeing how the phrase "false views of individuality" is > helpful stems from understanding the typical person's response to > the terms 'not-self,' 'non-self' or 'no-self.' Most people who > encounter these's terms immediately doubt their credibility - which > is unfortunate. In distinct contrast, most people are amenable to > entertaining the concept that they, or that we, may have false, or > mistaken, views of our own individuality. In that this "false views > of individuality" is more amenable, it is easier to continue to > share with them teachings relating to anatta. Andrew: I think what you are saying is that the definition "false views of individuality" is pedagogically more efficient. I probably made a similar point to Ken H not so long ago regarding absolute and conventional realities. Perhaps this was a result of attending fiction writing courses which push the idea that "you've gotta hook 'em [the readers] on the first page or you've lost 'em"? Have you and I adopted this approach for our Dhamma discussions? Are we thinking less about the accuracy of our Dhamma views and more about the appeal to other worldlings of our Dhamma views? Hmm ... I'll have to think about that one. Many suttas contain reference to the monks being "roused" with a Dhamma talk, but I like to think that this invigorating aspect is due to the Dhamma's truth rather than any stylistic language that might have been used in its delivery. Furthermore, how can we ever KNOW what language will prompt a listener towards the Dhamma? The language used is only one of many conditions that play a part. Sometimes negative language does the trick. A friend of mine was moved to look into Buddhism when he read a Christian book describing all the terrible "nonsense" that those poor deluded Buddhists believe in. To him, the "nonsense" sounded great! And he spent a large part of his life thereafter studying Dhamma. [Suravira] As regards one's capacity to dispel the notion of "I", "me" > and "mine", that capacity is a function of the heart moreso than the > intellect. It is a function of the heart in that one gradually > becomes dispassionate about "I" "me" and "mine" and the dramas that > whirl around them. > > Once the heart is more peaceful in relation to that whirling drama, > the mind opens of its own accord to this dharma of anatta. Andrew: Your point above is not clear to me, I'm sorry. I am confused by your mention of intellect, heart and mind. Most people intellectually rebel against anatta, don't they? It is a confronting teaching that challenges everything we had taken for granted. So intellectually examining the notion of a permanent self is a very important process, I think. In the last sentence, you seem to be saying that tranquility of consciousness leads to wisdom. My understanding is that they arise together in some beautiful consciousness moments but not all. That being so, linking one to the other causatively may not be entirely accurate. [Suravira] > to apply these exercises in an analytical method is somewhat > beneficial, but it is not possible to directly realize anatta with > the intellect. Andrew: Agreed. But I suspect it's not possible to directly realise anatta when the intellect is in uproar against it, too. Could be wrong on that one, so don't quote me. [Suravira] What definition of "self" are you proposing? Andrew: I wasn't proposing at all (said the bishop to the actress). I see "self" as a concept. In absolute reality, it can only be the 5 khandhas in the present moment. > [Suravira] What do you find lacking in its use? Let me > also define individuality as the experience of being in time/space, > and a "view of individuality" is defined as a perception of the > experience of being in time/space. Andrew: "Individuality" is a conventional term with similar power to "self" and "ego". It doesn't make anatta any easier for me. For others, it might. > [Suravira] Yes. "Bass ackward" is twist on the phrase for "ass > backward" Andrew: Where I come from, an "ass" has four legs and can be very stubborn. But I get what you're getting at all the same... > [Suravira] The importance of providing a bullet-proof definition of > the term "self" is critical within pluralistic cultures - such as > those that exist in contemporary western societies. This is so in as > much as it is reckless to assume that everyone in the audience has > the same understanding of self. For example, most Christians would > equate (or even base) the notion of self on a soul, while aetheists > would not. > > As regards the presentation of anatta in the cited sutta by the > Buddha, I offer no criticism of his conduct. Yet, as I understand > the background of his discourse, the audience was a homogeneous > culture (was composed of 5 monks) in which atta was well defined and > about which a uniform concensus existed. Hence, because of these two > factors, perhaps the Buddha did not need to first establish a > definition of atta for his audience's benefit. As I understand the > referenced sutta, the Buddha negated form, feeling, perception, > mental fabrications, and consciousness as equivalents of "self". In > addition he asserted that anything which is impermanent is also > unsuitable as an equivalent of "self". In that none of the 5 monks > raised a concern about some other equivalent for "self" it is safe > to infer that they shared the same cultural consensus of what "self" > was conventionally understood to be. Such a consensus does not exist > in contemporary western civilization, nor is an audience hearing a > discourse on anatta a homogeneous culture - instead it is more than > likely pluralistic (heterogeneous). Andrew: I have to question the notion that contemporary western civilization is more pluralistic than India at the time of the Buddha - a time the historians tell us saw the melding of 2 cultures (after the Aryan invasion some centuries before). My reading suggests quite the opposite! There was also widespread and distant trade (without the comfort of having a McDonalds at every crossroads). Take ideas on "permanent self", for example, there was a very wide array of definitions of "atman", ranging from a little man who lived in your heart and who popped out every time you went to sleep, to some sort of ethereal soul. I don't really know, but I'm not prepared to accept that the Buddha's listeners were a culturally homogenous bunch until I get a lot more evidence. I'm also reminded of that sutta (name escapes me) where the Buddha talks about the different dialects and how one should relate to people who don't use your dialect words. Best wishes Andrew 32908 From: Philip Date: Sun May 9, 2004 4:38am Subject: Re: The Practical View of Anatta Hello Suravira all (and James, see **) Suravira :> As regards one's capacity to dispel the notion of "I", "me" > and "mine", that capacity is a function of the heart moreso than the > intellect. It is a function of the heart in that one gradually > becomes dispassionate about "I" "me" and "mine" and the dramas that > whirl around them. > Once the heart is more peaceful in relation to that whirling drama, > the mind opens of its own accord to this dharma of anatta. Phil: This is very interesting. As one who has very recently gained his first significant (I think) insights into annata, I would like to comment and tell you a bit about the way I have come along. Like many newcomers to Buddhism, I was attracted by the brahma- viharas, and took a practice based on cultivating loving kindness and compassion to heart. Who wouldn't? But as I've said in a different thread, I went about it in a self-directed way, generating loving- kindness with the hope that the world, or at lease my small sliver of it, would come to be more a more metta-filled place due to my intervention. I identified certain sources of aversion, and in my morning brahma-viharas contemplation, imagined them being well, thanks to me. Well, thanks to the wisdom of the Buddha, working through me. This was misguided, and I suspect much metta work that goes on in the world is misguided, and seeks to remove sources of aversion, remove sources of dukkha by drenching them in loving- kindness. Now, it's obviously a well-intentioned practice, and doesn't do any harm, except for subtly strengthening self, by making it more instead of less attached to having an environment which is cozy. (** subnote for James, re other Metta thread: You asked, what's wrong with wanting to make the world a cozier place? We should not and cannot remove sources of dukkha to have a cozy environment, in my opinion. Well, no kidding. We should sit with them and see through to their true nature, which is annata, annica and dukkha. Yes, the goal of Buddhism is to liberate us from suffering, eventually, but surely wanting our world to be cozier within this lifetime points at wrong understanding. If it happens, it is because obstacles to wellbeing have been removed through our patient investigation of phenomena, not because we have generated wellbeing. As for the sutta you provided to support the idea of the Buddha teaching us to project metta, it was interesting, and not a bad first step towards winning your case, but you'll have to come up with something more substantial - where does the Buddha teach us that when doing meditation we should consiously radiate or project - not cultivate - metta towards beings in all directions. The snake is interesting, definitely. More support for your case, please. After all, if brahma-viharas is one of the three practices of mental development along with samadhi and vipassana, surely there should be something more thoroughly developped than one encounter with a snake. And I am not suggesting that the way you seek to project metta is anywhere near as naive as mine was.) In any case, I gradually saw my brahma-viharas practice evolve from one based on metta, to one centred in upekkha, which I gradually came to see as a state of mind based on right understanding of the three characteristics. The intellect was leading me towards this understanding, in a foggy way, and then the intellect took a leap into a much clearer understanding when I came across the Abhidhamma through this group. I had a fairly deep insight into annata one evening while reading Abhidhamma in Daily Life. When I looked up and saw my wife, I understood rupa and nama, and by understanding them understood the khandas, and have maintained that understanding in the two months or so that have passed since then. So I would say it was the intellect that cracked the kernel open, and that the kernel may have been softened but was not opened in any way by my emotional control of the environment approach to brahma- viharas. Well, perhaps that's just what you were saying above. Now, the interesting thing is, now that I have seen that in the absolute sense, there are no people, and that all is rupa and nama, rising and falling, the heart reappears in a duo role with the intellect. We cannot go life seeing people exclusively as rupa and nama - the Buddha didn't want us to do that, of course. In my opinion, the Abhidhamma, to the extent I can understand it now through Nina's books, shows us the ultimate nature of reality, and this understanding - even when it's an intellectual understanding- liberates us from the possibility of becoming irritated by, angry with or envious of people. In other words, seeing through to annata, we see that there are no obstacles to the arising of metta. I feel such tender feeling for the bundles of rupa and nama that I live with, teach and walk around in the world with. There are no people in the absolute sense, and on the other hand all these wonderfully lovable people - each and every one of them is lovable- going through life, deceiving themselves in achingly sad and lovely and funny ways as they get wrapped up tighter and tighter in cloaks of self. Myself included, except I may be starting to loosen the cloaks rather than tighten them further. So I would say that the heart (including a lot of fear) got me interested in Buddhism - albeit it in a way that was lacking in right understanding - the intellect made the real progress, and will continue to do so, but now the heart will be able to work in the light of right understanding more free from what you nicely called the "whirling dramas" of I, me and mind. Well, it's a gradual progress. I still get caught up in these dramas every day - I'm sure we all do. But the intensity (and length) of the self-generated dust storms is subsiding, not-me thinks. Metta, Phil 32909 From: Philip Date: Sun May 9, 2004 5:23am Subject: Wisdom -> wholesome action : how does it work? Hello all At this very moment, I am feeling the urge to go to one of the many online newspapers I have come to know, and check out the latest developments in Iraq. I don't want to do this out of compassion for the suffering of everyone involved, or because of a sober interest in the issues - it's because I have an intensely unwholesome interest in the story as a form of schadenfreude, as entertainment, as I said the other day. My question is, as I sit here, some basic form of panna (wisdom) arises to remind me that I know that after reading newspapers in that way I feel polluted and ashamed of myself. This happens in a very predictable way. Panna reminds me. I know how I'll feel. But I have still gone to the newspapers many times even after being reminded by wisdom of what it'll do to my mind and mood. What happens next after panna shows the way? What is it arises or does not arise to allow the panna to be realized or not in action, or renouncing the action? What is the abhidhamma equivalent of will power, is what I'm asking, I guess. What stops us from doing enjoyable things we know are unwholesome, and what spurs us to do unenjoyable things we know are wholesome? Is it something to do with virya? (energy) Metta, Phil 32910 From: Larry Date: Sun May 9, 2004 7:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi all, Here's another surprising aspect of dukkha, or at least unpleasant feeling. Not only does unpleasant feeling only arise in 3 instances (with tangible data or with dosa [dislike] prompted and unprompted), it does NOT arise with the wholesome cetasikas "shame" and "fear of wrongdoing". It also does not arise in jhanas of foulness of corpses or repulsive parts of the body. Any unpleasant feeling associated with the cetasikas sloth and torpor must accompany dislike (dosa) or tangible data. In my experience unpleasant mental feeling is always accompanied by unpleasant bodily feeling. Larry 32911 From: Date: Sun May 9, 2004 7:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wisdom -> wholesome action : how does it work? Hi, Phil - In a message dated 5/9/04 8:25:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > Hello all > > At this very moment, I am feeling the urge to go to one of the > many online newspapers I have come to know, and check out the latest > developments in Iraq. I don't want to do this out of compassion for > the suffering of everyone involved, or because of a sober interest in > the issues - it's because I have an intensely unwholesome interest > in the story as a form of schadenfreude, as entertainment, as I said > the other day. > ============================ I think you are truly to be commended. You are honest with yourself, and even willing to mention it to others. I think that's terrific! Sure, it's like watching a terrible traffic accident - it's awful, and yet we look! (One hesitates to uncover all the ugly conditions that lead to that looking!) With metta, Howard 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) 32912 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun May 9, 2004 0:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] my vacation Dear Jon and Sarah, Jon, thank you for the Vis. book number. Our vacation was an adventurous mixture of rather rough going and Dhamma discussions, never a dull moment. Also a reminder that the Element of Water, cohesion or fluidity does NOT appear through the bodysense, that it is not tangible object. The Hautes Fagnes, Ardennes, is very marshy. I slipped and landed on my back in a pool while going along a stream without a proper path ( heavy going on stones, etc) and noticed (by inference, not by direct awareness) how soft water is and then there was some cold. There wasn't any problem, and when just walking on the cloths get dry quickly. Just softness and cold. Every day after the walks we sat down "around the table" (we always do) to discuss and correct my work. We had Vesak discussions the whole week, on the present moment, its meaning, about Dhamma and social life, etc. How important it is in one's work to think more of the general interest than your own personal interest, etc. But first thing now is that I have to finish my small book, and there is still a lot to be done. Early morning I was reading Tiika texts, since Larry is waiting! Sarah, thank you for saving posts and I am so glad about the news re Achahn Jose. Nina. op 09-05-2004 02:03 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > I hope you and Lodewijk had a good vacation. 32913 From: robmoult Date: Sun May 9, 2004 2:38pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Michelle, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michelle Vellin wrote: > In life, I use the simplest way to prevent dukkha, > although sometimes I can't prevent dukkha to exist in > my life(I'm still a human being with all the impurity) > . My favourite way is the positive thinking. With the > positive thinking in mind, we will be able to face the > problems around. I just try to think positively > whenever my emotion exists in the circumstances. But, > the concept of anicca also should be invested in mind, > everything is not immortal (somebody should correct my > language :P). With the concept of anicca, and always > try think positively, I slowly can get away of dukkha. > Of course, there are so many ways to get out of dukkha > in life.....let others share their experience... The Buddha taught (Four Noble Truths) that dukkha could only be overcome by the Noble Eightfold Path. Would you say that your practice is roughly aligned with the Noble Eightfold Path? Metta, Rob M :-) 32914 From: robmoult Date: Sun May 9, 2004 2:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Here's another surprising aspect of dukkha, or at least unpleasant > feeling. Not only does unpleasant feeling only arise in 3 instances > (with tangible data or with dosa [dislike] prompted and unprompted), > it does NOT arise with the wholesome cetasikas "shame" and "fear of > wrongdoing". It also does not arise in jhanas of foulness of corpses > or repulsive parts of the body. Any unpleasant feeling associated > with the cetasikas sloth and torpor must accompany dislike (dosa) or > tangible data. In my experience unpleasant mental feeling is always > accompanied by unpleasant bodily feeling. I'm not sure that your equation of dukkha (a characterisitic of existence) with unpleasant feeling (a mental factor accompanying aversion-rooted mental states) is valid. While it is true that aversion can arise when contemplating on dukkha, it is not always the case (you have given examples above). You said that "In my experience unpleasant mental feeling is always accompanied by unpleasant bodily feeling." Could it be that these are two distinct mental states that arise close to each other in time? Metta, Rob M :-) 32915 From: Larry Date: Sun May 9, 2004 3:45pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Rob, A question and comment below: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Larry, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > > Here's another surprising aspect of dukkha, or at least unpleasant > > feeling. Not only does unpleasant feeling only arise in 3 instances > > (with tangible data or with dosa [dislike] prompted and > unprompted), > > it does NOT arise with the wholesome cetasikas "shame" and "fear of > > wrongdoing". It also does not arise in jhanas of foulness of > corpses > > or repulsive parts of the body. Any unpleasant feeling associated > > with the cetasikas sloth and torpor must accompany dislike (dosa) > or > > tangible data. In my experience unpleasant mental feeling is always > > accompanied by unpleasant bodily feeling. > R: > I'm not sure that your equation of dukkha (a characterisitic of > existence) with unpleasant feeling (a mental factor accompanying > aversion-rooted mental states) is valid. While it is true that > aversion can arise when contemplating on dukkha, it is not always the > case (you have given examples above). L: I don't follow you. Do you mean contemplating the concept of dukkha? Bodily unpleasant feeling can certainly arise without aversion but I include bodily unpleasant feeling in dukkha. What is the reality of dukkha for you? > > You said that "In my experience unpleasant mental feeling is always > accompanied by unpleasant bodily feeling." Could it be that these are > two distinct mental states that arise close to each other in time? L: Yes. I agree. Everything is separate and single file as object of consciousness. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Larry 32916 From: Philip Date: Sun May 9, 2004 3:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Wisdom -> wholesome action : how does it work? Hello Howard, and all Howard : >I think you are truly to be commended. You are honest with yourself, > and even willing to mention it to others. I think that's terrific! > Sure, it's like watching a terrible traffic accident - it's awful, and > yet we look! (One hesitates to uncover all the ugly conditions that lead to > that looking!) Ph: Thanks for your kind words, Howard. I do feel encouaraged that I seem to have realized that it's a habit that I have to look at with earnest attention. Ugly conditions, indeed. As for the bridge between knowing that something is unwholesome, and finding the energy and determination to not do it, I can sense how dhamma discussion with admirable friends helps. There's no way on earth I'll go to "anti-war.com" right after having this exchange with you! Oh, another question. Do the Eightfold Path factors arise as cetasikas? For example, could it be said that right effort ( I forget the Pali) arises with a root of amoha/panna and liberates me momentarily me from doing something that I know to be unwholesome? Metta, Phil 32917 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun May 9, 2004 5:08pm Subject: Re: The Practical View of Anatta Hi Phil and all, I will comment in context: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > > Hello Suravira all (and James, see **) [snip] > Now, the interesting thing is, now that I have seen that in the > absolute sense, there are no people, and that all is rupa and nama, > rising and falling, The idea "all is rupa and nama, rising and falling" is the cosmology "All exists" or "Everthing exists" spoken about in Samyutta Nikaya XII.48 Lokayatika Sutta The Cosmologist http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-048.html [snip] I feel > such tender feeling for the bundles of rupa and nama that I live > with, teach and walk around in the world with. Seeing self and others as bundles of rupa and nama is the self- identity view. Whatever this bundle of rupa and nama is, it is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." There are no people in > the absolute sense, And the idea "there are no people in the absolute sense" is a speculative thought, not in accordance to what the Buddha taught. [snip] > storms is subsiding, not-me thinks. Do you mean you think? > > Metta, > Phil Metta, Victor 32918 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun May 9, 2004 6:44pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Howard, In the Noble Truth of the Origination of the Dukkha, the Buddha taught that which is the origination of the dukkha is craving that renews being/craving that makes for further becoming. How does craving make for further becoming? From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. What is craving? These six are classes of craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. This is called craving. Craving, or desire & lust, is like fire. Forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, ideas are like fuel. What is clinging/sustenance? These four are clingings/sustenances: sensuality as clinging/sustenance, view as clinging/sustenance, precept & practice as clinging/sustenance, and doctrine of self as clinging/sustenance. This is called clinging/sustenance. Clinging/sustenance is like the process of burning: fire clinging to the fuel and the fuel sustaining the fire. Sensuality, view, precept & practice, and doctrine of self are like the processes of burning. These fabrications lead to further becoming, keeping the round of rebirth going. Thus, 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 [dukkhakkhandha]. "And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to- be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth." The origination of the dukkha, of all that is dukkha, is not about a psychological/mental process that results in mental pain or distress. The scope of the dependent origination is greater than that. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 5/8/04 11:47:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > Let me put it this way: > > > > The Noble Eightfold Path leads to the cessation of the dukkha; > > nevertheless, even the Noble Eightfold Path is dukkha as it is a > > fabricated path. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > =========================== > Yes, Dukkha, because even that can be (inappropriately) clung to. > There is this: > > What is the Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering? > It is craving which renews being and is accompanied by relish and lust, > relishing this and that: > in other words, craving for sensual desires, craving for being, craving far > non-being. > But whereon does this craving arise and flourish? > Wherever there is what seems lovable and gratifying, thereon it arises and > flourishes. > There is this Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering: such was the vision, > insight, wisdom, knowing and light that arose in me about things not heard > before. > This Noble Truth must be penetrated to by abandoning the origin of suffering > ... > This Noble Truth has been penetrated to by abandoning the origin of > suffering: such was the vision, insight, wisdom, knowing and light that arose in me > about things not heard before. > > [Sammyutta Nikaya LVI, 11] > > > With metta, > Howard 32919 From: Philip Date: Sun May 9, 2004 7:21pm Subject: Re: The Practical View of Anatta Hi Victor. Thanks for the feedback! V:> The idea "all is rupa and nama, rising and falling" is the > cosmology "All exists" or "Everthing exists" spoken about in > Samyutta Nikaya XII.48 > Lokayatika Sutta > The Cosmologist > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-048.html Ph: I will refer to that sutta. I am now mostly reading Nina's books on Abdhidhamma, but I will be doing a lot more sutta study in the future I know that referring to the prhase "all is rupa and nama, rising and falling" is nothing but a kind of parroting for me at this point, because I have only an intellectual understanding, with only the vaguest beginnings of real insight. I can only say that it feels consistently true for me and has for several months, without stop. I would also say that it is another way of explaining and understandning the aggregates. > PH [snip] > I feel > > such tender feeling for the bundles of rupa and nama that I live > > with, teach and walk around in the world with. > V:Seeing self and others as bundles of rupa and nama is the self- > identity view. Whatever this bundle of rupa and nama is, it is to > be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not > mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Ph: I thought afterwards that the word "bundle" was not right. That was probably inspired by the aggregates. There is no bundling except that done by self. "This is mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Thank you for the reminder. I still do a lot of speculative thinking, and will for years to come. But reminders like this will bring me back to examining realities in the moment instead of speculating about theories. I think speculative thought is a very seductive hindrance. And yet, it is necessary at some point, for beginners. I use the analogy of an ESL classroom. If students don't speak out and make mistakes, they never make progress. Speculative thought leads to errors - asides from it being a hindrance even if there aren't errors. Dhamma friends here will point out my errors, and the speculative thought will become more refined and eventually petre out (peter?). I guess. > V: And the idea "there are no people in the absolute sense" is a > speculative thought, not in accordance to what the Buddha taught. Ph: But liberating speculative thought that has led to a better undertanding of annata, in my case? An example of correct and useful speculative thought that can come and go quickly? Better than my endless speculative thought on what metta is and how it should or should not be generated. I've spend countless hours thinking of that with no result but self-satisfaction. As for "there are no people in the absolute sense" not being what the Buddha taught, I see it in the Buddha's teaching of the aggregates. For me teaching that there is no self but rather clinging to the aggregates is equivalent to saying there are no people in the absolute sense, but I have only a beginner's understanding. >P > storms is subsiding, not-me thinks. > > V: Do you mean you think? Ph: Yes. I was just being too clever for my own good. ;) Metta, Phil 32920 From: Larry Date: Sun May 9, 2004 3:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] my vacation Hi Nina, Welcome back. Water is soft but rocks are hard. I hope you didn't get bruised. When we experience hardness unpleasant feeling can arise with it. Why does the feeling last longer than the hardness? Is the feeling kamma result even after the hardness has ceased? Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > I slipped and > landed on my back in a pool while going along a stream without a proper path > ( heavy going on stones, etc) and noticed (by inference, not by direct > awareness) how soft water is and then there was some cold. 32921 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun May 9, 2004 9:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Larry, op 09-05-2004 16:37 schreef Larry op LBIDD@w...: > In my experience unpleasant mental feeling is always > accompanied by unpleasant bodily feeling. N: unpleasant mental feeling accompanies dosa-mula-cittas, cittas rooted in aversion, performing the function of javana, impulsion, in the process of cittas. There are seven moments of them. Unpleasant bodily feeling accompanies the vipakacitta that is body-consciousness, kaya-vi~n~naa.na. This is only one moment of citta in the process. There cannot be two kinds of feeling at the same time, they each accompany different types of citta performing different functions. They may arise very closely, so that it *seems* that they are together. This would be impossible. Without the Abhidhamma we would not know this. We take feelings together as a whole, we take them for mine and they seem to last, at least for a while. Nina. 32922 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun May 9, 2004 9:35pm Subject: Re: The Practical View of Anatta Hi Phil, I will reply in context. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > > Hi Victor. Thanks for the feedback! > > V:> The idea "all is rupa and nama, rising and falling" is the > > cosmology "All exists" or "Everthing exists" spoken about in > > Samyutta Nikaya XII.48 > > Lokayatika Sutta > > The Cosmologist > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-048.html > > Ph: I will refer to that sutta. I am now mostly reading Nina's > books on Abdhidhamma, but I will be doing a lot more sutta study in > the future > > I know that referring to the prhase "all is rupa and nama, rising > and falling" is nothing but a kind of parroting for me at this point, > because I have only an intellectual understanding, with only the > vaguest beginnings of real insight. The idea "All is rupa and nama" is not insight. Seeing, for example, the body as it actually is thus: "This is inconstant. This is dukkha. This is not self." is insight. Seeing, for instance, the body as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." is insight. What is the point of insight, seeing something as it actually is? So one can grow dispassionate toward it. [snip] > I think speculative thought is a very seductive hindrance. Sometimes speculative thoughts, the adhamma, are mistaken as the Dhamma. And yet, > it is necessary at some point, for beginners. I use the analogy of an > ESL classroom. If students don't speak out and make mistakes, they > never make progress. Speculative thought leads to errors - asides > from it being a hindrance even if there aren't errors. Dhamma friends > here will point out my errors, and the speculative thought will > become more refined and eventually petre out (peter?). I guess. > > > > V: And the idea "there are no people in the absolute sense" is a > > speculative thought, not in accordance to what the Buddha taught. > > Ph: But liberating speculative thought that has led to a better > undertanding of annata, in my case? The idea "there are no people in the absolute sense" has nothing to do with insight. It is just a speculative view. [snip] > As for "there are no people in the absolute sense" not being what > the Buddha taught, I see it in the Buddha's teaching of the > aggregates. For me teaching that there is no self but rather clinging > to the aggregates is equivalent to saying there are no people in the > absolute sense, but I have only a beginner's understanding. The idea "there is no self" is a speculative view. [snip] > > Metta, > Phil Metta, Victor 32923 From: Andrew Date: Sun May 9, 2004 10:14pm Subject: Re: The Practical View of Anatta Hi Phil and Victor Victor wrote: Sometimes speculative thoughts, the adhamma, are mistaken as the > Dhamma. [snip] > The idea "there is no self" is a speculative view. Glad you both find this thread interesting. I've just been looking at Dr Frank Hoffman's book on "Rationality and Mind in Early Buddhism" and this fascinating quotation: "It should be noted that the early Buddhist position is not ambiguous about the notion of self. It is *not just* that there is *no evidence* for the existence of self considered as a permanent, unchanging substance or soul, but that there is nothing of the kind. For at MN I.136 (MLS I.175) it is said of atta: *So evam samanupassanto asati na paritassatti* (or, 'he regarding thus that which does not exist, will not be anxious'). The term 'asati' means 'that which does not exist', and so the meaning is very clear." I find Hoffman's view hard to reconcile with yours, Victor. From previous posts, I understand that you contend that the Buddha did not deny the existence of a self. This is a view that apparently was endorsed by the Personalists or Puggalavadins of old times and rejected by all other Buddhist schools. Could you please refer me to the Pali for "speculative view" and where it appears in the Anatta lakhana sutta? Thanks in advance. Best wishes Andrew 32924 From: Philip Date: Sun May 9, 2004 10:32pm Subject: Re: The Practical View of Anatta Hi Victor Victor: > The idea "there is no self" is a speculative view. I find this kind of pleasing for some reason. I think I have an attachment to the intellect, and the above feels like a very pure expression of the intellect. I wanna have a pure intellect! :) "speculate" in the dictionary - an Englisher's Learner's one, albeit : "form opinions without having complete knowledge." In that case, anything written about Buddhism, including all the traditional commentary, would be speculative, since no one who has ever written about the BUddha' teaching received it from Buddha directly, or has returned from nibbana to communicate the experience. It would seems that there is no way around speculation in teaching and learning about dhamma. And if we believe that we have known paramattha dhammas directly....how can we confirm the truth of our experience except by measuring it against the speculative description of others? Metta, Phil 32925 From: Date: Sun May 9, 2004 4:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] my vacation Hi Nina, Welcome back. I sent you an email but it didn't show up; so I'll try again. The air element must be out of whack. Rupas aren't regenerating where they are supposed to. You wrote: "I slipped and landed on my back in a pool while going along a stream without a proper path ( heavy going on stones, etc) and noticed (by inference, not by direct awareness) how soft water is and then there was some cold." L: Water is soft but rocks are hard. I hope you didn't get bruised. When we experience hardness sometimes painful feeling arises with it. Why does the feeling last longer than the hardness? Is the feeling kamma vipaka even long after the hardness has ceased? Btw, I think you noticed directly through the body door that the water was soft but noticing its fluidity was a mind-door perception. Larry 32926 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun May 9, 2004 11:37pm Subject: Re: The Practical View of Anatta Hi Andrew, Both ideas "there is self" and "there is no self" have nothing to do with the Dhamma. Both views are hindrance in understanding what the Dhamma as it is. The view "there is no self" is not what the Buddha taught that what is inconstant, dukkha, subject to change, is not self, that it is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Hi Phil and Victor > > Victor wrote: > Sometimes speculative thoughts, the adhamma, are mistaken as the > > Dhamma. [snip] > > The idea "there is no self" is a speculative view. > > Glad you both find this thread interesting. I've just been looking > at Dr Frank Hoffman's book on "Rationality and Mind in Early > Buddhism" and this fascinating quotation: > > "It should be noted that the early Buddhist position is not ambiguous > about the notion of self. It is *not just* that there is *no > evidence* for the existence of self considered as a permanent, > unchanging substance or soul, but that there is nothing of the kind. > For at MN I.136 (MLS I.175) it is said of atta: *So evam > samanupassanto asati na paritassatti* (or, 'he regarding thus that > which does not exist, will not be anxious'). The term 'asati' > means 'that which does not exist', and so the meaning is very clear." > > I find Hoffman's view hard to reconcile with yours, Victor. From > previous posts, I understand that you contend that the Buddha did not > deny the existence of a self. This is a view that apparently was > endorsed by the Personalists or Puggalavadins of old times and > rejected by all other Buddhist schools. > > Could you please refer me to the Pali for "speculative view" and > where it appears in the Anatta lakhana sutta? Thanks in advance. > > Best wishes > Andrew 32927 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 10, 2004 0:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: Oh, I don't recall you giving me your impression of what you > thought the objects in the lake were. Did you post to me about this > and I missed it??? .... Pls review my post on this thread to you and Jack: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m28311.html S: As I made clear in the post, my ‘take’ was that the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (the namas and rupas) are clearly discerned for what they are, like the objects in the lake, leading to the ‘deliverance of mind’and realization of nibbana. I’d prefer to see any comy notes before saying anything more. ..... >So, how is one supposed to see those objects in > the lake, clearly? What is the `plenty that can be done' you > mention? Please enumerate these things for me and please be as > specific as possible. (Of course, in my mind I am thinking "What > needs to be done is follow the Eightfold Path", but I doubt that you > aren't thinking that. So I am curious as to what your answer will > be. ;-) Maybe your answer will be: Listening, Thinking, and Posting > to DSG?? ;-)) .... S: ‘follow the Eightfold Path’ is right but it depends how this is understood;-). Develop understanding of presently experienced namas and rupas without any idea of self or selection;-). Listening, Thinking and Posting to DSG may well be the right conditions for such understanding to develop;-). However, as soon as there is an idea of ‘doing something’ or taking some special action, there is likely to be self involved again. I’m going to write more about this to Phil afterwards too. ..... >> James: From my reading of the suttas, specifically the Karanaya > Metta Sutta "Hymn of Universal Love", the development of metta, just > like the development of wisdom, goes through stages. .... S: Agreed. However, moments of wishing to develop more metta or wisdom are likely to be accumulating more attachment to self, rather than developing wholesome states. .... > It isn't > either complete and pure metta or selfish lust and desire: there are > gradations in the development. ... S: Different moments. Metta and selfish lust or desire don’t arise together. Good points. ... >Contrary to what you write here, > metta must be developed first as one living being to other living > beings, even though the near enemies of Metta (Greed, lust, worldly > affection, sensuality) might be present. One is to project love and > compassion to all living beings just as a mother projects love to > it's only infant (This is the Buddha's description. .... S: In daily life we can show friendliness and kindness to those around us or whom we come into contact with, like our students, colleagues, shop-keepers or friends here. It has to develop as you say - universal metta refers to the fully developed metta. ..... >Note: The > Buddha mentions nothing about knowing dhammas as dhammas). Not only > that, this state of mind is supposed to be actively pursued and > developed throughout one's waking hours with zeal and concentrated > effort. .... S: Whatever we read in the texts, it’s about anatta, the development of satipatthana. See* I’ve put it at the end because it contains a lot of Pali, but I thought others might appreciate it....:-/ Whatever level of jhana is attained, still the various paramattha dhammas (absolute realities) have to be the object of insight and the development of insight is always the goal. .... >It isn't until the end of the practice, when sensual desire > has been eradicated, that the metta will become universal and > complete. (Did you know that upon waking, the Buddha usually had > this early-morning routine: 1. Meditate on Nibanna; 2. Meditate on > the Brahma-Viharas; 3. Search the universe with his divine eye for > the beings most in need of help which he could help that day? Don't > know if this specifically relates, but I think it is a nice thing to > know! ;-)) .... S: It’s always good to be reminded of the great metta and compassion and omniscient wisdom of the Buddha. ..... > James: You're welcome. I just wanted to show that it isn't > necessary to be perfect to follow the path. They didn't have quite > the effect I wanted though: I wanted to lead you off that anatta > high-horse you are always riding, but it didn't work! ;-)) Maybe > next time. ;-) .... S: I think you’re writing to the wrong person if that’s the aim;-). Metta, Sarah ======= *Quote (which I’ve given before) taken from the commentary to the Metta Sutta in the Minor Readings (Khuddakapaa.tha, stanza 10: ***************************************************** "...And now, since loving kindness in near to (wrong) view of self because it has creatures for its object, he therefore completed the teaching with the following stanza: ….. ‘But he that traffics not with views (Is virtuous with perfected seeing Till, purged of greed for sense-desires, He will surely come no more to any womb.’ ….. He did this as a preventative against (their straying into) the thicket of (speculative) views (see MNi,8) by showing those bhikkhus how the Noble Plane is reached through making that same loving kindness jhana the basis for insight." ***** Comment: Whatever level of jhana is attained, still the various paramattha dhammas (absolute realities) have to be the object of insight and the development of insight is always the goal. ..... The commentary continues: "The meaning is this. After emerging from the abiding in loving kindness jhana, which was specified thus ‘This is Divine Abiding here, they say’,(he discerns) the (non-material-form ideas there (in that jhana) consisting in thinking(vitakka) and exploring(vicara) and the rest(piti, sukha, cittas’ekaggata), (which he defines as ‘name’(namas), he discerns the ideas of (material) form there, which he defines a ‘form’(rupas).By means of this delimitation of name and form (nama and rupa) ‘he traffics not with views’(di.t.thi.n ca anupagamma), (avoiding that by discerning)in the way stated thus ‘A heap of mere determinations; No creature can be found herein’ (Si,135), till he eventually becomes virtuous (siilavaa) with the kind of virtue that is supramundane since he is now perfected (sampanno) in the right view belonging to the Path of Stream Entry, which is called seeing (dassanena), and which is associated with that supramundane virtue. After that.......he reaches Arahantship and attains extinction." Later we read "There the bhikkhus maintained loving kindness in being, and making that the basis, they established insight (into the three general characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and not-self) till all of them reached Arahantship, the highest fruit, in that same Rains, and they were able to hold the Pavarana Ceremony in purity." ***** 32928 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 10, 2004 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Global chaos or a cup of tea? Hi Phil, S: This is a good subject heading and a few of your recent posts are related to it. Like Howard, I appreciate that you see the real problems as being the attachment, aversion and ignorance, rather than the 'situation'. We’re so used to thinking that *we* have an option as to whether to tune into global chaos or to take the sane approach of having a cup of tea, when in fact the present cittas and cetasikas which are determining our actions right now are already conditioned. We think of one course as being ‘foolish’ and another as being ‘wise’ whereas in fact these actions are merely long conceptual stories representing a mass of different conditioned namas and rupas. Our accumulated tendencies and other conditions will lead to various states and activities. Will some understanding of realities or anatta change this? Not necessarily so. The difference is that with more understanding, whilst ‘tuning in to global chaos’ or ‘having a cup of tea’ there will be more conditions for awareness to arise of any nama or rupa and there will be less idea that the other activity would provide more fertile soil for this. By understanding more about conditions, one knows (or rather panna knows) that the presently arising namas and rupas couldn’t be any other way and these are the only ones that can ever be known. Like you, I sometimes want to kick myself for doing something silly, like watching some nonsense on TV. At present I’m really caught up in a couple of reality shows. The wish to kick myself is pretty fleeting however, because even at these moments sati can be aware and understanding can know the attachment and dosa (the kick)for what they are - merely conditioned dhammas, not self at all. What's the use of accumulating more dosa about what has been conditioned already? So then we can just follow our accumulated weaknesses without concern? In truth, there’s no choice about it. If there are the tendencies for lobha, dosa and moha to arise, they certainly will. The solution is not to move the deck-chairs or to avoid tuning in (though this is may be helpful at a superficial level as KenH would say). The only solution is to develop understanding of the namas and rupas conditioned right then and there and this will lead to more of the same. It may well be that as a result of seeing the value in the teachings and slowly knowing wrong view for what it is, that as you suggest, there will be less inclination to tune into activities that are likely to just condition more aggro or attachment. But again it depends on conditions and any expectations of this will not help. .... --- Philip wrote: > > I have a question related to panna and what comes next. If I feel > the urge to check the internet news to get my morbid thrill from > global chaos, but panna - if that's what plain old common sense could > be called in this case - arises to remind me that it would be a very > grossly unwholesome thing to do, what would the next part of the > process be? What is it that gives me the strength to choose a cup of > tea on the balcony instead? (It would seem like an easy choice to > have the cup of tea, but addiction to unwholesome things can > obviously be very strong.) .... S: Conditions are so complex. It’s like over-eating or anything else. Different intentions and determinations at different moments. We may start walking out to the balcony and then pop back to check the news on a quick whim. In a sense it doesn’t matter - just conditioned namas and rupas to be known. No self at all. We can see the clinging to being such and such a kind of person who doesn't get 'morbid thrills' for instance, and the aversion to being the one who does or is sucked into reality TV shows. So the clinging to self can be seen too at these times. ... > > Does panna have in itself a motivating energy to take that basic > wisdom and carry through in a skillful action, or is there another > kusala cetasika that activates will power? Something to do with virya > (energy)? .... S: When there is panna, there is viriya and other wholesome states accompanying it already. They arise momentarily and then gone. I think the more understanding there is of dhammas, the less thinking there is about actions in this way, i.e less clinging to certain concepts. ..... > > Thanks in advance for your feedback on this, Sarah or anyone else. > > I was going to write a "Dear Abbydhamma" about my morbid interest > in the news, and lack of compassion for the people I see suffering in > news reports on TV. .... S: good threads and I’ll look forward to anymore ‘Dear Abbydhamma’ qus ;-). Just know the dhammas for what they are rather than thinking they should be another way. Otherwise, surely it’s yet another attempt at trying to create that ‘cozy environment’ again, ‘subtly strengthening self’ as you suggested to Suravira and your excellent comments to James in ‘the practical view of anatta’? You wrote: '..seeing through to anatta, we see that there are no obstacles to the arising of metta.' Not only for metta, but for all wholesome states, including wisdom, whether or not you’ve tuned into ‘global events’ or ‘reality tv’ in my case;-). Metta, Sarah p.s see U.P. - 'anatta and (no) control' and 'freewill'. ======= 32929 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 10, 2004 1:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Radiating Metta? ( was Re: Video Games?) Hi James & KenH, --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: I don't understand why you write a post if you don't have the > time to focus on it. What is the rush? Is this a race? LOL! Why > not wait to write the post until you have the time to explain > thoroughly? .... S: Probably because I’d never write a post if I waited until I had ‘the time to explain thoroughly’;-) I assure you that I’m always in a rush and racing against the clock, usually answering phone calls, doing office or other chores at the same time;-). Sometimes I know that I won’t have a chance for a few days, so if I don’t say a little, it won’t get said. You see, KenH, I think that many of us share your ‘problem’;-). (Btw, KenH, I’m seldom fussed about being ‘ambiguously paraphrased’ or even ‘blatently falsified’ - I was merely indicating that it tends to help the post jump the queue;-). .... >Anyway, I only state this because this post contains a > lot of quotes from various sources and I have little idea what they > are supposed to mean. You don't provide any analysis to link them > together or explain how they are related to this topic. Please come > back to this post later when you have the time to explain. Thanks. .... S: As far as I was concerned, I was giving the commentary to the lines from the Metta sutta which Phil asked for. The question was about the words ‘He would maintain unboundedly’ I think. You may have used a translation with ‘radiate’? The pali indicated that it means metta would be developed, that it would increase to all those around. Whilst the metta or other wholesome states developed are bound to have an influence on those around us (don’t we all appreciate kind acts and words?), metta cannot be ‘transferred’ or ‘radiated’ in the sense of being spread. It will entirely depend on the others’ kamma-vipaka as to what will be experienced through the senses at any time and it will depend on their accumulations whether there is any appreciation or subsequent wholesome states. We can’t ‘make’ someone respond to metta. Obviously in the case of the snake, the Buddha’s metta was sufficient condition for the snake’s cittas to be ‘calmed’ at that time. I agree with Christine’s and Phil’s comments on this topic. I apologise for the other rushed post. I can certainly see that it might have needed a code-breaker as an attachment, especially to the last part. I was picking up on a couple of Phil’s posts and it may have been partially clear to him and no one else. Please let me know if there’s anything else you’d like clarified. Metta, Sarah ====== 32930 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon May 10, 2004 2:13am Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Rob, I first address this part of your post: > So I would say that > the kusala moments that arise in sutta study or com study arise in > spite of the reasons why we are doing it, not because of them. And > that would be exactly the same for meditation. At worst, meditation > may be the expression of Right Concentration, or it may be attachment > or desire. But in any case, kusala moments will arise despite the > desire to meditate on the truth of the moments, just as it will in > sutta study. It will be equally slow. Unless you are saying that > there is some magic in the suttas that is not in meditation and that > magic will allow for kusala whereas meditation is a "bad" activity > that is akusala. Not because it is "intentional" since they both are, > but because you are saying that sutta itself is "good" and sitting > itself is "bad." You would then be saying that there is a property to > the activity itself that allows for kusala understanding, and that > there is a lack of that property in some other activities. The kusala > is not then in the mere concurrence of arising conditions, but in the > nature of the activity. And I take it that Abhidhamma is shy of > saying that? Yet some activities are frowned upon, and others get the > nod. So what is the reason, other than tradition and philosophical > predisposition. > > And once this happens, you will also see that the so > > called sati apparent during formal practice is not in fact > satipatthana as > > taught by the Buddha, the characteristic being quite different. > > What about during formal sutta study or com study?? What is the > difference? Either you have moments of understanding legitimately > arising that lead to confidence in the path in either activity or in > neither. It can't be dependent on the activity. I still wish that you would not compare study with sitting just because `conventionally' you perceive them both being same in terms of intended activity with the aim of developing more understanding of the Buddha's teachings. Of course you are also reacting to the constant insistence on the part of some of us, that pariyatti should constantly be engaged in. So there is the impression that this is an `activity drawn from choice' and `intention'. And to a degree you are right. However I have also admitted to the fact that in anyone who believes in pariyatti, whatever he does in relation to the development of more understanding, there will often be more akusala than kusala and also self and wrong view can creep in anytime. I have also made the distinction and shown you what it means to `practice' in the standpoint of Right View. And so there is no in-between phase anywhere in this scheme, for `formal practice'. So the comparison if made should be between `patipatti' and `formal practice', not between pariyatti and the latter. In the end, there is no `your' or `my' practice, just right or wrong view. None of us are enlightened and we do get caught in conventional descriptions. And if we keep arguing on this level, it may not be easy to avoid resorting to silly arguments. So often we try to explain the `activity' in terms of `ultimate realities' and end up using this precious knowledge to justify our wrong practice and wrong view. Instead the knowledge about paramattha dhammas should impel us to see the activities as `illusive' and unnecessarily blocking the view. Also in the above, you seem to have ignored my own past reference to pariyatti as not involving mere collection of words and not to be practiced as it were a ritualistic activity, but you have accused me of implying just that. I have also said that the whole thing boils down to Right View with regard to the present moment, and yet you insist on interpreting me as speaking on the level of `activity'. Though I admit that I do that sometimes, I have also tried to show that `activities' as such is not true reflection of View. If we do take up some activities, then the point to discuss would be what the View behind such a decision is. You will not deny that exposure to the verbal description is crucial; otherwise we would keep on misunderstanding the nature of reality. Mere intellectual understanding is never enough, but patipatti is also needed. In your case for example, you may as a result feel that `exposure to object' is the way to go, and you think this happens when one sits down to `look' and `observe'. My position is that we *are* exposed all day to objects. Only with `avijja' is how they are apprehended. So the problem does not call for any concentrated activity, because `wrong view' is not made less by `looking', but by understanding more and more about realities, including any need to choose a better time and place, or even to want some particular result at all. This understanding starts with pariyatti and by natural decisive support condition, those obvious experiences that stand out in our daily life, would likely be the ones we then start viewing with a degree of Rt. View. For instance, if habitually you react to a certain situation with dosa or if attachment to your children is not seen and understood for what it is, with knowledge about dhammas, these can be gradually be better understood. Formal meditation may or may not be one such experience, however since it usually relates to what we understand by `right practice', this makes it quite unlikely that satipatthana will ever arise. Because it is fed with the idea that an object other than what is arising now in the moment, is more suitable. With such an idea also one can't avoid self- view, the root of all wrong views. So no matter what we then say to justify our practice, it will be chained to `self'. And there can't be any `release of expectation', because this may be hidden. Besides there is no one who does this, only panna (even if this be on the level of pariyatti) does not expect. We may see the difference between pariyatti and patipatti, and know that compared to the latter, the former is indeed limited. And we may also realize how much precious time is being wasted, `not practicing'. But what can be done? I mentioned in my last post to Ken H and Sarah about a level of intellectual understanding called `sacca nnana'. When panna develops to the level of being firm in the understanding of the 4NT, where proliferation through the six sense doors is seen over and over again and understood, only this panna can condition repeated going back to the arising dhamma. And this would be the constant mindfulness which some of us hope to achieve but which many think they have when they `sit'. And even then, the experience will be very sporadic since kilesas have not been eradicated. In fact even for a low level ariyan, the mindfulness is interspersed with moha and other akusala and kusala. And `insight' which is what is being developed, happens in flashes. But is this the kind of experience of a meditator? I don't think so. I know Rob, that I have only made bold statements. I did make notes on paper to reply in text, but decided against it because it would have been too long. I hope you don't mind that on receiving a response from you, I decide for some reason to drop this discussion. I have only so much stamina I think. Metta, Sukin. 32931 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 10, 2004 2:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Larry (Howard* & All), I over-looked a short post of yours which I’ve now made into a long post:-/: --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > What is dukkha? I would say dukkha is desire. ... S: All conditioned dhammas are dukkha - not just desire. See the sutta on ‘Suffering’ which Christine gave: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m28511.html When we’re talking about the 4NT, it is: ‘the suffering due to formations’ As the note said: ‘suffering due to the formations (sankhaaradukkhataa) is all conditioned phenomena of the three planes, because they are oppressed by rise and fall’ .... >As such the second noble > truth is that suffering is the cause of suffering and this is equivalent > to saying desire is the cause of desire. .... S: No. It’s saying that desire is the cause of suffering as inherent in all conditioned dhammas. as Chris also quoted from B.Bodhi: http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/dh_main22.htm “(c) The Dukkha of Conditioned Formations. This is what Buddha intends when he declares that the five aggregates of clinging are dukkha. Our individuality is simply a combination of conditioned phenomena and all conditioned phenomena are impermanent and undergo constant transformation. As a result we have no mastery over them, we have no control over them, they go their way. For one with wisdom they are experienced as dukkha.” .... How can desire be kamma result? .... S: It can’t. Only indirectly or on account of kamma result. Without seeing, hearing etc, there would be no desire for them. You also wrote to Howard: L: > I had another thought. I forgot that dukkha is a concept, as is > impermanence and anatta. Even Nina accepts this:-))) ... S: Anicca, dukkha and anatta are NOT concepts. They are characteristics of realities,i.e part and parcel of those realities. I’m quite sure you won’t find Nina anywhere to have suggested they are concepts:-))) ... > So, on further > consideration, I agree that dukkha is unsatisfactory. But I think we > should say it is unsatisfactory not as a variety of aversion (dosa), > but rather conceptually unsatisfactory. I think this would jive with > your interpretation that unpleasant feeling, conditionality, and > change are not dukkha itself. .... S: :-/ .... > > However, unlike impermanence and anatta, dukkha has a cause. We don't > usually say impermanence or anatta has a cause. But I wonder if we > could. Can we say impermanence (conditional arising) is caused by > desire? How about anatta? .... S:We can’t refer to the ti-lakkhana apart from the realities they characterise which are conditioned or ‘caused’. .... > > Abhidhamma says concepts don't have causes. Maybe this means they > don't have root causes. ... S: Concepts are imagined or conceptualised only. .... >So dukkha isn't kamma result. I think we need > to find out what "cause of dukkha" means in abhidhamma. My first > thought is that "cause" in this sense means "reason". Don't know if > that will fly or not. ... S: ‘ankhittena pa~ncupaadaanakkhandhaa dukkhaa’ - ‘briefly, the five khandhas of attachment are dukkha’. What is the ‘cause’ of the arising of the khandhas from rebirth onwards? ‘yaaya.m ta.nhaa...’- ‘Just this craving’. Metta, Sarah *p.s Howard: you were discussing metta as an object of attachment. Anything (reality or concept) can be the object of attachment with the exception of nibbana or lokuttara cittas.I think it's very common to have attachment for metta and other wholesome states like generosity, compassion and so on. ====== 32932 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 10, 2004 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Icaro, --- icarofranca wrote: > Dear Larry > > > Long time no see. Where have you been? > > As the usual japanese clerk could say at these > occasions:"Issogashii...issogashii...", that means: > > "God in heavens! I have got a feel that I suddenly catch up a > glimpse of a mind concerning about the fact that I am really very > busy on these days!" > > Japanese is a very very hard language to tame up! .... S: In the example you just gave it certainly sounds a lot more succinct than the English;-) We now have Philip to give any tips too. .... > > > > > What is dukkha ultimately? How is it conditioned by desire in > dependent > > arising? > > Following the newest reports on reality around me, Dukkha is not > dwelling today at the Edinburgh Station or at the Firth of Forth, but > only Buddha knows where is it just now! .... S: This sounds just like 'Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?'. Maybe we could make our own Buddhist version of the computer game;-). Good to see all your contributions to this thread, Icaro. I like your comments elsewhere that 'All lives, feelings, vedanas, javanas, cittas, Dhammas, Paccayas, etc that are raised up on desire (Tanha) ARE DUKKHA.' Even in 'Thought Private Property'... 'even at these realm Dukkha has the rule'. Metta, Sarah ===== 32933 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 10, 2004 3:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Hi Htoo, I did discuss this a little more with a knowledgable friend(more out of curiosity than anything else) about this. I just have a few small comments to add. Sorry for the delay. -- htootintnaing wrote: > Dear Sarah, > But 2004 calendar says 3rd May 2004 is full moon day, ... S: According to my friend, the full moon was on the evening of the 3rd, so perhaps this is why the 4th was the holiday in many countries. .... 2nd June is > full moon day, 1st July is full moon day, 31st July is full moon day > and so on. > > Time zone will only says the accurate state of fullness of the moon > but not the calendar. I am a bit confused while such cases happened. .... S: I understand that there are many different lunar calendars, eg the Chinese, the Indian, the Muslim ones etc. Different lunar calendars make adjustments as need be. E.g Chinese New Year always falls in Jan/Feb whereas Ramadan, the ninth month of the Muslim year gradually moves through the calendar so that in 30 years it occurs in all seasons (hope I’ve got that right) as strictly speaking should all lunar holidays. For the BUDDHIST CALENDAR, I found this on the net which I think helps to explain the similarities and differences in Buddhist calendars: >The Buddhist Calendar is calculated differently in various parts of the world. The most common type of Buddhist calendar is lunar and begins roughly in December or January of the Gregorian calendar. Each month is approximately 29 or 30 days, depending upon the length of the each moon. In essence the Buddhist calendar is similar to the Hindu calendar but uses a different moon to begin the New Year. Every few years an extra intercalary or leap day is added after the 7th Month. Occassionally, an extra month is added there as well. Because of this system, it is often quite difficult to predict when Buddhist holidays will be celebrated from year to year. Most areas simply use numbers for the months, an exception being Sri Lanka which has its own names. Theraveda Buddhists begin the New Year on a solar basis calculated upon the zodiac from the point at which the sun enters Aries, which is often between April 13-18. Some Buddhists use the Gregorian calendar. Mayahana Buddhists celebrate Buddha's birth, enlightenment, and death according to the Gregorian calendar. Calendar Basis: Lunar Year Basis: 543 BCE< ***** > First Bhikkhu Samahita with his Great Good Wish preached very > attractive Dhamma with only dated 4th May 2004 Happy Wesak day. > Second accesstoinsight which is my favourite site states 2nd June is > Vesak day. > > I did not know Vesak day. At first, I thought 2 years ago it meant to > be the full moon day of The First Buddha Discourse. But > accesstoinsight states that Vesak day is The Buddha birthday, > Enlightened day, and Mahaparinibbana day. ... S: This is correct. ... >Then 3rd May cannot be > wrong. Soon after I saw Vesak 4/5/2004 I checked many calendars and > they all say 3rd May. .... S:Again it depends on the lunar calendar used and whether based on the Gregorian calendar etc. I found this note: >(Similar to the Laotian and Cambodian tradition) The Thai Buddhist Calendar Visakha Puja - falls on the full moon of the sixth month of the lunar year (around the middle of May on the international calendar). It is one of the most important days for Buddhists because on this day the Lord Buddha was born, attained enlightenment, and died. All three of these significant events fell on the same day. Visakha Puja is usually celebrated with a public sermon during the day and a candle lit procession to pay respect to the Lord Buddha during the night.< .... > Again someone says at another discussion group that 2nd June is Thai > Vesakha day. I do not know Visakha day. If it is the Enlightened day > when Visakha offered food to The Live Buddha then 3rd May 2004 must > be Visakha day. Just wondering. ... S: It’s the same as Vesak or Wesak, based on a different calendar. Hope this helps a little. Metta, Sarah ===== 32934 From: Date: Mon May 10, 2004 1:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Practical View of Anatta Hi, Victor (and Phil) - I'm largely in agreement with you here. In a message dated 5/10/04 12:51:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Phil, > > I will reply in context. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Victor. Thanks for the feedback! > > > > V:> The idea "all is rupa and nama, rising and falling" is the > >>cosmology "All exists" or "Everthing exists" spoken about in > >>Samyutta Nikaya XII.48 > >>Lokayatika Sutta > >>The Cosmologist > >>http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-048.html > > > > Ph: I will refer to that sutta. I am now mostly reading Nina's > >books on Abdhidhamma, but I will be doing a lot more sutta study > in > >the future > > > > I know that referring to the prhase "all is rupa and nama, > rising > >and falling" is nothing but a kind of parroting for me at this > point, > >because I have only an intellectual understanding, with only the > >vaguest beginnings of real insight. > > > The idea "All is rupa and nama" is not insight. Seeing, for > example, the body as it actually is thus: "This is inconstant. > This is dukkha. This is not self." is insight. Seeing, for > instance, the body as it actually is with right discernment > thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." is > insight. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Agreed. The idea "All is rupa and nama" is not insight, it is just an idea, not something directly and unquivocally known. Not even truly knowable, at least as an intellectual proposition, because there remains the question as to what is "all". However ... you knew there was going to be one, eh? ;-) ... I do find that directly observing elements of experience (so-called namas and rupas) clearly, and directly seeing their radical impermanence, their unreliability for satisfaction of our wishes, the dependent nature of their existence, and their being impersonality in the sense of not being "Howard" or part of a "Howard" or under the thumb of a "Howard", constitutes insight. I don't know that we aren't in agreement on this. ------------------------------------------------- > > > What is the point of insight, seeing something as it actually is? > So one can grow dispassionate toward it. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yep. ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > [snip] > > I think speculative thought is a very seductive hindrance. > > > > Sometimes speculative thoughts, the adhamma, are mistaken as the > Dhamma. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yep. ---------------------------------------------- > > > > > And yet, > >it is necessary at some point, for beginners. I use the analogy of > an > >ESL classroom. If students don't speak out and make mistakes, they > >never make progress. Speculative thought leads to errors - asides > >from it being a hindrance even if there aren't errors. Dhamma > friends > >here will point out my errors, and the speculative thought will > >become more refined and eventually petre out (peter?). I guess. > > > > > > > > > > >>V: And the idea "there are no people in the absolute sense" is a > >>speculative thought, not in accordance to what the Buddha taught. > > > > Ph: But liberating speculative thought that has led to a better > >undertanding of annata, in my case? > > > > > The idea "there are no people in the absolute sense" has nothing to > do with insight. It is just a speculative view. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: That's true. I happen to think it's a correct view, but thinking it and repeating it forever will not produce insight. Only cultivation of sila, samadhi, and direct investigation of what arises will. ----------------------------------------------- > > > > [snip] > > As for "there are no people in the absolute sense" not being > what > >the Buddha taught, I see it in the Buddha's teaching of the > >aggregates. For me teaching that there is no self but rather > clinging > >to the aggregates is equivalent to saying there are no people in > the > >absolute sense, but I have only a beginner's understanding. > > > > > > The idea "there is no self" is a speculative view. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: But one which is validly inferable from the Buddha's teaching, as I see the matter. ---------------------------------------------- > > > > [snip] > > > > Metta, > > Phil > > 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) 32935 From: Gabriel Nunes Laera Date: Mon May 10, 2004 5:37am Subject: Hello from Brazil Dearest friends from DSG, My name is Gabriel Laera, I am 19 years old, an economics university student. I live in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. I was introduced to the Buddhism through the Kagyu school of tibetan buddhism by visiting a local temple (www.ktc.org.br). After some years of practice and studies I decided to dedicate my time to the study and practice of Theravada buddhism since it was a more inspirating practice to me. In January 2004 I visited the Buddhapadipa Temple situated in London, there I had a very inspiring contact with a kind of practice and understanding of the Dhamma. I am very happy to have found such interesting group with such profound and interesting discussions. I have founded a group which is still very small in number, most of the messages of it are text introducing the meditation according to the Dhamma of the Buddha, it is in portuguese: www.tisarana.cjb.net. Here in Rio de Janeiro, the theravada buddhism is represented in a small vihara situated on the mountains of the heart of the old city, its website is www.sbbrj.cjb.net . I hope I can learn a lot with you all. Kindest Regards, Metta, Gabriel Laera ICQ:56458224 MSN Messenger: zopatenzin@h... "Evitar todo o mal,cultivar o bem,purificar a própria mente: esse é o Ensinamento dos Buddhas." Dhp 183. 32936 From: Philip Date: Mon May 10, 2004 6:36am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Practical View of Anatta ?@?@Hello Howard, Victor and all V: > > The idea "there are no people in the absolute sense" has nothing to > > do with insight. It is just a speculative view. > > > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > That's true. I happen to think it's a correct view, but thinking it > and repeating it forever will not produce insight. Only cultivation of sila, > samadhi, and direct investigation of what arises will. > ----------------------------------------------- Ph: Thank you for putting it so clearly, Howard. After babbling out that last post before running out the door, I wished I had waited until I had the time to express my thoughts with the consideration the point Victor raised deserved. You did it for me. BTW, I do think it's interesting to think about the gradual arising of insight into reality that *might* be aided by repeating phrases and thoughts. In her book on Metta, K Sujin rejects the value of repeating phrases from the Metta sutta, but there *might* be something that happens when one repeats phrases, and churns an idea over and over again. I don't know what or how, but the process of doing so *might* assist in opening the door to the reality involved. Here in Japan, as you know, there are many Buddhist sects that place great emphasis on ritual repetition of sutra. I try to stay open-minded about them. V: > > The idea "there is no self" is a speculative view. > > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > But one which is validly inferable from the Buddha's teaching, as I > see the matter. > ---------------------------------------------- Ph: I wish I had said this, and had stopped there instead of babbling. :) Metta, Phil 32937 From: Date: Mon May 10, 2004 3:22am Subject: Concepts, Realities, and Existence: A Seemingly Trivial Story Hi, all - I'd just like to pass on an apparently trivial matter that has had a bit of an impact on me. We're "redoing" the main bathroom in our house. We've had the bathroom, basically unchanged, since we bought our house about 30 years ago. During that period of time, that bathroom, I now realize, became a "thing" in our minds. But a few days ago, over a period of 90 minutes, it disappeared. Where there had been "our bathroom" there is now a large open space surrounded at bottom, sides, and above by wooden beams and boards, sheet rock, and a view upwards towards the vaulted ceiling of our attic. The "bathroom", that "thing with an identity", is gone. Gone where? That doesn't apply. Did it *ever* truly exist? I don't think so. Moreover, neither did any of the "actualities" underlying it, at least not in any substantive sense. Soon, we will have a "new bathroom". But will we - really? No, I don't think so. And what I'm discussing here is not special in any way. It applies to *everything*! The truth of impermanence, insubstantiality, and non-identity is right here in front of us. It is everywhere we look. We just don't really see it. What I've presented here is an on-the-face-of-it silly little story. But psychologically it is more than 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) 32938 From: icarofranca Date: Mon May 10, 2004 8:48am Subject: Re: Anapanasati Sutta (again) Hi Jon > Personally, I don't find the word 'pursued' to be any more (or less) > prescriptive than 'developed' ;-)) > > ... The Anapasati Sutta has a dubious, murky conceptual singleness! No doubt at this occasion Buddha decided to stand at Savatthi more time than usual in His wanderings! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jon: > Yes, this is interesting. Thanks. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't fret, sir! Reading carefully the Anapasati Sutta gives you not only sound doctrine but it is better than Valium or Prozac! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! (just kidding, Jon!) Mettaya, ícaro 32939 From: icarofranca Date: Mon May 10, 2004 8:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] my vacation Dear Larry ( and Nina!) > Welcome back. Water is soft but rocks are hard. I hope you didn't get > bruised. When we experience hardness unpleasant feeling can arise > with it. Why does the feeling last longer than the hardness? Is the > feeling kamma result even after the hardness has ceased? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Goodness!!! Registering Conscience ( Tadaramana ) keeps the datum of this experience at Memory, giving us the illusion of permanence and a fake "Self" that suffered this event and that endows its rememberance. As Aleister Crowley could say, Anatta was the Great Idea of Buddha!!! Hinduism always took this question about nullity of Self as a point of Doctrine at Upanishads and Buddha gave it completeness, with the best results on coherent thinking! Mettaya, Ícaro > Larry > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > wrote: > > I slipped and > > landed on my back in a pool while going along a stream without a > proper path > > ( heavy going on stones, etc) and noticed (by inference, not by > direct > > awareness) how soft water is and then there was some cold. 32940 From: icarofranca Date: Mon May 10, 2004 9:04am Subject: Re: Hello from Brazil Olá, Gabriel!!! Bem vindo à mais nobre companhia de Estudantes de Dharma deste lado do Mississipi!!!! Muito bom encontrar mais um brasileiro participando do grupo... espero que você curta os papos da galera daqui. Conheço o mosteiro Theravada que fica lá em Santa Teresa, mas já faz tempo que não faço uma visita aos monges. O Centro Kagyu que você frequenta possivelmente fica também em Santa Teresa, certo ? Você poderia fornecer mais detalhes como horários, palestras e etc ? Um grande amplexo!!! Mettaya, Ícaro --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Gabriel Nunes Laera" wrote: > > Dearest friends from DSG, > > My name is Gabriel Laera, I am 19 years old, an economics university > student. I live in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. I was introduced to the Buddhism > through the Kagyu school of tibetan buddhism by visiting a local temple > (www.ktc.org.br). After some years of practice and studies I decided to > dedicate my time to the study and practice of Theravada buddhism since it > was a more inspirating practice to me. > > In January 2004 I visited the Buddhapadipa Temple situated in London, there > I had a very inspiring contact with a kind of practice and understanding of > the Dhamma. > > I am very happy to have found such interesting group with such profound and > interesting discussions. > > I have founded a group which is still very small in number, most of the > messages of it are text introducing the meditation according to the Dhamma > of the Buddha, it is in portuguese: www.tisarana.cjb.net. > > Here in Rio de Janeiro, the theravada buddhism is represented in a small > vihara situated on the mountains of the heart of the old city, its website > is www.sbbrj.cjb.net . > > I hope I can learn a lot with you all. > > Kindest Regards, > > Metta, > > Gabriel Laera > > > > ICQ:56458224 > MSN Messenger: zopatenzin@h... > > "Evitar todo o mal,cultivar o bem,purificar a própria mente: esse é o > Ensinamento dos Buddhas." Dhp 183. > 32941 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon May 10, 2004 10:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] my vacation Hi Larry, op 10-05-2004 00:53 schreef Larry op LBIDD@w...: Water is soft but rocks are hard. I hope you didn't get > bruised. N: No, it was the softest possible landing. But it was interesting, a second or so later the cold occurred, it took a while to permeate my cloths. I was so surprised. Different vipakas at different moments. Now, who finds Abhidhamma dry and uninteresting? L: When we experience hardness unpleasant feeling can arise > with it. Why does the feeling last longer than the hardness? N: The mental unpleasant (or unhappy) feeling accompanies seven javanacittas (impulsion). Moreover, after the sense-door process (in this case body-door) has ceased there is a mind-door process with another series of seven javana-cittas, still experiencing the hardness that has just fallen away. After that there may be thinking about it, with again cittas rooted in dosa accompanied by unpleasant feeling, and so on. This can go on for a long, long time. L: Is the > feeling kamma result even after the hardness has ceased? N: As I wrote before, body-consciousness that experiences hardness (in this case) is only one short moment of vipaka, and its accompanying painful feeling is also vipaka. It experiences the of the hardness. After that, aversion accompanied by mental unpleasant feeling is likely to arise, and they experience the hardness that has not fallen away yet. Rupa lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta. Aversion arises conditioned by the latent tendency of aversion. It arises and falls away and then more aversion is added to the latent tendency of aversion. The same for lobha. Nina. 32942 From: icarofranca Date: Mon May 10, 2004 10:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] my vacation Hi Nina! > N: No, it was the softest possible landing. But it was interesting, a second > or so later the cold occurred, it took a while to permeate my cloths. I was > so surprised. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Heheheh... excuse me, Nina! It ressembles too much a similar event that happened with my Old Uncle Nilsson!!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Different vipakas at different moments. Now, who finds > Abhidhamma dry and uninteresting? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. T.Rhys-Davies for sure...but not ours!!!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > N: As I wrote before, body-consciousness that experiences hardness (in this > case) is only one short moment of vipaka, and its accompanying painful > feeling is also vipaka. It experiences the of the hardness. After > that, aversion accompanied by mental unpleasant feeling is likely to arise, > and they experience the hardness that has not fallen away yet. Rupa lasts as > long as seventeen moments of citta. > Aversion arises conditioned by the latent tendency of aversion. It arises > and falls away and then more aversion is added to the latent tendency of > aversion. The same for lobha. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ...like a wave-function of Time and space! Best regards, Nina! Mettaya, Ícaro 32943 From: icarofranca Date: Mon May 10, 2004 10:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Sarah: > .... > S: In the example you just gave it certainly sounds a lot more succinct > than the English;-) We now have Philip to give any tips too. > .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah, once upon a Time... After watching so much anime on TV and eargerly reading all mangás on the nearest newsstand, I dediced to learn japanese. I was at my teens and I've managed to deal on with japanese language easily...but to read and write all the hiraganá, katakaná and Kanji proved to be more difficult than speaking and understand living japanese. I've canceled an intended travel to Japan and went out to Sweden, where I lived on 1996-1997. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Following the newest reports on reality around me, Dukkha is not > > dwelling today at the Edinburgh Station or at the Firth of Forth, but > > only Buddha knows where is it just now! > .... > S: This sounds just like 'Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?'. Maybe > we could make our own Buddhist version of the computer game;-). --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Unreal Buddha Tournament!!! See Mara's hosts unravelling all the company of heavens and Arahats, Boddhisattas, Devas and Devakis lurking, withdrawing and Coming upon them in a real Clash of Titans!!!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Good to see all your contributions to this thread, Icaro. I like your > comments elsewhere that 'All lives, feelings, vedanas, javanas, cittas, > Dhammas, Paccayas, etc that are raised up on desire (Tanha) ARE DUKKHA.' > Even in 'Thought Private Property'... 'even at these realm Dukkha has the > rule'. --------------------------------------------------------------------- It's the way I feel all these questions. While Dukkha was the keystroke of all Buddha's Dispensation, Anatta was His greater Idea, unmasquering all tipical hinduism scheme to use competence on upanishad's exegesis as a mystic touchstone. Mettaya, Ícaro 32944 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon May 10, 2004 11:21am Subject: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Dear Sarah, Thanks for your unforgotten reply :-). So 2nd June is not Visak day. Do you agree with that? I was wondering why access mentions that as Visak day. Like new year, full moon may be at any time around 24 hours. So it may be Monday evening or Tuesday morning and may be time-zone related. But 2nd June is not Visak day. Myanmar calendar has 12 months. 1st month 29 days. 2nd month 30 days. At mid month is fullmoon day and it is Vesak day. 3rd month 29 days. On 15th day, Mahasamaya Sutta was preached. 4th month 30 days. On 15th waxing moon day or full moon day is 1st BD 5th month 29 days. 6th month 30 days. 7th month 29 days. On 15th day, it is Abhidhamma day. 8th month 30 days. On 15th day, it is Kathina day ( robe offering ) 9th month 29 days. 10th month 30 days. 11th month 29 days. 12th month 30 days. On 15th day, it is Buddha Puja Day. Vesak is close to 17th April when the new year comes. 2nd June is not close to April as May does. I am considering no one is defending accesstoinsight for that date. Aprt from that accesstoinsight is a perfect site. So there are 354 days. So from solar calendar year 10 days is lept. So when there are 30 lept days, an extra 30-day month is added as 2nd 4th month. In that year, the day of The First Buddha Discourse (1st BD ) will be 1 month away from Vesak day. Thanks again for your information from your friend. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Htoo, > > I did discuss this a little more with a knowledgable friend(more out of > curiosity than anything else) about this. I just have a few small comments > to add. Sorry for the delay. > 32945 From: Date: Mon May 10, 2004 10:27am Subject: Buena Pregunta, Buena Respuesta Sergio recently completed the translation of _Good Answer, Good Question_" by Ven. Shravasti Dhammika into Spanish. You can download this book for free at http://www.cmbt.org/fdd/fddnuevas.htm. The translation was checked and approved by Ven. Nandisena, abbot and director of the Mexican Center of Theravada Buddhism. The Buddhanet comment (www.buddhanet.net) on this book is: "This is a very popular book on questions and answers on basic Buddhism. Read the answers to questions that people often ask about the Buddha's Teachings with Venerable S. Dhammika. The book covers topics such as What is Buddhism? Basic Buddhist Concepts, Buddhism and the god Idea, The Five Precepts, Rebirth, Meditation, Wisdom and Compassion, Vegetarianism, Good Luck and Fate and Becoming a Buddhist." Sergio's email address is aletheia@t... if you want to contact him. Jack 32946 From: Michelle Vellin Date: Mon May 10, 2004 10:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hello Rob, You're right, dukkha could only be overcome by noble eightfold paths. I just give the example of my experience in life to overcome dukkha, I try to follow all the path, but most of the time, it's hard. So, I just make my life simple by thinking and acting positively in accordance to the noble eightfold path. One of the hardest part in me is to do meditation, I try to do anapanasati, but still my mind was wandering everywhere. I hope all of you can give me a solution. Or Mayve rob have ever experienced that? Thanks --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Michelle, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michelle > Vellin > wrote: > > In life, I use the simplest way to prevent dukkha, > > although sometimes I can't prevent dukkha to exist > in > > my life(I'm still a human being with all the > impurity) > > . My favourite way is the positive thinking. With > the > > positive thinking in mind, we will be able to face > the > > problems around. I just try to think positively > > whenever my emotion exists in the circumstances. > But, > > the concept of anicca also should be invested in > mind, > > everything is not immortal (somebody should > correct my > > language :P). With the concept of anicca, and > always > > try think positively, I slowly can get away of > dukkha. > > Of course, there are so many ways to get out of > dukkha > > in life.....let others share their experience... > > The Buddha taught (Four Noble Truths) that dukkha > could only be > overcome by the Noble Eightfold Path. Would you say > that your > practice is roughly aligned with the Noble Eightfold > Path? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 32947 From: Gabriel Nunes Laera Date: Mon May 10, 2004 11:29am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Hello from Brazil Olá Ícaro e todos os outros brasileiros da lista, Obrigado por tão cordiais saudações. Seja auspiciosa minha participação nesta lista. O templo buddhista tibetano que conheço fica em Vargem Grande, uma área meio afastada da cidade do Rio. O endereço é www.ktc.org.br. Metta, Gabriel Laera ICQ:56458224 MSN Messenger: zopatenzin@h... "Evitar todo o mal,cultivar o bem,purificar a própria mente: esse é o Ensinamento dos Buddhas." Dhp 183. ----Original Message Follows---- From: "icarofranca" Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: Hello from Brazil Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:04:59 -0000 Olá, Gabriel!!! Bem vindo à mais nobre companhia de Estudantes de Dharma deste lado do Mississipi!!!! 32948 From: Date: Mon May 10, 2004 4:32pm Subject: Vism.XIV 77 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 77. Here, however, 'produced matter' is 'concrete matter'; the space-element is 'delimiting matter'; those from 'bodily intimation' up to 'wieldiness' are 'matter as alteration'; birth, ageing and dissolution are 'matter as characteristic'. So it is of four kinds as concrete matter and so on. 32949 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 10, 2004 4:41pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Michelle, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michelle Vellin > One of the hardest part in me is to do meditation, I > try to do anapanasati, but still my mind was wandering > everywhere. I hope all of you can give me a solution. > Or Mayve rob have ever experienced that? You ask, "Have I ever experienced a wandering mind while trying to meditate?" My answer is, "every day". I was discussing this with my meditation teacher yesterday and he reminded me that a wandering mind is bad if you are trying to do samattha meditation, but it is not a problem if you are doing vipassana meditation (as long as you remember that you are observing the mind, not following it). Metta, Rob M :-) 32950 From: Date: Mon May 10, 2004 2:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) In a message dated 5/10/04 2:33:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, m_vellin@y... writes: One of the hardest part in me is to do meditation, I try to do anapanasati, but still my mind was wandering everywhere. I hope all of you can give me a solution. Or Mayve rob have ever experienced that? I think first you need to adjust your expectations of what happens during meditation. Accept wandering mind (monkey mind as some Buddhists call it) as normal. Your job is to gently bring your mind back to the object of meditation. At first this may happen many times every minute. If you find yourself judging yourself as you did in the paragraph above, gently say to yourself, "judging mind, judging mind" and bring your attention gently back to your breath. Your mind on its own will eventually spend more and more time on the object of meditation. Don't force anything. Be gentle. Be mindful of everything that happens. There is an old Chinese proverb. If you try to keep a wild horse in a small stall, he will rebel and kick at the walls. But, keep the wild horse in a big pasture and he will accept his situation peacefully. jack 32951 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon May 10, 2004 9:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] my vacation Hi Larry, Email bouncing again? It came through to me very well. I did not think of any fluidity. I had aversion because my cloths were muddy and my hat was floating in the water. My own fault, because a sign was put up: difficult path. Muddy cloths, hat floating, sign put up: all concepts and ideas. Cold, softness, vipakacittas, aversion, these are citta, cetasika and rupa, thus, paramattha dhammas. And these are the objects of insight, so that they eventually can be realized as impermanent, dukkha, anatta. The concepts are not objects of insight. The Abhidhamma teaches paramattha dhammas and this helps us to understand what exactly can be the objects of insight development. Nina. op 10-05-2004 01:55 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Btw, I think you noticed directly through the body door that the water > was soft but noticing its fluidity was a mind-door perception. 32952 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon May 10, 2004 9:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Dear Sarah and Htoo, Yes, we also had a discussion on Pali yahoo. Ven. Ananda from India sent me good wishes for May 4. While in Belgium we watched the moon and on the Eve of May 4, thus, May 3, it seemed full. The hare was very clear (sasa jataka). Thus, we said, O.K. just the vigil. Why not celebrate the vigil. A nice idea that all over the world at different times monks are chanting for this occasion. I thought of Australia so far ahead, my friends in Bogor, those in USA always later. It is actually no problem when thinking of the world all over. We had Vesakh discussions the whole week. Nina. op 10-05-2004 12:12 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > I did discuss this a little more with a knowledgable friend(more out of > curiosity than anything else) about this. I just have a few small comments > to add. 32953 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 10, 2004 11:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello from Brazil Hi Gabriel (and Icaro - see*), Many thanks for joining us and giving such a nice introduction. As you’ve discovered already, Brazil is well-represented here. There are at least two others in lurking mode too - Leonardo and Michael. Michael lives in the States but is presently travelling in Brazil, I believe. I hope he’s back soon. This is his website: http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/ --- Gabriel Nunes Laera wrote: > > Dearest friends from DSG, > > My name is Gabriel Laera, I am 19 years old, an economics university > student. I live in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. I was introduced to the > Buddhism > through the Kagyu school of tibetan buddhism by visiting a local temple > (www.ktc.org.br). After some years of practice and studies I decided to > dedicate my time to the study and practice of Theravada buddhism since > it > was a more inspirating practice to me. .... S: This is quite amazing. Your interest must have started when you were pretty young and it’s good that you could appreciate Theravada. .... > In January 2004 I visited the Buddhapadipa Temple situated in London, > there > I had a very inspiring contact with a kind of practice and understanding > of > the Dhamma. .... S: Actually I’m English and used to live in London, so I’m familar with this Thai temple and used to sometimes visit it. Please say more about the practice and understanding you found inspiring. .... > I am very happy to have found such interesting group with such profound > and > interesting discussions. > > I have founded a group which is still very small in number, most of the > messages of it are text introducing the meditation according to the > Dhamma > of the Buddha, it is in portuguese: www.tisarana.cjb.net. ... S: I’m very glad you’ve joined us and good luck with your Portuguese group. Your English is excellent btw. ... > "Evitar todo o mal,cultivar o bem,purificar a própria mente: esse é o > Ensinamento dos Buddhas." Dhp 183. ... An excellent signature line: “Not to do any evil, to cultivate good, to purify one’s mind, - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.’ For reference, also see: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Postshttp://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst Hope you and any other new (or old) members might consider adding a pic too. Metta, Sarah *p.s I hope you and Icaro can converse here in English so we can all benefit;-) Don’t be led astray by him into jungles, boot-camps and testing out all Chomsky’s linguistic theories;-). ============================================== 32954 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 11, 2004 0:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Pali Sutta Portion Hi Howard (& RobM* & Icaro**), I was interested in a couple of points here: --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Rob - R:> > It seems to me that compassion is also a part of the Theravada > > tradition but receives less emphasis than it does in the Mahayana > > tradition. > > > ====================== H: > Yes, there are some differences in emphasis, particularly as > regards > compassion and emptiness, though Theravada is quite strong on each of > these. > But a distinct doctrinal difference exists as well: The Mahayanists > accept the > possibility of a Buddha-to-be holding off on complete enlightenment > virtually > indefinitely - more than seven lifetimes - for the purpose of > compassionately > helping sentient beings, whereas Theravada seems to accept seven > lifetimes as a > maximum for any stream enterer, including a bodhisatta. .... S: The Bodhisatta wasn’t a stream enterer and lived for incalculable aeons (kalpas? I forget all the numbers) as a Bodhisatta developing the paramis before his last life. ... There is even > the > implication of Mahayana accepting the possibility of a Buddha choosing > further > births, even births in hell realms, impelled not by desire, but by > compassion. > It is that notion that, with a big stretch, one might see as being > suggested in > the sutta portion that says "Bhikkhus, a certain person is born in the > world > for the welfare and pleasantness of gods and men. Who is it? It is the > Thus > Gone One, worthy and rightfully enlightened, born out of compassion for > the > world." .... S: By conditions. The fulfillment of the great wish to become a Buddha and to face all the great hardships involved out of compassion. All the sufficient conditions had to be in place at the time of making the great wish. Still no self deciding. I also seem to recall rebirths in hell planes but can’t think of any references. Can anyone help me with this? Metta, Sarah *p.s RobM - very clear and helpful posts on ‘killing’ and ‘moha’ imho. Howard, I think when we read that ‘all conditioned phenomena are suffering’, it means all conditioned phenomena are impermanent and thereby inherently unsatisfactory. **I also couldn’t follow Icaro’s logic when he seemed to be suggesting that akusala cittas and cetasikas were NOT paramattha dhammas. Nor could I follow his idea from the Dhammasangani : “What are the Kusala Dhammas? The Five bhumisu vipakas, the three components, Rupa and Nibbana.” Icaro, I think you need to check or give me a reference. There’s something very fishy here and I can’t check now as Jon must have the Dhammasangani somewhere.... ===== 32955 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 11, 2004 1:06am Subject: Self-views (was: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana) Hi Suravira (Andrew & All), >As regards my current focus on the > dharma, I am preparing a series of scripts (for broadcast on our > local public access channel) on the practices of Dana & Sila. On the > advise of Venerable Bhikkhu Buddha Rakkhita, the program series on > Buddhism is following the general sequence of teachings given by > Buddha to lay practioners - 1st Dana, next Sila and then Bhavana. ... S: thank you very much for telling us about the program series which sounds very interesting and a lot of work. Pls be sure to tell us, especially the American members, when these are broadcast and so on. Another (Australian) friend of ours mentioned recently that he is producing a television series based on ‘What the Buddha Taught’. I’m also finding your discussions with Andrew useful. Can we say that whatever the date or culture, all self-views consist of the same 20 sakkaya-ditthi* and that all other wrong views as we read about in the Brahmajala Sutta are based on these same self-views that have to be understood and eradicated first? Metta, Sarah * From Nyantiloka’s dict: sakkáya-ditthi 'personality-belief', is the first of the 10 fetters (samyojana). It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of Stream-winning (sotápatti-magga; s. ariya-puggala). There are 20 kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha): * (1-5) the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness; * (6-10) to be contained in them; * (11-15) to be independent of them; * (16-20) to be the owner of them (M.44; S.XXII.1). ======================================= 32956 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 11, 2004 1:20am Subject: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Pali Sutta Portion Hello Sarah, all, In the Jataka Tales Book XXII Mahaanipaata NO. 538 Muuga-pakkha Jaataka "Now the Bodhisatta, after having reigned twenty years in Benares, had been reborn in the Ussada hell where he suffered eighty thousand years, and had then been born in the world of the thirty-three gods." metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time------ In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah > > I also seem to recall rebirths in hell planes but can't think of any > references. Can anyone help me with this? > 32957 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 11, 2004 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran Thanks Hi Steve (& Nina), --- bodhi2500 wrote: > The pali for "immobility of the mind" is 'cetaso liinatta.m' which > seems to refer to the 'Sloth and Torpor' aspect of the 5 hindrances. > The Dispeller of Delusion: 'And mental lassitude'(cetaso ca > liinatta.m) is a name for the sluggish state of mind. .... S: yes, I found this. .... > Tayodhammasutta.m. > Bhikkhus, without dispelling three things, it is not possible to > dispel the view of a self, doubts and grasping virtues as the highest > aim. What three? Unwise attention, practising in the wrong path and > the mind's immobility, Bhikkhus, without dispelling these three > things, it is not possible to dispel the view of a self, doubts and > grasping virtues as the highest aim. .... S: Interesting. Could you kindly give a reference for this sutta? Of course, when there are sloth and torpor, there is no kusala viriya to which they are opposed. No kusala viriya for dana, sila or bhavana at those moments. Also, unwise attention is the proximate cause of sloth and torpor, so they are closely connected and only eradicated by the arahant. .... > One query i have is in regards to the pa~n~na of a jhana > practitioner. It is said that to attain jhana there must be a very > high degree of Pa~n~na(Right View) that is able to discern kusala > from akusala mental states. .... S: Yes. .... C:> > One of us wondered, "Is Right View a synonym for Panna in ALL > > cases? What kind of Right View arises outside the Buddha's > > dispensation? e.g. in Jhana practitioners before the Buddha? Steve:>To me, this sounds like there must be > some kind of satipatthanic insight(but without anatta insight?) into > kusala and akusala paramattha dhammas? ... S: You ask the toughest questions, Steve. Nina may add more. No satipatthanic insight is necessary or was developed by those who hadn’t heard the Buddha’s teachings. Even Sariputta for all his great accomplishments and knowledges and fine discernment of kusala and akusala states before he heard the Dhamma, had not developed satipatthana at all, not even reaching the first stage of insight before hearing the teachings as I understand. There cannot be any development of satipatthana without direct awareness and understanding of paramattha dhammas. However, as you know, sati accompanies all wholesome states and there are different kinds of panna, including the highly developed panna involved in the attainment of jhanas. This panna, however, (in samatha development and jhana attainment) has concepts as objects with the two exceptions being the two arupabrahma jhana cittas I mentioned before*. For example, metta may be the object of samatha now, but it’s a concept or image based on the experience of cittas arising with metta as I see it.At a moment of satipatthana, it is direct understanding of the presently arising metta. I'll really welcome any further input of yours (or anyone else's) here. Metta, Sarah * I was having a discussion with Nina about this interesting point. I listened to the relevant part of a recent discussion with K.Sujin and she clearly said there are only two paramattha dhammas as objects of samatha as I discussed before (post 326190. On the elements as an example, she said that as object of samatha, it’s the image (nimitta) or concept, not the reality. Nina, I double-checked all the other points I reported concerning navatabba arammana (not so classifiable objects) and I think what I said was correctly recalled, eg mind door process following eye door process etc. ‘It’s exactly the same’(as the other examples such as the other cittas taking nibbana as object and so on which are paramattha dhammas by way of navatabba arammana) because the sense object has fallen away. ‘We cannot say it’s different from the previous one but cannot say it’s exactly the same.’ I’ll be interested to hear what you find in the Thai and other texts. =============== 32958 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue May 11, 2004 2:27am Subject: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: Dear Sarah and Htoo, Yes, we also had a discussion on Pali yahoo. Ven. Ananda from India sent me good wishes for May 4.While in Belgium we watched the moon and on the Eve of May 4, thus, May 3,it seemed full. It is actually no problem when thinking of the world all over. We had Vesakh discussions the whole week. Nina. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Nina, Thanks for you message and your thought on Vesak. As the whole week is in discussion then kusala arises in the whole week which is much better rather than talking on this date is yes and this date is no. I can see the neutrality in your message and it is a cool message that always comes from you. Thanks for your kind wish on Dhamma friends and your expounding Dhamma whenever there arises confusion. With Metta, Htoo Naing 32959 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 11, 2004 2:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Pali Sutta Portion Hi Chris, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello Sarah, all, > > In the Jataka Tales Book XXII Mahaanipaata NO. 538 Muuga-pakkha > Jaataka > > "Now the Bodhisatta, after having reigned twenty years in Benares, > had been reborn in the Ussada hell where he suffered eighty thousand > years, and had then been born in the world of the thirty-three gods." .... S: That was quick and efficient. I was looking for a chart I've seen which lists all reported rebirths of the Bodhisatta, including those in the Jatakas. Have you seen it? I forget if I saw it in a text (an intro) or on line? Maybe it's even in U.P., I forget. Metta, Sarah ====== 32960 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue May 11, 2004 2:30am Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Rob, Yesterday a couple of things were disturbing me, both of which lasted till the end of the day. Today things are different, so I look back at my post I wrote to you yesterday with some regret. I take back what I said in the end about possibly not wanting to continue this thread, sorry for that. :-) > I am still looking for a principled reason why reading in order to > understand is inherently different in intent or character from sitting > in order to understand. Why is intellectual understanding as an > intention better than sitting to follow Buddha's words and allow > discernment to arise? To the same extent that one can allow > intellectual understanding to arise and allow moments of direct > understanding, however weak, to arise, same can be said for sitting to > allow observation and discernment to take place. So what is the > inherent difference, assuming that one can have Right View or Wrong > View in either case? I have the following view; let me know what you think. The reason that we need to listen to or read about dhammas, is that it provides us with a level of understanding about the nature of realities. I believe we are constantly interpreting our experiences; however there is always some lingering doubt with regard to whether or not we really understand. And this seems to reach out to and cover other aspects of life. So for me, reading is done with the idea that there is a better explanation about the nature of experience. Like most people, I had been satisfied with all kinds of explanations evolving from wrong view. The Buddha's teachings, particularly the Abhidhamma aspect of it, are not only the most convincing explanation so far, but it points to present moment experiences which can to some degree be verified. It is not just a theory that I need to project on to experiences, as every other teaching has been. Here it is *understanding* which is accompanied by a level of detachment, whereas other teachings and theories only causes to be further caught in conceptualizations and always with a degree of attachment. The understanding is `conceptual', but they point to this moment of experience, and this already makes a world of a difference in terms of confidence and ground for further understanding. And this is why any "doing" in time and involving the illusory `self' is seen as being misguided. But what about paying attention now? Well, when the idea comes to the mind about paying attention to the momentary phenomena, even this is an `idea', a concept "about" now. The moment has already fallen away, but we want to catch it. What dominates at this point is the desire to `see', and here we have planted the seed for the illusion of result. If our practice is all about `understanding', then it understands what "appears" and does not seek more. If this happens only for a fraction of a second, followed by the usual set of akusala, then we must understand that this is how it is and supposed to be, given the unlimited store of akusala. And what appears may be the `thought' about realities, and so this can be known too! However because desire always points to something other than what is the arising dhamma, this `thinking' will not be seen. Instead we have been caught in the story which is the object of this thinking. And this can be thinking about thinking even. And with the expectation of seeing the Tilakkhana and other characteristics, we will perceive a conceptual expression of these. This is possible, just as we cannot deny that objects don't last and beings are born and die, so too when thoughts, feelings, sounds and so on appear to arise and subside, the knowledge is formed. However, this is not the development of panna, because this too is just concept, though because it seems micro compared to the macro births and deaths in the conventional world, if we mistake these as being the actual perception of rise and fall of namas and rupas, then we are going to be fooled for a long time. And when one talks about `allowing things to happen' or `being without' expectations, even these are ideas centered on self. The self can't decide to be detached; this is the function of panna when on understanding a dhamma, sees nothing to hold on to. Any such idea about `letting go' and so on, is an instance of wrong view which does not see that dhammas can't be held on to, to begin with. If panna arises and knows attachment for instance, it does not need to be told to `let go'. So how are the two different, reading and listening on the one hand, and formal meditation and trying to catch realities on the other? Intellectual understanding implies also that this is different from direct understanding of realities. It understands on this level that realities arise and fall in an instant. That sati and panna arises not because of any concentrated activity, these being vague `conceptual ideas' formed as a result of either not knowing intellectually about the nature of realities and/or sincerely believing that the Buddha taught such a practice. As an intended activity it approaches written words or sound without any expectation of what these will convey. But more importantly what is `understood' subsequently is seen as purely conceptual with no thought that the `real' thing is known. Formal meditation does not acknowledge this kind of distinction; it believes that it directly knows realities, when in fact it does not. And now I will leave it to you to figure out what the implications of this are. ;-) This I think is enough for now. I may write more tomorrow. Metta, Sukin. 32961 From: Eznir Date: Tue May 11, 2004 3:02am Subject: Re: Concepts, Realities, and Existence: A Seemingly Trivial Story Dear All, It was in the news recently that a Picasso's(?) painting was auctioned for some millions of dollars, supposed to be the costliest painting ever, paid by a collector! But consider this: The canvas and the paint material used, together with the labour would only have cost a few dollars. What the collector have actually paid for is the 'sankharic value' of the paint! Just for the story behind it! Which we all know is next to nothing! :-)) metta eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > I'd just like to pass on an apparently trivial matter that has had a > bit of an impact on me. > We're "redoing" the main bathroom in our house. We've had the > bathroom, basically unchanged, since we bought our house about 30 years ago. During > that period of time, that bathroom, I now realize, became a "thing" in our > minds. But a few days ago, over a period of 90 minutes, it disappeared. Where there > had been "our bathroom" there is now a large open space surrounded at bottom, > sides, and above by wooden beams and boards, sheet rock, and a view upwards > towards the vaulted ceiling of our attic. The "bathroom", that "thing with an > identity", is gone. Gone where? That doesn't apply. Did it *ever* truly exist? > I don't think so. Moreover, neither did any of the "actualities" underlying > it, at least not in any substantive sense. Soon, we will have a "new bathroom". > But will we - really? No, I don't think so. And what I'm discussing here is > not special in any way. It applies to *everything*! The truth of impermanence, > insubstantiality, and non-identity is right here in front of us. It is > everywhere we look. We just don't really see it. > What I've presented here is an on-the-face-of-it silly little story. > But psychologically it is more than that. > > With metta, > Howard > 32962 From: Date: Tue May 11, 2004 1:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi, Sukin (and Rob) - In a message dated 5/11/04 5:54:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@k... writes: > I have the following view; let me know what you think. > The reason that we need to listen to or read about dhammas, is that it > provides us with a level of understanding about the nature of realities. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: We don't know that for a fact. What it provides us with is a level of belief, as does any other theory. ---------------------------------------- I > > believe we are constantly interpreting our experiences; however there > is always some lingering doubt with regard to whether or not we really > understand. And this seems to reach out to and cover other aspects of > life. So for me, reading is done with the idea that there is a better > explanation about the nature of experience. Like most people, I had > been satisfied with all kinds of explanations evolving from wrong view. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: The detailed picture painted by Abhidhamma is one of many "explanations". For that matter, so is the picture painted by the Sutta Pitaka, but what is emphasized there is a training program that one may try in order to "come and see," directly, for oneself. ------------------------------------------- > The Buddha's teachings, particularly the Abhidhamma aspect of it, are > not only the most convincing explanation so far, but it points to present > moment experiences which can to some degree be verified. It is not just > a theory that I need to project on to experiences, as every other > teaching has been. Here it is *understanding* which is accompanied by > a level of detachment, whereas other teachings and theories only > causes to be further caught in conceptualizations and always with a > degree of attachment. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Here we are in agreement. --------------------------------------------- > > The understanding is `conceptual', but they point to this moment of > experience, and this already makes a world of a difference in terms of > confidence and ground for further understanding. And this is why > any "doing" in time and involving the illusory `self' is seen as being > misguided. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: There *must* be doing, whether we put 'doing' in quotes or not. If nothing special is done, then one is merely left with belief, and belief will not liberate. ------------------------------------------- > > But what about paying attention now? Well, when the idea comes to the > mind about paying attention to the momentary phenomena, even this is > an `idea', a concept "about" now. The moment has already fallen away, > but we want to catch it. What dominates at this point is the desire > to `see', and here we have planted the seed for the illusion of result. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: We have also planted the seed to be constantly mindful, guarding the senses, and not just playing an impossible game of "catch up". To be mindful, attentive, and clearly comprehending requires intention, effort, and vigilence. ------------------------------------------------ If > > our practice is all about `understanding', then it understands > what "appears" and does not seek more. If this happens only for a > fraction of a second, followed by the usual set of akusala, then we must > understand that this is how it is and supposed to be, given the unlimited > store of akusala. And what appears may be the `thought' about realities, > and so this can be known too! > > However because desire always points to something other than what is > the arising dhamma, this `thinking' will not be seen. Instead we have > been caught in the story which is the object of this thinking. And this can > be thinking about thinking even. And with the expectation of seeing the > Tilakkhana and other characteristics, we will perceive a conceptual > expression of these. This is possible, just as we cannot deny that > objects don't last and beings are born and die, so too when thoughts, > feelings, sounds and so on appear to arise and subside, the knowledge > is formed. > However, this is not the development of panna, because this too is just > concept, though because it seems micro compared to the macro births > and deaths in the conventional world, if we mistake these as being the > actual perception of rise and fall of namas and rupas, then we are going > to be fooled for a long time. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: If what you are saying here is that mentally rehearsing what is supposed to be the nature of what one is observing is no substitute for intent observing, itself, then I agree. -------------------------------------- > > And when one talks about `allowing things to happen' or `being without' > expectations, even these are ideas centered on self. The self can't > decide to be detached; this is the function of panna when on > understanding a dhamma, sees nothing to hold on to. Any such idea > about `letting go' and so on, is an instance of wrong view which does > not see that dhammas can't be held on to, to begin with. If panna arises > and knows attachment for instance, it does not need to be told to `let > go'. > > So how are the two different, reading and listening on the one hand, > and formal meditation and trying to catch realities on the other? > ------------------------------------------- Howard: When meditating, formally or otherwise, one doesn't (or shouldn't) try to "catch realities". One simply attends to the flow of experience, with some degree or other of restrictedness, and with as much intent, energy, mindfulness, and attention as one can muster. With the cooperation of other conditions, this cultivates the mind, strengthening useful mental factors. ------------------------------------------- > Intellectual understanding implies also that this is different from direct > understanding of realities. It understands on this level that realities > arise > and fall in an instant. That sati and panna arises not because of any > concentrated activity, these being vague `conceptual ideas' formed as a > result of either not knowing intellectually about the nature of realities > and/or sincerely believing that the Buddha taught such a practice. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Please excuse my bluntness on this point, but I think this is nonsense. The Buddha most assuredly taught practices for cultivating the mind, and sati and pa~n~na do not develop and strengthen randomly. Of course "realities arise and fall in an instant," but they always arise and fall due to conditions, not randomly, and the Buddha most explicitly provided techniques for us to practice, genuine *actions* (!) to carry out, to cultivate such conditions. ------------------------------------------- As an > > intended activity it approaches written words or sound without any > expectation of what these will convey. But more importantly what > is `understood' subsequently is seen as purely conceptual with no > thought that the `real' thing is known. Formal meditation does not > acknowledge this kind of distinction; it believes that it directly knows > realities, when in fact it does not. > ----------------------------------- Howard: Formal meditation does nothing of the sort - "it" does not believe that it "directly knows realities" or anything else. Formal meditation is a cultivating activity, pure and simple. The results will be what they will be. The proof is in the pudding. Ehipassika. ------------------------------------ > And now I will leave it to you to figure out what the implications of this > are. ;-) > > This I think is enough for now. I may write more tomorrow. > > 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) 32963 From: Date: Tue May 11, 2004 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Sarah, Here is my response to your questions below. First, I think the Buddha did "break up unified processes into many different categories as teaching tools." I explained myself as best I could and can't think of anything else to say without repeating myself. Second, you ask what is unconditioned mind and self-determination. The Buddha does talk about conditioned mind and unconditioned mind. I suggest you go to the teachings for an answer here. As for self-determination, the Buddha is continually teaching people to do this or do that, for instance, follow the 8-Fold Path. I think self-determination is our following the Buddha's teachings and making those decisions. I know you feel differently. As for the rest, I did the best I could expressing myself and can't think of anything to add without repeating myself. Be well. jack Hi Jack again;-), --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > I believe that there is just seeing. (I don't deny that there is > something > out there apart from us that is seen.) Seeing consciousness and visible > object > is a dualistic and useful way to break up this non-dualistic process. > Another > way of saying it is that if we don't have an "I" sense, there is no more > > subject (I) or object (that which is seen), there is just seeing. .... S: So when we read about visible objects, sounds etc as the external ayatanas (sense fields), experienced by seeing consciousness etc to be clearly understood, do you take these merely as references to a ‘dualistic and useful way to break up this non-dualistic process’? SN35:4 “ ‘Bhikkhus, forms are impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering (*Note Howard and Larry - all realities except nibbana as dukkha). What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self.’ ‘Sounds...Odours...Tastes....Tactile objects....Mental phenomena (dhammaayatana) are impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ “ Seeing and visible objects have their own distinct characteristics. The former is a nama and the latter is a rupa. They have to be clearly distinguished and known. When we read in other suttas, like the Bahiya sutta, Udana 1:10, expresions such as: “There, Baahiya, you should so train yourself that with respect to the seen there will be merely the seen...â€?, it means that with regard to the visible object appearing at that time, there should be awareness and guarding of the sense doors rather than attachment or other kilesa arrising. .... > The Buddha, in my opinion, broke unified processes into many different > categories as teaching tools. For instance, in some teachings he broke a > person into > 5 aggregates. This was arbitrary in the sense that a person could be > broken > into other categories. The Buddha used these dualistic concepts to > communicate > and teach. Sometimes he did not use concepts. .... S: It seems that when I read the Buddha to be talking about realities - seeing, visible object, the aggregates, for example, you read him to be talking about concepts. Do you read ‘unified processes’ or ‘wholes’ such as the ‘non-dualistic’ combination of seeing and seen or person here as realities or concepts? I’d like to understand more clearly what you see as each. When the Buddha talks about the impermanence of visible objects and sounds (above), can there be impermanence of concepts? .... > jack: No disagreement if there is also room for self determination, > i.e., > choices to be made. One can make decisions out of unconditioned mind. ... S: What is the unconditioned mind and what is this self-determination? .... > jack: I do use awareness and watching as synonyms. When one is "just > sitting" > without defilements, one is aware naturally and without purpose. One has > to > have a lot of practice under one's belt in order to "just sit" without > defilements. .... S: Even for one second! ... > jack: I think there is a personal responsibility and ability to make > decisions. Throughout the suttas, the Buddha is talking about decisions > and training > one's mind. .... S: I’m sorry, but when I read about ‘watching’, ‘personal responsibility’ or self to bring about non-self, it sounds as if you or others are agreeing that there are conditions and causes but initially there’s a self to do something. We know that whether or not we ever hear of the Buddha’s teachings, there is never a self in truth, merely a wrong idea that there is. .... > jack: Yes I am saying there has to be conscious training/practice in > order to > reach a stage where there is no special wish or intention. I am clear > what > your position is. After all this, I hope you are clear on my position. .... S: Yes. Actually I haven’t had any difficulty understanding your position -- it's very familiar -- but I’m trying to find ways to discuss it in order to find some agreement;-).In other words, I’m just exploring our positions further, especially in the light of the teaching on anatta. I'll look forward to any of your further comments. Hope this one is not too frustrating. Metta, Sarah 32964 From: icarofranca Date: Tue May 11, 2004 7:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Pali Sutta Portion Dear Sarah: > **I also couldn't follow Icaro's logic when he seemed to be suggesting > that akusala cittas and cetasikas were NOT paramattha dhammas. Nor could I > follow his idea from the Dhammasangani : "What are the Kusala Dhammas? The > Five bhumisu vipakas, the three components, Rupa and Nibbana." Icaro, I > think you need to check or give me a reference. There's something very > fishy here and I can't check now as Jon must have the Dhammasangani > somewhere.... --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah, I can guarantee you that the last stanzas of Dhammasangani states such passages at a direct way: Kusala Dhammas are classified taxonomically as the five Bhumisu Vipakas, three components, Rupa and Nibbana (corrections are welcome, since I left my PTS Dhammasangani edition at home, but amy interested can check it out on www.tipitaka.org). My thesis is that Dukkha hasn´t any deal with the Paramattha Dhammas, since its scope goes further on the relativity of concepts - the fertile ground where Dukkha buddeth forth. As the Aristotle´s Praedicamenta, the Paramattha Dhammas are the ultimate "Ordinatio", "Niyama" or coherent and ordered classification of all external world ( our minds included )untill the final goal, the Nibbana. I just like some moralistic tinges, so I consider unwholesome or Akusala Cetasikas as non-deserving to enter the ranks of the Ultimate Realities...since its akusala patterns are mere relative and limited concepts at the last end. Mettaya, Ícaro 32965 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 11, 2004 7:05am Subject: Correction (was Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran Thanks) Hi All, A couple of corrections: --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Steve (& Nina), > S: You ask the toughest questions, Steve. Nina may add more. No > satipatthanic insight is necessary or was developed by those who hadn’t > heard the Buddha’s teachings. >Even Sariputta for all his great > accomplishments and knowledges and fine discernment of kusala and > akusala > states before he heard the Dhamma, had not developed satipatthana at > all, .... *S2 I’d like to stress ‘in that lifetime’. .... <....> > For example, metta may be the object > of > samatha now, but it’s a concept or image based on the experience of > cittas > arising with metta as I see it. .... *S2 Correction - I’d like to re-write this on reflection: ‘For example, person or people (concepts) are the object of metta or the other divine abidings. Reflecting on the value or quality of metta may also be recollection of the Dhamma (another object of samatha), one of the 10 recollections.’ Metta and any other corrections welcome! Sarah ====== 32966 From: nana_palo Date: Tue May 11, 2004 7:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Dear Nina and all, we, here in Bogor, celebrated Vesak on May, and so do Indonesian, but the Indonesian National Calendar Date in Indonesia is wrong. Perhaps still remain so many people will celebrate Vesak by June 04. Happy Vesak, May 3, 2004. metta, selamat rodjali ----- Original Message ----- From: "nina van gorkom" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! > Dear Sarah and Htoo, > Yes, we also had a discussion on Pali yahoo. Ven. Ananda from India sent me > good wishes for May 4. > While in Belgium we watched the moon and on the Eve of May 4, thus, May 3, > it seemed full. The hare was very clear (sasa jataka). Thus, we said, O.K. > just the vigil. Why not celebrate the vigil. A nice idea that all over the > world at different times monks are chanting for this occasion. I thought of > Australia so far ahead, my friends in Bogor, those in USA always later. It > is actually no problem when thinking of the world all over. We had Vesakh > discussions the whole week. > Nina. > op 10-05-2004 12:12 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > > > I did discuss this a little more with a knowledgable friend(more out of > > curiosity than anything else) about this. I just have a few small comments > > to add. 32967 From: robmoult Date: Tue May 11, 2004 7:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Pali Sutta Portion Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > There is even > > the > > implication of Mahayana accepting the possibility of a Buddha choosing > > further > > births, even births in hell realms, impelled not by desire, but by > > compassion. > > It is that notion that, with a big stretch, one might see as being > > suggested in > > the sutta portion that says "Bhikkhus, a certain person is born in the > > world > > for the welfare and pleasantness of gods and men. Who is it? It is the > > Thus > > Gone One, worthy and rightfully enlightened, born out of compassion for > > the > > world." > .... > S: By conditions. The fulfillment of the great wish to become a Buddha and > to face all the great hardships involved out of compassion. All the > sufficient conditions had to be in place at the time of making the great > wish. Still no self deciding. > > I also seem to recall rebirths in hell planes but can't think of any > references. Can anyone help me with this? In the Mahapadana Sutta (DN 14), the Buddha mentioned that the Pure Abodes were the only planes of existence where he had never been (so he decided to pay a visit). This makes sense because only Anagamis or Arahants are born in these realms and once born in these realms a subsequent birth outside of these realms is not possible. I believe (I am on the road, so I don't have my commentary with me, so please check Sarah) that the commentary says that the Buddha meant that he had been reborn in each of the other realms (and this includes the hell realms) during His wandering through Samsara. This is indirect evidence of the Buddha having been born in hell realms. Metta, Rob M :-) 32968 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue May 11, 2004 10:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] my vacation Dear Icaro, op 10-05-2004 19:20 schreef icarofranca op icarofranca@y...: > Mr. T.Rhys-Davies for sure...but not ours!!!! N: Let's be fair, she translated many suttas and at that time she had no internet. She had not the opportunity to learn Abhidhamma and that was why she thought it a valley of dry bones. So, the Dhammasangani is not well translated, unreadable. I am just ordering now the Pali, I have enough of this translation. Any sentence of Visuddhimagga in Pali you like to discuss? Or of the Dhammasangani? You have not much time, but what about studying just one sentence at a time? I liked to see your Portuguese. You feel more free and happy in your own language, I notice this. I copied this one: "Evitar todo o mal,cultivar o bem,purificar a própria mente: esse é o Ensinamento dos Buddhas." Dhp 183. Portuguese is beautiful. We cannot evitar o mal and cultivar o bem without knowing in detail the different cittas, kusala and akusala. We need Abhidhamma! Learning the main principles and cultivar o satipatthana. And then: purificar a própria mente. How? By insight development, or satipatthana. This is the solution. Actually, we can learn to be truthful, sincere, so that we do not delude ourselves, taking akusala for kusala. Taking selfish affection for metta. We have to find out all this in the situation of daily life, when we are with other people. Nina. 32969 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue May 11, 2004 10:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Larry and Sarah, op 10-05-2004 11:19 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > L: > I had another thought. I forgot that dukkha is a concept, as is >> impermanence and anatta. Even Nina accepts this:-))) S: Concepts are imagined or conceptualised only. N: We have to make fine distinctions when using the term concept. It denotes an idea that is not a paramattha dhamma, it can also stand for something that is paramattha dhamma. It can also be a term or word used to express an idea or a paramattha dhamma. It has many meanings. When we explain in general that this is a paramattha dhamma and that is a concept we mean by concept a non-paramattha dhamma. Larry is referring to Vis. XXI, 5-8 which I quoted. The footnote says that characteristics are asabhaava dhammas, and also: Thus, here conceptual differences, pa~n~natti visesaa, does not mean: characteristics are an illusion, or they are not true. We have to look at the context when we hear: pa~n~natti visesaa. It is a description (pa~n~natti) that indicates the distinction (visesaa) between these three characteristics. Thus, in this context we have this meaning. > S: Anicca, dukkha and anatta are NOT concepts. They are characteristics of > realities,i.e part and parcel of those realities. I’m quite sure you won’t > find Nina anywhere to have suggested they are concepts:-))) N: True. As the Vis states: they are not separate from the aggregates because they are unapprehendable without them. To understand what they are, we should not cling to words or definitions, as A. Sujin often says. I try to elaborate on this in an unconventional way. Let us not stare at definitions and words. Characteristics tell you the truth of paramattha dhammas, they are not imagination or an illusion. They can be directly realized without words when panna has come to that stage. We take hearing for me, but it should be understood *as a reality*. It is conditioned, it is only nama, not my hearing. Only nama: this means anatta. It is nama, not self. Panna can directly realize this without thinking: it is conditioned, and without thinking of the word nama. This is possible when one has got used to the characteristic of nama by being aware over and over again. Or: it is only rupa, not my body. It is only hardness, not self. Only hardness, only rupa, not mine or self. Panna can know this directly without thinking of the word rupa. Again, this is possible when one has got used to the characteristic of rupa by being aware over and over again. Nina. 32970 From: icarofranca Date: Tue May 11, 2004 0:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] my vacation Hi Nina! So, the Dhammasangani is not well > translated, unreadable. I am just ordering now the Pali, I have enough of > this translation. --------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll do the same soon! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Any sentence of Visuddhimagga in Pali you like to discuss? --------------------------------------------------------------------- A curious remark about The Visuddhimagga, good to be remembered, Nina! My time is short, but I've already read Vism Chapter II and its unique and very interesting thesis about ascetic practices. Buddhaghosa defined very well all grades and types of ascetic actions, demonstrating that at the Buddhism the Middle Path is really Paramount. How a christian thinks about Vigil, for example ? A Brave knight must to spend all night in Prayer and the own Buddha stands all night till the morning star shines at the horizon. But what says Buddhaghosa about it ? He writes that you must only go afar the city - the distance of a stone throwed off your gates - and contemplate the very instant the Sun rises at the morning. That's all the vigil. Well... once I awake very early at morning and jogged a little at streets. After some minutes running, sweat pouring out my skin, I saw the very red sun rising slowly at the horizon... and the morning breeze refreshing my complexion... wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Or of the > Dhammasangani? You have not much time, but what about studying just one > sentence at a time? --------------------------------------------------------------------- I am promising this to myself so many times these days. The Matika, the first chapter, I can manage to deal on without so much difficulty. But the others, with that questions and answers scheme, require a bit more expertise on Pali!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------- > I liked to see your Portuguese. You feel more free and happy in your own > language, I notice this. ------------------------------------------------------------------- It's my original language, anyway! --------------------------------------------------------------------- I copied this one: > "Evitar todo o mal,cultivar o bem,purificar a própria mente: esse é o > Ensinamento dos Buddhas." Dhp 183. > Portuguese is beautiful. --------------------------------------------------------------------- As the usual master Zen would say, "Evitar todo o mal, cultivar o bem e purificar a própria mente: esse é o Ensinamento dos Buddhas"is so easy that even a child can understanding it, but it's at the same time so difficult that even an old man can find out infinite obstacles to put it in daily life action!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Actually, we can learn to be truthful, sincere, so that we do not delude > ourselves, taking akusala for kusala. Taking selfish affection for metta. We > have to find out all this in the situation of daily life, when we are with > other people. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ditto!!! Mettaya, ícaro 32971 From: icarofranca Date: Tue May 11, 2004 0:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] my vacation Typo > Well... once I awake very early at morning ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It was wonderful, but I AWOKE very early at Morning... (Nibbana, Nibbana... when I finally reach your shores I'll burn out all these mistakes and typos!!!) Mettaya, Ícaro 32972 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue May 11, 2004 6:03pm Subject: Phra Dhammardharo ; was Tiika Dear Nina, Sorry about such a delay in replying to this post where you have answered my query and yes, it is clearer, thank you. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Azita, > op 25-04-2004 08:29 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...: > >> ***** > > >> As to kamma-born these are here the eight faculties which are solely > [snip] > I hope this makes sense. > Another question: I just heard that you have been listening for a year each > evening to the late Phra Dhammadaro. Could you make your sa~n~naa work and > dig up some things you learnt? Did you make notes? > And what did you learn now in Bgk? > Nina. Now I wonder where you heard that from!!! Yes, we practically knew everyone in that little soi that led to Wat Pleng. In the early days there was a core group of about 4-5 young westerners, so the people who lived there were quite intrigued, especially with the pretty, blond, shy Evan, from NZ, who is still a monk - somewhere. He was very popular with the women in the soi, was always being given sweeties or something. Susie from Canada, with her winning smile, made a few friends along there too. Me, the mop-haired Aussie and Paul, who is now Chittapala, also Aussie, with a great chuckle; we would sit around on the floor in a room esp. allotted to dhamma group and ask various questions and Phra Alan [wearing his most severe facial expressions] would constantly bring the topic back to nama and rupa, to citta, cetasika and rupa, that there is seeing now, hearing now, feeling now. We talked a lot about the development of Satipatthana e.g. [from notes that I've written and I did not write much back then - just listened, and forgot a lot] .... how can we be aware? Depends on conditions; the degree of developed panna. As there is Anatta, then we can do nothing special about developing Sati - just hear about Nama and Rupa more and more, know the value of Kusala and realize that not just Akusala but also Kusala is void of self - not just 'our' deeds but everything that is real is Anatta, Annicca, Dukkha - even our Kalyanamitta is Anatta. He really was a Kalyanamitta, and just recently A. Sujin said something that made me think - are we Kalyanamitta for others? Patience, courage and good cheer. Azita. 32973 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue May 11, 2004 9:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Pali Sutta Portion Dear Sarah, op 11-05-2004 09:38 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > I also seem to recall rebirths in hell planes but can’t think of any > references. Can anyone help me with this? N: In the Mugha Pakkha Jataka: Temiya did not want to become a king and pretended to be deaf, dumb, etc. He recalled his previous birth in hell, as a result of his having been a king before. As a king he had to inflict heavy punishment on others. This is from my translation of the Perfections. Nina. P.S. I just saw Christine's post. 32974 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue May 11, 2004 9:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: subtle points Dear Sarah, Thank you very much. I should really study this subject more. There are things here I did not hear yet about when I was in Bgk. When you wrote about this before I was in a hurry to be off and now I have to wait a while, so much work. I like to discuss samatha subjects, and also sense-door and mind-door. When in Bgk the pace was so fast, exhilarating, they were reading texts aloud, adding points, I taped and jotted down. Even visesa pannatti. Not sure whether this is also a navatabbarammana. But maybe you could write these Q in your Q book for India! We may have opportunities there to ask. Also past rupas is difficult. Future ones, she said: they are sure to come. Nina op 11-05-2004 11:23 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > > Nina, I double-checked all the other points I reported concerning > navatabba arammana (not so classifiable objects) and I think what I said > was correctly recalled, 32975 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue May 11, 2004 9:51pm Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Sukin, ------------------- S: > Talking about listening or for the matter reading, I am not sure how much of kusala is involved in my case. I do notice that hardly had I read a sentence and my mind is already thinking about something else. > but I do wonder if I am not trying to convince myself and also then expect that others will be too. It seems wrong view provides a sense of comfort, so no amount of reasoning and logic can dislodge it. It works I guess, only between those who think more or less alike. > Someone of this level would be one who really listens deeply and with respect. But those like me, hardly hear a sentence, and already are driven to write a commentary :-(. ------------------- I identify with all of the above. Fortunately, you and I are also beginning to differentiate our akusala listening from the real, kusala listening. The deeper (less superficial) such understanding grows, the closer it gets to the dhammas of the present moment. ----------------------- KH: > > You seem to be going a step further and suggesting that pariyatti will always involve a degree of patipatti. I hope you're right; I'm willing to be convinced. > > S: > Actually I wasn't going so far. What I wanted to know was if moments of patipatti arose without any notice and if this was in fact more common than we otherwise think. -------------------- I was miles out! :-) However, I still like to wonder if there might be some vast, fundamental difference between moments of kusala consciousness that are unconnected with the Dhamma and moments of kusala consciousness that are pariyatti – that is, connected with the Dhamma at an intellectual level. ------------------- S: > But today, I was reminded by Betty with regard to another question of mine, about the need to have a `definite answer'. Why is there not enough confidence to leave it all to sati and panna to shed the light? ---------------------- So we should we stick to the curriculum? :-) ------------------------- S: > If there is no panna to know the fact now, at least we can remember to have patience, courage and good cheer. ;-) ------------------------ I appreciate the reminder. And, of course, there is no self who can have patience, courage and good cheer or even remember to have them. So there is no obligation -- the Dhamma is a blessing, not a burden. Kind regards, Ken H 32976 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed May 12, 2004 1:05am Subject: [dsg] Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Howard, Good to see you respond to this. > > I have the following view; let me know what you think. > > The reason that we need to listen to or read about dhammas, is that it > > provides us with a level of understanding about the nature of realities. > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > We don't know that for a fact. What it provides us with is a level of > belief, as does any other theory. > ---------------------------------------- Sukin: You seem to have agreed to a similar statement I made later on, but perhaps with a different context in mind? Anyway, ever since we have gained some understanding of the Buddha's words, I think at least in principle, our notion of what `fact' is has changed, hasn't it? What we used to believe was fact is more like fiction now, ;-) namely, the conventional realities. They seem real and command so much of our attention only because the kilesas are still so very strong we continue to take seriously the memory of these things. And every time we try to ascertain the truth of an experience, we rely on these same memories to provide us with basis upon which to assert if anything is fact or not. Taste arises and falls away never to reappear, but when we refer to it as being `taste of mango', we feel so certain about it only because we unquestioningly take the memory and/or public opinion of what mangos are and taste like to be determinative of truth. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with relying on conventional realities. What I would like to draw your attention to is that knowledge about paramattha dhammas, these do not always need to refer to memory. True that much of the time, we just parrot what we have heard and unreflecting we assert that such and such is the case. However, dhammas that are referred to are real in the moment, and these sometimes can be known to some degree, directly. And surely this is not on the level of `belief', is it? And I think this is more `fact' than anything we claim to `know', no? ;-) > > I believe we are constantly interpreting our experiences; however there > > is always some lingering doubt with regard to whether or not we really > > understand. And this seems to reach out to and cover other aspects of > > life. So for me, reading is done with the idea that there is a better > > explanation about the nature of experience. Like most people, I had > > been satisfied with all kinds of explanations evolving from wrong view. > > > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > The detailed picture painted by Abhidhamma is one of many > "explanations". For that matter, so is the picture painted by the Sutta Pitaka, but > what is emphasized there is a training program that one may try in order to > "come and see," directly, for oneself. > ------------------------------------------- Sukin: As stated by others here, the `truths' referred to in the Suttas are the same ones that are in the Abhidhamma, only expressed more systematically. I am not saying that the conventional way of expression is inferior, however they are quite specific to people and situations. And our own understanding being so low compared to those during the Buddha's time, chances that we interpret those teachings with our limited panna and consequently going the wrong way is very high. And this is why some people believe that they should rely on the commentaries and the Abhidhamma. And some like me rely further on these people. ;-) So as far as I am concerned, reading the Sutta and having a certain impression about technique, strategy and `doings', may be more reflective of my own state of mind and level of understanding. With the present level of understanding, though quite limited, increasingly I feel that the Buddha would always encourage the listener to explore the present moment with whatever capacity the listener had, instead of drawing him to a certain `conventional practice'. After all, if the listener could not have a degree of insight in Buddha's presence, what were the chances if when engaged in a `programmed activity', that insight would arise then? > > The understanding is `conceptual', but they point to this moment of > > experience, and this already makes a world of a difference in terms of > > confidence and ground for further understanding. And this is why > > any "doing" in time and involving the illusory `self' is seen as being misguided. > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There *must* be doing, whether we put 'doing' in quotes or not. If > nothing special is done, then one is merely left with belief, and belief will not > liberate. > ------------------------------------------- Sukin: Conditions roll on, no matter we are caught up in the story about people and try to link together experiences creating a concept of situations and events or not, in the end conditions are all there is. There is nothing out there to act upon except those created by our imaginations. So whether we believe in `doing' or `non action', what needs to be understood is the realities which form the basis of either of these positions. If there is right view, then there is no stopping right mindfulness and the other factors from arising. If pariyatti is right, this *will* condition patipatti at one time or the other. On the other hand, if there is wrong view or self view, then wrong sati and other wrongs will also be conditioned. This is how conditions work, and it makes no difference if there is any referring to what one is doing or not. `Thinking' that one is `applying the teachings' or `practicing' makes no difference to whether indeed the Path is being followed. So if by `doing', you mean the functions and manifestations of the different dhammas, then I agree with you. If you mean that there must be a kind of self-reference, then I don't. > > But what about paying attention now? Well, when the idea comes to the > > mind about paying attention to the momentary phenomena, even this is > > an `idea', a concept "about" now. The moment has already fallen away, > > but we want to catch it. What dominates at this point is the desire > > to `see', and here we have planted the seed for the illusion of result. > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > We have also planted the seed to be constantly mindful, guarding the > senses, and not just playing an impossible game of "catch up". To be mindful, > attentive, and clearly comprehending requires intention, effort, and vigilence. > ------------------------------------------------ Sukin: Mindfulness, wisdom, attention, effort and intention can all arise together, and when they do, then guarding of the senses is taking place. But is this conditioned by any preceding `intention' to do so? I don't think so. That intention has a `concept' as object. The belief is that there is a `sense-door' to be guarded. But realities rise and fall in an instant, so why do we presuppose that eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind as `existing' somewhere out there to be guarded? We can have kusala reflection about the danger of sense objects and attachment through the six door ways. And we may reflect on the different conditions. And this may add to the accumulation of panna and even sati. However, the actual `guarding the senses' is a moment of satipatthana and not just thinking, or what this thinking draws us to do. > > However, this is not the development of panna, because this too is just > > concept, though because it seems micro compared to the macro births > > and deaths in the conventional world, if we mistake these as being the > > actual perception of rise and fall of namas and rupas, then we are going > > to be fooled for a long time. > > > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > If what you are saying here is that mentally rehearsing what is > supposed to be the nature of what one is observing is no substitute for intent > observing, itself, then I agree. > -------------------------------------- Sukin: I am saying that only developed panna can know for certain what is actually going on. Any wrong practice informed with knowledge about the Tilakkhana and so on, will give rise to the illusion of result. The more one is attached to `self' progressing and knowing, then one is placing oneself to be fooled. > > So how are the two different, reading and listening on the one hand, > > and formal meditation and trying to catch realities on the other? > > > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > When meditating, formally or otherwise, one doesn't (or shouldn't) try > to "catch realities". One simply attends to the flow of experience, with some > degree or other of restrictedness, and with as much intent, energy, > mindfulness, and attention as one can muster. With the cooperation of other conditions, > this cultivates the mind, strengthening useful mental factors. > ------------------------------------------- Sukin: Are you taking conventional expressions of `intent', `energy', `mindfulness' and `attention' and applying these to what you believe `patipatti' is about? And how sure are you that "simply attending to the flow of experience" isn't another conventional idea and that unknowingly there is indeed `attachment' and `ignorance' being conditioned all the way through? I think it cannot be helped, that upon having an idea about `formal practice', these same paramattha dhammas which constitute a moment of patipatti, their conventional meaning will be identified with and projected on to the practice. > > Intellectual understanding implies also that this is different from direct > > understanding of realities. It understands on this level that realities > > arise > > and fall in an instant. That sati and panna arises not because of any > > concentrated activity, these being vague `conceptual ideas' formed as a > > result of either not knowing intellectually about the nature of realities > > and/or sincerely believing that the Buddha taught such a practice. > > > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Please excuse my bluntness on this point, but I think this is > nonsense. The Buddha most assuredly taught practices for cultivating the mind, and > sati and pa~n~na do not develop and strengthen randomly. Of course "realities > arise > and fall in an instant," but they always arise and fall due to conditions, > not randomly, and the Buddha most explicitly provided techniques for us to > practice, genuine *actions* (!) to carry out, to cultivate such conditions. > ------------------------------------------- Sukin: Things don't arise and fall randomly for sure. Kusala, akusala, panna, avijja all arise and fall according to fixed and definite laws. Akusala cannot lead to kusala and micchaditthi cannot lead to panna. And Buddha did talk about the N8FP and other supporting dhammas. But how these laws actually operate in our lives, I think it best not to guess and come to a conclusion, especially when we are thinking in terms of `actions'. What you and I see about `actions' are the outer manifestations, why speculate and believe that we `know' what dhammas are in reality being conditioned? A moment of dana for example, is not in the `act' of giving, but a mental state which arises and falls in an instant. But does this mean that we then `do nothing', no. It means that we don't identify with actions, even mental ones. Because what is conditioned has fallen away, and we are left only with wanting more of it. > > As an intended activity it approaches written words or sound without any > > expectation of what these will convey. But more importantly what > > is `understood' subsequently is seen as purely conceptual with no > > thought that the `real' thing is known. Formal meditation does not > > acknowledge this kind of distinction; it believes that it directly knows > > realities, when in fact it does not. > > > ----------------------------------- > Howard: > Formal meditation does nothing of the sort - "it" does not believe > that it "directly knows realities" or anything else. Formal meditation is a > cultivating activity, pure and simple. The results will be what they will be. The > proof is in the pudding. Ehipassika. > ------------------------------------ Sukin: Formal meditation is cultivation of what? What is there and what is hoped to be achieved? Buddha's concept of `Ehipassika' does not need to be bounded by time. It is not meant to create any degree of expectations or hopes. Whatever level of understanding a person approaches the Teachings, this he can prove to himself there and then. If the understanding is only intellectual, that in itself is the proof. If satipatthana is conditioned, it is another pudding and proof. If on the other hand, the intellectual understanding is wrong, whatever practice follows and what apparent result, then it can't be said to be ehipassika, can it? In fact it seems that only such persons who don't really understand pariyatti, these seek a proof beyond the moment. Those who understand correctly, don't seem to wish it. Sorry for the length of the post. ;-) Metta, Sukin. 32977 From: bodhi2500 Date: Wed May 12, 2004 1:46am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cooran Thanks Hi Sarah, All, > > Tayodhammasutta.m. > > Bhikkhus, without dispelling three things, it is not possible to > > dispel the view of a self, doubts and grasping virtues as the highest > > aim. What three? Unwise attention, practising in the wrong path and > > the mind's immobility, Bhikkhus, without dispelling these three > > things, it is not possible to dispel the view of a self, doubts and > > grasping virtues as the highest aim. > .... > S: Interesting. Could you kindly give a reference for this sutta? > .... Anguttara: Books of 10's, Akankhavaggo(8), Sutta 6 http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- Nikaya/Anguttara6/10-dasakanipata/008-akankhavaggo-e.htm S: Even Sariputta for all his great > accomplishments and knowledges and fine discernment of kusala and akusala > states before he heard the Dhamma, had not developed satipatthana at all, Steve: If there was no satipatthana/no insight into paramattha Dhamma's, wouldn't any 'discernment of kusala/akusala states' be just concept / thinking about kusala/akusala? Thanks Steve 32978 From: Michelle Vellin Date: Wed May 12, 2004 4:37am Subject: A Wandering Mind Thanks Rob and Jack, I'm trying to do samatha of course. People said that anapanasati is the easiest object and the most basic object in meditation. Is it true? Or maybe I've chosen the wrong object for my mind? My problem is my mind always wandering most of the time, when I'm climbing the stairs or sitting in the lecture hall. And I find that it's very dangerous with the wandering mind in my case. Could someone suggest me another object or maybe anapanasati is the right object for me? Thanks > I think first you need to adjust your expectations > of what happens during > meditation. Accept wandering mind (monkey mind as > some Buddhists call it) as > normal. Your job is to gently bring your mind back > to the object of meditation. At > first this may happen many times every minute. If > you find yourself judging > yourself as you did in the paragraph above, gently > say to yourself, "judging > mind, judging mind" and bring your attention gently > back to your breath. > Your mind on its own will eventually spend more and > more time on the object > of meditation. Don't force anything. Be gentle. Be > mindful of everything that > happens. > > There is an old Chinese proverb. If you try to keep > a wild horse in a small > stall, he will rebel and kick at the walls. But, > keep the wild horse in a big > pasture and he will accept his situation peacefully. > > > jack > > ===== Regards, m_vellin 32979 From: Gabriel Nunes Laera Date: Wed May 12, 2004 5:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello from Brazil Dearest Sarah, Thank you very much for such friendly welcome message! I am happy to know I can find some more brazilians in this great group. I know Michael from his great website, which is a reference for all the portuguese speakers buddhists students. I was introduced to the Dhamma in 2001, soon after the 11th September attacks I decided to research how peace is understood and teached in all the world religions. As I found buddhism by visiting the Lamas of the Tibetan Buddhist Temple of Rio de Janeiro (www.ktc.org.br) a very interesting and peculiar philosophy, I started to study it. Some months later I started to do regular vajrayana buddhism practices. Since I first read about buddhism I felt curious about theravada tradition, two years after I had my first contact with the Dhamma I decided to give more attention and practice the theravada buddhism. This was in my mind when I visited europe in the end of the last year. In January I`ve been to the Buddhadipa Thai Temple, it was a sunday, and there was a novice who received me had a very nice talk about what is Dhamma and how can we practice it in our daily lives. Basically he spoke of anicca, anatta and dukkha, this was for me very clarifying and inspiring! When I was back to Brazil I decided to dedicate my time to Dhamma studies and meditation. Since then I created this Group (www.tisarana.cjb.net) intending to present people how beautiful and, in some terms, simple is the of the theravada tradition meditation practice. As I study Economics I decided to look for a way to use the dhamma in my study of such amazing science which is directly originated from the human society relations and organization. Some months ago I found a very interesting text written by a thailandian monk called "Buddhist Economics", and I have now the objective of making a new proposal of economics based in this text and in the buddhist ethics principles. I hope I can learn a lot from you in this group, and I invite any interested in helping me with the "Buddhist Economics"! Metta, Gabriel Laera ICQ:56458224 MSN Messenger: zopatenzin@h... "Evitar todo o mal,cultivar o bem,purificar a própria mente: esse é o Ensinamento dos Buddhas." Dhp 183. ----Original Message Follows---- From: Sarah Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello from Brazil Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 14:29:54 +0800 (CST) Hi Gabriel (and Icaro - see*), Many thanks for joining us and giving such a nice introduction. As you?ve discovered already, Brazil is well-represented here. There are at least two others in lurking mode too - Leonardo and Michael. Michael lives in the States but is presently travelling in Brazil, I believe. I hope he?s back soon. This is his website: http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/ --- Gabriel Nunes Laera wrote: > > Dearest friends from DSG, > > My name is Gabriel Laera, I am 19 years old, an economics university > student. I live in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. I was introduced to the > Buddhism > through the Kagyu school of tibetan buddhism by visiting a local temple > (www.ktc.org.br). After some years of practice and studies I decided to > dedicate my time to the study and practice of Theravada buddhism since > it > was a more inspirating practice to me. .... S: This is quite amazing. Your interest must have started when you were pretty young and it?s good that you could appreciate Theravada. .... 32980 From: Date: Wed May 12, 2004 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Wandering Mind In a message dated 5/12/04 4:57:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, m_vellin@y... writes: I'm trying to do samatha of course. People said that anapanasati is the easiest object and the most basic object in meditation. Is it true? Or maybe I've chosen the wrong object for my mind? My problem is my mind always wandering most of the time, when I'm climbing the stairs or sitting in the lecture hall. And I find that it's very dangerous with the wandering mind in my case. Could someone suggest me another object or maybe anapanasati is the right object for me?<< Just to make sure we are defining terms the same way. The word "anapanasati" is translated as mindfulness of breathing. This could mean samatha or vipassana. The Anapanasati Sutta presents 16 teachings or ways to meditate using the breath. Some are samatha and some steps are vipassana. I suggest you find a meditation group near you and attend their meetings. Meditating in a group is a powerful tool to further your practice. Even if you only meet once a month, it would be helpful. I also suggest you attend some longer retreats. Using the breath is by far the most common object of meditation in Buddhism. I would guess that more than 95% of Buddhist teachers recommend using the breath as a beginners practice. Your problem is not your choice of a meditation object. Have you tried walking meditation along with sitting meditation? jack 32981 From: Philip Date: Wed May 12, 2004 6:55am Subject: re: Global chaos or a cup of tea Hi Sarah, and all Thanks for you comments, Sarah. Sarah :> We're so used to thinking that *we* have an option as to whether to tune > into global chaos or to take the sane approach of having a cup of tea, > when in fact the present cittas and cetasikas which are determining our > actions right now are already conditioned. Ph: I think this would be true for something subtle, like choosing between harsh speech and gentle speech, or between daydreaming of something unwholesome or staying in the moment to examine realities, but when it comes to gross defilements like being interested in war footage, I would disagree and say something can and should be done about it. We DO have an option with the crude excesses, I'm thinking - with subtle or latent defilements it's a different story. S :> The difference is that with more understanding, whilst tuning in to > global chaos?Eor having a cup of tea?Ethere will be more conditions for > awareness to arise of any nama or rupa and there will be less idea that > the other activity would provide more fertile soil for this. Ph: Yes, it's not an attachment to believing that the other option is more fertile, but I really have to believe that allowing onself to be further polluted by certain kinds of media - pronography, for example - in the belief that it is an equally valid way of examining rupa and nama could be a trap for a beginner like myself to fall into. I think the idea you're expressing above is more valid for people who have made progress in clearing out the crudest defilements. Let's think of the citta stream as an actual river. I'm talking about clearing out rotten logs and old bicycles and washing machines that are blocking the flow. When that's done, the time will come to take a more refined, less self-directed approach. That's the way I'm seeing it now. I wonder if anyone else agrees that there is the need for self to do some heavy work at the beginning to prepare for the release of self? Kind of like hiring a fellow to work without telling him that the work he will be doing will be the preliminary stages of a process that will lead to his being laid off! Sarah: > In > truth, there's no choice about it. If there are the tendencies for lobha, > dosa and moha to arise, they certainly will. The solution is not to move > the deck-chairs or to avoid tuning in (though this is may be helpful at a > superficial level as KenH would say). The only solution is to develop > understanding of the namas and rupas conditioned right then and there and > this will lead to more of the same. It may well be that as a result of > seeing the value in the teachings and slowly knowing wrong view for what > it is, that as you suggest, there will be less inclination to tune into > activities that are likely to just condition more aggro or attachment. But > again it depends on conditions and any expectations of this will not help. Ph: I can see the truth here. I guess I am impatient as always for results in this lifetime. I should wait until right understanding gradually leads me away from bad habits. But you know, my attachment to the media is so unwholesome that I can clearly feel the benefits from even one day without. I go cycling, and stay in the moment, or at worst think of dhamma topics - but if I go cycling after devouring news, I think of Iraq, and find myself calculating how much harm Bush has suffered from this, and ridiculous things like that. I wouldn't want to die with that kind of hostility at work in me, though I know of course that it is rising in a conditioned way and that the roots of it can't be removed by sheer abstinence. I just feel so much lighter and less irritable when I avoid watching the news. I appreciate you feedback and will be rereading it. Metta, Phil 32982 From: Date: Wed May 12, 2004 1:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 5/12/04 4:48:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@k... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Good to see you respond to this. > > >>I have the following view; let me know what you think. > >>The reason that we need to listen to or read about dhammas, is > that it > >>provides us with a level of understanding about the nature of > realities. > >---------------------------------------- > >Howard: > >We don't know that for a fact. What it provides us with is a level of > >belief, as does any other theory. > >---------------------------------------- > Sukin: > You seem to have agreed to a similar statement I made later on, but > perhaps with a different context in mind? Anyway, ever since we have > gained some understanding of the Buddha's words, I think at least in > principle, our notion of what `fact' is has changed, hasn't it? What we > used to believe was fact is more like fiction now, ;-) namely, the > conventional realities. They seem real and command so much of our > attention only because the kilesas are still so very strong we continue to > take seriously the memory of these things. And every time we try to > ascertain the truth of an experience, we rely on these same memories > to provide us with basis upon which to assert if anything is fact or not. > Taste arises and falls away never to reappear, but when we refer to it > as being `taste of mango', we feel so certain about it only because we > unquestioningly take the memory and/or public opinion of what mangos > are and taste like to be determinative of truth. > > I am not saying that there is anything wrong with relying on > conventional realities. What I would like to draw your attention to is that > knowledge about paramattha dhammas, these do not always need to > refer to memory. True that much of the time, we just parrot what we > have heard and unreflecting we assert that such and such is the case. > However, dhammas that are referred to are real in the moment, and > these sometimes can be known to some degree, directly. And surely > this is not on the level of `belief', is it? And I think this is more `fact' > than > anything we claim to `know', no? ;-) > --------------------------------------------- Howard: I share your belief, and I have great confidence in the teachings of the suttas and much of abhidhamma. That belief comes from study, consideration, and "practice". It is a belief/trust/confidence that is very strong. But I do recognize it, still, as largely just belief, and I distinguish between belief and true knowing. -------------------------------------------- > > >>I believe we are constantly interpreting our experiences; however > there > >>is always some lingering doubt with regard to whether or not we > really > >>understand. And this seems to reach out to and cover other aspects > of > >>life. So for me, reading is done with the idea that there is a better > >>explanation about the nature of experience. Like most people, I had > >>been satisfied with all kinds of explanations evolving from wrong > view. > >> > >------------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > The detailed picture painted by Abhidhamma is one of many > >"explanations". For that matter, so is the picture painted by the Sutta > Pitaka, but >what is emphasized there is a training program that one > may try in order to > >"come and see," directly, for oneself. > >------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > As stated by others here, the `truths' referred to in the Suttas are the > same ones that are in the Abhidhamma, only expressed more > systematically. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, largely. I believe there are some differences, and there is additional material, some of which I find questionable. Not so important, this issue, I think. ----------------------------------------------- I am not saying that the conventional way of expression > > is inferior, however they are quite specific to people and situations. And > our own understanding being so low compared to those during the > Buddha's time, chances that we interpret those teachings with our > limited panna and consequently going the wrong way is very high. And > this is why some people believe that they should rely on the > commentaries and the Abhidhamma. And some like me rely further on > these people. ;-) > So as far as I am concerned, reading the Sutta and having a certain > impression about technique, strategy and `doings', may be more > reflective of my own state of mind and level of understanding. With the > present level of understanding, though quite limited, increasingly I feel > that the Buddha would always encourage the listener to explore the > present moment with whatever capacity the listener had, instead of > drawing him to a certain `conventional practice'. After all, if the listener > > could not have a degree of insight in Buddha's presence, what were the > chances if when engaged in a `programmed activity', that insight would > arise then? > > >>The understanding is `conceptual', but they point to this moment of > >>experience, and this already makes a world of a difference in terms > of > >>confidence and ground for further understanding. And this is why > >>any "doing" in time and involving the illusory `self' is seen as being > misguided. > >------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > There *must* be doing, whether we put 'doing' in quotes or not. > If > >nothing special is done, then one is merely left with belief, and belief > will not > >liberate. > >------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > Conditions roll on, no matter we are caught up in the story about people > and try to link together experiences creating a concept of situations and > events or not, in the end conditions are all there is. There is nothing out > there to act upon except those created by our imaginations. So whether > we believe in `doing' or `non action', what needs to be understood is the > realities which form the basis of either of these positions. > If there is right view, then there is no stopping right mindfulness and the > other factors from arising. If pariyatti is right, this *will* condition > patipatti at one time or the other. On the other hand, if there is wrong > view or self view, then wrong sati and other wrongs will also be > conditioned. This is how conditions work, and it makes no difference if > there is any referring to what one is doing or not. `Thinking' that one > is `applying the teachings' or `practicing' makes no difference to whether > indeed the Path is being followed. > > So if by `doing', you mean the functions and manifestations of the > different dhammas, then I agree with you. If you mean that there must > be a kind of self-reference, then I don't. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: No, no self-reference at all. But the dhammas underlying conventional volition, where that volition is in service to the actions the Buddha actually advised us to take, will set up conditions that are useful. There *is* a practice. ------------------------------------------------ > > >>But what about paying attention now? Well, when the idea comes > to the > >>mind about paying attention to the momentary phenomena, even > this is > >>an `idea', a concept "about" now. The moment has already fallen > away, > >>but we want to catch it. What dominates at this point is the desire > >>to `see', and here we have planted the seed for the illusion of > result. > >> > >------------------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > We have also planted the seed to be constantly mindful, > guarding the > >senses, and not just playing an impossible game of "catch up". To be > mindful, > >attentive, and clearly comprehending requires intention, effort, and > vigilence. > >------------------------------------------------ > Sukin: > Mindfulness, wisdom, attention, effort and intention can all arise > together, and when they do, then guarding of the senses is taking place. > But is this conditioned by any preceding `intention' to do so? I don't think > > so. That intention has a `concept' as object. The belief is that there is > a `sense-door' to be guarded. But realities rise and fall in an instant, so > why do we presuppose that eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind > as `existing' somewhere out there to be guarded? > ------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that this emasculation (better "disempowerment" and "devaluation") of volitional action is contrary to the teachings of the Buddha. ------------------------------------------- > We can have kusala reflection about the danger of sense objects and > attachment through the six door ways. And we may reflect on the > different conditions. And this may add to the accumulation of panna and > even sati. However, the actual `guarding the senses' is a moment of > satipatthana and not just thinking, or what this thinking draws us to do. > > > >>However, this is not the development of panna, because this too is > just > >>concept, though because it seems micro compared to the macro > births > >>and deaths in the conventional world, if we mistake these as being > the > >>actual perception of rise and fall of namas and rupas, then we are > going > >>to be fooled for a long time. > >> > >---------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > If what you are saying here is that mentally rehearsing what is > >supposed to be the nature of what one is observing is no substitute > for intent > >observing, itself, then I agree. > >-------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > I am saying that only developed panna can know for certain what is > actually going on. Any wrong practice informed with knowledge about > the Tilakkhana and so on, will give rise to the illusion of result. The > more one is attached to `self' progressing and knowing, then one is > placing oneself to be fooled. > > >>So how are the two different, reading and listening on the one > hand, > >>and formal meditation and trying to catch realities on the other? > >> > >------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > When meditating, formally or otherwise, one doesn't (or > shouldn't) try > >to "catch realities". One simply attends to the flow of experience, with > some > >degree or other of restrictedness, and with as much intent, energy, > >mindfulness, and attention as one can muster. With the cooperation > of other conditions, > >this cultivates the mind, strengthening useful mental factors. > >------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > Are you taking conventional expressions > of `intent', `energy', `mindfulness' and `attention' and applying these to > what you believe `patipatti' is about? And how sure are you that "simply > attending to the flow of experience" isn't another conventional idea and > that unknowingly there is indeed `attachment' and `ignorance' being > conditioned all the way through? > I think it cannot be helped, that upon having an idea about `formal > practice', these same paramattha dhammas which constitute a moment > of patipatti, their conventional meaning will be identified with and > projected on to the practice. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: As I've said ad nauseum: "We start where we are, not where we'd hope to be." All we deal with at this stage are conventionalities, including conventional actions. --------------------------------------------- > > > >>Intellectual understanding implies also that this is different from > direct > >>understanding of realities. It understands on this level that realities > >>arise > >>and fall in an instant. That sati and panna arises not because of any > >>concentrated activity, these being vague `conceptual ideas' formed > as a > >>result of either not knowing intellectually about the nature of > realities > >>and/or sincerely believing that the Buddha taught such a practice. > >> > >------------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > Please excuse my bluntness on this point, but I think this is > >nonsense. The Buddha most assuredly taught practices for cultivating > the mind, and > >sati and pa~n~na do not develop and strengthen randomly. Of > course "realities > >arise > >and fall in an instant," but they always arise and fall due to conditions, > >not randomly, and the Buddha most explicitly provided techniques for > us to > >practice, genuine *actions* (!) to carry out, to cultivate such > conditions. > >------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > Things don't arise and fall randomly for sure. Kusala, akusala, panna, > avijja all arise and fall according to fixed and definite laws. Akusala > cannot lead to kusala and micchaditthi cannot lead to panna. And > Buddha did talk about the N8FP and other supporting dhammas. But > how these laws actually operate in our lives, I think it best not to guess > and come to a conclusion, especially when we are thinking in terms > of `actions'. What you and I see about `actions' are the outer > manifestations, why speculate and believe that we `know' what > dhammas are in reality being conditioned? A moment of dana for > example, is not in the `act' of giving, but a mental state which arises and > falls in an instant. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: That's right. But if that internal dana doesn't find expression in deed, it is of little value. Also, that internal dana can be "encourgaged" to arise more frequently. ------------------------------------------- > But does this mean that we then `do nothing', no. It means that we don't > identify with actions, even mental ones. Because what is conditioned > has fallen away, and we are left only with wanting more of it. > > >>As an intended activity it approaches written words or sound > without any > >>expectation of what these will convey. But more importantly what > >>is `understood' subsequently is seen as purely conceptual with no > >>thought that the `real' thing is known. Formal meditation does not > >>acknowledge this kind of distinction; it believes that it directly > knows > >>realities, when in fact it does not. > >> > >----------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Formal meditation does nothing of the sort - "it" does not believe > >that it "directly knows realities" or anything else. Formal meditation is > a > >cultivating activity, pure and simple. The results will be what they will > be. The > >proof is in the pudding. Ehipassika. > >------------------------------------ > > Sukin: > Formal meditation is cultivation of what? What is there and what is > hoped to be achieved? > ------------------------------------------- Howard: Check with the Buddha. He taught it, not me. -------------------------------------------- > Buddha's concept of `Ehipassika' does not need to be bounded by time. > It is not meant to create any degree of expectations or hopes. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I didn't claim otherwise. Just carry out the practice. What happens, happens. Desires and expectations only sabotage the process. --------------------------------------------- Whatever > > level of understanding a person approaches the Teachings, this he can > prove to himself there and then. If the understanding is only intellectual, > that in itself is the proof. If satipatthana is conditioned, it is another > pudding and proof. If on the other hand, the intellectual understanding > is wrong, whatever practice follows and what apparent result, then it > can't be said to be ehipassika, can it? In fact it seems that only such > persons who don't really understand pariyatti, these seek a proof > beyond the moment. Those who understand correctly, don't seem to > wish it. > > Sorry for the length of the post. ;-) > > Metta, > Sukin. > > ========================== A pleasure talking with you, 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) 32983 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 12, 2004 7:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Do you mean that breaths are not bodily fabrications? Or do you > mean that you are not sure whether breaths are bodily fabrications or not? > > What does the commentary say regarding whether breaths are bodily fabrications or not? > > Metta, > Victor Victor I've finally got around to checking your sutta (M. 44). This has led me to the conclusion that we have been talking at cross purposes to some extent. If you'll recall, my original comment was: <<<- The dhammas/five aggregates spoken of in the suttas do not include 'breath'.>>>, to which you replied: <<< you might find the following quote helpful: "Now, lady, what are fabrications?" "These three fabrications, friend Visakha: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, & mental fabrications." "But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal fabrications? What are mental fabrications?" "In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications." >>>. From what I've been able to find out, 'fabrications' ('sankhaaras') in your quoted passage does not carry either of its more usual meanings of (a) all conditioned dhammas (i.e. the five aggregates), or (b) the mental states comprising the fourth aggregate ('sankhaara-khandha'). Instead it carries a more specialised meaning that has relevance in the context of the attainment of cessation (as M. 44 goes on to deal with). According to the introductory note to Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Majjhima Nikaya ('Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha', p55): <<< The word 'sankhaara' occurs in four major contexts in the Pali suttas: (1) As the second factor in the formula of dependent origination it is used to mean volitional actions ... (2) As the fourth of the five aggregates the 'sankhaaras' comprise all the mental factors not included in the other three mental aggregates ... (3) 'Sankhaara' is also used in a very comprehensive sense to signify everything produced by conditions. In this sense it comprises all five aggregates ... (4) In still another context the word 'sankhaara' is used in relation to 'kaaya', 'vacii' and 'citta' -- body, speech and mind -- to mean the bodily formation, which is in-and-out breathing; the verbal formation, which is applied thought and sustained thought; and the mental formation, which is perception and feeling. ... 'Sankhaara' is also employed outside these major contexts ..." >>> A similar set of meanings is given in Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' (copied below). Both writings make reference to M. 44 in the context of the definition appropriate to your quoted passage (No 4 in Bhikkhu Bodhi's, No 2 in Nyanatiloka's). Of interest on the general subject of 'dhammas' etc. is that in Bhikkhu Bodhi's notes he adds, in relation to the third meaning given above: "This usage comes close in meaning to the ontological use of 'dhamma', except that the latter is wider in range since it includes the unconditioned element Nibbaana and concepts ('pannatti'), both of which are excluded from 'sankhaara'." I hope this helps resolve any apparent disparity in my statement and your sutta quote. Jon From Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' ********************** sankhára: This term has, according to its context, different shades of meaning, which should be carefully distinguished. To its most frequent usages (s. foll. 1-4) the general term 'formation' may be applied ... This term may refer either to the act of 'forming or to the passive state of 'having been formed' or to both. 1. As the 2nd link of the formula of dependent origination, sankhára has the active aspect, 'forming, and signifies karma, i.e. wholesome or unwholesome volitional activity (cetaná) of body (káya-s.), speech (vací-s.) or mind (citta- or mano-s.). 2. The aforementioned three terms, káya-, vací- and citta-s. are sometimes used in quite a different sense, namely as (1) bodily function, i.e. in-and-out-breathing (e.g. M. 10), (2) verbal function, i.e. thought-conception and discursive thinking, (3) mental-function, i.e. feeling and perception (e.g. M. 44). 3. It also denotes the 4th group of existence (sankhárakkhandha), and includes all 'mental formations' whether they belong to 'karmically forming' consciousness or not. 4. It occurs further in the sense of anything formed (sankhata) and conditioned, and includes all things whatever in the world, all phenomena of existence. This meaning applies, e.g. to the well-known passage, "All formations are impermanent... subject to suffering" (sabbe sankhára aniccá ... dukkhá). In that context, however, sankhára is subordinate to the still wider and all-embracing term dhamma (thing); for dhamma includes also the Unformed or Unconditioned Element (asankhata-dhátu), i.e. Nibbána (e.g. in sabbe dhammá anattá, "all things are without a self"). Sankhára also means sometimes 'volitional effort' ... ********************** 32984 From: icarofranca Date: Wed May 12, 2004 9:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello from Brazil Caro Gabriel!!! (I will try to keep a bilingual communication to benefit all members of this group) > I hope I can learn a lot from you in this group, and I invite any interested > in helping me with the "Buddhist Economics"! Gabriel, eu li com interesse o web site que você indicou e gostei muito. Ainda está incompleto mas o fato de ter como membro um monge do Butão é uma garantia de boa e legítima linhagem Kagyu, muito mais do que atualmente no Tibete! Gabriel, I've read with interest the Web site you recommend and I liked it very much. It's still incomplete but just the fact to keep a Bhutan's Monk is a good, sound and legitimate Kagyu tradition guarantee, better that one can find nowadays at Tibet! "Economia Budista"... se você pensar em economia como um nivel de commodities com flutuações para mais ou para menos, você começara a perceber que o Caminho do Meio Budista encontra também tais aplicações. Na escola theravada existem suttas que tratam de tais problemas ( como um rei deve gerenciar seu reino, como a guerra deve ser conduzida para nào prejudicar a economia - cf. o Mahavamsa, que mesmo não sendo exatamente do Cânon clássico, tem passagens interessantes sobre estes assuntos! - e muito mais). "Buddhist Economics"... if you begin to think out Economics as a certain comoddities' level with deviations and fluctuations for more and for less, you will perceive that the Noble Middle Path has also such applications. At Theravada Canon you will find many suttas about these questions ( How a King ought to manage his kingdom, how war must be conducted without harm economics - Cf. The Mahavamsa: despite the fact it is not at classical canon, it has interesting quotes about these issues! - and more) (in Portuguese only) Gabriel, como é o acesso de ônibus até lá ? Vargem Grande fica perto do Recreio dos Bandeirantes, mas não parece ser de acesso muito fácil!!! Um Grande Amplexo! Mettaya, Ícaro > "Evitar todo o mal,cultivar o bem,purificar a própria mente: esse é o > Ensinamento dos Buddhas." Dhp 183. > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: Sarah > Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello from Brazil > Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 14:29:54 +0800 (CST) > > Hi Gabriel (and Icaro - see*), > > Many thanks for joining us and giving such a nice introduction. As you?ve > discovered already, Brazil is well-represented here. There are at least > two others in lurking mode too - Leonardo and Michael. Michael lives in > the States but is presently travelling in Brazil, I believe. I hope he?s > back soon. This is his website: > http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/ > > --- Gabriel Nunes Laera wrote: > > > Dearest friends from DSG, > > > > My name is Gabriel Laera, I am 19 years old, an economics university > > student. I live in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. I was introduced to the > > Buddhism > > through the Kagyu school of tibetan buddhism by visiting a local temple > > (www.ktc.org.br). After some years of practice and studies I decided to > > dedicate my time to the study and practice of Theravada buddhism since > > it > > was a more inspirating practice to me. > .... > S: This is quite amazing. Your interest must have started when you were > pretty young and it?s good that you could appreciate Theravada. > .... 32985 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 12, 2004 10:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhammasangani, to Icaro Dear Icaro, op 11-05-2004 21:18 schreef icarofranca op icarofranca@y...: > Or of the >> Dhammasangani? You have not much time, but what about studying just > one >> sentence at a time? N: You can order here: Ms. Karen Wendland, pts@p... > I am promising this to myself so many times these days. > The Matika, the first chapter, I can manage to deal on without so > much difficulty. But the others, with that questions and answers > scheme, require a bit more expertise on Pali!!! N: Without much ado, without delay: let's get at it!!! The first sentence of Cittuppaada-ka.n.da.m: kaamaavacara a.t.tha mahaacittaani. Only this one, let's concentrate on this. It is full of meaning. Some questions for you, but this depend on your time. Why not one sentence now and then? 1.What is the meaning of kaamaavacara (sensuous sphere)? 2.Why is it said: mahaacittaani? (great cittas) 3.What objects do they have? 4.Why are they eight (a.t.tha)? Success, Nina. P.S. In June Larry and I have finished the rupakkhandha of the Visuddhimagga and we shall start vi~n~naa.nakkhandha, the aggregate of consciousness or citta. You could jump right in. 32986 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 12, 2004 10:37am Subject: Vis. and Tiika 77. Vis. and Tiika 77 Vis. 77. Here, however, 'produced matter' is 'concrete matter'; the space-element is 'delimiting matter'; those from 'bodily intimation' up to 'wieldiness' are 'matter as alteration'; birth, ageing and dissolution are 'matter as characteristic'. So it is of four kinds as concrete matter and so on. Pali: nipphannaruupa.m panettha ruuparuupa.m naama, aakaasadhaatu paricchedaruupa.m naama, kaayavi~n~nattiaadi kamma~n~nataapariyanta.m vikaararuupa.m naama, jaatijaraabha"nga.m lakkha.naruupa.m naamaati eva.m ruuparuupaadicatukkavasena catubbidha.m. Tiika 77: Intro: a recap: Rúpas can be classified as sabhava rúpas, rúpas with their own distinct nature, and asabhava rúpas, rúpas without their own distinct nature. The sabhåva rúpas are also called ³produced², whereas the asabhåva rúpas are also called ³unproduced². The twelve gross rúpas (the five sense-organs, and the sense objects of visible object, sound, odour, flavour and three of the great elements that are tangible object) and six among the subtle rúpas that are: cohesion, nutrition, life faculty, heart-base, femininity and masculinity are rupas each with their own distinct nature and characteristic, they are sabhåva rúpas. Thus there are eighteen sabhava ruupas or produced ruupas in all. The other ten subtle rúpas do not have their own distinct nature, they are asabhåva rúpas or unproduced rupas. Among these are the two kinds of intimation, bodily intimation and speech intimation, which are a ³certain, unique change² in the eight inseparable rúpas produced by citta. Moreover, the three qualities of lightness, plasticity and wieldiness that can be classified together with the two rúpas of intimation as vikåra rúpas (rúpa as changeability or alteration). Furthermore, there is the rúpa space (akåsa or pariccheda rúpa) that delimits the groups of rúpa. Also included are the four rúpas that are characteristics of rúpa, namely origination, continuity, decay and impermanence. A selection from the Tiika: Vis text: Here, however, 'produced matter' is 'concrete matter'. Tiika: 77. Nipphannaruupa.m panettha ruuparuupa.m naamaati ³Here, however, 'produced matter' is called 'concrete matter' ² N: The Tiika explains that concrete matter is included among the twentyeight kinds of materiality and that it is associated with matter as characteristics. N: All materiality has the characteristics of origination, continuity, decay and breaking up. Tiika: Ruppana.m ruupa.m, ta.m etassa atthiiti .. Materiality that is molested, this is the meaning of it... N: Ruppana is a word association with ruupa, and ruppana means being molested. The Dispeller I, (Ch 1, p. 3) explains: it is being molested (disturbed or battered) by cold, heat, hunger, etc. We read: ³it is well-beaten; it is oppressed, it is broken...² Concrete matter is the translation of ruupa-ruupa. The Tiika explains that the reduplication in ruupa-ruupa is used in a way similar to dukkha-dukkha. Dukkha can mean: dukkha-dukkha, suffering that is obvious such as bodily pain and mental unhappy feeling, dukkha because of change and dukkha as characteristic inherent in all conditioned dhammas. Tiika text: ruppanasabhaava.m ruupanti attho... Evenso the word ruupa-ruupa means that it has a nature of being molested... Yadi eva.m, aakaasadhaatu-aadiina.m katha.m ruupabhaavoti? How has the element of space and so on (that is not produced) the nature of materiality? Nipphannaruupassa paricchedavikaaralakkha.nabhaavato taggatikamevaati ³ruupan²tveva vuccati. He called them just materiality because they have the nature of being the separation, changeability and being characteristics of produced materiality, and just referred to that. N: remarks: Also the unproduced materiality is called rupa, because they are attributes of the rupas that are produced, the attributes of concrete matter (ruupa-ruupa). They delimit the groups of rupa, they are changeability of rupa (the intimations that are a certain unique change of the elements, moreover, lightness etc.) and the four characteristics inherent in all rupas. Thus, as the Vis. text states, rupas can, in this way, be classified as fourfold. Concrete matter is one class, and the unproduced materiality is classified as threefold. ***** Nina. 32987 From: icarofranca Date: Wed May 12, 2004 11:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhammasangani, to Icaro Dear Nina > The first sentence of Cittuppaada-ka.n.da.m: > kaamaavacara a.t.tha mahaacittaani. > Only this one, let's concentrate on this. It is full of meaning. > Some questions for you, but this depend on your time. Why not one sentence > now and then? Let's Go!!!! > 1.What is the meaning of kaamaavacara (sensuous sphere)? There are four classes of consciosness: 1)Kaamaavacaram 2)Rupavacaram 3)Arupavacaram 4)Lokuttaram c'ati The first one - Kaamaavacaram, is the conscience pertaining of sensuous Sphere. > 2.Why is it said: mahaacittaani? (great cittas) Kaamaavacaram has 12 immoral consciousness - javanas. The first eight of these twelve are called Mahaacittaani, because they are rooted in Attachment - imani attha'pi Lobhasahagatacittani nama - > 3.What objects do they have? 1. One consciousness, unprompted, accompained with pleasure, and connected with wrong view - Somanassa-sahagatam, ditthigatasampayuttam, asankharikam' ekam, 2. One consciousness, prompted, accompained with pleasure, and connected with wrong view - Somanassa-sahagatam, ditthigatasampayuttam, sasankharikam' ekam, 3.One consciousness, unprompted, accompained with pleasure, and disconnected with wrong view - Somanassa-sahagatam, ditthigatavippayuttam, asankharikam ekam, 4.One consciousness, prompted, accompained with pleasure, and disconnected with wrong view - Somanassa-sahagatam, ditthigatavippayuttam, asankharikam' ekam, 5.One consciousness, unprompted, accompained with indifference, and connected with wrong view - Upekkhasahagatam, ditthigatasampayuttam, asankharikam' ekam, 6.One consciousness, prompted, accompained with indifference, and connected with wrong view - Upekkhasahagatam, ditthigatasampayuttam, sasankharikam' ekam, 7.One consciousness, unprompted, accompained with indifference, and disconnected with wrong view - Upekkhasahagatam, ditthigatavippayuttam, asankharikam' ekam, 8.One consciousness, prompted, accompained with indifference, and disconnected with wrong view - Upekkhasahagatam, ditthigatavippayuttam, sasankharikam' ekam. > 4.Why are they eight (a.t.tha)? It's because these eight of all twelve Kaamaavacaram are consciousness not rooted in ill-will or aversion. > Success, Salve et valet, Orbílio Pupílio!!! > P.S. In June Larry and I have finished the rupakkhandha of the Visuddhimagga > and we shall start vi~n~naa.nakkhandha, the aggregate of consciousness or > citta. You could jump right in. I will try it!!! Mettaya, Ícaro 32988 From: icarofranca Date: Wed May 12, 2004 11:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhammasangani, to Icaro Typo!!! > There are four classes of consciosness: --------------------------------------------------------------------- it's "There are four classes of consciousness". ( Orbílio Pupílio!!! No!! No!!! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Mettaya, Ícaro 32989 From: Htoo Naing Date: Wed May 12, 2004 11:47am Subject: Hetu Paccaya Initiation Dear Dhamma Friends, One the pages of 'Patthana Dhamma', citta, cetasika, rupa, and nibbana have been elucidated. Page 29 is about nibbana as a summary. Now recent page is page 30. Page 30 can be viewed here at http://www.geocities.com/htootintnaing/patthana30.html .In that page, root condition or hetu paccaya is explained to some extent. There are 6 roots or 6 hetus. They are lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, and amoha. How these six dhamma work will be able to be seen on the page 30. If there arises something confusing just put a message as a discussion point. No one is perfect and discussion and research will help us a lot in dhamma studying. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... 32990 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed May 12, 2004 3:58pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi Jon, Thank you for providing the notes. So given the notes you provided, does that mean that breaths are not bodily fabrications? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > > Do you mean that breaths are not bodily fabrications? Or do you > > mean that you are not sure whether breaths are bodily fabrications > or not? > > > > What does the commentary say regarding whether breaths are bodily > fabrications or not? > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > Victor > > I've finally got around to checking your sutta (M. 44). This has led > me to the conclusion that we have been talking at cross purposes to > some extent. > > If you'll recall, my original comment was: > <<<- The dhammas/five aggregates spoken of in the suttas do not > include 'breath'.>>>, > > to which you replied: > <<< > you might find the following quote helpful: > "Now, lady, what are fabrications?" > "These three fabrications, friend Visakha: bodily fabrications, > verbal fabrications, & mental fabrications." > "But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal fabrications? What > are mental fabrications?" > "In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & > evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental > fabrications." > >>>. > > From what I've been able to find out, 'fabrications' ('sankhaaras') > in your quoted passage does not carry either of its more usual > meanings of (a) all conditioned dhammas (i.e. the five aggregates), > or (b) the mental states comprising the fourth aggregate > ('sankhaara-khandha'). Instead it carries a more specialised meaning > that has relevance in the context of the attainment of cessation (as > M. 44 goes on to deal with). > > According to the introductory note to Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of > the Majjhima Nikaya ('Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha', p55): > > <<< > The word 'sankhaara' occurs in four major contexts in the Pali > suttas: > (1) As the second factor in the formula of dependent origination it > is used to mean volitional actions ... > (2) As the fourth of the five aggregates the 'sankhaaras' comprise > all the mental factors not included in the other three mental > aggregates ... > (3) 'Sankhaara' is also used in a very comprehensive sense to > signify everything produced by conditions. In this sense it > comprises all five aggregates ... > (4) In still another context the word 'sankhaara' is used in > relation to 'kaaya', 'vacii' and 'citta' -- body, speech and mind - - > to mean the bodily formation, which is in-and-out breathing; the > verbal formation, which is applied thought and sustained thought; and > the mental formation, which is perception and feeling. ... > 'Sankhaara' is also employed outside these major contexts ..." > >>> > > A similar set of meanings is given in Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist > Dictionary' (copied below). Both writings make reference to M. 44 in > the context of the definition appropriate to your quoted passage (No > 4 in Bhikkhu Bodhi's, No 2 in Nyanatiloka's). > > Of interest on the general subject of 'dhammas' etc. is that in > Bhikkhu Bodhi's notes he adds, in relation to the third meaning given > above: > "This usage comes close in meaning to the ontological use of > 'dhamma', except that the latter is wider in range since it includes > the unconditioned element Nibbaana and concepts ('pannatti'), both of > which are excluded from 'sankhaara'." > > I hope this helps resolve any apparent disparity in my statement and > your sutta quote. > > Jon > > From Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' > ********************** > sankhára: > This term has, according to its context, different shades of meaning, > which should be carefully distinguished. > > To its most frequent usages (s. foll. 1-4) the general term > 'formation' may be applied ... This term may refer either to the act > of 'forming or to the passive state of 'having been formed' or to > both. > 1. As the 2nd link of the formula of dependent origination, sankhára > has the active aspect, 'forming, and signifies karma, i.e. wholesome > or unwholesome volitional activity (cetaná) of body (káya-s.), speech > (vací-s.) or mind (citta- or mano-s.). > 2. The aforementioned three terms, káya-, vací- and citta-s. are > sometimes used in quite a different sense, namely as (1) bodily > function, i.e. in-and-out-breathing (e.g. M. 10), (2) verbal > function, i.e. thought-conception and discursive thinking, (3) > mental-function, i.e. feeling and perception (e.g. M. 44). > 3. It also denotes the 4th group of existence (sankhárakkhandha), > and includes all 'mental formations' whether they belong to > 'karmically forming' consciousness or not. > 4. It occurs further in the sense of anything formed (sankhata) and > conditioned, and includes all things whatever in the world, all > phenomena of existence. This meaning applies, e.g. to the well- known > passage, "All formations are impermanent... subject to suffering" > (sabbe sankhára aniccá ... dukkhá). In that context, however, > sankhára is subordinate to the still wider and all-embracing term > dhamma (thing); for dhamma includes also the Unformed or > Unconditioned Element (asankhata-dhátu), i.e. Nibbána (e.g. in sabbe > dhammá anattá, "all things are without a self"). > > Sankhára also means sometimes 'volitional effort' ... 32991 From: Date: Wed May 12, 2004 4:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Wandering Mind Hi Michelle, As Jack said, anapanasati can be practiced for tranquility or insight. It might be helpful to decide which you want to pursue. For example, you might want to start with tranquility and just relax with the breath for a while. Then make a conscious decision to move into insight and notice that the breath is not "me". Insight is aimed a noticing impermanence, dukkha, and not self (anatta). Finally you might finish up with a short period of tranquility. I have found that no matter how poorly I concentrate just being there and holding the meditation posture for the prescribed time is very beneficial. Recently I have been taking thinking as an object of contemplation. I see that I am attached to thinking. I like to figure things out and see things in a new way and I like to anticipate any problems I might have in my day and solve those problems in my mind. This attachment invariably leads to anger and unpleasant feeling when things don't work out as I had hoped. The fault is not so much with the thinking but rather with the attachment to thinking. This attachment is greedy, craving pleasant feeling which never lasts and always wants more. Plus there is a certain amount of fear; what will I do if I don't think??? I might make a mistake, fail somehow, or, worse still, become bored. All of these fears come with nothing but painful feeling. The only solution to all this fear is just to let go of it. Be here with whatever arises. You could look at your own thinking process in a similar way. Really try to understand what is going on with all this thinking. Once you get a pretty good picture, remember it. Larry 32992 From: Date: Wed May 12, 2004 5:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Wandering Mind Hi Michelle, I just remembered something that may apply to you. A new meditation student often develops what is called "beginner's mind". This beginner's mind sees things very clearly and in particular sees the functioning of the mind very clearly. As a consequence, in the beginning it may seem as though she is thinking many many more thoughts than normal. This is just because, before, none of this was noticed. On a subtle level we are thinking all the time but we usually are not aware of it. Beginner's mind is actually a very good place to be. Don't worry about it. Just continue the practice. Larry 32993 From: Date: Wed May 12, 2004 6:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vis. and Tiika 77. Hi Nina, Thanks for the tika. No quibbles. Larry 32994 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 12, 2004 9:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhammasangani, to Icaro op 12-05-2004 20:01 schreef icarofranca op icarofranca@y...: > >> 1.What is the meaning of kaamaavacara (sensuous sphere)? > > There are four classes of consciosness: > 1)Kaamaavacaram > 2)Rupavacaram > 3)Arupavacaram > 4)Lokuttaram c'ati > The first one - Kaamaavacaram, is the conscience pertaining of > sensuous Sphere. > >> 2.Why is it said: mahaacittaani? (great cittas) > > Kaamaavacaram has 12 immoral consciousness - javanas. The first > eight of these twelve are called Mahaacittaani, because they are > rooted in Attachment - imani attha'pi Lobhasahagatacittani nama - N: There are eight akusala cittas rooted in lobha, but here the subject is mahaacittaani: namely, mahaa-kusala cittas. Of these there are also eight types.(Engl Transl p. 1). It is the very beginning of Book I, Cittupaada ka.n.da.m. The subject heading here is kusala cittas. When we see the prefix mahaa, it is always beautiful citta, sobhana citta, of the sense-sphere, kaamaavacara. Thus we have: mahaa-kusala cittas, mahaa-vipaakacittas, mahaa-kiriyacittas. >> 3.What objects do they have? N: They have all objects appearing through the sense-doors and through the mind-door, but not the objects of ruupaavacara cittas and aruupaavacaara cittas or lokuttara cittas. They are called mahaa, because of the great range of objects. Also, we can see that a great many of sobhana cetasikas have to assist the sobhana citta. Now in order to classify them, you have to replace wrong view by ~naa.na, wisdom. > 1. One consciousness, unprompted, accompained with pleasure, and > connected with understanding - Somanassa-sahagatam, > ~naa.na-sampayutta.m, asankharikam' eka.m, N: There is a lot more to say on kaamaavacaara and also on these eight types. They are not mere lists. They can occur now, but with wisdom is more seldom. And then: what degree of understanding. That is the question. Studying the teachings is kusala with understanding. We may promise ourselves to do so, but don't do it. Someone else may say: let's get at it. This can be an example of prompted. It occurs a lot in daily life. The Vis. under the aggregate of consciousness gives examples too, we shall get at those later on. Nina. 32995 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed May 12, 2004 11:54pm Subject: Re: Global chaos or a cup of tea --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > > > I think the idea you're expressing above is more valid for > people who have made progress in clearing out the crudest defilements. > Let's think of the citta stream as an actual river. I'm talking > about clearing out rotten logs and old bicycles and washing machines > that are blocking the flow. When that's done, the time will come to > take a more refined, less self-directed approach. That's the way I'm > seeing it now. I wonder if anyone else agrees that there is the need > for self to do some heavy work at the beginning to prepare for the > release of self? Kind of like hiring a fellow to work without telling > him that the work he will be doing will be the preliminary stages of > a process that will lead to his being laid off! > Hi Philip, This is the way I look at it: The future is an idea -- a mere illusion of reality. In it, we living beings will inevitably do what we will do. That's the way it has always been. The present moment is absolute reality: conditioned dhammas (namas which experience an object and rupas which don't experience anything) are arising, persisting and falling away here and now. What would we like those present dhammas to be doing? Would we like them to be ignorant of reality -- thinking about illusory beings of the past and future? Or would we like them to know the namas and rupas of the present moment? I think the answer is obvious: we can know conventional reality any time. Like the poor, will always be with us. Absolute reality is different: it's now or never. The trouble is, there's no choosing to have right understanding: dhammas depend on conditions. But understanding the significance of the present moment is one of those conditions. Hope that helps. It's nothing you haven't heard before but it's the best I can do. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 32996 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 13, 2004 0:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Hi Jack, Thank you for responding, especially when it must seem that I keep missing your point. Jackhat1@a... wrote: > Sarah, > > Here is my response to your questions below. First, I think the Buddha > did > "break up unified processes into many different categories as teaching > tools." I > explained myself as best I could and can't think of anything else to say > > without repeating myself. ... S: I think this was in relation to whether or not ‘seeing consciousness and visible object is a dualistic and useful way to break up this non-dualistic process.’ I’m not sure if you understand these to be a) separate dhammas with separate characteristics which can be known, even though closely connected or b) the same dhammas (‘just seeing’) which cannot be understood seperately as nama and rupa, but which are discussed as having different components as an arbitrary ‘dualistic and useful way’ for teaching purposes alone. .... > Second, you ask what is unconditioned mind and self-determination. The > Buddha > does talk about conditioned mind and unconditioned mind. .... S: I think the only unconditioned dhamma is nibbana. All other dhammas are conditioned. Do you have anything else in mind? You mentioned that ‘one can make decisions out of unconditioned mind’. I’d be glad if you’d elaborate as this is something new to me. .... >I suggest you > go to > the teachings for an answer here. .... S: I’m not trying to be tricky, but I really would have no idea what or where you have in mind. Perhaps it’s a language issue. .... >As for self-determination, the Buddha > is > continually teaching people to do this or do that, for instance, follow > the > 8-Fold Path. I think self-determination is our following the Buddha's > teachings and > making those decisions. I know you feel differently. ..... S: Do you see any conflict with this idea of self-determination and the teaching on anatta: ‘sabbe dhamma anatta’ and all the discussions about there being no self to exercise any control over the khandhas etc.? Also, do you accept that all dhammas are conditioned? You may like to follow my thread with Philip on the same question. ..... > As for the rest, I did the best I could expressing myself and can't > think of > anything to add without repeating myself. > > Be well. ... S: Thanks Jack, you too! I’ve greatly appreciated and enjoyed all your honest and open sharings and explanations so far. Metta, Sarah p.s. When I first became seriously interested in Buddhism (in India), I followed the Mahasi method very strictly for a year under Munindra’s guidance initially for several months in Bodh Gaya and later in temples in Sri Lanka, so I understand the appeal and methodology. In my case, the clinging to results and clinging to an illusion of self that could direct cittas at these times became more and more apparent. ============================================= 32997 From: Date: Thu May 13, 2004 1:06am Subject: Hi Important bill! 32998 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 13, 2004 1:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran Thanks Hi Steve, --- bodhi2500 wrote: > Hi Sarah, All, > > > > Tayodhammasutta.m. > > > Bhikkhus, without dispelling three things, it is not possible to > > > dispel the view of a self, doubts and grasping virtues as the > highest > > > aim. .... > Anguttara: Books of 10's, Akankhavaggo(8), Sutta 6 > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- > Nikaya/Anguttara6/10-dasakanipata/008-akankhavaggo-e.htm ... S: Thanks for the reference which I’ve followed. I see this was referring to sakkaayadi.t.thi, vicikicchaa and siilabbataparaamaasa. .... >What three? Unwise attention, practising in the wrong path > and > > > the mind's immobility, Bhikkhus, without dispelling these three > > > things, it is not possible to dispel the view of a self, doubts > and > > > grasping virtues as the highest aim. ... S: Interesting how it continues: “....Bhikkhus, without dispelling three things, it is not possible to dispel unwise atttention practising in the wrong path and the mind's immobility. What three? Forgetfulness, lack of mindful awareness and derangement of mind....... Bhikkhus, without dispelling three things, it is not possible to dispel forgetfulness, lack of mindful awareness and derangement of mind..What three? Dislike to see noble ones, dislike to hear the noble Teaching and the reproaching mind...... Bhikkhus, without dispelling three things, it is not possible to dispel the dislike to see noble ones, to hear the noble teaching and the reproaching mind. What three? Excitement, lack of restraint and evil virtues ........ Bhikkhus, without dispelling three things, it is not possible to dispel excitement, lack of restraint and evil virtues. What three? Lack of faith, stinginess and laziness. .... Bhikkhus, without dispelling three things, it is not possible to dispel lack of faith, stinginess and laziness. What three? Disrespect, unruliness and evil friendship..... Bhikkhus, without dispelling three things, it is not possible to dispel disrespect, unruliness and evil friendship. What three? Lack of shame, lack of remorse and negligence. .... Bhikkhus, the shameless one without remorse becomes negligent It is not possible for the negligent one to dispel direspect, unruliness and evil friendship. It is not possisble for the one associating evil friends to gain faith, dispel stinginess and laziness. It is not possible for the lazy one to dispel excitement, lack of restraint and evil virtues. It is not possible for the unvirtuous one to dispel the dislike to see noble ones, to hear the teaching of the noble ones and dispel the reproaching mind. It is not possible for one with a reproaching mind to dispel forgetfulness, lack of mindful awareness and the derangement of mind. It is not possible for one with deranged mind to dispel unwise attention, practising in the wrong path and the mind's immobility. It is not possible for one with a sluggish mind to dispel the view of a self, doubts, and grasping virtues as the highest aim. It is not possible for the doubting one to dispel greed, hate and delusion. Without dispelling greed, hate and delusion it is not possible to dispel birth, decay and death. <.........>” ***** ..... > Steve: If there was no satipatthana/no insight into paramattha > Dhamma's, wouldn't any 'discernment of kusala/akusala states' be just > concept / thinking about kusala/akusala? ..... Sarah: Good questions;-) I’m in danger of over-reaching and contradicting myself. To state the obvious first, wisdom (pa~n~naa) varies considerably with the cittas it accompanies and all sobhana (beautiful) cittas except those dissociated from knowledge include some kind of wisdom. So in addition to the jhana and lokuttara cittas, it accompanies the 12 sense-sphere cittas associated with knowledge. For example, at moments of samatha, the object is concept, but the citta is associated with knowledge. This is so right up to attainment of jhanas, but I don’t think we can say this is ‘just thinking about’ the object as we’re used to ‘thinking’. Mind-door cittas accompanied by vitakka, vicara, ekaggata etc, yes, but this is different from thinking about stories as we’re so used to doing. Also, if there hadn’t been the direct experience of kusala/akusala, elements, metta or whatever else, it wouldn’t be possible for these sobhana cittas to now experience (with panna) the image or nimitta or concept(by way of navatabbarammana as I now understand). However, only at moments of satipatthana does the characteristic of reality appear ‘just as it is’ with no self or anything in it. This is why, no matter how highly developed other kinds of samatha bhavana are, realities can never be seen ‘just as they are’ and the idea of self eradicated. Steve, I’d be glad to hear yours or KenH’s comments. He mentioned he had more lurking points from your discussions and I know you’ll have both been considering this topic. I need to consider it further as I’m just speculating out loud for now. Nina or others may also add more. I greatly appreciate your contributions. Metta, Sarah ====== 32999 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 13, 2004 1:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Pali Sutta Portion Caro Icaro!!! Obrigado for your free Portuguese lessons. I appreciate the translations in your posts to Garbriel;-). Back to our thread which I’m rather wishing I’d left in Howard’s hands:-/ .... --- icarofranca wrote: > Sarah, I can guarantee you that the last stanzas of Dhammasangani > states such passages at a direct way: Kusala Dhammas are classified > taxonomically as the five Bhumisu Vipakas, three components, Rupa > and Nibbana (corrections are welcome, since I left my PTS > Dhammasangani edition at home, but amy interested can check it out > on www.tipitaka.org). .... I tried Mrs R.D’s translation with no joy on this part and looked at the Pali and got quite lost in all the squiggles I get (no fonts) and eventually gave up. Usually I can work out what you’re getting at, but this time I’m quite lost. Are you referring to kusala dhammas bringing results (vipaka) in the 4 bhumis - kamavacara, rupabrahma, arupabrahma and lokuttara? No, I need further clues. Maybe Nina can help disentangle this tangle. .... > My thesis is that Dukkha hasn´t any deal with the Paramattha > Dhammas, since its scope goes further on the relativity of concepts - > the fertile ground where Dukkha buddeth forth. .... S: It’s a novel thesis:-) Are you talking about Dukkha as the Noble Truth referring to all conditioned dhammas or dukkha dukkha (unpleasant feeling) or viparinama dukkha (change of pleasant feeling)? Anyway, I’m confused further. .... >As the Aristotle´s > Praedicamenta, the Paramattha Dhammas are the > ultimate "Ordinatio", "Niyama" or coherent and ordered > classification of all external world ( our minds included )untill > the final goal, the Nibbana. .... S: OK! .... > I just like some moralistic tinges, so I consider unwholesome or > Akusala Cetasikas as non-deserving to enter the ranks of the > Ultimate Realities...since its akusala patterns are mere relative > and limited concepts at the last end. ... :-/ I think I’ll have to ask Howard or Gabriel, our ‘nobre companhia’, for further translations. Metta, Sarah p.s It’s a great idea to slowly work through Dhammasangani to help us all with some of these tangles. Obrigado to you and Nina. =================