37400 From: Dan D. Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 8:36am Subject: Re: Dighanakha Sutta and more contd Dear Sarah and Dighanakha, Interesting discussion about an important sutta (MN 74)... Sammaditthi cannot be described as "close to" non-attachment. If there is attachment, the view is simply ditthi and not sammaditthi at all. At the beginning of the sutta, Dighanakha is plagued by ditthi. Buddha teaches him about sammaditthi and "how there comes to be the abandoning of these views [viz., Dighanakha's view and it's opposite]." At the end of the sutta, Dighanakha is able to abandon ditthi and "the spotless immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose." Wonderful story! A sharp distinction is made between the opinions and conceptual formulations that we hold so dear (ditthi) and the direct vision of Dhamma (sammaditthi). When the distinction is clearly understood by Mr. Ditthi (also known as Dighanakha), he becomes a sotapanna. May we all experience a similar abandoning of ditthi! Dan 37401 From: Andrew Levin Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 8:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > > > Hi Andrew > > Fair enough! The abhidhamma approach is certainly not for everyone. > There are > many right traditions within Dhamma - everyone can find the one that suits > his or her accumulations. > > It's been a pleasure exchanging thoughts with you. Your ambition energizes > me. > I hope you'll stick around. As Howard said, there are various points of > view here > and Nina is not the only person who can help you with any questions > you have, or give you supportive feedback. It'd be hard to find an online > sangha as solid as this one. > > > Metta, > Phil Phil, As it is right now my understanding of the Dharma is weak, but going on what I read, hear from friends, see, and experience, I do believe that enlightenment in the short-term is possible. So I'm going with that for now. I came to this group for knowledge of Abhidharma which one of my books says is necessary for contemplation of mind in mind, but I recognize it may be of use in developing just that understanding of the Dharma that I lack. However if this is not possible I may just proceed on my own without that understanding, going on books, developing the paramis, trying the four foundations of mindfulness, and still holding out to see the noble truths in this lifetime -- after all, who knows?, a human rebirth may not come again for a long time. Yours truly, Andrew Levin 37402 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 9:22am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 085 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There left another two cetasikas in the group of pakinnaka cetasikas or flexible ministers. They are adhimokkha and chanda. Adhimokkha is an important cetasika. It makes decision. It decides on the object. Adhimokkha advises the king citta to decide on the object. Without adhimokkha citta cannot decide anything. This case can be tested in the case of vicikiccha sampayutta citta which is a moha mula citta. In this citta, there is no adhimokkha cetasika at all. Because of the absence of adhimokkha cetasika or decision, vicikiccha citta never can decide anything. That is why vicikiccha citta cannot decide on the object and it is said to be indecisiveness. Those people who do not have saddha or faith or confidence in The Buddha and His Dhamma, they do have doubt in The Buddha's Dhamma. This doubt is what we call vicikiccha. Whenever they have to deal with The Buddha's Dhamma, they do not have a power that can decide on the things. This does happen when someone has doubt in The Buddha's teaching. In moha mula cittas, there are two cittas. One is this citta vicikiccha and another is uddhacca citta. Here adhimokkha becomes very important. In which way? Vicikiccha citta is an akusala citta and it can give rise apaya patisandhi and this means rebirth in lower realms such as hell realm, animial realm, peta or hungry ghost realm and asura or demon realm. In case of uddhacca citta, there is adhimokkha as an accompanying cetasika. This citta is moha mula citta and it is a spreading mind. But this moha mula citta does not give rise to apaya patisandhi as in case of vicikiccha citta which does not have adhimokkha. This is evident that all sotapanna are not reborn in apaya bhumis. They all still have uddhacca both in anusaya form and priyutthana form and they sometimes do have in vitikkhama form. But lower ariyas such as sotapanna, sakadagams, and anagams do have uddhacca. They are never reborn in apaya bhumi. This means that uddhacca citta does not give rise to apaya patisandhi. This means uddhacca citta does not give rise to patisandhi effect. But it does give rise to pavatti results or the results in the course of life. This is implication of adhimokkha cetasika. As there is still adimokkha, it does not give rise to patisandhi effect. Vicikiccha on the other hand does give rise to apaya patisandhi. This is because it does not have adhimokkha and in the absence of adhimokkha, citta is weak and this again leads to arising of kamma that may give rise to apaya patisandhi. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37403 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 10:23am Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 13 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 61 1. 'many cattle' I am not a good grammarian. I am not sure whether there are words like 'few cattle', 'many cattle'. What I am sure is that there is no 'a cattle'. 2. 'cattle and shed gate' simile This is very good simile and it helps understanding of 4 different kamma in terms of seniority. Garuka kamma, asanna kamma, acinna kamma, and katatta kamma looks like what Rob M demonstrates in his 'cattle and shed gate' simile. Page 62. 3. Table here in the page 62 is good. Page 63. 4. The table of 'punna kiriya' is nicely presented. Rob summarises as three topic namely dana, siila and bhavana. This is also good. Page 64. 5. Things to be Done when Someone is Critically ill. I think this is side track although it is a good message to know. 6. Kuan Yin I did not read anything about Kuan Yin. Rob M, please explain about Kuan Yin. Is it a figure who is female and who is also bodhisatta? With respect, Htoo Naing 37404 From: robmoult Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 1:49pm Subject: Re: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 13 ) by Htoo Hi Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > I am not a good grammarian. I am not sure whether there are words > like 'few cattle', 'many cattle'. What I am sure is that there is > no 'a cattle'. ===== Your grammar is correct; there is no "a cattle". :-) ===== > Page 64. > > 5. Things to be Done when Someone is Critically ill. > > I think this is side track although it is a good message to know. > > 6. Kuan Yin > > I did not read anything about Kuan Yin. Rob M, please explain about > Kuan Yin. Is it a figure who is female and who is also bodhisatta? > ===== Others have made simlar comments regarding the "Things to be Done..." section and I have deleted it (though it is good to know, it does not really belong in this book). Kuan Yin is an extremely important figure in Chinese Mahayana Buddhism; she is the Bodhisatta representing compassion; perhaps you know the Indian version Avalokitesvara. It appears as though the Bodhisatta underwent a gender change when moving from India to China :-) Some new age "research" books even identify this Bodhisatta as a possible referece to Jesus, who they claim visited India after faking his death by crucifixion. Oops, I am getting off topic again... :-) Htoo, I really appreciate your feedback. Metta, Rob M :-) 37405 From: Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 10:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/9/04 9:18:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > I agree with Howard: be vigilant. The more we see the benefit, the > more there will be conditions for cultivating the perfections and > mindfulness. We should pay attention to this moment instead of thinking of > future realization, after all that is only thinking. This moment is decisive > for the future. If there can be a slight moment of understanding of seeing > as nama, visible object as rupa, clinging as nama, this is in itself of > benefit, because each moment of understanding is accumulated and leads to > future moments. But we should not cling to having more understanding. Before > we realize it, it is *my understanding*. > Howard, I see this as the preparation you spoke about. You wrote: > by various means, and part of what was cultivated was a state of beckground > calm and the kusala *habit* of being > attentive. Such "background preparation" I do believe is quite necessary. At > the moment of the arising of a dhamma, it is already too late to "prepare". > > > N: Agreed, if we are slack now there are no conditions for satipatthana. The > best way is being aware right now, and then also the perfections are being > accumulated. As I said, a perfection is a perfection if we do not think of > my gain, my benefit, *I do it*. I just have doubts about the word background > calm, but this we can discuss later. Actually I know what you mean, you see > it as an accumulated condition. But let us say, there is calm (a cetasika, > not self) with each kind of kusala. And each kusala can be the perfection of > renunciation. A Co states: all kusala are renunciation. You renounce your > own comfort, your own pleasure. You do not think of yourself. How very true, > I have confidence in renunciation. ============================= Nina, we use different terminology fairly often, and we disagree with each other from time to time on some matters, though not on the importance of mindfulness and vigilance, but what most pleases me about you is your kindness, particularly in how you converse with me. And what pleases me the most in our interactions is the fact that you understand me; you make the effort to go beyond formulational differences and minor disagreements, and you almost always succeed in "getting" what it is that I mean. I greatly appreciate this! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37406 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 2:08am Subject: Fearless not Wanting ... Friends: Stilled !!! Not Wanting Pleasure.. Not Fearing any Pain.. Not Wanting any Gain.. Not Fearing any Loss.. Not Wanting only Praise.. Not Fearing much Blame.. Not Wanting Name & Fame.. Not Fearing Anonymity.. Not Wanting to be Rich.. Not Fearing simple Poverty.. Not Wanting to be Young.. Not Fearing Ageing nor Death.. Not Wanting to be Beautiful.. Not Fearing own Ugliness.. Not Wanting to be Successful.. Not Fearing full Failure.. Not Wanting to be Recognized.. Not Fearing to be Ignored.. Not Wanting any Sight.. Not Wanting any Sound.. Not Wanting any Smell.. Not Wanting any Savour.. Not Wanting any Touch.. Not Wanting any State.. Not Fearing any State.. Not Wanting any Possession.. Not Fearing Loosing all.. Not Wanting any Form.. Not Fearing Formlessness.. Not Wanting any Body.. Not Fearing Bloodlessness.. Not Wanting it to be different, than it is... Not Fearing it is different, than it appears.. Not Wanting it to become anything else.. Not Fearing it becomes something else.. Not Wanting anything at all..! Not Fearing anything at all..! Not Wanting any Life nor Death..!! Not Fearing any Life nor Death..!! Not Wanting to be..!!! Not Fearing not to be..!!! Freed of any Urge.. Purged of any Clinging.. Released from all Craving.. Damped is all Drifting.. Relinquished is all Attraction.. Relaxed is all Opposition.. Calmed is all latent Tendency.. In only this: There is a Peace not of this world.. There is an Ease not of this world.. There is Ceasing of this burning Fever.. Stilled in Bliss ... Nibbana !!! Yeah ... ;-) Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. 37407 From: Suravira Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 3:10pm Subject: Re: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: (Was: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Joop wrote: > Dear Suravira and all > > In the meantime I have another (combined) question to you (and other > DSG-members) > > Now my question is: > 1 Is the way the 'two truths' appear in de Sutta's, the > same as they appear in the Abhidhamma ? > 2 Is this the same way as they appear in the texts of Buddhaghosa ? > 3 Is the way the 'two truths' appear in de Sutta's, the > same as they appear in the Madhyamakakarika ? > 4 Is this the same way as they appear in Mahayana texts ? > I think the answer to question 1, 2 and 4 is: no. > Kalupahana states (as I understand him well) the answer to question 3 > is yes, but most disagree with him > [Suravira] The manner in which the "two truths" are expressed differs across these schools. Yet it only appears this way "on the outside". This difference is primarily a matter of their respective rhetoric. Each school's presentation of the true truths differs due (primarily) to the demands placed on them to respond to detractions for other opposing religious groups. Those detractions (and the responces) framed the rhetoric. It is my position that "on the inside" the respective rhetoric stemming from each of these Buddhist shools frames the Dharma in a mode that is cogent and valid (overall). This assertion is not made to suggest that sectarian conflicts within Buddhism did not occur throughout its history, or that they are not present to this day, as regards the two truths teachings. Clear comprehension of the two truths (as with all aspects of Dharma) is rooted in meditation. While analytic contemplation of the two truth is beneficial, this technique does not provide insight that liberates us from selfish desire, unreal fear, anger, hatred, delusion and (spiritual) ignorance. Ignorance in this context does not mean a lack of education, or information. Ignorance means being unaware of the nature of reality. When we directly realize the nature of reality, we will be liberated from ignorance, delusional states of mind will be abandoned, we will let go of selfish desire and hatred, and realize the joy and compassion of enlightened existence for the benefit of all senscient beings In my limited investigation of these differences (in the teachings of the two truths), it appears that the Theravadan literature rigourously applies the laws of cause and effect and impermance to the image (whose generative cause is modeled as the five aggregates) of our conventional self. It presents this image as being like an illusion - like an illsion in as much as we hold it to be real in a way that it is not. It further appears to me that the Mahayana & Vajrayana literature continues to rigourouly apply the laws of cause and effect and impermance to the image (whose generative cause is mental phenomena) beyond our conventional self and applies it (in various manners) to all matters of being in space-time. In a simplistic way of expressing it, the Mahayana & Vajrayana lineages merely expond at greater length on the paths of mindfulness of mental states (which works with consciousness as its object) and mindfulness of mental objects (which works with the mental factor/aggregate of perception and the aggregate of karmic formation). Yes their respective rhetoric is different, but merely because a difference exist, there does not exist a need to establish one as right and the other as wrong. To gain an understanding of each of these three schools' teachings regarding the two truths, one must engage (at great length) in the practices of mindfulness of mental states and mindfulness of mental objects. Moreover, it is imperative that one diligently engage the practices of the jhanas. This enables one to "move from the outside into the inside" deftly. I suspect that the respective sectarian disputes relating to teachings of the two truths is nothing more than a matter of disparities in the mastery of mindfulness of mental states and of mental objects that existed between the disputants. As the Dharma is taking root within western cultures, we must be wary of transplanting sectarian disputes germinated in asian cultures. > 5 An related question. Yesterday (in a message to Robertk) I used the > analogy: > the distinction between the "two truths" in Theravada is that > of "conventional language" versus "philosophical-soteriological > language"; like in physics we can use conventional language but > better describe phenomena in mathematical language. Do you think this > is a useful analogy (for people who don't hate science) ? > [Suravira] Conventional language, just as with all symbolic expressions, is constrained by philosophical-soterological constructs. Fundamentally, there is no discernable difference between the two "styles" beyond the respective vocabulary they adopt and advocate for. With metta, Suravira 37408 From: Andrew Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:18am Subject: Re: Games People Play --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi all, > > Some quotes from Eric Berne's book. > > "A game is an ongoing series of complimentary ulterior transactions > progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome. Descriptively it > is a recurring set of transactions, often repetitious, superficially > plausible, with a concealed motivation; or, more colloquially, a > series of moves with a snare, or 'gimmick'. [snip] > For the game player who asks the therapist "what do you expect of a > neurotic, only nama/rupa, accumalations, defilements type person" > the answer is "I don't expect anything, but what do you expect of > yourself?" Hi Herman and all We have a number of Berne's books here and find them very interesting. For those of you who want to explore the unscientific nature of modern western psychiatry/psychology, I recommend Thomas S Szasz's books, "The Myth of Mental Illness", "The Manufacture of Madness" and "Ideology and Insanity". Good reads and a sure cure for the folly of putting western science up on an unrealistic pedestal. Best wishes Andrew T 37409 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:32am Subject: Brisbane Group - October meeting - mainly rebirth Hello all, (esp. those who know the dhamma friends below), Reg, Andy, Bruce, Klaas and I met at 1.00 p.m. for our monthly afternoon discussion. We are beginning to go through "The Road to Liberation" Paticcasamuppada (Dependent Origination) by Ron Wijewantha http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha239.htm We all decided that we knew the Basics, so started reading aloud Chapter Two. Interestingly, Klaas said this is the booklet he photocopied for his University of the Third Age classes. I found some of the simple straightforward explanations of benefit - particularly that on the four elements. There was considerable discussion about ReBirth, after which I felt more confused than I have been in a year or two. Reg honestly stating his current lack of clear seeing where this topic is concerned, which stimulated lots of talk. Bruce wondered what was the point of seeking enlightenment if it was for the benefit of the identity produced by the stream of consciousness in the next life. Everyone pondered this silently for a minute or two. Others stated that there was no proof of rebirth, and asked what was the point of generosity, good behaviour and meditation if results are experienced in future lives. Who cares, someone said ... seeing that 'I' am not going to be there. I guess many just don't get Anatta and how the 'being' in one life relates to the 'being' in the next. Just namas and rupas didn't answer the question satisfactorily for anyone. Candle, Stream, and Baby to Adult similes didn't seem to help either. Maybe we should have read Chapter 1. :-) I don't know how the rest of chapter two went because I had to leave at 4.00 p.m. to get home to my invalid dog - or so I thought he was. When I arrived home, I found him eating the next door neightbours (very dead) prize rooster. How could a drugged out dog with back legs that aren't working properly, catch a fighting breed rooster? Perhaps the dogs next door caught it and Good Boy Rusty found it after the deed was done? Auggh! How is he ever going to get a desirable human rebirth with this sort of behaviour, I asked him? He was suitably abashed, after a stern talk, a smack on the muzzle and confiscation and surreptitious disposal of the chook. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 37410 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 085 ) Htoo. Dear Htoo, Thank you. This is exactly what I read in the Tiika. You followed your Burmese text. At first sight it may seem complicated, but we have to study it and try to understand the way of explanation. There is abandoning by seeing, dassana, and abandoning by cultivation, bhavana. In the case of the sotapanna, there is abandoning by seeing, he sees nibbana for the first time. Uddhacca is not abandoned by seeing, but by bhaavana at the stage of the arahat. More info see T.A. p. 189, Co to Abhidhammattha Sangaha. Nina. op 09-10-2004 18:22 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > In case of uddhacca citta, there is adhimokkha as an accompanying > cetasika. This citta is moha mula citta and it is a spreading mind. > But this moha mula citta does not give rise to apaya patisandhi as in > case of vicikiccha citta which does not have adhimokkha. > > This is evident that all sotapanna are not reborn in apaya bhumis. > They all still have uddhacca both in anusaya form and priyutthana > form and they sometimes do have in vitikkhama form. > > But lower ariyas such as sotapanna, sakadagams, and anagams do have > uddhacca. They are never reborn in apaya bhumi. This means that > uddhacca citta does not give rise to apaya patisandhi. > > This means uddhacca citta does not give rise to patisandhi effect. > But it does give rise to pavatti results or the results in the course > of life. This is implication of adhimokkha cetasika. As there is > still adimokkha, it does not give rise to patisandhi effect. 37411 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Five Aggregates Hi Ken O, Shall we say instead of scientific: a practical approach to the Dhamma? Abhidhamma points to the practice, knowing one's cittas now. If it does not, the study would be fruitless. I am sure you agree with this one. Nina. op 09-10-2004 17:14 schreef Ken O op ashkenn2k@y...: > better describe phenomena in mathematical language. Do you think >> this is a useful analogy (for people who don't hate science) ? > > k: Yup it is something like that :). That is why I love Abdhidhamma, > clear and concise, the scientific approach to Buddhism in my believe > :). 37412 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:46am Subject: Re: More on "Conventional right view" [Sarah] Hi Dan, This is an interesting conversation you are having with Sarah; it's a pity she can't continue it for the moment. I think I follow your thinking, but perhaps my question will reveal that one way or the other. :-) You weren't impressed by Sarah's argument: ---------- S: > I think there can be `conceptual right view' about kamma, which is a pre-cursor for mundane right view > ---------- KH: I don't think Sarah meant view in the sense of dytthi. As you have explained, ditthi is a paramattha dhamma, which, I gather, is described as speculative understanding contrary to right understanding. But concepts are not ditthi, and I think there can be a concept of kamma. If such a concept were to be experienced with kusala citta, what name could we give that citta? Conceptual right view? I think that would be a good name. That way, pariyatti (right intellectual understanding) could be described, in absolute terms, as any kusala citta that experienced a concept of Dhamma. Such cittas could be classifyied, consistently with the suttas, in three ways; namely, cittas that experience a concept of 1, Dhamma that is being listened to, 2, Dhamma that is being discussed, and 3, Dhamma that is being wisely considered. Is that totally wide of the mark? Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > It's great to hear from you! > > It's fine for you to support the notion of 'conceptual right view', > but isn't it necessary to stray from the Dhamma to do so? 37413 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 3:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Five Aggregates Hi Nina How could I disagree with you :). The strength in Abhidhamma, is its concise and clear nature to dhamma. It helps to develop understanding to the sutta. Develop confidence of the dhamma and rejoice to the compassion of Buddha. When I read the Abhidhamma or sutta, sometimes I felt Buddha indeed a very compassionate one, without him, I would not have discover a way out of samasara even though I know the journey going to be very very long. If I am born at that time, I most willing to carry him on my shoulder whenever he needs to travel. Indeed none is more honourable than the Buddha and the gods really shown great respect to this Great Sage from the day he is conceived till he PariNibbana. Nonetheless, Abhidhamma is not for everyone. But I think a study even a meagre material out of it, bring a lot of benefit to the readers. I seldom find individuals here that do not benefit from Abhidhamma. I feel individual practise depends a lot on one accumulations. Some people prefer mediation like Howard, RobM and Htoo while some prefer metta like Phil, all practises are up to their individual understanding and accumulations. But I believe, they all benefit from Abhidhamma especially from you, Nina, your effort to clarify technical materials which is beyond me. Do you know when is the date for Bangkok visit in Jan. I may like to go there next year most probably with my family too, for a holiday as now we have lots of budget flights here in Singapore to Bangkok :). Cheers and enjoy your dhamma in India. Maybe next time in India if they have budget flight :). Ken O 37414 From: Egbert Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 3:55am Subject: Re: Games People Play Hi Andrew, Thanks for your reply. A comment below. > > > > Some quotes from Eric Berne's book. > > > > "A game is an ongoing series of complimentary ulterior transactions > > progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome. Descriptively > it > > is a recurring set of transactions, often repetitious, > superficially > > plausible, with a concealed motivation; or, more colloquially, a > > series of moves with a snare, or 'gimmick'. > [snip] > > For the game player who asks the therapist "what do you expect of a > > neurotic, only nama/rupa, accumalations, defilements type person" > > the answer is "I don't expect anything, but what do you expect of > > yourself?" > > Hi Herman and all > > We have a number of Berne's books here and find them very > interesting. For those of you who want to explore the unscientific > nature of modern western psychiatry/psychology, I recommend Thomas S > Szasz's books, "The Myth of Mental Illness", "The Manufacture of > Madness" and "Ideology and Insanity". Good reads and a sure cure for > the folly of putting western science up on an unrealistic pedestal. My post was not intended as an advertisement for Berne or science, though I can understand it having been read that way. The point I was trying to get across was that human interaction in terms of namas/rupas only and as resulting from accumulations and defilements from countless aeons of previous lives can be seen as a dishonest game. If the Four Noble Truths can only be realised in the future because of past conditions, what exactly is going to be different in the future that cannot happen now? If it can't happen now, it never will. And that is the crux of the game. Bye for now Herman 37415 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 3:57am Subject: Re: Brisbane Group - October meeting - mainly rebirth --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > Hello all, (esp. those who know the dhamma friends below), Hello Christine, I thought you'd be on a plane by now. ---------------------- C: > Reg, Andy, Bruce, Klaas and I met at 1.00 p.m. for our monthly afternoon discussion. There was considerable discussion about ReBirth, after which I felt more confused than I have been in a year or two. Reg honestly stating his current lack of clear seeing where this topic is concerned, ------------------ You needed me there - to explain the cuti-citta. :-) ----------------- C: > which stimulated lots of talk. Bruce wondered what was the point of seeking enlightenment if it was for the benefit of the identity produced by the stream of consciousness in the next life. ------------------ In paramattha terms, the wholesome form of seeking enlightenment would be a moment of kusala consciousness, would it not? That means it would be accompanied by either joy or equanimity. Virtue is its own reward. ------------------- <. . .> C: I guess many just don't get Anatta and how the 'being' in one life relates to the 'being' in the next. Just namas and rupas didn't answer the question satisfactorily for anyone. -------------------- Bring them to the next Cooran meeting - nama and rupa is all they'll get! Glad to hear about good old Rusty: he'll out-live us all. Have a good trip. Ken H 37416 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:16am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Butchers, Carpenters and Anapanasati Sutta Hi, Herman --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Jon and everyone, > > Thanks for your post. Your post has led me to consider more. This is the > result. Just when you thought the thread was over and done with :-) Not at all. Always glad to get a reply ;-)). Apologies for the delay on my side. > H > I am curious as to how particular designations, like sage, sotapanna > etc are to be read and understood. > > In the SuttaNipata we have: > > 650: By birth a brahmin is not born, by birth a non-brahmin is not born, > By actions a brahmin is born, by actions a non-brahmin is born.. > > 651. By actions a farmer is born, by actions a craftsman is born, > By actions a merchant is born, by actions a workman is born.. > > 652. By actions a robber is born, by actions a soldier too, > By actions an adviser is born, by actions a king too. > > 653. Thus the wise see action as it really is, > Seeing it dependently arising become clever in the results of actions. > > I read this as saying that however you are designated is not yours for > life, like a job in the public service. A carpenter is a carpenter > because he carpents, and when the man would butcher he is not a > carpenter but a butcher. Yes, that's how I would read it too. > A sotapanna is not so for the duration, but > only while he is sotapanning. Here, however, I understand differently. The sotapanna has completely eradicated any kilesas that could give rise to actions unbefitting of an sotapanna, and so he never reverts to the acts of a mere worldling. This is the difference between mere suppression of defilements (as at high levels of concentration) and final eradication of defilements (as occurs at each of the 4 stages of enlightenment, resulting from the development of insight). > A sage is anyone who acts sagacious, and > when he reverts to foolishness he is a fool. Yes, a sage is anyone in whom panna of a certain level is arising. > I read you as saying that once a sage always a sage, like in the public > service. Can a sage act foolishly? Can a fool act wisely? I would say > that by actions a sage is a sage, and by actions a fool is a fool. None > of this public service, job for a lifetime, stuff :-) As you say, it is by his/her actions (i.e., mental state of developed panna) that a sage is a sage. > One who listens to > and follows the Buddha's instructions is wise by virtue of those > actions, and one who credits his vaporous accumulations, or the lack > thereof, for their action contrary to the best advice receives the > temporary status and rewards accorded to those actions. Actually, it cannot be said that one who does X must be wise while one who does Y is not, since this seems to suggest that relative wisdom/lack of wisdom can be deduced by reference to the external deed. As discussed above, the wisdom or otherwise of an action lies in the level of panna that accompanies the action. Cheers Jon 37417 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:19am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner32-Feeling/Vedana (e) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** Feelings are manifold and they can be classified in different ways. When they are classified as three feelings, they are: -pleasant feeling (sukha) -unpleasant feeling (dukkha) -indifferent (or neutral) feeling (adukkhamasukha: neither painful nor pleasant) There is no moment without feeling. When there is not pleasant feeling or unpleasant feeling, there is indifferent feeling. It is difficult to know what indifferent feeling is. So long as we cannot distinguish nåma from rúpa we cannot know precisely the charac-teristic of feeling and thus we cannot know indifferent feeling either. When mental feelings and bodily feelings are taken into account, feelings can be classified as fivefold: -pleasant bodily feeling (sukha) -painful bodily feeling (dukkha) -happy feeling (somanassa) -unhappy feeling (domanassa) -indifferent feeling (upekkhå). ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37418 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:24am Subject: Re: Brisbane Group - October meeting - mainly rebirth Hiya KenH,(Andrew,Steve, Sukin at end) all, Thank you - you've cheered me up! Wish you had been there - though there wasn't another abhidhammika in sight, and, you know, too much talk of 'Cheetahs' may have been a condition for Klaas to evict you. :-) Jill and I fly out of Brisbane Thursday lunch-time going south first via Sydney - meeting Azita that night in Bkk. Shakti is staying at the same hotel as well. Only two days there but hoping to see some friends who aren't going on the trip (waving to Sukin :-)) - then the flight to Bodhgaya on Saturday. Another Cooran meeting before Christmas? ... early December, maybe? Can Andrew, Steve and you talk among yourselves about it? metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > > > Hello all, (esp. those who know the dhamma friends below), > > > Hello Christine, > > I thought you'd be on a plane by now. > > ---------------------- > C: > Reg, Andy, Bruce, Klaas and I met at 1.00 p.m. for our monthly > afternoon discussion. > There was considerable discussion about ReBirth, after which I felt > more confused than I have been in a year or two. Reg honestly > stating his current lack of clear seeing where this topic is > concerned, > ------------------ > > You needed me there - to explain the cuti-citta. :-) > > ----------------- > C: > which stimulated lots of talk. Bruce wondered what was the > point of seeking enlightenment if it was for the benefit of the > identity produced by the stream of consciousness in the next life. > ------------------ > > In paramattha terms, the wholesome form of seeking enlightenment > would be a moment of kusala consciousness, would it not? That means > it would be accompanied by either joy or equanimity. Virtue is its > own reward. > > ------------------- > <. . .> > C: I guess many just don't get Anatta and how the 'being' in one > life relates to the 'being' in the next. Just namas and rupas didn't > answer the question satisfactorily for anyone. > -------------------- > > Bring them to the next Cooran meeting - nama and rupa is all > they'll get! > > Glad to hear about good old Rusty: he'll out-live us all. > > Have a good trip. > > Ken H 37419 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] I am looking for samyukta nikaya Dear Siddu, Welcome to DSG! Please let us know more about your interest in the Teachings and esp. Samyutta Nikaya. ... siddu_drdl wrote: Please let me know where from I can down load Samyukta nikaya from web if available in English translation PLEASE HELP ME OUT .... Try this link for the Theravada Samyutta suttas: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html Metta, Sarah ===== 37420 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Howard I haven't had much time to post this past week or so because of work and the planned trip to India. I hope you don't mind this late reply. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > > ... is it not correct to > > say that the > > citta experiences the object of citta? > > > ========================= Howard: No, that formulation is not one that I accept as useful. When there is the experience of hardness, what I believe is the case is that hardness is present. The hardness is rupa and its (experiential) presence is vi~n~nana [in the harmless, non-self sense]. I find speaking of a citta experiencing an object as putting forward two self-existing entities in which the first is an agent that cognizes the second, and this makes "the citta" into an actor - a homunculus, a little person". That's how I see it, and it has no appeal to me. But that's me. Obviously you see it differently. That's fine. With metta, Howard Jon: You would prefer to avoid the use of "object" and "experience" altogether when describing a moment of sense-door experience, since you find that to speak of 'citta experiencing an object' because that suggests that citta is a "little person". However, your preferred description of saying that hardness (rupa) is present and its presence is vinnana/citta still does not address the original issue (almost lost again!) of the nature of the relationship between the body consciousness and hardness at the moment that both those dhammas are present. To illustrate, if we call the body consciousness 'Dhamma A' and the hardness 'Dhamma B', your statement that 'Dh A is the presence of Dh B' does not seem to offer any description on the relationship between Dh A and Dh B. As we have discussed before both dhammas are in fact present (arisen) at that moment and are in some respects mutually dependent. If the expression 'Dh A experiences Dh B' is problematic, would you find it acceptable to say that 'Dh B is present to Dh A'? I'm going to miss our ongoing discussion. On the other hand, it's probably about time we dropped this thread and picked up another one (not meaning to discourage a reply from you to this post, of course ;-)). Cheers Jon 37421 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] On how to attend to the breath Hi, Ken O Nice to see you around again. --- Ken O wrote: > > Hi Howard > > My instincts nudge at me that if I am going to dicuss this with you, > it will be the breathing sutta and satipatthana issue all over again, > where one side of our people here avocate calming and concentration > through breathing while the dinosaurs here will insist that breathing > mediation is not for beginners :). Just butting in here to clarify that as far as this dinosaur is concerned, breath can be object of wholesome calm (samatha) for anyone, including 'beginners', given the right understanding. Moments of anapanasati are not limited to the 'experienced' (if they were, no-one could ever become experienced!!). However, some of the teachings in which anapanasati is referred to are, it seems to me, addressed to monks who have already developed anapanasati to a considerable degree, and we should be caareful about reading these as being a general endorsement of anapanasati for all and sundry in the context of the development of insight. As you commented, a never-ending discussion ... Glad to see you joining in on various threads again ;-)) Jon 37422 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:43am Subject: Re: Scholar Dighanankha Hello Andrew. A> First on the matter of saddha/faith. When the Buddha said: A> "Faith is the seed, austerity the rain, wisdom my yoke and A> plough, shame is the pole, mind the yoke tie, mindfulness my A> ploughshare and goad" [SN I 663], how do you interpret the A> place of faith in Dhamma practice? SN is the abbreviation of the PTS romanized Pali text of the Samyutta Nikaaya. If this is what you mean then the correct reference is SN I 172-3. If you mean Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation then you should use some other abbreviation and then cite the volume and page number. The verse is also found in the Kasibhaaradvaaja Sutta of the Suttanipaata (Sn 76-82). In answering your question I shall refer to the latter text in K.R. Norman's translation. To say that something is a seed, or that something is like a seed, is to say that it has the potential to bear fruit. What fruit? In the Kasibhaaradvaaja Sutta the answer is given in verse 80: evamesaa kasii ka.t.thaa saa hoti amatapphalaa eta.m kasi.m kasitvaana sabbadukkhaa pamuccati Thus this ploughing is ploughed. It has the deathless as its fruit. Having ploughed this ploughing, One is freed from all dukkha. This gives us the positive implication of the seed trope: faith is a necessary condition for the realization of the deathless (i.e. nibbaana). But the trope has a negative implication too: a seed by itself counts for nothing. By itself a seed represents no more than a potential. Whether that potential will be realised depends not on the seed itself but upon whether it meets with conditions that will allow for its germination, growth and fruition. In the verse you cited the supporting conditions needed by faith are austerity, understanding, shame etc. But there is a further condition given in verse 78: if the seed is to grow, something is needed to clear away any other vegetation that might choke the young plant: sacca.m karomi niddaana.m "I make truth my weeding hook." The type of faith that the Buddha is advocating does not eschew truth; on the contrary, it *requires* it. The Buddha does not advise us to be ostriches. Faith alone doesn't count for much. Faith in the wrong things is worse than faith in nothing. The Bodhisatta had faith in what he was doing when he was practising the extreme austerities. Had he not lost that faith and resumed eating he would have starved to death and at best might have gone down in history as a minor saint of Jainism. He also had faith when practising with Alara Kalama (MN 26); had he not lost it he might have enjoyed a few decades renown as Alara's assistant, but there would have been no Buddhasasana. Fortunately the Bodhisatta made truth his weeding hook. When Alara and Udaka told him that he had attained the highest possible states, his faith was not such as would make him accept his teachers' words merely because they were his teachers. He investigated the states he had attained and found them wanting. For the place of faith in the Buddha's teaching, *when* that faith takes the right object, I would cite paragraphs 23 & 27 of the Kitagiri Sutta (MN 70): "And how does there come to be gradual training, gradual practice, gradual progress? Here, one who has faith [in a teacher] visits him; when he visits him he pays respect to him; when he pays respect to him, he gives ear; one who gives ear hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorizes it; he examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorized; when he examines their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those teachings; having gained a reflective acceptance of those teachings, there arises in him the desire-to-act. When the desire-to-act has arisen in him, he applies his will, he scrutinizes; having scrutinized, he strives; resolutely striving, he realizes with the body the highest truth and sees it by penetrating with wisdom." "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, it is fitting that he conduct himself thus: 'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple; the Blessed One knows, I do not know.' [N.B. "the Blessed One", not the Mahavihara commentators] "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, the Teacher's Dispensation is nourishing and refreshing. "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, it is fitting that he conduct himself thus: 'Willingly, let only my skin, sinews, and bones remain, and let the flesh and blood dry up on my body, but my energy shall not be relaxed so long as I have not attained what can be attained by manly strength, manly energy, and manly persistence.' "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, one of two fruits may be expected: either final knowledge here and now, or, if there is a trace of clinging left, non-returning." A> How does scholarly trading of views (such as that set out by A> RobK in a recent post) affect faith? Can it be A> faith-building? Or is it more likely to come within these A> words of the Buddha: "Well-spoken counsel is hard to A> understand By one who relishes contradiction, By one with a A> corrupt mind Who is engrossed in aggression." [SN I 693] Are you referring to the different views on the Aganna Sutta? If so, I don't expect such discussions to have any effect -- positive or negative -- on anybody's faith in the Buddha's teaching. It may help some people to have a better understanding of what that teaching is likely to have been. But only those who have made truth their weeding hook. A> I feel that scholarship has its place in Dhamma practice but A> much of it is pure reasoning. Buddha described his Dhamma as A> "deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful and A> sublime, NOT WITHIN THE SPHERE OF REASONING, subtle, to be A> experienced by the wise" [SN I ch VI]. The phrase that you have highlighted has nothing to do with the methods of textual scholarship employed by buddhologists, philologists, historians etc. 'Atakkavacara' would be better rendered "not within the sphere of groundless speculation". For example, when a philologist compares the Pali and Chinese versions of the Milindapanha, and the twenty or so Sanskrit fragments of this text, and examines Greek sources about the life of Menandros and archaeological inscriptions relating to his conquests and rule in India, he is not doing 'takka'. His collating and sifting of evidence is reasoned investigation (vimamsa). When Buddhaghosa, without bothering to look at a single real case, groundlessly asserts that the child of bilingual parents will grow up speaking the language of whichever parent speaks to him first, now THAT is takka! His writings are full of such groundless nonsense and saddhaa does not preclude one from using a weeding hook to rip them out. A> So I don't accept that scholarship is the be-all-and-end-all A> of determining "what the Buddha taught". Do you agree? I am not aware of any other reliable means. If one just blindly trusts in one or another of the ancient exegetical traditions, then one will not be getting the whole truth, because one will be dealing with sources composed by men whose primary aim was not to report the truth but to defend a corporate faith (i.e. that of their own sect or monastery). Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37423 From: Andrew Levin Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Andrew L and Howard, > op 09-10-2004 01:03 schreef Andrew Levin op andrewlevin@e...: > > I think I am going to have to abandon this thread and this line of > > discussion with you guys, since, after reading some of Nina's work, I > > have realized that we are on entirely different pages here. > N: Andrew, I appreciate it that you say this straight. I find the thread > worth while because it touches on what is essential. > A: The most > > stark differences are that you all seem to believe seeking the noble > > truths and realizing enlightenment is something to be acheived over > > countless lifetimes, ie aeons, and the perfections as something that > > we are more or less passive about, and similarly with mindfulness, > > whereas I am of the persuasion that these paramis can be accumulated > > and reach their pinnacle within this dispensation of Gotama Buddha. > > Similarly with mindfulness, which, through my experience, can be > > cultivated quite intentionally, and the seeing of the noble truths, > > which I believe to be possible within even one lifetime. > N: I think it not beneficial to have expectations about realizing the noble > truths. Nina, perhaps, but if I tell you I've already had a brush with them in this very lifetime, that can act as grounds for me to believe that it's not impossible to realize unbinding within the dispensation of Gotama Buddha, right? And considering how rare the human state is, and how rare it is to encounter the Dharma, that can change the whole game plan, can't it? > This distracts us from cultivating the rigtht conditions at this > very moment. What are we doing now, sitting at the computer? Discussing > Dhamma and this is bhavana, the perfection of pañña is being developed. More > understanding. Pffft! SO little understanding of my side. Knowledge and practise. This is theory. > But many conditions of the past were necessary to bring us to > this moment. We would not be interested in the Dhamma now if we had not > listened in past lives. We associate with Dhamma friends, good friendship is > an important condition. We consider what we hear and apply the Dhamma in our > life. Seeing how many conditions are necessary for one moment of kusala > citta helps us to see that they are all anatta. Your talk about conditions brings me to another point. I'm still skeptical that, (even) if the texts say it, discussion of the dhamma with others and pondering over it is a necessary condition for the arising of sati. Perhaps they /are/ conditions for it, but I have developed and cultivated sati without any of these in the whole of my practise. In the beginning, one simply goes to be mindful. One can cultivate sati through sitting meditation. No doubt somtimes it is hard and the right conditions, even unexpectedly, can bring us a wealth, as you said, of sati, but why would the Buddha prescribe the four foundations of mindfulness if it were not possible to be consistently mindful? We can walk through time developing and awaiting more and more mindfulness until we reach the eradication of clinging, and enlightenment. > I appreciate your interest in the Abhidhamma and questions are always > welcome. The Abhidhamma helps us to see our countless moments of akusala, > the vast amount of ignorance, the conditions for all the cittas that arise. > We learn about the latent tendencies of lobha, dosa, moha, and so on, which > quite suddenly condition the arising of akusala citta. > It surely must take a long time before defilements are eradicated. This is > not distressing, because each moment of a little more understanding in > itself is beneficial. Agreed. Perhaps we think the defilements can be eradicted in a totally different amount of time though. "this is the only way, monks, the one way for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow, lamentation, pain, and despair..." > It makes confidence in the Dhamma grow. We should be > grateful to the Buddha for each moment of understanding. > The past lives of each one of us were so different, and since we do not know > past lives how could we predict the future, predict when we shall attain > enlightenment? One life is gone like a flash, I can assure you. I realize > this more and more, becoming older. The Buddha did not hand-pick his disciples for who had accumulated the right conditions, and yet the lowest of his dispensation are sometimes said to be stream-enterers. Similarly we can acheive enlightenment by following the teachings. Furthermore, maybe you can take countless future human rebirths for granted, but, all considered, unfortunately, I cannot say I am in the same position. I do, however, consider myself extremely fortunate to be born an able-bodied human with faculties keen enough to realize enlightenment in *this* very lifetime. So, what else can I do? > You said, that I consider less passive about, and similarly with mindfulness, whereas I [A] am of the > persuasion that these paramis can be accumulated.> > No, no passivity. I agree that the perfections should be cultivated all the > time. I agree with Howard: be vigilant. The more we see the benefit, the > more there will be conditions for cultivating the perfections and > mindfulness. Yes! Cultivate, cultivate cultivate! > We should pay attention to this moment instead of thinking of > future realization, after all that is only thinking. This moment is decisive > for the future. If there can be a slight moment of understanding of seeing > as nama, visible object as rupa, clinging as nama, this is in itself of > benefit, because each moment of understanding is accumulated and leads to > future moments. But we should not cling to having more understanding. Before > we realize it, it is *my understanding*. ~ understandingless ~ > Howard, I see this as the preparation you spoke about. You wrote: > by various means, and part of what was cultivated was a state of beckground > calm and the kusala *habit* of being > attentive. Such "background preparation" I do believe is quite necessary. At > the moment of the arising of a dhamma, it is already too late to "prepare". > > > N: Agreed, if we are slack now there are no conditions for satipatthana. The > best way is being aware right now, and then also the perfections are being > accumulated. As I said, a perfection is a perfection if we do not think of > my gain, my benefit, *I do it*. I just have doubts about the word background > calm, but this we can discuss later. Actually I know what you mean, you see > it as an accumulated condition. But let us say, there is calm (a cetasika, > not self) with each kind of kusala. And each kusala can be the perfection of > renunciation. A Co states: all kusala are renunciation. You renounce your > own comfort, your own pleasure. You do not think of yourself. How very true, > I have confidence in renunciation. > When we are determined to develop understanding of nama and rupa now, the > perfection of determination is accumulated. There are also the other > perfections such as courage and perseverance, a form of energy, patience > (the highest ascetism!), sila (guarding the sense-doors), etc. When there > are opportunities for dana and metta, let us cultivate these. We can give > material help, but also spiritual help. Determination can go a long way, too, what about being determined to meditate, to bring the other paramis to perfection, to see the noble truths? I like what you say about part of sila being guarding the sense doors, it makes me think that is kind of virtuous in and of itself. Kind of less worldly. (I love the transcendental aspect of Buddhism) > A: I may stick around for other issues, especially to learn Abhidharma, but > I would > > do so tentatively and only seeing it as mindfulness of mind and mental > > states for the third foundation of mindfulness. > N: Very good, but we do not need to think especially of the third foundation > of mindfulness, the Buddha taught all four, and this includes mindfulness of > whatever nama or rupa appears now. We should not think of this first, than > that, because it entirely depends on conditions what reality presents itself > now. > I have to take leave now. When I am back we can continue this thread. When I > quote from the India discussions, I should attach some words like Htoo's: > remarks and criticism always welcome. I feel it is good to consider all > these subjects, it is also bhavana for myself. > Take care. > Nina. You too, Nina, you too. peace, A.L. 37424 From: jwromeijn Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:51am Subject: Re: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: (Was: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Suravira" wrote: > [Suravira] The manner in which the "two truths" are expressed > differs across these schools. Yet it only appears this way "on the > outside". This difference is primarily a matter of their respective > rhetoric. Each school's presentation of the true truths differs due > (primarily) to the demands placed on them to respond to detractions > for other opposing religious groups. Those detractions (and the > responces) framed the rhetoric. > It is my position that "on the inside" the respective rhetoric > stemming from each of these Buddhist shools frames the Dharma in a > mode that is cogent and valid (overall). This assertion is not made > to suggest that sectarian conflicts within Buddhism did not occur > throughout its history, or that they are not present to this day,as > regards the two truths teachings. ...(snip) ... > > With metta, > Suravira Thank so very much Suravira The next week 9or longer) I will not send or read messages: going to the hospital Till soon and metta Joop 37425 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:07am Subject: Joop - Best wishes Hi Joop, --- jwromeijn wrote: > The next week 9or longer) I will not send or read messages: going to > the hospital > > Till soon and metta .... Sorry to hear this. I hope all goes well and it isn't anything too serious. Pls let us know when you're back, even briely. I've greatly enjoyed your contributions and discussions and look forward to more on your return. Metta, Sarah p.s All -sorry about the spacing in my last posts. I'm in the process of changing to a new computer and different non-mac system which I'm finding very difficult to adjust to as Mike will understand in particular! I'm sure it'll provide all the promised improvements once I know how to use it and once all the bugs and non-compatibility problems are sorted out:....hmmm Not much kanti (patience) here when it comes to computer kind of things. =============================================== 37426 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) Hi Andrew > > Nina, perhaps, but if I tell you I've already had a brush with them > in > this very lifetime, that can act as grounds for me to believe that it's not impossible to realize unbinding within the dispensation of Gotama Buddha, right? And considering how rare the human state is, and how rare it is to encounter the Dharma, that can change the whole game plan, can't it? k: Yes a human life is very rare indeed and a human life born in while dhamma is still around is rarer still. That makes it a sense of urgency to learn the dhamma and that is good motivation. Everything got two side of the coin, but if our motivation to cultivate set on a certain goal. Will you think this will impede rather than expedite the process of enlightment. Definitely there is a chance to be enlighten this lifetime and that will depend whether your panna is developed to that stage. For this millienium there is people that can developed till non-returner stage. Developing of Buddhism cannot be hurry, Buddha always advocate gradual training. If you believe this lifetime you can achieve it, then go ahead, just be more aware that seeking enlightment can at times impede progress. Ken O 37427 From: abhidhammika Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:59am Subject: Buddhaghosa's Nonsense? : (Was: Scholar Dighanankha Dear Dighanankha, Andrew T, Nina, Robert K, Chris and all How are you? Dighanankha wrote: "When Buddhaghosa, without bothering to look at a single real case, groundlessly asserts that the child of bilingual parents will grow up speaking the language of whichever parent speaks to him first, now THAT is takka! His writings are full of such groundless nonsense and saddhaa does not preclude one from using a weeding hook to rip them out." Are you sure about your judgement of Aacariya Buddhaghosa's writings? For you to be able to have made that level of judgement, you must have done a very good thorough reading and research in the Great Commentator's works. If the impression I got about your knowledgeableness and expertise in the works of Aacariya Mahaa Buddhaghosa was correct, I wonder if you could produce the textual passages you regarded as having "full of groundless nonsense". As you seemed to be an academic specializing in textual scholarship, I am quite excited to read the passages you would quote from the works of Aacariya Mahaa Buddhaghosa. Of course, I do not need to remind a modern textual scholar such as you to provide their references as well. Looking forward to your reply. By examining your quoted passages, perhaps I may respond with a critical analysis of your judgemental scholaship. Thanking you in advance. Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: Hello Andrew. A> First on the matter of saddha/faith. When the Buddha said: A> "Faith is the seed, austerity the rain, wisdom my yoke and A> plough, shame is the pole, mind the yoke tie, mindfulness my A> ploughshare and goad" [SN I 663], how do you interpret the A> place of faith in Dhamma practice? SN is the abbreviation of the PTS romanized Pali text of the Samyutta Nikaaya. If this is what you mean then the correct reference is SN I 172-3. If you mean Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation then you should use some other abbreviation and then cite the volume and page number. The verse is also found in the Kasibhaaradvaaja Sutta of the Suttanipaata (Sn 76-82). In answering your question I shall refer to the latter text in K.R. Norman's translation. To say that something is a seed, or that something is like a seed, is to say that it has the potential to bear fruit. What fruit? In the Kasibhaaradvaaja Sutta the answer is given in verse 80: evamesaa kasii ka.t.thaa saa hoti amatapphalaa eta.m kasi.m kasitvaana sabbadukkhaa pamuccati Thus this ploughing is ploughed. It has the deathless as its fruit. Having ploughed this ploughing, One is freed from all dukkha. This gives us the positive implication of the seed trope: faith is a necessary condition for the realization of the deathless (i.e. nibbaana). But the trope has a negative implication too: a seed by itself counts for nothing. By itself a seed represents no more than a potential. Whether that potential will be realised depends not on the seed itself but upon whether it meets with conditions that will allow for its germination, growth and fruition. In the verse you cited the supporting conditions needed by faith are austerity, understanding, shame etc. But there is a further condition given in verse 78: if the seed is to grow, something is needed to clear away any other vegetation that might choke the young plant: sacca.m karomi niddaana.m "I make truth my weeding hook." The type of faith that the Buddha is advocating does not eschew truth; on the contrary, it *requires* it. The Buddha does not advise us to be ostriches. Faith alone doesn't count for much. Faith in the wrong things is worse than faith in nothing. The Bodhisatta had faith in what he was doing when he was practising the extreme austerities. Had he not lost that faith and resumed eating he would have starved to death and at best might have gone down in history as a minor saint of Jainism. He also had faith when practising with Alara Kalama (MN 26); had he not lost it he might have enjoyed a few decades renown as Alara's assistant, but there would have been no Buddhasasana. Fortunately the Bodhisatta made truth his weeding hook. When Alara and Udaka told him that he had attained the highest possible states, his faith was not such as would make him accept his teachers' words merely because they were his teachers. He investigated the states he had attained and found them wanting. For the place of faith in the Buddha's teaching, *when* that faith takes the right object, I would cite paragraphs 23 & 27 of the Kitagiri Sutta (MN 70): "And how does there come to be gradual training, gradual practice, gradual progress? Here, one who has faith [in a teacher] visits him; when he visits him he pays respect to him; when he pays respect to him, he gives ear; one who gives ear hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorizes it; he examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorized; when he examines their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those teachings; having gained a reflective acceptance of those teachings, there arises in him the desire-to-act. When the desire-to-act has arisen in him, he applies his will, he scrutinizes; having scrutinized, he strives; resolutely striving, he realizes with the body the highest truth and sees it by penetrating with wisdom." "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, it is fitting that he conduct himself thus: 'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple; the Blessed One knows, I do not know.' [N.B. "the Blessed One", not the Mahavihara commentators] "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, the Teacher's Dispensation is nourishing and refreshing. "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, it is fitting that he conduct himself thus: 'Willingly, let only my skin, sinews, and bones remain, and let the flesh and blood dry up on my body, but my energy shall not be relaxed so long as I have not attained what can be attained by manly strength, manly energy, and manly persistence.' "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, one of two fruits may be expected: either final knowledge here and now, or, if there is a trace of clinging left, non-returning." A> How does scholarly trading of views (such as that set out by A> RobK in a recent post) affect faith? Can it be A> faith-building? Or is it more likely to come within these A> words of the Buddha: "Well-spoken counsel is hard to A> understand By one who relishes contradiction, By one with a A> corrupt mind Who is engrossed in aggression." [SN I 693] Are you referring to the different views on the Aganna Sutta? If so, I don't expect such discussions to have any effect -- positive or negative -- on anybody's faith in the Buddha's teaching. It may help some people to have a better understanding of what that teaching is likely to have been. But only those who have made truth their weeding hook. A> I feel that scholarship has its place in Dhamma practice but A> much of it is pure reasoning. Buddha described his Dhamma as A> "deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful and A> sublime, NOT WITHIN THE SPHERE OF REASONING, subtle, to be A> experienced by the wise" [SN I ch VI]. The phrase that you have highlighted has nothing to do with the methods of textual scholarship employed by buddhologists, philologists, historians etc. 'Atakkavacara' would be better rendered "not within the sphere of groundless speculation". For example, when a philologist compares the Pali and Chinese versions of the Milindapanha, and the twenty or so Sanskrit fragments of this text, and examines Greek sources about the life of Menandros and archaeological inscriptions relating to his conquests and rule in India, he is not doing 'takka'. His collating and sifting of evidence is reasoned investigation (vimamsa). When Buddhaghosa, without bothering to look at a single real case, groundlessly asserts that the child of bilingual parents will grow up speaking the language of whichever parent speaks to him first, now THAT is takka! His writings are full of such groundless nonsense and saddhaa does not preclude one from using a weeding hook to rip them out. A> So I don't accept that scholarship is the be-all-and-end-all A> of determining "what the Buddha taught". Do you agree? I am not aware of any other reliable means. If one just blindly trusts in one or another of the ancient exegetical traditions, then one will not be getting the whole truth, because one will be dealing with sources composed by men whose primary aim was not to report the truth but to defend a corporate faith (i.e. that of their own sect or monastery). Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37428 From: Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/10/04 7:40:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Hi, Howard > > I haven't had much time to post this past week or so because of work and > the planned trip to India. I hope you don't mind this late reply. > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Jon - > ... > >> ... is it not correct to > >>say that the > >>citta experiences the object of citta? > >> > >========================= > > Howard: No, that formulation is not one that I accept as useful. > When there is the experience of hardness, what I believe is the case is > that hardness is present. The hardness is rupa and its (experiential) > presence is vi~n~nana [in the harmless, non-self sense]. I find speaking > of a citta experiencing an object as putting forward two self-existing > entities in which the first is an agent that cognizes the second, and this > makes "the citta" into an actor - a homunculus, a little person". That's > how I see it, and it has no appeal to me. But that's me. Obviously you see > it differently. That's fine. > > With metta, > Howard > > Jon: > You would prefer to avoid the use of "object" and "experience" altogether > when describing a moment of sense-door experience, since you find that to > speak of 'citta experiencing an object' because that suggests that citta > is a "little person". > > However, your preferred description of saying that hardness (rupa) is > present and its presence is vinnana/citta still does not address the > original issue (almost lost again!) of the nature of the relationship > between the body consciousness and hardness at the moment that both those > dhammas are present. > > To illustrate, if we call the body consciousness 'Dhamma A' and the > hardness 'Dhamma B', your statement that 'Dh A is the presence of Dh B' > does not seem to offer any description on the relationship between Dh A > and Dh B. As we have discussed before both dhammas are in fact present > (arisen) at that moment and are in some respects mutually dependent. > > If the expression 'Dh A experiences Dh B' is problematic, would you find > it acceptable to say that 'Dh B is present to Dh A'? > > I'm going to miss our ongoing discussion. On the other hand, it's > probably about time we dropped this thread and picked up another one (not > meaning to discourage a reply from you to this post, of course ;-)). > > Cheers > Jon > > ======================== First of all - have a wonderful trip!! Now, to the topic: I see our difference on this issue as partly substantial and partly a matter of preferred language usage. As to the relation between hardness and "the consciousness of hardness", I believe that they are distinguishable but inseparable aspects of an experiential event called "the experience of hardness," the first being the content of that event and the second being the mere presence of that content. I do not believe in there being two separate or separable self-existent entities involved here, and I think that the reification of subject or object is error. What may help you in understanding my viewpoint on this and other matters, is that I consider *all* arisings and cessations to be in the realm of experience. Please recall my radical phenomenalist perspective. There is nothing whatsoever that I can ever knowingly speak of that is other than experiential. 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) 37429 From: Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] On how to attend to the breath Hi, Jon (and Ken) - In a message dated 10/10/04 8:19:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Just butting in here to clarify that as far as this dinosaur is concerned, > breath can be object of wholesome calm (samatha) for anyone, including > 'beginners', given the right understanding. Moments of anapanasati are > not limited to the 'experienced' (if they were, no-one could ever become > experienced!!). > ========================= Here, here! So very well said!!! 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) 37430 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:18am Subject: Re: Brisbane Group - October meeting - mainly rebirth Hello Christine. C >There was considerable discussion about ReBirth, after which C >I felt more confused than I have been in a year or two. Reg C >honestly stating his current lack of clear seeing where this C >topic is concerned, which stimulated lots of talk. Bruce C >wondered what was the point of seeking enlightenment if it C >was for the benefit of the identity produced by the stream C >of consciousness in the next life. Everyone pondered this C >silently for a minute or two. Others stated that there was C >no proof of rebirth, and asked what was the point of C >generosity, good behaviour and meditation if results are C >experienced in future lives. Who cares, someone said ... C >seeing that 'I' am not going to be there. I guess many just C >don't get Anatta and how the 'being' in one life relates to C >the 'being' in the next. Just namas and rupas didn't answer C >the question satisfactorily for anyone. You might suggest the group read the Vekhanassa Sutta (MN 80). "Let be the past, Kaccaana, let be the future. Let an intelligent man come to me, one who is guileless, honest and straight. I instruct him, I teach him the Dhamma in such a way that by practising as instructed he will soon know and see for himself: 'Thus, indeed, there rightly comes to be liberation from the bond, that is from the bondage of ignorance.' " On the phrase "let be the past ... let be the future,", Dr. Buddhaghosa, for once, has something worthwhile to say: it is improper to talk about past lives if you lack knowledge recalling past lives. It is improper to talk about future lives if you lack the deva eye. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37431 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 085 ) Htoo. Nina: Dear Htoo, Thank you. This is exactly what I read in the Tiika. You followed your Burmese text. At first sight it may seem complicated, but we have to study it and try to understand the way of explanation. There is abandoning by seeing, dassana, and abandoning by cultivation, bhavana. In the case of the sotapanna, there is abandoning by seeing, he sees nibbana for the first time. Uddhacca is not abandoned by seeing, but by bhaavana at the stage of the arahat. More info see T.A. p. 189, Co to Abhidhammattha Sangaha. Nina. op 09-10-2004 18:22 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Nina, thanks for your reply. Actually one of venerable monks who are my internet friends or teachers helped me with this information. There are questions on abhidhammattha sangaha that I posted at triplegem group. I posted that 'uddhacca' at Pali Group. One venerable monk directly answered to me offline. He did so because as I am a Myanmar (Burmese), he sent me a portion of tiika in Myanmar font and some explanation on uddhacca. But at triplegem Group, I did not hear any answer. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37432 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:10am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 086 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, We have discussed 7 universal mental factors or 7 permanent ministers of the king citta. After that we discussed on vitakka, vicara, piti, viriya, and adhimokkha. There left a cetasika in the 6 particular mental factors or 6 flexible ministers of the king citta. It is chanda. This cetasika chanda is very important mental factor. If there is no chanda, nothing will be accomplished. Today we have been studying and learning Dhamma as there are many Dhamma as The Buddha left. Arising of The Buddha is the result of citta with chanda. If Bodhisatta Sumedho had not had chanda to become a Sammasambuddha, there would have been nothing for us to study and learn as Dhamma. All bhavanas do have chanda as a cetasika. All kusalas do have chanda as a cetasika that accompanies kusala-doing cittas. All rupa jhanas do have chanda, all arupa jhanas do have chanda, all magga cittas do have chanda, all phala cittas do have chanda. When we investigate into the arising of chanda, we would see that chanda always arises with all sobhana cittas or beautiful consciousness. This reveals how important chanda is. Bodhisatta Sumedho was already perfected to transcend when he was just about to meet The Buddha Dipankara. He heard that there was a Sammasambuddha. With his perfections and the chance of meeting with a Sammasambuddha, the whole matter of which is very very rare chance for anyone imaginable, Sumedho might have attained arahatta magga nana and might have done parinibbana in that life. But there arose chanda. That chanda led Him to fulfil the perfections that all Bodhisattas have to. Because of that chanda, the result was arising of a Sammasambuddha named 'The Buddha Gotama'. It is unimagineable that when He was ready to transcend, he decided to pass another long long samsara which did not add Him. Buddhists may say that this is because of mahakaruna. This is also true. But behind this truth is that in that karuna, there always is chanda as an accompanying cetasika. This is why I initially said that chanda is very important cetasika. Chanda not only arises in sobhana cittas but also arises in asobhana cittas which have hetus or roots. Cittas which have only one hetu do not have any chanda and all ahetuka cittas do not have chanda as their accompanying cetasika. We have talked many on chanda. But chanda has not been explained. Chanda is a cetasika or mental factor that arises with a citta which has hetus. Hetus are lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, and amoha. Chanda is desire and it is just a wish. It is zeal. Once I read at a web site that The Buddha searched nibbana with desire and that is also lobha. As soon as I saw that message, I realized that that writer did not have a good insight into The Buddha and Buddhism and he did not see any Dhamma. This reveals that he cannot differentiate between chanda and lobha. More in his message, he wrote that Buddhists created a word called 'chanda'. His writing is perfect. But contents are all destroying saddha or confidence or faith of Buddhists-to-be who are still not Buddhists. The writer is a westerner. How shocking it is that he dare write on The Buddha Gotama! The aims of this series are to highlight Dhamma and to explore The Dhamma and to explain on Dhamma and to touch difficult areas in Dhamma. Again, here I use the word 'highlight'. I remember a person criticizing on me that I do not need 'highlight', The Buddha Dhamma is already clear, and he was wondering how I knew Dhamma that I was saying highlight on Dhamma. Whatever be will be, I would steadfastly continue on Dhamma discussion so that readers of the messages are benefited from these discussions. I was even severely criticized that I was delibrately leading people into wrong view and so on. This will depend. Actually the person who said like this does not do anything and what is evident was that there were full of akusala. Chanda is wrongly understood as a kind of lobha. Lobha is quite different from chanda. Chanda does stand as a separate cetasika and it can arise without lobha while lobha always arises along with chanda. This is why people of low penetrativity to Dhamma think that chanda is just a lobha and Buddhists create a word called 'chanda'. The differences between chanda and lobha will be discussed in the coming posts. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37433 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:39pm Subject: Re: Joop - Best wishes Hello Joop, Many of us will be thinking of you with metta during this time. May the treatment/procedures be successful, and may you be back home in comfort very soon. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Joop, > > --- jwromeijn wrote: > > > The next week 9or longer) I will not send or read messages: going to > > the hospital > > > > Till soon and metta > .... 37434 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:43pm Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 14 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 65 is OK. Page 66. 1. Sakadaagaamii or sakadaagaami? 2. Anaagaamii or anaagaami? [ I am not sure. ] 3. 'Destruction of the worlds' I think there is a typo error. 'When words are destroyed by fire,...' Should be 'When worlds are destroyed by fire,..' Page 67. This table is good. I will leave this and come to it later. I also left some pages in citta portion. I will touch again later. Page 68 is OK. Page 69. The figure of 'Great Hell' is good and well demonstrated. Page 70 is OK. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37435 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:49pm Subject: Re: Brisbane Group - October meeting - mainly rebirth Hello Dighanaka, all, Thank you for the reference. I'm off to work now, so will look up the Majjhima this evening. But whether improper or not, most everyday, run-of-the-mill people are looking for assurance about what happens to 'them' after death. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: > > Hello Christine. > > C >There was considerable discussion about ReBirth, after which > C >I felt more confused than I have been in a year or two. Reg > C >honestly stating his current lack of clear seeing where this > C >topic is concerned, which stimulated lots of talk. Bruce > C >wondered what was the point of seeking enlightenment if it > C >was for the benefit of the identity produced by the stream > C >of consciousness in the next life. Everyone pondered this > C >silently for a minute or two. Others stated that there was > C >no proof of rebirth, and asked what was the point of > C >generosity, good behaviour and meditation if results are > C >experienced in future lives. Who cares, someone said ... > C >seeing that 'I' am not going to be there. I guess many just > C >don't get Anatta and how the 'being' in one life relates to > C >the 'being' in the next. Just namas and rupas didn't answer > C >the question satisfactorily for anyone. > > You might suggest the group read the Vekhanassa Sutta (MN 80). > > "Let be the past, Kaccaana, let be the future. Let an intelligent > man come to me, one who is guileless, honest and straight. I > instruct him, I teach him the Dhamma in such a way that by > practising as instructed he will soon know and see for himself: > 'Thus, indeed, there rightly comes to be liberation from the > bond, that is from the bondage of ignorance.' " > > On the phrase "let be the past ... let be the future,", Dr. > Buddhaghosa, for once, has something worthwhile to say: it is > improper to talk about past lives if you lack knowledge recalling > past lives. It is improper to talk about future lives if you lack > the deva eye. > > > Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker > _____________________________ > The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this > persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is > close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to > non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. > (Dighanakha Sutta) 37436 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 3:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi Howard, I appreciate your comments to Nina - about trying to understand each other's points of view. Perhaps you and I should ease off for a while, but the ball is in my court, and I can't leave it there! :-) ------------------- H: > You are suggesting reading, talking, thinking over, and waiting for conditions to arise. ----------------- KH: > Not at all! I am suggesting the idea of doing something in order to achieve enlightenment is not the Middle Way. If there has been proper study and wise consideration, then conditions will be in place for right understanding to inevitably arise. Otherwise, or in the meantime, some other, inferior, state will arise. That's life! (That's the Dhamma!) ---------------- H: > The Buddha taught a practice, to actually be adopted, actually carried out. To me this is crystal clear. With no practice, no useful conditions developing. Nothing comes from nothing. But I don't think we should continue with this, because it is just the same old conversational ping-pong game being constantly replayed. I think we should just agree that we disagree on this -------------------- KH: > Who cares whether we agree or not? As Dhamma students, we are here to learn Dhamma. If we just learn those parts we agree with, we will be learning our own Dhamma, not the Buddha's. ---------------------- H: > You should go argue with the Buddha. It was he who taught meditation on the breath! ---------------------- Meditation on breath was practised long before the Buddha arrived. It is not part of the Middle Way. Admittedly, jhana practitioners (particularly those using breath as object) attain higher powers after enlightenment than do bare-vipassana practitioners. (To each his own.) But, at parinibana, all arahants are equal. (Pong!) :-) Ken H 37437 From: Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/10/04 6:06:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I appreciate your comments to Nina â€" about trying to understand each > other's points of view. Perhaps you and I should ease off for a > while, but the ball is in my court, and I can't leave it there! :-) > > ------------------- > H: >You are suggesting reading, talking, thinking over, and waiting > for conditions to arise. > ----------------- > > KH: >Not at all! I am suggesting the idea of doing something in > order to achieve enlightenment is not the Middle Way. > > If there has been proper study and wise consideration, then > conditions will be in place for right understanding to inevitably > arise. Otherwise, or in the meantime, some other, inferior, state > will arise. That's life! (That's the Dhamma!) > -------------------------------------- Howard: And that is an area of basic disagreement between us. -------------------------------------- > > ---------------- > H: >The Buddha taught a practice, to actually be adopted, actually > carried out. To me this is crystal clear. With no practice, no > useful conditions developing. Nothing comes from nothing. But I > don't think we should continue with this, because it is just the > same old conversational ping-pong game being constantly replayed. I > think we should just agree that we disagree on this > -------------------- > > KH: >Who cares whether we agree or not? As Dhamma students, we are > here to learn Dhamma. If we just learn those parts we agree with, we > will be learning our own Dhamma, not the Buddha's. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Agreeing or not isn't my point. My point is that we have discussed this matter for a LONG time. I have considered your perspective, quite seriously in fact, and I presume that you have considered mine. We still each maintain the same perspective as at the beginning, and now we are just repeating "old scripts". ;-) I do see an area of correctness in your perspective, as relates to no-self. I see it even more strongly as expressed by Robert K, where I see a bit of Zen flavor involved. I also see in Nina's writing, and in Robert K's emails, an emphasis not only on study of teachings, but also on mindfulness in the moment, during daily life, that I think is of critical importance, but that I see lacking in your perpective at least as you express it. In any case, what remains with us is still a fundamental difference in understanding of what the Buddha taught, and I don't see much usefulness of continuing along the same lines. That, however, does not mean that I am slamming closed my mind door. I will continue to consider, and to not clamp down onto fixed belief. ------------------------------------------------------ > > ---------------------- > H: >You should go argue with the Buddha. It was he who taught > meditation on the breath! > ---------------------- > > Meditation on breath was practised long before the Buddha arrived. > It is not part of the Middle Way. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I didn't say it was the middle way. I said the Buddha taught it and recommended it. ---------------------------------------------- Admittedly, jhana practitioners > > (particularly those using breath as object) attain higher powers > after enlightenment than do bare-vipassana practitioners. (To each > his own.) But, at parinibana, all arahants are equal. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Meditation on the breath as taught by the Buddha in the Anapansati Sutta is certainly far more than a matter of cultivation of jhanas and special abilities. The Buddha presents it an implementation of the four foundations of mindfulness, and as being a meditative portion of Dhamma practice able to take one "all the way". If one reads the sutta, it is evident that meditation with breathing as taught by the Buddha is much more than samatha bhavana, although that is clearly included. ----------------------------------------------- > > (Pong!) :-) > Ken H > > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37438 From: Andrew Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:12pm Subject: Re: Games People Play --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: [snip] > The point I was trying to get across was that human interaction in > terms of namas/rupas only and as resulting from accumulations and > defilements from countless aeons of previous lives can be seen as a > dishonest game. > > If the Four Noble Truths can only be realised in the future because > of past conditions, what exactly is going to be different in the > future that cannot happen now? > > If it can't happen now, it never will. And that is the crux of the > game. Thanks Herman First of all, can I encourage you not to be backward in coming forward ie to actually state in plain language what the point is when you make it. Otherwise dummies like me get left behind! (-: On your point itself, I can't speak for anyone else, but theoretically I am open to the possibility of realisation now. Being honest, though, I don't *feel* like I'm close and thus don't expect it. Do you think I am a self-fulfilling prophecy in that regard? Is that your point? (Sounds a bit New Age to me - "think and grow rich"). I'm not sure but do the Abhidhamma people say that there can only be realisation in the future "because of past conditions"? I thought the central point was that it can only happen NOW (the present) and past conditions don't have exclusive sway? Have I misread things? Best wishes Andrew T 37439 From: Egbert Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:14pm Subject: Re: Brisbane Group - October meeting - mainly rebirth Hi Christine and Dighanakha, Sorry to butt in here. > > Thank you for the reference. I'm off to work now, so will look up > the Majjhima this evening. But whether improper or not, most > everyday, run-of-the-mill people are looking for assurance about > what happens to 'them' after death. > Yes, you are quite right. And there is a huge array of views to cater to this need for assurance regarding the inevitable and unknowable. Beyond this need for assurance lies the detestable abuse of ignorance through the marketing of needing the 'right view' about death as the insurance policy into the unknown. A bit like an election campaign about the certainty of high interest rates should a Labour Government come to power :-) (allusion to last weekend's federal election in Australia). Which world religion would have any members if not for death? A view about death has a knowable characteristic. It is fear. But I guess the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we are all guaranteed of at least one test of our assurance. Kind Regards Herman 37440 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:16pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 086 ) Hi Htoo, Although I am not the academic type, I am appreciating your posts very much. ------------- H: > in his message, he wrote that Buddhists created a word called 'chanda'. His writing is perfect. But contents are all destroying saddha or confidence or faith of Buddhists-to-be who are still not Buddhists. The writer is a westerner. How shocking it is that he dare write on The Buddha Gotama! ------------- "Foolishness comes out looking smart!" (Masanobu Fukuoka "The One Straw Revolution") Here in Australia, the extreme right has just won another federal election. People are cheering and patting each other on the back. (Foolishness comes out looking smart!) Repeatedly, I am depressed by it all, but then I remember kamma and vipaka. There are only conditioned dhammas: some are causes, some are results and others are merely functional. Thanks for your very helpful writing. Ken H 37441 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 086 ) Hello Htoo >The differences between chanda and lobha will be discussed in the coming posts. Thank you for this, and all your Dhamma threads. They are very informative, and clear. During a break from posting at DSG - a much needed study period - I will be rereading them and will have some questions later. You're a very good friend in Dhamma for all of us here at DSG, persevering with your thread so faithfully. Please keep up the good work! Metta, Phil 37442 From: Andrew Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:49pm Subject: Re: Scholar Dighanankha Dear Dighanakha I really appreciate you taking the time to respond so fully to my queries. I'm not a pali scholar as you know (hence my lousy referencing!)and I like to hear and consider different Dhamma views. Your post was long and a number of other questions came to mind when I was reading it. Rather than snip lightly, I will try to pose them here as I would be interested in your thoughts. To kick off with a comment though: I can't think of anyone on this list who argues that "all you need is faith". It's just *one* necessary factor which some people seem to place higher than others. I suspect everyone sees themselves using the truth weeding-hook so the real question is: how do you use the weeding-hook without slashing yourself? (How do you grasp the snake?) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: [snip] > "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent on > fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, it is fitting that he > conduct himself thus: 'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a > disciple; the Blessed One knows, I do not know.' > > [N.B. "the Blessed One", not the Mahavihara commentators] Andrew: Is not the above view of faith really only applicable to someone in the physical presence of the Blessed One? Someone who, when a question arises, can raise it directly with the Blessed One and be instructed? One of my problems is that, when I read the Suttas, the meaning is often not clear to me. Were I in the presence of the Buddha, I would be asking for more explanation. I'm sure many bhikkhus did. I don't have direct access to the Buddha but I can at least read the explanation in the Commentaries. I'm sure you don't have a problem with that. But you think we shouldn't apply the above type of faith to the Commentaries. Right? But why not? Do you refuse to believe that the commentary writers were arahats because of bizarre comments like the Magadha language ones? Is it not reported that the Buddha said similarly bizarre things (to our minds) like being able to transport himself to other realms, the divine eye etc? What I'm getting at is - what's the basis of the dividing line between the Buddha and arahat commentators? [snip] If one just blindly > trusts in one or another of the ancient exegetical traditions, > then one will not be getting the whole truth, because one will be > dealing with sources composed by men whose primary aim was not to > report the truth but to defend a corporate faith (i.e. that of > their own sect or monastery). Andrew: Seeing bad faith or ulterior motives in others can be very easy to do and can spiral. I wonder what the benefit really is in scouring the Buddhist world and trying to second-guess the motives of various writers. Why shouldn't we accept that Buddhaghosa had faith and joy and zeal and was doing the honest thing? Where's the evidence he was a "corporate" man? Did he live in a condo by the beach with free alcohol? Why should I accept that Buddhaghosa's "primary aim" was to defend his team and pour dirt on the other teams? Thanks again for a very interesting post and I hope you can find time to consider the above. Best wishes Andrew T 37443 From: Egbert Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:08pm Subject: Re: Games People Play Hi Andrew, Thanks for your reply. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" > wrote: > [snip] > > The point I was trying to get across was that human interaction in > > terms of namas/rupas only and as resulting from accumulations and > > defilements from countless aeons of previous lives can be seen as a > > dishonest game. > > > > If the Four Noble Truths can only be realised in the future because > > of past conditions, what exactly is going to be different in the > > future that cannot happen now? > > > > If it can't happen now, it never will. And that is the crux of the > > game. > > Thanks Herman Do you think I am a self-fulfilling prophecy in that regard? Is > that your point? (Sounds a bit New Age to me - "think and grow rich"). The Buddha in his day was quite New Age. In my vocab New Age does not include an immediate dismissal in its connotation. I think the Buddha's New Age thing was "think and suffer" :-) The Buddha taught the end of suffering. When there is an awareness of suffering and one keeps doing what one is doing, all the while maintaining that things will be better in the future, then one is having oneself on. If one maintains that because of accumulations, defilements and conditions there is no other option but to keep doing what one is doing, then one is having oneself on. If it is maintained that there is noone who suffers, and that fact is somehow meant to alter the reality of suffering, then one is having oneself on. I am not interested in digging up old posts, although I wouldn't have to look far, where the explicit message is the certainty of countless aeons of preceding lifetimes, the certainty of countless aeons of lifetimes to follow, and the certainty that nothing is going to be different real soon. I don't think I mentioned the Abhidhamma in this thread, but I could be wrong. I hope that was clearer :-) Kind Regards Herman > > I'm not sure but do the Abhidhamma people say that there can only be > realisation in the future "because of past conditions"? I thought > the central point was that it can only happen NOW (the present) and > past conditions don't have exclusive sway? Have I misread things? > > Best wishes > Andrew T 37444 From: Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:17pm Subject: Vism.XIV,106 + Nina's intro. Hi all, While Nina is away I will continue posting from Vism. XIV. Also she gave me some additional introductory material for 106, 108, and 111. When she returns she will have more to say on what was posted in her absence. Larry --------------------- "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 106. III. ii. The 'functional', however, is of three kinds according to plane: (A) of the sense sphere, (B) of the fine-material sphere, (C) of the immaterial sphere. Herein, III. ii. A., that of the 'sense sphere' is of two kinds, namely, (1) without root-cause, and (2) with root-cause. III. ii. A. 1. Herein, that 'without root-cause' is that devoid of non-greed, etc., as the cause of result. That is of two kinds, being classed as (70) mind-element, and (71)-(72) mind-consciousness-element. --------------------- Nina wrote: Addition to Vis. 106: We read in the Expositor II, p. 385, about kiriyacittas: ... N: the sense-door adverting-consciousness (pañcadvaaraavajjana-citta) and the mind-door adverting-consciousness which performs in a sense-door process the function of determining (votthapana), are neither kusala, akusala, being different from the javanacittas, nor are they vipaaka. They are fruitless and merely perform their function. Text: <...that which has reached the apperceptional state is fruitless like the flower of an uprooted tree...> N: The javanacittas of the arahat are kiriyacittas which are neither cause nor result. For them there are no longer roots, hetus, which are kusala or akusala and this is compared to the roots which could cause a tree to bear fruits. Text: Nevertheless, because of procedure in accomplishing this and that function, there is the mere doing, hence [the activity] is called inoperative. The phrase Œneither moral [kusala] nor immoral [akusala]¹, etc., means that, owing to the absence of the moral condition called the moral root, it is not moral; owing to the absence of the immoral condition called the immoral root, it is not immoral. Owing to the absence of moral and immoral causes of wise and unwise attention, it is said to be neither moral nor immoral. Owing to the absence of the productive condition called moral and immoral, it is not result of kamma...> ****** Nina. 37445 From: Andrew Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 6:52pm Subject: Re: Games People Play --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: [snip] When there is an awareness of suffering and one keeps doing what one > is doing, all the while maintaining that things will be better in > the future, then one is having oneself on. If one maintains that > because of accumulations, defilements and conditions there is no > other option but to keep doing what one is doing, then one is having > oneself on. If it is maintained that there is noone who suffers, and > that fact is somehow meant to alter the reality of suffering, then > one is having oneself on. Herman The above are very specific and very carefully-worded points. I agree with them. More than that, I think they are very wise. Accepting them as premises, though, doesn't always mean I can agree with the arguments built upon them. > I am not interested in digging up old posts, although I wouldn't > have to look far, where the explicit message is the certainty of > countless aeons of preceding lifetimes, the certainty of countless > aeons of lifetimes to follow, and the certainty that nothing is > going to be different real soon. Accepting that your memory of old posts is correct, the explicit message you refer to seems to be in stark contrast to the idea that there is only one happening time and that is NOW. Conceptual thinking about past and future isn't Satipatthana, according to the Abhidhammikas. Just as we can't choose the timing of our death, I suspect we can't choose the timing of our liberation either. IMHO that depends upon accumulations, defilements and conditions including the presence of appropriate volition and wisdom. But you've heard all that before ... Bye for now Andrew T 37446 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play Hi Herman > My post was not intended as an advertisement for Berne or science, > though I can understand it having been read that way. > > The point I was trying to get across was that human interaction in > terms of namas/rupas only and as resulting from accumulations and > defilements from countless aeons of previous lives can be seen as a > dishonest game. > > If the Four Noble Truths can only be realised in the future because > of past conditions, what exactly is going to be different in the > future that cannot happen now? k: I think the understanding of past namas and rupas do condition this present does not mean we will be like that in the present life or future life. If defilements and accumulations cannot be change, in that sense they are permanent, the gound of Buddhism is totally lost. No one say you can't be enlighted in this lifetime, you definitely can, if ones panna reach that level not even Buddha can stop your enlightment. Ken O > > If it can't happen now, it never will. And that is the crux of the > game. > 37447 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:00pm Subject: question to all members Dear members of both list: I have been with dhamma-list from the begining and also a very long time with dsg list, what fascinate me and puzzle me is, you are all very knowledgeable and active talkers, but nobody goes to the monasteries or take part of buddhist ceremonies and services, Why? You do not agree with the authority of the monks?, do you rescent the Shanga. I notice when I visit Bangkog and went to see Sujin, at their centre they have a meeting hall or temple, yet they do not have an imagine of the Buddha, are you people a different kind of buddhist who do not follow the Shanga, monks or what. For eg, ken of Singapore will talk until the cows come home about buddhism, yet he never goes to a monastery and take part of ceremonies, why?Conie has a son who is a monk, yet she never takes part of her sons ceremonies, and so on and on. Christine, who I admire and like very much never goes to the monasteries in Brisbane. So what is it about this group. Too good for the shanga or you do not agree with the monks?. Metta. Ajahn Jose 37448 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:20pm Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner33-Feeling/Vedana (f) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** Pleasant bodily feeling and painful bodily feeling are nåmas. We can call them 'bodily feeling' because they are conditioned by impact on the bodysense. When, for example, temperature which is just the right amount of heat or cold impinges on the bodysense, the body-consciousness (kåya-viññåùa) which experiences it is accompanied by pleasant bodily feeling. Body-consciousness is vipåkacitta and in this case kusala vipåkacitta(1). The pleasant bodily feeling which accompanies this kusala vipåkacitta is also kusala vipåka. Pleasant bodily feeling cannot accompany any other kind of citta but the body-consciousness, kåya-viññåùa, which is kusala vipåka. Thus we see that not every kind of feeling can arise with all types of citta. Painful bodily feeling accompanies only the kåya-viññåùa which is akusala vipåka. When, for example, temperature which is too hot or too cold impinges on the bodysense, kåya-viññåùa which is akusala vipåkacitta experiences this unpleasant object. This akusala vipåkacitta is accompanied by painful bodily feeling. Painful bodily feeling cannot accompany any other kind of citta but the kåyaviññåùa which is akusala vipåka. ** (1) The five sense-cognitions are vipåkacittas, results of kamma. When they experience a pleasant object, they are the result of kusala kamma, a wholesome deed, and when they experience an unpleasant object, they are the result of akusala kamma, an unwholesome deed. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37449 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 0:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Causality & Impermanance - transcript of TV program Dear Suravira, Thank you for kindly posting the first of your further TV transcripts, 'Causality & Impermanence' and for seeking comments. (post 37273). I apologise for my delay in getting back on this and another post of yours addressed to me. I'll also be glad to see the second transcript on 'The Five Aggregates' later. (I think one or two pages at a time would make it easier for members to comment and discuss further, perhaps. Iyou ask for feedback, you're probably more likely to get it;-)). Also I know many friends here who would be interested to hear any of your comments or report from your retreat w/Gunaratana, especially any points that touch on our discussions. After that ramble, my comments on the transcript will be brief for now: 1. No prob w/the intro paras 2. I'm not clear on 'suchness' in context and when you say there is no underlying nature, substance, essence, or entity…..and the correlation is non-dual, it all begins to sound like the comments I was stressing in my post 'From Naargajuna to Abhidhamma'. Esp, when you go on to say 'not intrinsic to the observed phenomena'. 'Cause and effect are simply one phenomena viewed from two perspectives'. This is not according to the Patthana. Yes, anatta, No, we cannot say the conditioning dh and conditioned dh are the same. 3. You move onto 'objects and events' and then talk about phenomena (dhamma), but it seems you are mixing concepts and realities. 4. Big skip to time. You mention 3 types of dhammas - namas, rupas and time. Time is a concept, it's not a reality to be known. See Karunadasa's article on Time (but not Space). No, I don't agree with your comments on time. 5. You suggest rupas need namas to occur. It depends. In order to be experienced, yes. You mention they are conditioned by time…..again, we're not on the same track. 6. You say it cannot be proved that dhammas exist in a fixed order. By our ignorance, no. By a Buddha's omniscience, yes. See 'Niyama' in 'Useful Posts'. 7. Conc is fine. Of course, I realize there are many limitations b.c it is for a TV transcript. My comments are just from the Theravada und of dhammas. Even when we use 'phenomena', it can easily be a gloss which avoids really distinguishing what has to be known at this moment. 8. If you read more from 'Concepts & Realities' in U.P. while I'm away, you may appreciate more where I'm coming from with these cryptic comments. Suravira, I'm delighted to see you around again and look f/w to more discussions on return. I think there are other members here like Howard perhaps, who would find little to disagree with at all in the transcript. Perhaps others can share their views with you too. I'll just try to add a few on your other post now. Metta, Sarah ========= 37450 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Hi Suravira, > [Suravira] Sarah, to explore the points you have raised, I have a > few thoughts to share. <…> >In addition, consciousness always experiences an object - > there is not consciousness without an object. It is consciousness > that innately misapprehends mental and physical (rupa) phenomena as > existing intrinscially, as independent isolates - that is it > misapprehends a differentiating characteristic or nature of a > reality. …. S: A nama such as seeing consciousness has a very different characteristic or 'nature' than that of visible object, wouldn't you agree? The misapprehension lies in a) taking either for self or lasting or satisfactory or desirable or in b) not distinguishing them or confusing the concepts with realities. … <…> >When consciousness is defiled (kilesa) by > selfish desire (lobha), hatred (dosa), and delusion (moha), the > discriminatory function of perception is impaired, and as a > consequence, the differentiating characteristic or nature of a > reality are misapprehended. One of the ways that mental and physical > phenomena are misapprehended is as having independent or autonomous > being. … S: OK. Also, I'd like to stress here before I forget, that there are many of your comments I like a lot and where we are in agreement. I'm just picking on points where there is misunderstanding or disagreement mainly as I'm short of time. … > This image is what we naturally interpret as "self." We naturally, > and legitimately, identify with this image. This image provides a > sense of being an individual. Without this image at our disposal, we > would be completely disoriented and therefore unable to begin or > maintain the path of the bodhisattva. …. S: This reminds me of comments we often hear about needing a self-view to start on the path and so on. I disagree. Without wrong view of self, we'd be far better 'oriented' without any ditthi taking us off-track at every opportunity. Thinking that we can all choose to follow the path of a bodhisattva is one such ditthi as I see it. …. > > It is very important to acknowledge that the Buddha did not negate > this image, that he did not negate our conventional sense of self. > The Buddha taught that this image is like an illusion, not that it > is an illusion. This image is like an illusion in that we hold it to > be real in a way that it is not. …. S: The illusion is that the non-existent exists. There is no self at all. …. > > The Buddha was able to see through this image and recognize that > what we perceive is not really a single whole (i.e., is not an > entity), but merely a particular state of these five (5) phenomena, > in close proximity to one another, in a given moment. Moreover, the > Buddha acknowledged that, like all phenomena, this particular state > was continually changing and ceasing; that it was therefore > impermanent and not permanent or eternal in any regard. …. S: I think it's not a matter of seeing 'through this image' but understanding that an image is not a reality in any way at all. So only the 5 khandhas ever temporarily exist, arising and passing away. (We cannot say only one arises at a time, but we can say that only one is experienced or can be known at a time). I'm not sure what you mean by 'state' as it sounds like a combination of namas and rupas and therefore another concept or illusion perhaps? …. >A sense object is > not experienced directly - the sense object is conditioned by the > physical limitations of our five sense organs and by our mind. …. S: Visible object is experienced directly by cittas in the sense door process and subsequent ones in the following mind door process. If this wasn't so, it would be impossible to be aware of it, but yet it is possible. …. >We > merely experience an impression of the object, never the object > itself - these objects are synthesized by our sense organs and by > our minds. … S: Then it would just be a concept experienced, but in fact it's possible for the reality to be known. Otherwise, there'd be no chance of developing satipatthana. See Samyutta Salayatana suttas. …. >This is not to assert that life is an illusion - only > that life is like an illusion. Within every moment of the experience > of life, there is a discrepency between the way objects and events > appear and the way they astually exist (unconditioned by our > perception). Let me repeat the previous points that there is not > consciousness without an object, and perception is concommitant with > every moment of consciousness. … Yes, sanna arises with every citta to mark the object. Even when there are moments of satipatthana, sanna is there marking the reality. It can be wholesome or unwholesome or else accompanying moments of vipaka or kiriya cittas.No illusion or discrepancy except with the unwholesome cittas which of course make up a large part of our day. …. > [Suravira] At the risk of demonstrating that I did not understand > this point, let me express the view that all mental (and physical) > phenomena have reciprocal dependence with innumerable causes and > effects. As this is just the way all phenomena exist (tathata), > right views and false views (realities and non-realities) …. samma ditthi and micha ditthi are both realities when they arise. Of course, now as we talk about them, we are discussing concepts about realities. … >are both > dependent of other causes and effects. Right views do not arise when > ignorance (avija) is concommitant with the arising moment of > consciousness. … S: good … > [Suravira] Mental phenomena depend upon physical phenomena, just as > physcial phenomena depend upon mental phenomena. … S: To be experienced. With no experience or namas, physical phenomena outside the body would still arise and fall, dependent on temperature. …. >All perceptions of > rupa are re-cognized and by so doing are functionally equivalent to > symbolic representations. …. S: Just in a sense door process, 17 cittas arise and fall away directly experiencing a rupa such as visible object or hardness. The rupa is not any kind of 'symbolic representation' until it is later conceived as such in mind door processes. …. > [Suravira] In that they are expressed in language, these images are > not exempt form being symbolic representations, and are therefore > concepts. Once again mental phenomena depend upon physical phenomena > and physical phenomena depend upon mental phenomena. As regards > mirages, are these mental phenomena not strickly imaginary objects? … S: Many kinds of concepts or imaginary objects, inc. those used to explain realities such as 'nama' or 'rupa' even. They may be conceived wisely or unwisely (usually the latter for most of us as kusala cittas are likely to be fewer than akusala cittas). …. … > [Suravira] Concepts are conditioned by language, and by all manner > of symbolic representation, and in turn, by the mindfulness and > clear comprehension of those concepts. … S: I would say the thinking (which thinks about the concepts) is conditioned in many ways as you suggest, but the concepts themselves are imaginary as you've suggested and therefore don't have characteristics which are conditioned in this manner. Because of the language we've heard and used etc, there are conditions to think or use it again. … > [Suravira] That which is conceived is an object that is a mental > phenomena. Concepts do exist as mental phenomena. … S: This is why 'phenomena' is rather vague in this context. It's true that concepts are objects of cittas, but they only 'exist' as objects of experience, not as realities which can be known. …. >However, mental > phenomena does not exist in the same manner as physical phenomena. > Mental phenomena is formless, yet mental phenomena exists - it is > devoid of shape, color, sound, odor, taste and tangibility, but it > has temporal extensions. … S: We can say concepts have temporal extensions or anything else. Namas exist temporarily and then fall away. Perhaps you are referring to the characteristics of the sub-moments of these namas and I'm misunderstanding you? …. >And mental phenomena manifests certain > abilities as well, e.g., mental factors, defilements, faculties, etc. …. S: I'd put it a little differently and just say there are various classifications of nama. …. > [Suravira] Yet insight arises when seeing through the illusory like > charactertics of the conventional nature of things. …. S: I would put it the other way round and say that insight arises when seeing or directly understanding the characteristics of realities. Then there is no more doubt about illusory objects having characteristics which can be directly known by insight. …. > [Suravira] Well, to delve into this paragraph, I need clarification > from you as to what the meaning of the phrase "cannot be known" is. …. S: I think I said 'conventions cannot be known'. I was talking about the development of satipatthana, of insight, which directly understands realities only. In the development of samatha, concepts 'can be known' and there can be great panna developed with concepts as object. But without the direct knowledge of namas and rupas, there cannot be a Buddha sasana and insight is not possible. Suravira, apologies for probably not giving your fine and detailed posts the time and respect they deserve. I was delighted to see you come in on this thread and appreciate your feedback a lot. I look forward to picking up any further discussion on these points on my return and of course I'll look forward to reading anything further you write to me or others. Metta, Sarah ====== 37451 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:20am Subject: Re: question to all members Hello Ajahn Jose, all, Lovely to see you posting again, Bhante. :-) I remember that you showed concern over this matter of Buddharupa when at the Foundation in Bangkok. For nearly five hundred years after the passing away of the Buddha, there were no statues of the Buddha. When artists wished to indicate the Buddha's presence, they did it with the use of symbols - an empty chair or throne, a tree, a stupa or a pair of footprints. The first Buddha statues began to be produced around 500 years after the passing away of the Buddha. My understanding is that the altar at the Foundation contains a relic of the Buddha - this represents the Buddha and there is no need of a statue. But other more knowledgeable members will, no doubt, comment on whether this is correct. It is the Dhamma that the Buddha taught that is important, don't you think - understanding the Four Noble Truths? In the Khandasamyutta 22.87 (5) Vakkaki, the Buddha says "For a long time, venerable sir, I have wanted to come to see the Blessed One, but I haven't been fit enough to do so." "Enough, Vakkali! Why do you want to see this foul body? One who sees the Dhamma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dhamma. For in seeing the Dhamma, Vakkali, one sees me; and in seeing me, one sees the Dhamma." I think this can be taken to mean that in order to really see the Buddha one should see the Dhamma, the truth to which he awakened. I have often seen monks at the Foundation, singly and in groups - they come for the Thai discussions - and I have always seen them given respect. In response to "Christine, who I admire and like very much never goes to the monasteries in Brisbane." Thank you for your kind remarks, Bhante. It is true that I do not go to monasteries, not due to any aversion, not because I think I am too good for the Sangha, and not because I do not agree with the monks. It is more a consequence of the fact that most Buddhist temples in Brisbane grew out of refugee communities, as an expression of their culture, and ceremonies are often conducted in their ethnic languages - Vietnamese, Khmer, Cambodian, Sri Lankan, Chinese. Most western Buddhists in this state are from the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions. If I knew of an english speaking Theravada Bhikkhu, within a reasonable distance, who had an excellent understanding of the Dhamma, and who offered regular teachings, I would certainly make an effort to attend. with respect, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ajahn Jose wrote: > > Dear members of both list: I have been with dhamma-list from the begining and also a very long time with dsg list, what fascinate me and puzzle me is, you are all very knowledgeable and active talkers, but nobody goes to the monasteries or take part of buddhist ceremonies and services, Why? You do not agree with the authority of the monks?, do you rescent the Shanga. I notice when I visit Bangkog and went to see Sujin, at their centre they have a meeting hall or temple, yet they do not have an imagine of the Buddha, are you people a different kind of buddhist who do not follow the Shanga, monks or what. For eg, ken of Singapore will talk until the cows come home about buddhism, yet he never goes to a monastery and take part of ceremonies, why?Conie has a son who is a monk, yet she never takes part of her sons ceremonies, and so on and on. Christine, who I admire and like very much never goes to the monasteries in Brisbane. So what is it about this group. Too good for the shanga or > you do not agree with the monks?. Metta. Ajahn Jose 37452 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:22am Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo Hi Herman, > ==== > S > But you are saying that this being not enough, we should > `endeavour' to have more. And you think this is possible by some > deliberate choice and I say that it is not. :-/ In the mean time, > many dhammas arise and fall, why the idea of catching them?! > ==== >Herman: > When the awareness arises that there is absorption in any act of any > kind whatsoever, for me that is an opportunity to > cease/desist/abstain from being absorbed in that act. But the > possibility remains with that awareness to persist with the folly. > > I will have to accept that you live your life without any belief in > choices or options, if that is what you are maintaining, but that is > very far from how I experience my life. To be totally honest, the > only people who I have ever observed to believe that they were > without option or choice were on the brink of suicide. --------------------------------------------------- =S> A couple or so years ago when I had doubts regarding the influence of the Abhidhamma and whether it merely "conditioned a way of perceiving and interpreting experiences", I was reminded by Sarah about the "reality" of the present moment. Since then this kind of doubt has not arisen. Why? Because it doesn't matter now whether some state is labeled lobha or mana or sound or feeling or wrong view, and how exactly anything was conditioned, there is always a *reality appearing* which can be observed. The objective is not to be able to `identify and label', but to become more familiar with the characteristic of nama and rupa, though we do tend to react with some form of labeling. However as far as this tendency still remains, I think at least that we can begin to differentiate and place in right perspective, the difference between `conditioned dhammas' no matter what label, and our normal every day understanding of experiences. The latter should clearly be seen as being inaccurate and misleading, because associated with `self view'. And even though in the case of the former one's awareness is quite after the fact, pariyatti knowledge about this momentary nature of dhammas is very helpful in checking any wrong view of self from arising. Besides, if it is all `thinking', even this can be known. When we read about some dhamma, this can at the moment be a reminder about any dhamma appearing now and so an increasing familiarity is developed. At other times there can be understanding about conditionality and such on the intellectual level, and this too is a level of panna though different from direct experience. Furthermore this can serve as background knowledge in such a way that when there is some sati in the moment, the nimita can give rise to memory of a description, and recognition here, is sati and panna being developed. But all these moments are very fleeting and not unexpected that akusala of all kinds follow. Lobha for example is so powerful that the present accumulations are unlikely to condition any sati of it. So there will be zillions more moments of akusala than any sati and panna. This is how it is, were it easy as observing bodily movement or having other `concepts' as object, then panna would be developing at a much faster rate. Those who are so optimistic about enlightenment in this very life do not know the difference between satipatthana and what they think to be `mindfulness', which in fact is miccha sati. Were they to experience the real thing, they would immediately reject such practices as taught by *all* meditation schools. The little sati that does arise in daily life, develops along with it an understanding about the conditioned and anatta nature of realities, hence panna is being developed, whereas when we believe that we should observe body postures or other concepts, inadvertently there is a belief in `self' and `control'. I do make choices and exercise control in day to day living; in fact it would be wrong to believe that conventional choices cannot and should not be made. Most if not all the time there is ignorance and other akusala. If and when there is any understanding of the moment, the choices can be made, *but* they will be seen as `conditioned'. If it does happen, the object at those times for me is usually `concepts'. I can for example, decide to stand up now and go out of the room, but there may not be any understanding of precise dhammas but only a vague idea about `self', `sitting', `standing', `walking' and any associated `intention'. Someone with more developed understanding such activities will be seen more clearly. But even when the panna is still weak, intellectually there can be the correct understanding of concepts as different from dhammas. If this is not known, then what is not real will be taken for real, namely `self', `other', `place', `time' and `exercising of control'. Also when for example lobha arises, one will mistakenly suppress it and think otherwise that one has observed its arising and falling away, and this to be `guarding of the senses'. Prompted by the word `sit', even a dog can do so. As humans we will associate the word with other words and symbols learnt, but no special understanding about the conditioned nature of dhammas are required for any action. And we will further try to make sense of this using our reasoning faculty and come up with more words to describe our experiences, but even here there is complete ignorance of dhammas. So we do act and react and come to believe that there is a `self' and `control'. But is there in the ultimate sense? And when it comes to understanding experiences in light of the study of the Buddha's teachings, this can get worse, because now we *think* there is understanding. ------------------------------------------- > Herman: > Many dhammas arise and fall, for sure, and the idea of catching them > comes out of that, as does the idea of a self who has choices and > options. Except for the rare saint, and the more common suicidally > depressed person, everyone else acts from time to time as though > they are an agent with choices. =S> When self is used in relation to conventional realities, this does not necessarily mean there is any wrong view arising at those moments. But when one is `practicing' dhamma, there is the view that *realities* are controllable when in fact they are not, and this is wrong view. A suicidally depressed person is most likely to have wrong view along with other attachments. ------------------------------- > Herman: > When in Rome, do as the Romans do. And so while one is a person in > the world of agents, one can choose to accept or reject the > teachings of the Buddha to the Romans on the effort of cultivation > of right-mindedness. Or one may outsmart themself, and while neither > a saint or suicidally depressed, they choose to remind themselves of > what they do not know, and presume the insight of anicca, anatta and > dukkha while fully engrossed in the circus of life. =S> "While fully engrossed in the circus of life", there can intersperse moments with sati and panna. What you are saying is that as long as we have not `eradicated' self-view, acting in accordance with the way things are would be to act "always" with `self-view'. In fact it would be a reflection of sincerity if one were aware of this `self' when attempting to understand Dhamma. But Herman, `self-view' arises and falls just like any other dhamma. In fact while studying dhamma correctly (pariyatti), there can be *no* self- view at the same time. And self-view does not even arise that often at other times, though other agents like lobha and mana do so very often. However, with regard to Dhamma when we do act (study or meditate) with the idea of `control', then self-view *does* arise and is indirectly encouraged. -------------------------------------- > Herman: > I have not seen the stats regarding success rates of the dsg > approach to sainthood, but I expect they will not rival those of the > sutta approach. Conditions and accumulations, no doubt and for sure, > but while one acts as agent one would do well to consider what > futures one is conditioning and accumulating by ones choices. =S> We can only assume about any stats and about anyone at all reaching any level of sainthood. Regarding `choice', what according to you determines if whether they are right or wrong? One's internal dialogue and apparent sincerity associated? The terms and concepts used, for example, `enlightenment in this lifetime', `develop more metta and karuna', `meditate' and so on? ------------------------------------------ > Herman: > (Please be assured this is meant impersonally, not directed at > speficic ones or theys :-)) > =S> We are here to learn from one another and each person has his own way. :-) --------------------------- Metta, Sukin 37453 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:40am Subject: Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Sarah and Ken] Dear Ken H, You are right that I was not impressed with Sarah's "'conceptual right view' about kamma." > But concepts are not ditthi, and I think there can be a concept of > kamma. If such a concept were to be experienced with kusala citta, > what name could we give that citta? Conceptual right view? Concepts are certainly not ditti -- except when they are taken as views, in which case there is ditthi (views). And I agree that there is a concept of kamma. But wouldn't you agree that the concept of kamma is different from kamma itself? "Right view" of kamma sees kamma as it it (yathaasabhaava); when the concept of kamma is pondered, the kamma itself is not seen or understood -- the view is cloudy, there is no 'right view'. This does not necessarily mean there is wrong view, and in your example of a kusala citta, there would not be wrong view. The consciousness would have to be one of the ñanavippayutta kusalacittani. > I think that would be a good name. I think that the name 'conceptual right view' too easily gives the wrong impression that conceptual formulations can be right view. Sammaditthi is seeing things as they really are, i.e. in the right way; it is about how things are seen, not how they are thought about. The name 'conceptual right view' too easily gives rise to notions such as "`conceptual right view' about kamma ... is a pre-cursor for mundane right view" and other justifications for a practice consisting of reading and intellectualizing -- in essence serving the same function that "conventional right effort" serves in support of formal practice. "Conceptual right view" tends to support ditthi in essentially the same way that "conventional right effort" tends to support silabbataparamasa. > That way, pariyatti (right > intellectual understanding) could be described, in absolute terms, > as any kusala citta that experienced a concept of Dhamma. Can you help jog my memory? Is it in the commentaries to the Satipatthana sutta that pariyatti is discussed? Or where? Dan 37454 From: Ken O Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] question to all members Hi Bante Is been a while, that I have met you. Since you are writing right now, this show that you are in good health and I am very happy about it as previously I know you went for an operation. As for me why I do not attend monastary in Singapore, because they are simply too many of them going not the right direction and I dont feel belong to anyone of them. However, whenever I pass by a temple that has a statue of Buddha, I will bow to him, to show my immerse respect for his compassion towards human being like me. Even those temple that does not have a Buddha, or have deities or Heavenly Gods, I will still bow to them and burn joss sticks to show my respect for them as they have help to protect in one way or another to human beings. As for ceremonies, personally I just couldn't feel in syn with them, I always feel out of place in a ceremony. Nevertheless, I hope I will meet you again as I feel great talking to you because you are straight forward and honest about your opinions. Respectfully Ken O 37455 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:56pm Subject: Re: question to all members Ajahn Jose: Dear members of both list: I have been with dhamma-list from the begining and also a very long time with dsg list, what fascinate me and puzzle me is, you are all very knowledgeable and active talkers, but nobody goes to the monasteries or take part of buddhist ceremonies and services, Why? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Bhante, I also thought this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ajahn Jose: You do not agree with the authority of the monks?, do you rescent the Shanga. I notice when I visit Bangkog and went to see Sujin, at their centre they have a meeting hall or temple, yet they do not have an imagine of the Buddha, are you people a different kind of buddhist who do not follow the Shanga, monks or what. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I think Crristine said about relics. There are 4 kinds of ceti. Images, and statues are just a kind of ceti. It is uddhissa ceti which just refers The Living Buddha. I think Dhamma ceti is the best. When people are always with Dhamma, they already show that they do respect The Buddha. This also include The Dhamma and The Sangha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ajahn Jose: For eg, ken of Singapore will talk until the cows come home about buddhism, yet he never goes to a monastery and take part of ceremonies, why? Conie has a son who is a monk, yet she never takes part of her sons ceremonies, and so on and on. Christine, who I admire and like very much never goes to the monasteries in Brisbane. So what is it about this group. Too good for the shanga or you do not agree with the monks?. Metta. Ajahn Jose ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Ken and Christine have answered their matter. I do not know what Connie will say. With respect, Htoo Naing 37456 From: Egbert Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:11pm Subject: Re: Objective and Subjective Scientist Herman Hi Andrew and all, I have appreciated this thread very much. I have considered your reply, and agree with what you say. Thanks for the B.B. notes as well. There was one particular point which you made which I wanted to draw out a bit more. When it comes to Dhamma practice, > however, I think it is acceptable to act unscientifically (without > pretending to act scientifically). This, for me, is where faith > steps in - I am not going to say that the existence of devas is a > scientific fact because, from my perspective, it isn't. However, > acknowledging this, I can remain open to the possibility of their > existence. I think it is useful to distinguish between subjective and objective sources of experience. I have no doubt that devas are and have been a reality for folks. What seems to set devas apart from my Mum, for example, is that a deva is not a shared reality. In Maha-samaya Sutta (DN 20) the Buddha enumerates to a group of 500, mostly arahants, all the devas and other-wordly beings that have gathered to pay homage to him. The 500 did not see what the Buddha saw. As opposed to my Mum, who on appearing in a room requires no announcing, mostly by virtue of her imposing figure :-). There are many experiences I have had which I have confirmed to have only been experienced by me, though there were others present. I think there is room to scientifically differentiate between those experiences that have an origin external to the mind, which are sharable, and those that are purely mind-made, which are private. What do you reckon? Kind Regards Herman 37457 From: Egbert Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:43pm Subject: Re: question to all members Hi Ajahn Jose, It is good to hear from you again. How are things at the Cross? In answer to your questions, perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think that the Buddha instituted a ceremony-performing sangha, but a sangha intent on bhavana. Just as Jesus did not institute a ceremony- performing church. I think both teachers urged their audiences to see through the rites and rituals of every day life. It may well be a useful starting point for a person to consider the meaning behind all the ceremonies that are performed in the temples, but if the attendance at ceremonies becomes a ritual in itself, one may as well go to the football. I respect wisdom in all guises, and wisdom becomes visible by what people do. You have my respect. Herman PS I was glad to hear there was no image of the Buddha at Sujin's centre. It's bad enough thaty some of the members go on pilgrimages :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ajahn Jose wrote: > > Dear members of both list: I have been with dhamma-list from the begining and also a very long time with dsg list, what fascinate me and puzzle me is, you are all very knowledgeable and active talkers, but nobody goes to the monasteries or take part of buddhist ceremonies and services, Why? You do not agree with the authority of the monks?, do you rescent the Shanga. I notice when I visit Bangkog and went to see Sujin, at their centre they have a meeting hall or temple, yet they do not have an imagine of the Buddha, are you people a different kind of buddhist who do not follow the Shanga, monks or what. For eg, ken of Singapore will talk until the cows come home about buddhism, yet he never goes to a monastery and take part of ceremonies, why?Conie has a son who is a monk, yet she never takes part of her sons ceremonies, and so on and on. Christine, who I admire and like very much never goes to the monasteries in Brisbane. So what is it about this group. Too good for the shanga or > you do not agree with the monks?. Metta. Ajahn Jose > 37458 From: Suravira Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:42pm Subject: Re: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: (Was: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Joop wrote: > > The next week 9or longer) I will not send or read messages: going to > the hospital > [Suravira] Dear Joop, May you be well, happy and peaceful. May no difficulties, problems or harm come to you. May you always meet with success. And, may you have the patience, understanding, courage and determination to meet and overcome the inevitable difficulties and problems in life. With metta, Suravira 37459 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:13pm Subject: A BIG THANK YOU TO ALL My Dear Friends in the dhamma, thank you all for the wonderful answers and with no attacks and very frank, wonderfull exchange of ideas, I ,as a wester monk, agree with a lot of your remarks. Moving from monastery to monastery I found that a lot of the asian monks know very little about the dhamma but a lot about the tradition of their own cultures, they can chant wonderfully and they impress the locals, but if you question about certain suttras , their answer sometimes is, do not question a senior monk and keep quiet. Of course I do have a big mouth and reply instantly, which does not make me very popular. I question everything and also tell them very quickly if their are doing something that will interfere in the Australian way. With great Metta. Ajahn Jose 37460 From: connieparker Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:23pm Subject: Re: question to all members Dear Ajahn Jose, I don't really have much to say, but it seemed rude to not answer when I'm the only Connie I know of on this list. It must be another Connie (or maybe you meant Mom Betty?) whose son is a monk. I only have a daughter and do call her husband my son, but they're Lutheran. I've only gone to their church for their wedding and haven't any plans to go back, though I suppose if someone dies or there is some other family kind of thing, I might go for that. There are a few Tibetan monks in our area and I have been up to their retreat center a few times and do discuss Dhamma with them, but I don't have the same faith in their practices that they do. Right now, their center is basically Lama Zopa's private retreat and they don't have any public events. The only other people I have any real contact with outside of cyberspace who claim to be Buddhist are lay-oriented and follow Nichiren. I don't have their faith, either. Mom and I do have an altar and I like that, but I don't think it's necessary. I don't know what 'the authority of the monks' means so I can't say much about that. I don't think that just because someone is a monk that that means they have any better understanding than some laity, if that's what you meant by authority. I hope you will be posting more. peace, connie 37461 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:43pm Subject: Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Sarah and Ken] Hi Dan, You wrote: -------------------- > Concepts are certainly not ditti -- except when they are taken as views, in which case there is ditthi (views). > --------------------- I think I see what you mean. If I were to say, "There is no result from good and bad deeds," someone might reply, "That is the paramattha dhamma, miccha-ditthi." They would be right in one sense but wrong in another. The wrong understanding indicated (suggested) by those words is ditthi, but the words and the statement themselves are not. They are just concepts. And you are saying, I think, that the mistaking of concepts for ditthi is, itself, ditthi. --------------------- D: > And I agree that there is a concept of kamma. But wouldn't you agree that the concept of kamma is different from kamma itself? --------------------- Yes, and I would stress that there can be a concept of kamma without any confusion between concept and reality. (As you agree below.) --------------------------- D: > "Right view" of kamma sees kamma as it it (yathaasabhaava); when the concept of kamma is pondered, the kamma itself is not seen or understood -- the view is cloudy, there is no 'right view'. This does not necessarily mean there is wrong view, and in your example of a kusala citta, there would not be wrong view. The consciousness would have to be one of the ñanavippayutta kusalacittani. --------------------------- That sounds right to me - "kusala citta dissociated from panna." ---------------------------- D: > I think that the name 'conceptual right view' too easily gives the wrong impression that conceptual formulations can be right view. --------------------------- You might be worrying unnecessarily. I think people who are prone to that particular wrong impression simply use the term 'right view' for everything (conceptual and paramattha). The use of the word "conceptual" might alert them to the fact that something illusory (some mere conventional designation) is being referred to: It is not something that really exists and, therefore, it could not possibly be a factor of the Middle Way. I suggested (just surmising) yesterday that there might be a paramattha dhamma (a citta) that could be called 'conceptual right view.' That would explain how conceptual right view can be a condition for actual right view. Another suggestion from DSG members has been that panna (even if very weak and elementary) has arisen, in amongst all the kusala conceptualising, to directly know a paramattha dhamma. --------------------------- D: > Sammaditthi is seeing things as they really are, i.e. in the right way; it is about how things are seen, not how they are thought about. The name 'conceptual right view' too easily gives rise to notions such as "`conceptual right view' about kamma ... is a pre-cursor for mundane right view" ---------------------------- I think it is a precursor for mundane right view. (See my screed below on 'factors for enlightenment.') But I'm not saying it is something we have any control over. I realise that conceptual right view requires kusala hearing and kusala thinking, which are conditioned dhammas, not 'controlled' concepts. --------------------------- D: > and other justifications for a practice consisting of reading and intellectualizing -- in essence serving the same function that "conventional right effort" serves in support of formal practice. --------------------------- That would be shocking, I agree. Of all the conceivable formal practices, 'ritualised reading and intellectualising' would come closest to what the Buddha actually taught, but it would be a travesty to proclaim it as the same thing. ------------------ D: > "Conceptual right view" tends to support ditthi in essentially the same way that "conventional right effort" tends to support silabbataparamasa. ------------------- You probably have a good point, and I may not be seeing the problem as deeply as you are. When we use the term, 'conventional right effort,' our intention is to disassociate the concept of right effort from paramattha right effort. But, even with that usage, we can still fall into the trap of thinking conventional right effort is real. The effort that accompanies ritualistic meditation is no more conventional (in the sense of something we can control) than is the effort that accompanies satipatthana. ---------------- D: > Can you help jog my memory? Is it in the commentaries to the Satipatthana sutta that pariyatti is discussed? Or where? ----------------- I don't know, sorry. It's in the commentaries somewhere. In one or more suttas (often quoted on DSG) there is an explanation of the four factors required for enlightenment. They are, association with the wise, hearing the Dhamma, wise reflection on the Dhamma, and practice in accordance with the Dhamma. I don't know if the commentary spells it out, but we have been equating the first three factors with pariyatti and the fourth with patipatti. We (or some of us) consider pariyatti to mean intellectual understanding of the Dhamma and patipatti to mean satipatthana, mundane insight (or at least, all bar the most advanced stages of mundane insight). We understand that pariyatti is a precursor (to use your word) for patipatti, which is a precursor for pativedha. Ken H 37462 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:43pm Subject: confession My dear Friends in the Dhamma; probably you guess it already, I am also not very happy with the organized ceremonies. I sit an recite like a parrot things that do not make me happy and question, Why do I do it?. The answer always is, because I am a monk, I must do it. Maybe I am a very diferent kind of monk. I will never disrobe, but after the vassa I will be living as a monk in the Cross area to help the homeless, drunks and hiv people. Metta. Ajahn Jose 37463 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] confession Dear Ven Sir, It's good to hear from you again. --- Ajahn Jose wrote: > > > My dear Friends in the Dhamma; probably you guess it already, I am also > not very happy with the organized ceremonies. I sit an recite like a > parrot things that do not make me happy and question, Why do I do it?. > The answer always is, because I am a monk, I must do it. .... S: You also raised this for discussion when you joined us and I think we all agreed that we need to do many things in life -- whether as a monk or lay person -- that we might not wish to do. It's just normal. The great joy of understanding a little about satipatthana for me is in realizing it can arise and develop at any time, even whilst in activities which don't really suit us. Herman mentioned something about actions, but I'd like to suggest that wisdom and other noble qualities cannot be measured by outer appearances. Who knows what motivations or intentions are involved when a bhikkhu is reciting or officiating at functions? Who knows what the wisdom is or isn't when a lay person or bhikkhu visits Bodh Gaya or what the intentions are in going in the first place? We can only answer these questions for ourselves and only wisdom can know at any moment what the dhammas or realities involved are, whether in India or New Zealand, at a ceremony or at home. Again it comes back to present moment understanding, not the appearance. .... >Maybe I am a > very diferent kind of monk. I will never disrobe, but after the vassa I > will be living as a monk in the Cross area to help the homeless, drunks > and hiv people. .... The question I'd always like to respectfully ask you, Bhante, is with regard to the bhikkhu's life. If one is not able to happily and easily follow all the bhikkhu's rules strictly (including when you do your fine work in the Cross area), what is the purpose of being a bhikkhu? What is the greatest respect we can show to the Sangha in your opinion? With regard to the Foundation and your questions to A.Sujin regarding the statue or lack of statue, you received many answers at the time and it was a long discussion. There were people in the room from various parts of the world who'd come specially for the purpose of the discussion. My second question here is, given that life is short, maybe very short, what are the most important questions and issues to address at this moment? If I tell you I have or don't have a Buddha statue in my home, that I follow or don't follow any ceremony or visit any temples, how will it help you in your practice of satipatthana? With respect and Metta, Sarah p.s.I do hope your health is greatly improved now. ======== Metta. Ajahn Jose 37464 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:03pm Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner34-Feeling/Vedana (g) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** Bodily feelings arise because of impingement of a pleasant or unpleasant object on the bodysense. The kåya-viññåna cognizes the pleasant or unpleasant object which impinges on the bodysense, phassa 'contacts' the object and vedanå experiences the "taste" of the object. The feeling which accompanies kåya-viññåna is either pleasant feeling or painful feeling, it cannot be indifferent feeling. In the case of the other pañca-viññånas(2) which are seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting, the accompanying feeling is always indifferent feeling, no matter whether the vipåkacitta which experiences the object is kusala vipåkacitta or akusala vipåkacitta. ** (2) The five pairs of sense-cognitions, seeing, hearing, etc. One of each pair is kusala vipåka and one akusala vipåka. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37465 From: Egbert Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:07pm Subject: Re: confession Hi Sarah, I hope you have a great time in India :-) > > Herman mentioned something about actions, but I'd like to suggest that wisdom and other noble qualities cannot be measured by outer appearances. > Again it comes back to present moment understanding, not the > appearance. It takes an awful lot of present moments, with lots of determination and effort, to get to India, doesn't it :-)? Enjoy Herman 37466 From: Egbert Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:11pm Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner33-Feeling/Vedana (f) Hi everyone, It would help me greatly if someone would post an example or two illustrating the following. > ** > (1) The five sense-cognitions are vipåkacittas, results of kamma. When they experience a pleasant object, they are the result of kusala kamma, a wholesome deed, and when they experience an unpleasant object, they are the result of akusala kamma, an unwholesome deed. Thanks in advance and Kind Regards Herman 37467 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 0:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Sarah and Ken] Oh Dan (& Ken H), Originally as you know, I joined in the discussion because you were asserting something to the effect that there could not be right view with concepts as objects. I pointed out that there were many kinds of right view, including those kinds accompanying moments of samatha bhavana. There can be reflection on any aspect of the Dhamma under this umbrella with right view, but no one here has suggested or is suggesting that reflection on kamma or on namas and rupas or any other aspect of the Dhamma is necessarily even kusala, let alone with right view. It depends on the cittas as usual, not on any terms or labels. In brief, I think you have something of a straw man argument going on here as you pick out one line here or there;-). No one is suggesting that (wise) reflection about kamma or any other aspects of the Teachings is the same as satipatthana. Of course if we take mere thinking for right understanding of realities, it's wrong. Also, neither Ken H or I would ever suggest that a practice of intellectualizing or book study could equate with any development of satipatthana. In fact we both go to lengths on DSG to say the opposite as I said before. On the other hand, if there is no hearing, considering and reflecting on namas and rupas, on conditions including kamma or other aspects of the Teachings, especially anatta, there cannot and will not be any development of satipatthana, no matter how much kusala there is of other kinds. So yes, someome who has never heard the Dhamma may have much more kusala in a day than someone with a lot of book knowledge of the Teachings. But, the first person has no chance of developing the Eightfold or fivefold path and thereby finding an 'escape' from samsara. --- "Dan D." wrote: > Can you help jog my memory? Is it in the commentaries to the > Satipatthana sutta that pariyatti is discussed? Or where? …. Here are just a few brief quotes from 'Dispeller', Vbg-A, which I have handy: 1.1954 "For which reasons do they (Discriminations) become manifest? (1) Through attainment (adhigama), (2) through competency [in scriptures] (pariyatti), (3) through hearing (sa.vana), (4) through being questioned, (5) through previous work (yoga). "Herein, ……(2) 'Competency [in scriptures]' (pariyatti) is the Buddha's word; for the Discriminations become manifest as one is learning that… 2. 2169 "For there are threee kinds of disappearance (antaradhaana) [S: of the Buddha sasana]: 1) disappearance of competency (pariyatti), 2) disappearance of penetration (pa.tivedha) and 3) disappearance of practice (pa.tipatti). Herein, 1) competency is the three Pi.takas; 2) the 'penetration' is the penetration of the Truths; 3) the 'practice' is the way….. 3.2350 "And one who is without understanding sits in the midst of his supporters and makes a show of his great understanding by speaking thus: 'As I was looking up in the Majjhima Nikaaya the three kinds of proliferation, I came to the path with the miraculous powers. Competency in the scriptures is not difficult for us. But one who gets involved in scriptural competency is not released from suffering, so we gave up scriptural competency.' And so on. But one who speaks thus strikes a blow at the dispensation. There is no greater rogue (mahaacora) than this. For it is not a fact that an expert in the scriptures is *not* released from suffering." So we all agree that expertise in the scriptures does not in itself lead to satipatthana and whilst reciting, reading or considering, the cittas may be kusala or akusala. Ken and I would say in addition, I think, that there may or may not be a measure of right understanding with the kusala cittas, though no one is suggesting that this would be satipatthana when there are merely concepts about dhammas as objects of course. In addition, we all agree that wrong view can slip in anytime, especially if one has an idea that by reading the text at any time will of itself lead to satipatthana. In the latter case, there is definitely a view with 'conventional right effort' based on an idea of 'self' as you suggest. I hope this clarifies and hope I can extricate myself from this thread til my return;-) Metta, Sarah p.s Thank you for your comments on the Dighanakha sutta which I thought was a neat and succinct summary of the main point. Now, must think about packing.... =============== 37468 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 0:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: confession Hi Herman, --- Egbert wrote: I hope you have a great time in India :-) ... Appreciated.... ... > > Again it comes back to present moment understanding, not the > > appearance. > > It takes an awful lot of present moments, with lots of determination > and effort, to get to India, doesn't it :-)? .... Yes and several years of persuasion by others in my case. I always say, 'never again'....:-) ..... > Enjoy .... That's kind - mudita. I know many people would like to go but don't have the opportunity and here I am half-wishing I could just stay in my familiar surroundings. Probably why I keep putting off 'chores to be done'. Anway, I'll be reading all the posts along the way (connections permitting) and look forward to picking up threads with you later. I'll see if I can fish out the itinerary and abbreviate it to post so you can follow us around and keep handy for any quick notes Jon or I or anyone else can send out. Metta, Sarah ============= 37469 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 0:43am Subject: Re: question to all members Hello Ajahn Jose, (Connie), all, I was surprised at Connie suddenly being allocated a son who is a monk - and I also wondered if you meant Mom Betty. If so, there is no need to worry about Betty not going to a monastery! She is a frequent attendee. My daughter SarahF and her friend Rob were in Bangkok yesterday and had a wonderful time with Betty - part of which included a visit to her son's temple where they witnessed an Ordination ceremony which Sarah found quite lovely. She felt the pathos of the situation where a mother gives up her son, never again to be able to hold and kiss him or stroke his head with affection, or to physically care for him in any way. Even the thought of it makes my heart ache .... metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: > Dear Ajahn Jose, > I don't really have much to say, but it seemed rude to not answer when I'm > the only Connie I know of on this list. It must be another Connie (or > maybe you meant Mom Betty?) whose son is a monk. 37470 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 0:55am Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 086 ) Dear Ken H, Thanks for your kind reply. I confuse Ken H and Ken O. I thought, I have talked to Ken O more than to Ken H. Ken O is a member at JourneyToNibbana but Ken H is not yet. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Htoo, > > Although I am not the academic type, I am appreciating your posts > very much. > > ------------- > H: > in his message, he wrote that Buddhists created a word > called 'chanda'. His writing is perfect. But contents are all > destroying saddha or confidence or faith of Buddhists-to-be who are > still not Buddhists. The writer is a westerner. How shocking it is > that he dare write on The Buddha Gotama! > ------------- > > "Foolishness comes out looking smart!" (Masanobu Fukuoka "The One > Straw Revolution") > > > Here in Australia, the extreme right has just won another federal > election. People are cheering and patting each other on the back. > (Foolishness comes out looking smart!) Repeatedly, I am depressed > by it all, but then I remember kamma and vipaka. There are only > conditioned dhammas: some are causes, some are results and others > are merely functional. > > Thanks for your very helpful writing. > Ken H 37471 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 086 ) Dear Phil, Thanks for your word. I do love to discuss Dhamma. But there days I am a bit busy. But whenever I have time, I do discuss Dhamma. The thread 'Dhamma Thread' is named and started with ( 001 ). This shows that I might go up to a thousand and all are connected and related. I will be continuing the thread. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > > Hello Htoo > > >The differences between chanda and lobha will be discussed in the > coming posts. > > Thank you for this, and all your Dhamma threads. They are very informative, > and clear. > During a break from posting at DSG - a much needed study period - I will be > rereading them and > will have some questions later. > > You're a very good friend in Dhamma for all of us here at DSG, persevering > with your thread so faithfully. Please keep up the good work! > > Metta, > Phil 37472 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:20am Subject: Science and Dhamma - Herman (was Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo) Hi Herman, In my post yesterday, I intended to respond to other points you made in other posts, since I see that they may all be related. But that post was already getting too long (its frustrating that I can't seem to write short. :-/). So in this post I will express my thoughts about the topic of Science and how different this is from Dhamma. The method of science I believe is basically the method of the `uninstructed worldling', only more developed in the direction taken. The worldling perceives earth as earth but goes on to conceive self and other `as earth', as `being apart from it' and `possessing it', reacts with desire or aversion, feeling pleasure, pain or indifference. To him "things" are real and permanent and he is driven to try to make sense of it, naming and identifying. This is where the more intelligent worldling, the `science person' comes in. The science person, like others, does not see the impermanence of rupas and conceives instead `things' out there, which he then attempts to study and classify. Those things are taken for real and further examined to determine the relationship to yet other `things' (sub atomic particles and other external matter). Taste, smell, tangibility, colour which in dhamma are ultimate realities, is perceived conceptually by the science person and classed instead, as properties *of* `things'. Uttu niyama exhibits an array of diverse patterns and relations both within the body and outside, so there is much that an uninstructed worldling will be fascinated by. The science person being in fact one such worldling is able to focus on any given and limited set of such relations and impress others with data both concrete and abstract. And is also able to manipulate and create more fascinating "things". This is not to say that such pursuits are useless, of course they are very useful. DSG wouldn't exist without the success of a number of these combined. ;-) However they are not to be seen as progressing towards the understanding of ultimate realities and the method used should not be seen as applicable to the development of panna. When observing any given `thing' or data, a physicist, a biologist and an industrial designer for example, will each have a different perspective and come to different conclusions about the thing. Looking though an electron microscope or a telescope, different people even in the same field of interest will form different concepts in their minds about what is observed. But what is in fact experienced when data is seen on a computer screen or paper or that which is seen through a microscope or telescope? "The element of "visible object" which arises and falls in an instant. So it seems science is the way of `ignorance' as far as dhamma is concerned. One does not have to know what really takes place in the sense door or even at the mind door. But choose amongst the concepts that develop much later. And without Right View, the concepts chosen would most likely be conditioned by personal bias, i.e. the dominant form of wrong view. And what about the `method' of science which some think to be useful? Does this work with Dhamma? The putting forward of a hypothesis and then seeking to test it out is based on the belief in `things' out there to be tested and proven. But are dhammas similar testable? I think we will have to adopt one kind of wrong view or the other if we are to use the method of science to determine the truth of experiences. In dhamma when the Buddha taught about "ehipassika" I think what is referred to is panna. Can I for example, presuppose that upon touching a book that `hardness' will appear? What about heat/cold? What about the `self' which will determine how I would perceive and conceive? It would be `I'-hardness and `I'-heat and not earth and fire elements. And not knowing this wrong view is increased. When panna arises at whatever level, *it knows* and does not need to refer to other people's opinions or to any theory. Panna at the level of pariyatti is not waiting for patipatti to prove it right, but correct pariyatti is itself proof and so is patipatti and pativedha. They condition each other and no patipatti can arise without correct pariyatti and no pativedha without correct patipatti. It seems on the other hand that wrong view requires such looking back for conformation and so further feeds itself. :-( Must go now. Metta, Sukin. 37473 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:21am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 087 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, We have discussed all of 13 annasamana cetasikas. Anna or 'an~n~ehi' means 'dealing with'. Samana means 'in accordance with' 'in agreement with'. This means that when these 13 cetasikas arise with akusala cittas, these all 13 will do the job of akusala and equally when they arise with kusala cittas, they will be doing the job of kusala. So they are called 'annasamana cetasika'. They are not fixed to kusala cittas or akusala cittas as in coming 14 akusala cetasikas and 25 sobhana cetasikas. These 13 cetasikas or mental factors which have been discussed are 1. phassa or contact 2. vedana or feeling 3. cetana or volition 4. sanna or perception 5. ekaggata or one-pointedness 6. jivitindriya or mental life 7. manasikara or attention 8. vitakka or initial application 9. vicara or sustained application 10.piti or joy/ happiness 11.viriya or effort 12.adhimokkha or decision 13.chanda or zeal or wish or will When chanda is translated as zeal, wish, will, desire, its original essence is not quite evident. Instead, if not well learned, this translation may lead to wrong interpretation. Once I read at a web site that chanda is wrongly criticized. The writing there is not bad and a bit critical on The Buddha's Dhamma. I think, the writer stood out side of Buddhism. I mean he is a non- believer, this is my opinion. He criticizes The Buddha and disciples that all those saints once looked for nibbana with a desire which is an attachment. This is completely wrong. This shows partial study of The Buddha's Dhamma and immature decision on the matter. This happens and might happen again in newer and newer generations because lobha cetasika always arises with chanda cetasika. Whenever there is lobha, there is also chanda. But when chanda arises with kusala cittas, this chanda does not co-exist with lobha and it arises without lobha. Because chanda in kusala cittas has other kusala cetasikas which are enemies of lobha. These enemies of lobha cetasika are alobha, adosa, amoha, ahirika, anottappa and so on. Chanda in the kusala cittas are called samma-chanda. In this kind of chanda there is no lobha at all. So it is wrong to accuse chanda of being lobha or attachment. Nibbana can never be attained with lobha as a wish's component. But samma-chanda which is longing for nibbana does the job of chanda purely and this finally leads to nibbana. Chanda is one of 4 adhipati dhammas. Adipati dhammas behave like a king and have full power over other dhamma. Chanda also works as iddhipada dhamma or 'the base of success'. But lobha cetasika never does the job of adhipati or the job of iddhipada dhamma. Instead, in the presence of lobha, unnecessary dhamma may arise. These unnecessary dhammas are upadana which is much much more stronger form of lobha cetasika and equally dosa may arise as an alternative because of lobha base. So it is quite evident that lobha and chanda are totally different cetasikas and they each do their job separately. When there is not enough panna or wisdom, people confuse and wrongly interpret The Buddha's Dhamma in such a way that chanda is accused of being a lobha. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37474 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:50am Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 15 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 71. 1. Lokantarika-niraya I am not sure but I think it is 'lokantarikka-niraya'. Double checking is better than checking for once. 2. Veyaavacca Again, this is a matter of spelling. I do not say this is wrong. But I think that it is 'Veyyavacca'. I would suggest double checking again. Page 72. 3. Din~n~hijjukamma This is the use of font. Metta.lk would use that 'n~' for 'th'. So I think this word should be 'Ditthijukamma'. I think 'a single ''j'' is the right one. Again, double checking is better. 4. Straightening one's right view What about the word 'uprightness' for 'straightening'. This may well be right. For me, and Myanmars and possibly other asian may understand this straightening of one's own right view. This is a matter of choice of words. 5. Manussa Rob M explains on the term 'manussa'. I will post separately on 'Manussa' as a single post soon. 6. Manussa realm is the centre of all realms. I agree. In terms of abhidhamma, there are manussa who are born with ahetuka kusala santirana patisandhi citta, dvihetuka citta, and tihetuka citta. From manussa realm, beings might be reborn in lower 4 realms with ahetuka akusala pantisandhi citta. With the same patisandhi citta in manussa realms again or they can be reborn with dvihetuka or tihetuka patisandhi cittas. Again they can be reborn in brahma realms of both rupa and arupa realms. So it is quite right to say that manussa realm is the centre of all realms. Page 73. 7. 'Vessavana' I do not think 'Vessavana' is one of catumaharajas or 4 great kings. 4 great kings are 1) Dhatarattha 2) Viruhlaka 3) Virupakkha 4) Kuvera Vessavana is a god or deva who animated for the deva king maagha or indra or sakka. Vessavana is look like an elephant. But he is not an animal. 8. Karmic result Again, karma is not a Pali word. This may be 'kammic result' or simply 'kamma result' as in case of 'school boy'. Page 74 and 75 are good and interesting. To be continued: 37475 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:26am Subject: Manussa Dear Dhamma Friends, The word 'manussa' is a Pali word. In Rob M ebook, it is explained to some extent. Manuno apacca ti manussa, porana pana bhananti. Mana-- ussannataya manussa. Manassa ussannataya manussa. Manussa is a Pali word made up of 'mana' and 'ussanna'. Mana or mano means mind or mind related or thinking. Ussanna means 'overflowing, heaping up, crowded, extensive, abundent, preponderant, excessive, full of etc etc'. Ussanna may means 'thick'. Ussanna may means 'anointed' or 'smeared with oil or ointment'. Ussanna may mean 'spread out' or 'wide'. So man is a kind of being who think a lot. This indirectly mean that man is more intelligent than other beings. Just food for thought for those who are etymologists. It is also related to 'mannus' which means 'hand'. Man is well developed being that who is the only one who use hand very effectively. This is right and man is better than any other animals including primates who can use hand like man but not to the extent that man uses. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37476 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:17am Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 16 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 76. 1. ''In these planes ( and the planes above ), all Gods are male.'' This is not right, I think. There is no sex at all. In manussa realm or human world, there are 4 types of sexes. 1) pullinga or male or man 2) itthilinga or female or woman 3) napullinga or non-male or physical woman 4) ubhatobyanna or double-sexed or hermaphrodite Those Gods Rob M refers are not related to these 4 sexes. They are not male, they are not female, they are not non-male, and they are not hermaphrodites. But the form or appearances are those of manussa purisa or male. By saying Gods in these realms and above are all male means 'women will never be reborn in these realms'. But this is not right. Ladies who attained jhanas and they die with jhanas, they will be reborn in those respective brahma realm. After that if they have to be reborn in kama bhumis, this will depend on their inclination. If they love femaleness, they will be reborn as female beings. But if they dispassionate femaleness and are reborn in kama bhumis, they will be reborn as male beings. Page 77 is OK. Page 78. 2. 'Unconscious Beings' I would rather use 'consciousness-less beings'. Unconscious is a common English word. Asian Buddhists may understand 'asanna sattas'. But when 'unconscious beings' is used this may mean the other way round. For example, if a man is found to be unconscious, paramedics will pick him up and send him to 'Accident and Emergency Department of a hospital'. He is unconscious. He is a being. So, he is an 'unconscious being'. But he is definitely not an 'asannisatta' or he is not a brahma wihtout consciousness. So, I would prefer 'consciousness-less' or 'without consciousness' or other alternative instead of 'unconscious beings'. Page 79 is OK. Page 80 is OK. To be continued. 37477 From: Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 16 ) by Htoo Hi, Htoo (and Rob) - In a message dated 10/12/04 2:19:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > 2. 'Unconscious Beings' > > I would rather use 'consciousness-less beings'. > > Unconscious is a common English word. Asian Buddhists may > understand 'asanna sattas'. But when 'unconscious beings' is used > this may mean the other way round. > > For example, if a man is found to be unconscious, paramedics will > pick him up and send him to 'Accident and Emergency Department of a > hospital'. > > He is unconscious. He is a being. So, he is an 'unconscious being'. > But he is definitely not an 'asannisatta' or he is not a brahma > wihtout consciousness. > > So, I would prefer 'consciousness-less' or 'without consciousness' or > other alternative instead of 'unconscious beings'. > ========================= It strikes me that such a consciousness-less existence, and its duration, is recognizable as such only by other beings, but for the being without consciousness, that existence would be but a momentary blip/gap in the flow of experience, noticeable, if at all, only immediately after the fact. 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) 37478 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 0:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 16 ) by Htoo Howard: It strikes me that such a consciousness-less existence, and its duration, is recognizable as such only by other beings, but for the being without consciousness, that existence would be but a momentary blip/gap in the flow of experience, noticeable, if at all, only immediately after the fact. 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) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Howard, You are right. Thanks for your thought here as a point. It is like a gap in the flow of existence and this again might be noticeable only immediately after the fact. Good point. With respect, With Metta, Htoo Naing 37479 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 0:56pm Subject: Re: question to all members Friend Ajahn Jose, Ajahn Jose: …what fascinate me and puzzle me is, you are all very knowledgeable and active talkers, but nobody goes to the monasteries or take part of buddhist ceremonies and services, Why? James: I have been to several Buddhist temples in my life, several times, and have participated in many ceremonies. So I wouldn't say that "nobody" in this group does those things. Ajahn Jose: I notice when I visit Bangkog and went to see Sujin, at their centre they have a meeting hall or temple, yet they do not have an imagine of the Buddha, James: Hmmm…I find that very strange. No images of the Buddha anywhere? That is odd. But I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. Did you see any statues of K. Sujin around? ;-)) (just kidding) I think it is important to have statues of the Buddha around to remind oneself of the qualities of the Buddha. They are a visual reminder of the Buddhist life to practice. BTW, good to see that you are now well enough to post. Take care. Metta, James 37480 From: robmoult Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:42pm Subject: Re: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 16 ) by Htoo Hi Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Those Gods Rob M refers are not related to these 4 sexes. They are > not male, they are not female, they are not non-male, and they are > not hermaphrodites. > 2. 'Unconscious Beings' > > I would rather use 'consciousness-less beings'. Thanks for the correction and I think the term 'consciousness-less beings' is much better. Metta, Rob M :-) 37481 From: Egbert Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:43pm Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner33-Feeling/Vedana (f) Hi everyone, Perhaps if I rephrase my approach, it might make it clearer what I am after. "The five-sense cognitions are results of kamma. " Is that saying that the five-sense cognitions are the result of acts resulting in sexual reproduction? "When they experience a pleasant object, they are the result of > kusala kamma, a wholesome deed, and when they experience an > unpleasant object, they are the result of akusala kamma, an > unwholesome deed. Is that saying that actions resulting in sexual reproduction that were wholesome lead to experiencing pleasant objects, and the same again for unwholesome and unpleasantness? Kind Regards Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > It would help me greatly if someone would post an example or two > illustrating the following. > > > ** > > (1) The five sense-cognitions are vipåkacittas, results of kamma. > When they experience a pleasant object, they are the result of > kusala kamma, a wholesome deed, and when they experience an > unpleasant object, they are the result of akusala kamma, an > unwholesome deed. > > Thanks in advance and Kind Regards > > Herman 37482 From: Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 1:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner33-Feeling/Vedana (f) Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/12/04 7:45:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Hi everyone, > > Perhaps if I rephrase my approach, it might make it clearer what I > am after. > > "The five-sense cognitions are results of kamma. " > > Is that saying that the five-sense cognitions are the result of acts > resulting in sexual reproduction? > > "When they experience a pleasant object, they are the result of > >kusala kamma, a wholesome deed, and when they experience an > >unpleasant object, they are the result of akusala kamma, an > >unwholesome deed. > > Is that saying that actions resulting in sexual reproduction that > were wholesome lead to experiencing pleasant objects, and the same > again for unwholesome and unpleasantness? > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > =========================== I understand the matter as follows: Suppose, for example, that on some occasion there arises in your experience an odor, say a food odor. In the past perhaps "that odor" was pleasant to you, but this time what you identify as "the same odor" is an unpleasant one. What is being said is that in each case, the particular odor you experience, previously an unpleasant one, but currently a pleasant one, had among the conditions for its arising an act of intention - kusala in the pleasant case, and akusala in the current, unpleasant case. Had the initial act of intention been akusala, then the corresponding (smelled) odor would have been unpleasant instead of pleasant. What I am not following in your question is why you are bringing up the matter of sexual reproduction. Are you assuming that the conditioning cetana was in a prior lifetime? What difference does that make? The original conditioning cetana need not have had anything specific to do with the birth, would it? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37483 From: Andrew Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:30pm Subject: Conceptual Right View Hi Dan D and Ken H and Sarah I will try to take some of the focus off Sarah (so she can finish packing) by pointing out that Bhikkhu Bodhi refers to conceptual right view (saccanulomika-sammaditthi) in his introduction to The Discourse on Right View (Wheel publication #377/379). He says it is "a correct conceptual understanding of the Dhamma arrived at by study of the Buddha's teachings and deep examination of their meaning." It is to be contrasted with experinential right view (saccapativedha-sammaditthi). He further says "to arrive at direct penetration, one must begin with a correct conceptual grasp of the teaching ..." Applying that to the "this present moment" approach has its difficulties as I think you have been discussing. Bon voyage to all the pilgrims! Andrew T 37484 From: Egbert Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:11pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner33-Feeling/Vedana (f) Hi Howard, Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. Some explanations below. ==== > > Hi everyone, > > > > Perhaps if I rephrase my approach, it might make it clearer what I > > am after. > > > > "The five-sense cognitions are results of kamma. " > > > > Is that saying that the five-sense cognitions are the result of acts > > resulting in sexual reproduction? > > > > "When they experience a pleasant object, they are the result of > > >kusala kamma, a wholesome deed, and when they experience an > > >unpleasant object, they are the result of akusala kamma, an > > >unwholesome deed. > > > > Is that saying that actions resulting in sexual reproduction that > > were wholesome lead to experiencing pleasant objects, and the same > > again for unwholesome and unpleasantness? > > > =========================== > I understand the matter as follows: Suppose, for example, that on some > occasion there arises in your experience an odor, say a food odor. In the > past perhaps "that odor" was pleasant to you, but this time what you identify as > "the same odor" is an unpleasant one. What is being said is that in each case, > the particular odor you experience, previously an unpleasant one, but > currently a pleasant one, had among the conditions for its arising an act of > intention - kusala in the pleasant case, and akusala in the current, unpleasant case. > Had the initial act of intention been akusala, then the corresponding > (smelled) odor would have been unpleasant instead of pleasant. > What I am not following in your question is why you are bringing up > the matter of sexual reproduction. ==== I read "the five-sense cognitions are the result of kamma" as meaning that the very fact that sense cognitions occur, regardless of their content, is due to kamma. And I take any sense cognition to more or less require an entire body, interdependently. And I take the body to be currently an impossibility without sexual reproduction. I hope that casts a bit more light on my train of thought :-) I see your explanation of the pleasant/unpleasant content of any sense cognition as being quite reasonable and workable. Thanks and Kind Regards Herman Are you assuming that the conditioning cetana > was in a prior lifetime? What difference does that make? The original > conditioning cetana need not have had anything specific to do with the birth, would > it? > > With metta, > Howard 37485 From: Egbert Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:49pm Subject: Re: Science and Dhamma - Herman (was Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo) Hi Sukin, Thank you very much for your posts. I do very much appreciate all that goes in to them. You are quite right, they tend to be long, and I feel I do not do justice to you or your posts with my short replies. I agree with you on many things, certainly that scientific enterprise and the enterprise of the Buddha of the Suttas have nothing in common. But a fundamental disagreement remains, and that being what you consider dhamma I consider nonsense. You refer to dhamma and the goal of dhamma in terms of understanding ultimate realities, which is just not anything the Buddha of the Suttas ever taught. Certainly the Buddha of the Kathavatthu and the Buddha of Buddhagosa taught such things, and I am happy for you to be their follower. You also make a connection between pariyatti and panna, which again is Buddhagosism to the hilt. Having been a Christian minister, I am quite sensitive to how priceless teachings can loose their value through the interpretations of well-meaning followers who mean well. St Paul is to Jesus what Buddhagosa is to the Buddha. The legacy of St Paul and Buddhagosa is enormous, but of no interest to me at all. Having said all that, I think you are a fine fellow, and thank you for discussing. Kind Regards Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > In my post yesterday, I intended to respond to other points you made in > other posts, since I see that they may all be related. But that post was > already getting too long (its frustrating that I can't seem to write > short. :-/). So in this post I will express my thoughts about the topic of > Science and how different this is from Dhamma. > > The method of science I believe is basically the method of > the `uninstructed worldling', only more developed in the direction taken. > The worldling perceives earth as earth but goes on to conceive self and > other `as earth', as `being apart from it' and `possessing it', reacts with > desire or aversion, feeling pleasure, pain or indifference. To > him "things" are real and permanent and he is driven to try to make > sense of it, naming and identifying. This is where the more intelligent > worldling, the `science person' comes in. > > The science person, like others, does not see the impermanence of > rupas and conceives instead `things' out there, which he then attempts > to study and classify. Those things are taken for real and further > examined to determine the relationship to yet other `things' (sub atomic > particles and other external matter). Taste, smell, tangibility, colour > which in dhamma are ultimate realities, is perceived conceptually by the > science person and classed instead, as properties *of* `things'. > > Uttu niyama exhibits an array of diverse patterns and relations both > within the body and outside, so there is much that an uninstructed > worldling will be fascinated by. The science person being in fact one > such worldling is able to focus on any given and limited set of such > relations and impress others with data both concrete and abstract. And > is also able to manipulate and create more fascinating "things". > > This is not to say that such pursuits are useless, of course they are very > useful. DSG wouldn't exist without the success of a number of these > combined. ;-) However they are not to be seen as progressing towards > the understanding of ultimate realities and the method used should not > be seen as applicable to the development of panna. > > When observing any given `thing' or data, a physicist, a biologist and an > industrial designer for example, will each have a different perspective > and come to different conclusions about the thing. Looking though an > electron microscope or a telescope, different people even in the same > field of interest will form different concepts in their minds about what is > observed. But what is in fact experienced when data is seen on a > computer screen or paper or that which is seen through a microscope > or telescope? "The element of "visible object" which arises and falls in > an instant. > > So it seems science is the way of `ignorance' as far as dhamma is > concerned. One does not have to know what really takes place in the > sense door or even at the mind door. But choose amongst the concepts > that develop much later. And without Right View, the concepts chosen > would most likely be conditioned by personal bias, i.e. the dominant > form of wrong view. > > And what about the `method' of science which some think to be useful? > Does this work with Dhamma? The putting forward of a hypothesis and > then seeking to test it out is based on the belief in `things' out there to > be tested and proven. But are dhammas similar testable? I think we will > have to adopt one kind of wrong view or the other if we are to use the > method of science to determine the truth of experiences. > > In dhamma when the Buddha taught about "ehipassika" I think what is > referred to is panna. Can I for example, presuppose that upon touching > a book that `hardness' will appear? What about heat/cold? What about > the `self' which will determine how I would perceive and conceive? It > would be `I'-hardness and `I'-heat and not earth and fire elements. And > not knowing this wrong view is increased. > > When panna arises at whatever level, *it knows* and does not need to > refer to other people's opinions or to any theory. Panna at the level of > pariyatti is not waiting for patipatti to prove it right, but correct pariyatti > is itself proof and so is patipatti and pativedha. They condition each > other and no patipatti can arise without correct pariyatti and no > pativedha without correct patipatti. It seems on the other hand that > wrong view requires such looking back for conformation and so further > feeds itself. :-( > > Must go now. > > Metta, > Sukin. 37486 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 0:16am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner35-Feeling/Vedana (h) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** The Paramattha Mañjúså, a commentary to the Visuddhimagga (XIV, note 56) explains why kåya-viññåùa is accompanied by either pleasant feeling or unpleasant feeling. This is because of the 'violence of the impact's blow'; there is the direct impact of tangible object on the bodysense. Tangible objects which are experienced through the rúpa which is the bodysense are the following rúpas: solidity, appearing as hardness or softness, temperature, appearing as heat or cold, and motion, appearing as oscillation or pressure. By way of a simile the difference is explained between the impact of tangible object on the bodysense and the impact of the other sense objects on the relevant senses. When a man places cottonwool on an anvil and strikes it with an iron hammer, the hammer goes right through the cottonwool because of the violence of the impact. In the case, however, of the other pañca-viññåùas, the impact is gentle, like the contact between two pieces of cottonwool. Thus, they are accompanied by indifferent feeling. The 'impact' of visible object on the eye-sense is gentle when compared with the direct physical contact of tangible object with the bodysense. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37487 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02am Subject: Andrew L - THIS LIFE, THIS MOMENT Hi AndrewL & All, I said I wished to add a little more to you before my trip. I hope you don't mind and I won't be saying anything others haven't said either. Of course there's no need to agree with or accept anything anyone says here. As Howard pointed out, there are many different understandings of aspects of the teachings and without a discussion of these understandings there is no DSG:-). Sometimes feathers get a little ruffled, but this is natural and a healthy state of affairs as I see it. It merely shows we're all looking at deeply held views (right and wrong) and airing them is a good way to bring them into the open if we're brave enough to do so, like you. URGENCY & THIS LIFE I appreciate your comments and just wish to stress as Ken O did, that no one here has suggested that enlightenment is not possible in this life. Ken O in #37446 "No one says you can't be enlightened in this lifetime, you definitely can. If one's panna reach that level, not even Buddha can stop your enlightenment." It depends on many factors, the main one being the understanding developed to date. We know so little about dhammas now, how can we know what will or won't arise at the next moment, let alone tomorrow or in ten years time. Regardless of any time frame or any views on this account, however, the path as I see it remains the same. Under any scenario there is still no self, nobody at all, to do anything or make it happen. There are merely 5 khandhas, namas and rupas arising and falling away to be understood right now by panna (wisdom). This is not fatalistic or depressing in anyway. If a way was not possible, the Buddha would not have taught it. When awareness and understanding arise, they know what is right and what is wrong and we don't have to think much about it or try hard to find it. But when there's wrong view arising, which thinks a self can really take action, we can never see the path. So really, there's no choice but to leave it to panna and not to a 'you' or 'self' trying. This is why daily life is the real test. As soon as we don't like the defilements such as the lobha, dosa or moha, isn't there an idea of a self who is full of these qualities instead of being aware of their characteristics as not self? Of course, it's very hard and takes the greatest amount of courage and truthfulness to give up the idea of self which we've always held so dearly. Not many people, not even many Buddhists can face up to the truth of anatta right now. ** GOING ON ONE'S OWN You mentioned this as a possibility, but I think that for most of us, it's extremely necessary and valuable to have our views questioned, considered and discussed. I mentioned that sometimes feathers are a little ruffled here and it may seem that no progress has been made after a long discussion, but I don't think this is ever so. I know for myself, that I learn a lot just from trying to formulate my little understanding and from considering other different or similar viewpoints. Later we come to read a sutta or piece of Abhidhamma that we thought we had understood before and find that now it's seen in a new light and the earlier so-called understanding was not correct, for example. As you say, a human rebirth may not come again for a long time and therefore any discussions or reflections which may spotlight any lurking ideas of self or attachment to progress are invaluable, especially as these states really hinder any of the progress we're wanting so much. ** NOW See Andrew T's comments in #37445. "There is only one happening time and that is NOW……Just as we can't choose the timing of our death, I suspect we can't choose the timing of our liberation either. IMHO that depends upon accumulations, defilements and conditions including the presence of appropriate volition and wisdom…. ** IMPATIENCE I wrote to Phil in #37315 "There can be impatience of course, but I think that when panna itself grows there's simply less and less interest or concern about 'how much', 'when', 'how quickly' and so on. There is more and more confidence that nothing other than the understanding of the present reality really matters at all. Even akusala (unwholesome) states are known more for what they are - conditioned dhammas, that's all." I like a comment Azita gave before about how she's never 'fussed' about the 'how', 'when' and 'why' of the Abhidhamma. She hears and reads it and knows how precious the teachings about this moment are. It's always been like that for me too. By directly understanding these very dhammas - these namas and rupas - nibbana is closer and closer. Maybe this lifetime, maybe not, but there is no other way of following the path, so better not let strong desires or expectations slow down the understanding. Again to quote my dinosaur pal KenO in #37426 "If you believe this lifetime you can achieve it, then go ahead, just be more aware that seeking enlightenment can at times impede progress." [side-note to Ken O, I will be leaving soon - promise;-)] ** A BRUSH WITH THE NOBLE TRUTHS ALREADY You've alluded to this a few times which gives you confidence in what is possible in this lifetime. I would only stress that what's has happened in the past is gone. Only a memory and thinking about it remains. Better to let it go and understand the present dhammas again. Otherwise it's like our dreams and expectations about the future again - a distraction from following the path right now. You also mentioned in your last post to Nina (which I'll give her in case she left before it arrived) that you're 'skeptical' about the necessity of discussion and pondering over the dhamma as conditions 'for the arising of sati'. Of course, there's no rule about how much we need to hear and consider and so on, but in my experience, it's never enough. Indeed, even the great arahants continued to listen and develop wisdom, so how can we ever think we've heard/discussed enough? The main danger, as I see it, is that we may well think we've developed a lot of sati, but it may all be taken for 'my sati' or 'me who develops it', especially when there is that strong wish for results. I do agree with you though, that determination (adhimokkha) can be wholesome and is one of the paramis. Again it needs wisdom to know when it is the wholesome kind and when it is the unwholesome enemy, just like effort (viriya) and wish-to-do (chanda). It's so easy to be fooled by the same mental factors arising with attachment. (Htoo is touching on this point in his series). The same applies to other qualities like renunciation as well and this is where the abhidhamma helps so much. You can read more on it in Useful Posts, in Cetasikas and in Nina's and Sujin's series on the paramis. ** NON-REMORSE AS A FRUIT You raised a couple of qus in a post sometime ago (#36943) and I'm not sure anyone answered. Briefly, it was stated that non-remorse was a fruit of purification of virtue, morality. Isn't this true? When we abstain from harsh speech or thought, wish others well and show metta, for example, what is there to have remorse about? Is non-remorse a prerequisite for a good human rebirth you asked? Remorse is a kind of dosa (aversion), regret conditioned by misconduct through body, speech and mind. Even a sotapanna may have regret or remorse, but no longer any regret about unwholesome deeds which can bring about an unhappy rebirth as there are no more conditions for these to be done/intended. Of course, with an understanding of dhammas, not a self, there will be far less likelihood of any regret and it will be understood for what it is - a temporary mental state, that's all. So yes, we should all be developing all kinds of wholesome states and deeds so that there won't be any remorse, but not out of clinging to self or just wishing self a happy rebirth! As you say, in this way, when death comes, there should be less remorse and more opportunity to reflect on wholesome states and particularly, understanding of present dhammas. It was a good question and not 'mischief';-). ******** Andrew, as I said from the outset, we greatly value your presence here and all your keen questions and comments too. I know that everyone hopes you'll stick around. You mentioned you were following a commentary by Ven U Silananda. You may like to post short extracts from this for discussion too. It would be interesting. I'd also like to mention in passing that you seem to be doing very well recently compared to those early days (not so long ago) and it would seem there is clear evidence of progress from the increased understanding. Of course, there will always be ups and downs. The tone, quality and deep reflection in your posts is really most admirable too. Hope to speak more to you later when I get back. Meanwhile, I'll be reading any replies or anything you write to others with keen interest. I hope you'll continue to discuss with some of the other fine members here. Metta, Sarah ======== 37488 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:42am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 088 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, We have been discussing on mental factors that arise with cittas. First, we discussed on 7 universal mental factors. These 7 mental factors arise with any citta. They are contact, feeling, volition, perception, one-pointedness, mental life and attention. Phassa, vedana, cetana, sanna, ekaggata, jivitindriya, and manasikara are their names in Pali. After that we talked on 6 particular mental factors or pakinnaka cetasikas, which I refer them as flexible ministers of the king citta. This might be misnomers because 7 universal mental factors are also flexible in the way that they agree with any citta kusala or akusala or abyakata. But as these 7 arise with each citta, they are given the name 'permanent ministers' of the king citta. This might also lead to misconception that there is a permanent group of cetasikas. Actually, this is not. I just refer them as permanent ministers because these ministers always involve in the king citta's mental affairs while 6 particular mental factors do not always involve. So they are separately given these names as ministers as similes. The third group of mental faactors is akusala cetasikas. There are 14 akusala cetasikas. They are destructive ministers of the king citta. Their presence makes the king citta very ugly and they all would advise the king citta to do bad things of their preferences. Preferences here means 'lobha will advise the king citta to attach to sensuous things, to become craving, to become clinging' , 'dosa will advise the king citta to get angry, to destroy everything', and so on. There are 14 akusala cetasikas. These cetasikas were explained by The Buddha in different suttanta teachings. These destructive ministers of the king citta are 1. moha or ignorance 2. ahirika or shamelessness 3. anottappa or fearlessness 4. uddhacca or restlessness ~~ These four are led by moha 5. lobha or attachment 6. mana or conceit ( pronounced as 'maana' ) 7. ditthi or misconception/ wrong view ~~ these 3 are led by lobha 8. dosa or hatred/ aversion 9. issa or jealousy 10. macchariya or stinginess 11. kukkucca or worry/ repentence~~these 4 are led by dosa 12. thina or sloth 13. middha or torpor 14. vicikiccha or indecisiveness/ suspicion~~ these 3 are also led by moha May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37489 From: Dan D. Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:51am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Sarah] Have a great trip, Sarah! I see that we have been almost entirely on different pages during this whole discussion of conceptual right view -- 95% of what I've been talking about is the fallacy and danger of taking conceptualizations and forming of opinions as "conceptual right view". You have been countering with what seems like a non- sequitor: there can be right view outside satipatthana> I keep trying to bring the discussion back to conceptualization and theorizing, which you promptly dismiss as "a straw man argument going on here as you pick out one line here or there." I do apologize for not discussing all the points you raise. How's this: You are right. There can be right view outside satipatthana, e.g., with jhana. Now, for the "straw man"... Is he called "Sarah"? You write, "I would [never] suggest that a practice of intellectualizing or book study could equate with any development of satipatthana." I know very well that you understand there is a strong distinction between intellectualizing and satipatthana, but is there a connection? You go on to write that "I think there can be `conceptual right view' about kamma which is a pre-cursor for mundane right view." I'd take issue with two parts of this: 1. a conceptual formulation of kamma -- no matter how "right" the words sound -- is in no way "Right view," as I'm sure you'd agree; and 2. the arrow points the other direction, i.e., mundane right view is a pre-cursor to conceptualization of the viewed. Conceptualization that comes before the experience cannot be "right" because it is not based on reality. Instead, right view comes first, and the considering and conceptualization comes upon reflection after the experience. The post-facto reflection and conceptualization helps consolidate the insight, thereby setting the stage for deeper insight. Conceptualizing about what things that have not been experienced does not conduce development, is not a pre-cursor for mundane right view, and really doesn't equate with ANY development of satipatthana -- even as a pre-requisite. I like your quotes from VbgA, beginning with "1.1954 For which reasons do they (Discriminations) become manifest?" The question is distinctly different from "How are the discriminations brought about?" After insight arises, reading, hearing, cogitation, talking, etc. help bring that insight into conceptual focus in subsequent non- insightful moments, i.e., the discrimination becomes "manifest". If the conceptualization is based on mere speculation (or the reflection on someone else's description of their own insight), and NOT based on personal experience, then it doesn't help in development of real pañña in any way. > of satipatthana, no matter how much kusala there is of other kinds. So > yes, someome who has never heard the Dhamma may have much more kusala in a > day than someone with a lot of book knowledge of the Teachings. True, but I said that someone who has never heard the Dhamma (qua Dhamma) may have much more *sammaditthi* than someone with a lot of book knowledge of the Teachings. How can this be? Sammaditthi is clear viewing of reality, whereas "Dhamma" (sensu "Buddha's teachings") is conceptualizations of insights. Two people can have insights into the same realities but then conceptualize them with quite different words. You write: "But, the first person has no chance of developing the Eightfold or fivefold path and thereby finding an `escape' from samsara." I agree with the second half of the statement (no chance of escape from samsara) but disagree with the first half (no development). The person outside the dispensation can certainly develop the Eightfold or fivefold path and progress quite far. How far? Almost certainly not to full enlightenment, but certainly to lofty stages of wisdom beyond what I or 99.999% of Buddhists attain. [NOTE: Please don't read this as saying that people in other traditions are wiser than almost all Buddhists because that would be a total misreading of what I wrote. Instead, read: "It is possible for people outside the dispensation to develop deep insight and high levels of understanding beyond what most Buddhists (or Christians, or Hindus, etc.) attain.] The evidence can be seen quite clearly when talking to (or reading) wise non-Buddhists; however, if the idea of "conceptual right view" is clung to as a necessary pre-cursor to the development of insight, then the mind snaps shut when hearing words from a different tradition: "Yes, there can be kusala outside the dhamma-vinaya but not pañña." This is confusing "conceptual right view" with Right view, ditthi with sammaditthi. The insight is one thing. The words attached to the insight are quite another. The evidence can also be seen quite clearly in the suttas. There are many examples of people whose development OUTSIDE the dispensation is so far advanced that only a few sentences from the Buddha or a few weeks of hearing Dhamma leads to enlightenment (even our friend, the original Dighanakha, is an example). The development of insight outside the dispensation can be profound and lofty enough to even reach the threshold of enlightenment, but to go through the door seems to require the help of a Buddha. Please don't feel obliged to respond while you are on your trip -- or even when you get back. Best wishes, Dan 37490 From: Dan D. Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:58am Subject: Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Ken] It's great to hear from you, Ken. I don't have a lot of time to respond now, but I can't resist just a few quick comments... > > Concepts are certainly not ditti -- except when they are taken as > views, in which case there is ditthi (views). > > --------------------- > > I think I see what you mean. If I were to say, "There is no result > from good and bad deeds," someone might reply, "That is the > paramattha dhamma, miccha-ditthi." They would be right in one sense > but wrong in another. The wrong understanding indicated (suggested) > by those words is ditthi, but the words and the statement themselves > are not. They are just concepts. And you are saying, I think, that > the mistaking of concepts for ditthi is, itself, ditthi. I really want to emphasize that that sammaditthi and conceptualizations of any sort are quite distinct, so distinct that the notion of "conceptual right view" doesn't make any sense at all. > ---------------------------- > D: > I think that the name 'conceptual right view' too easily gives > the wrong impression that conceptual formulations can be right view. > --------------------------- > > You might be worrying unnecessarily. I think people who are prone to > that particular wrong impression simply use the term 'right view' > for everything (conceptual and paramattha). The use of the > word "conceptual" might alert them to the fact that something > illusory (some mere conventional designation) is being referred to: > It is not something that really exists and, therefore, it could not > possibly be a factor of the Middle Way. > > I suggested (just surmising) yesterday that there might be a > paramattha dhamma (a citta) that could be called 'conceptual right > view.' That would explain how conceptual right view can be a > condition for actual right view. Another suggestion from DSG members > has been that panna (even if very weak and elementary) has arisen, > in amongst all the kusala conceptualising, to directly know a > paramattha dhamma. I don't see it in the teachings, and I don't see a need to construct it. > D: The name 'conceptual right view' too easily gives rise to notions > such as "`conceptual right view' about kamma ... is a pre-cursor for > mundane right view" > ---------------------------- > > I think it is a precursor for mundane right view. (See my screed > below on 'factors for enlightenment.') I'd say it is a post-cursor, if anything; but that it really isn't anything (at least nothing more than ditthi). More later... Dan 37491 From: Dan D. Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:55am Subject: Re: Conceptual Right View Dear Andrew T, Thanks for chiming in here. You are getting at the crux of the matter, viz. BB's comments in the introduction to Discourse on Right View... Sarah and I both reject his interpretation of the sutta because both the words of the sutta and the commentary strongly suggest a 'direct veiw' rather than 'proper opinion' interpretation. One of Sarah's recent posts on the topic discuss this in more detail. However, it seems that Sarah accepts his formulation ("to arrive at direct penetration, one must begin with a correct conceptual grasp of the teaching ...") but that this particular sutta does not support the view. Me? I don't buy the formulation at all. What about you? Dan 37492 From: Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Ken] Hi, Dan - In a message dated 10/13/04 11:02:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, onco111@y... writes: > I really want to emphasize that that sammaditthi and > conceptualizations of any sort are quite distinct, so distinct that > the notion of "conceptual right view" doesn't make any sense at all. > ======================= I really like the tenor of this and your preceding post on this thread. Yet I do have a question I'd like to pose: It pertains to the distinction between the miccha-ditthi of self, on the one hand, abandoned at stream entry, being surplanted, presumably, by the right view of no-self, versus the sense-of-self or "odor of self", on the other hand, which is uprooted only at achievement of arahanthood. Ultimate right view is, I suppose, the unblemished, direct knowledge of no-self in all dhammas, or, to put it negatively, the utter and complete absence of any *sense* of self/core in the empirical "person" or in any phenomena. How does one distinguish the right view of no-self of the stream entrant from the right view of no-self of the arahant? Most particularly, what is the right view of no-self gained at stream entry? If it is not a kind of conventional right understanding that amounts to an unshakable belief - if it is, instead, a direct knowing, how is it to be distinguished from the right view of the arahant? Is it a matter of partial wisdom versus complete wisdom in your estimation? That doesn't strike me as correct inasmuch as the fetter of sakkaya-ditthi is said to be completely uprooted at stream entry. If it is the unshakable *disbelief* in self which is achieved at stream entry, is that not a matter of concept? Are not belief and disbelief matters of conceptual view more than matters of direct knowing? It seems to me that an initial glimpse of nibbana creates an unshakable disbelief in self without entirely removing the sense of self, and that unshakable belief in no-self gained at stream entry might well be referred to as "conventional right view", whereas the arahant's knowledge of no-self and his/her invulnerability to a sense of self is ultimate right view. 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) 37493 From: Ken O Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Sarah] Hi Dan D The distinction of right view lies on the fact that panna arise on the citta. To my understanding, if panna arise seeing things as anatta, anicca then there is right view regardless whether it is suparmundane path or mundane path. So satipatthana can arise during mundane path if not there is no salvation. Furthermore, conceptualization cannot arise without right view in ultimate reality as its basis, hence there is already right view in ultimate reality before the arise of conceptual right view as understood by us. Sammadithi is about right view on anatta. Without a Buddha, there will no knowledge of Anatta. For those without the teacher dispensation, many other faith practitionar have already practise and eradicate a lot of their sense desire, hence their mind are melleable. If I am not wrong, Buddha initially wish to teach the dhamma to his two teachers who he thinks that will quickly grasp the dhamma and become enlighted and unfortunately they passed away before Buddha became enlighted. Without the Teacher dispensation of Anatta as describe in dependent origination, there will be no enlightment. Both of his teachers are born in the immaterial realm and that show that they have a suppressed sensual desire much much more that me :). Definitely they are in a much better position to learn the dhamma but again without the knowlegde of anatta there will be no salvation. That is how the passage is meant to be understood. Ken O 37494 From: Egbert Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:37pm Subject: The meaning of "papanca" Hi all, The following is from the PTS Pali-English Dictionary. "Papanca (p. 412) [in its P. meaning uncertain whether identical with Sk. prapanca (pra+panc to spread out; meaning "expansion, diffuseness, manifoldedness"; cp. papanceti & papanca 3) more likely, as suggested by etym. & meaning of Lat. im--ped--iment--um, connected with pada, thus perhaps originally "pa--pad--ya," i. e. what is in front of (i. e. in the way of) the feet (as an obstacle)] 1. obstacle, impediment, a burden which causes delay, hindrance, delay " So it appears that the Pali papanca is either an open floodgate or a closed one. Any views on which is the intended meaning? Kind Regards Herman 37495 From: Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:10pm Subject: Vism.XIV,107 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 107. Herein, (70) the 'mind-element' has the characteristics of being the forerunner of eye-consciousness, etc., and of cognizing visible data, and so on. Its function is to advert. It is manifested as confrontation of visible data, and so on. Its proximate cause is the interruption of [the continued occurrence of consciousness as] life-continuum. It is associated with equanimity only. 37496 From: connieparker Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:26pm Subject: Re: The meaning of "papanca" Herman: The following is from the PTS Pali-English Dictionary. "Papanca (p. 412) [in its P. meaning uncertain whether identical with Sk. prapanca (pra+panc to spread out; meaning "expansion, diffuseness, manifoldedness"; cp. papanceti & papanca 3) more likely, as suggested by etym. & meaning of Lat. im--ped--iment--um, connected with pada, thus perhaps originally "pa--pad--ya," i. e. what is in front of (i. e. in the way of) the feet (as an obstacle)] 1. obstacle, impediment, a burden which causes delay, hindrance, delay " So it appears that the Pali papanca is either an open floodgate or a closed one. Any views on which is the intended meaning? Connie: I guess you could see it as both, but I think the floodgate would be the mind and the papanca would be (wrong) thinking. peace. 37497 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:55pm Subject: Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Andrew T, Glad to see you will be taking over from Sarah. :-) _-------------- AT: He further says "to arrive at direct penetration, one must begin with a correct conceptual grasp of the teaching ..." Applying that to the "this present moment" approach has its difficulties as I think you have been discussing. --------------------------- I was somewhat surprised to learn about panna experiencing concepts. Sarah seems to think it is quite common. I had always thought such moments were restricted to jhana. No doubt, I have been inattentive - again. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > Hi Dan D and Ken H and Sarah > > I will try to take some of the focus off Sarah (so she can finish > packing) 37498 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:04pm Subject: Sidetrack for Dan /Was: More on "Conceptual right view" [Ken] Hi Dan, You have promised "more later" so I will wait. In the meantime there is something else I'd like to ask. --------------------- KH: > > I think it is a precursor for mundane right view. > > ------------- D: > I'd say it is a post-cursor, if anything; but that it really isn't anything (at least nothing more than ditthi). --------------------- I wonder if you are thinking the same way I was thinking recently. I argued that the experience of dhammas was much more influential (weighty) than the experience of concepts. For example, if I were to experience hatred for an individual (a longboarder, let's say) that would be just a conceptual explanation of what was really going on - strong dosa for sense objects and other dhammas. I have backed off on that theory. It got no support (just well- informed opposition), although one or two members did agree there could be strong emotions for paramattha dhammas. I'd be interested in your opinion. Ken H 37499 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:34pm Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner36-Feeling/Vedana (i) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** We may believe that bodily feeling can be indifferent, but this is not so. The moment of body-consciousness (kåya-viññåùa) is extremely short; it is only one moment of vipåka and after it has fallen away akusala cittas or kusala cittas arise. Body-consciousness is accompanied either by pleasant bodily feeling or by painful bodily feeling. The akusala cittas or kusala cittas which arise shortly afterwards are accompanied by feelings which are different from bodily feeling. They can be accompanied by happy feeling, unhappy feeling or indifferent feeling. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37501 From: Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner36-Feeling/Vedana (i) Hi, Sarah (and Nina, and all) - In a message dated 10/14/04 1:35:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@y... writes: > Dear Friends, > > Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. > > http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html > http://www.zolag.co.uk/ > Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) > ========================================== > [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] > ***** > > We may believe that bodily feeling can be indifferent, but this > is not so. The moment of body-consciousness (kåya-viññåùa) is > extremely short; it is only one moment of vipåka and after it has > fallen away akusala cittas or kusala cittas arise. > > Body-consciousness is accompanied either by pleasant bodily feeling or by > painful bodily feeling. The akusala cittas or kusala cittas which arise > shortly afterwards are accompanied by feelings which are different from > bodily feeling. They can be accompanied by happy feeling, unhappy feeling > or indifferent feeling. > ***** > [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] > > Metta, > > Sarah ========================== Assertions in Abhidhamma along these lines are among those elements of Abhidhamma that correlate perfectly with my personal experience. This, in itself, of course, enables no clear conclusion as to the correctness of my understanding of my own experience in this mjatter or of the Abhidhamma's take on this matter. It is simply so. To me, it seems clear that every bodily sensation is either pleasant or unpleasant. The sensation, itself, may be strong or weak, and the associated feeling as well may be strong or weak, and weak bodily feeling may be mistaken as neutral, but that *is* a mistake I believe. On the other hand, it seems to me that every visual sensation is neutral, and that what we take for pleasant or unpleasant visual sensations are actually subsequent mind-door objects. Also, when we shut our eyes to escape an unpleasant rapid and strong increase in brightness, such as when we emerge, driving, from a dark tunnel into bright sunlight, we are responding not to unpleasant eye-door experience, but to unpleasant body-door experience - literally to physical pain. What is less clear to me is the vedanic status of ear-door experience. It does seems to me that some sounds are pleasant and some unpleasant, and that it is the sounds, themselves, and not subsequent mind-door phenomena. But I could be mistaken in this. (Whether I am or not, there is also the distinction to be made with regard to sound-door vedana and the body-door vedana pertaining to painfully loud sound similar to pain resulting from relatively bright light.) What is the Abhidhammic take on ear-door vedana? Can it be non-neutral? (My apologies if this was already discussed.) 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) 37502 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:33am Subject: Last minute thoughts to Dighanakha Dear Dighanakha, A few last minute comments: 1. Dighanakha Sutta - I agreed with Dan's summary. I read the on-line transl of the sutta and it didn't make any sense to me. It was only when I read the comy notes/summaries provided by B.Bodhi that the meaning became clearer. I'd be glad to see any more of the comy or Tiika if you have time to translate any of it. You mentioned ucchedevada (annihilationist) views are not described elsewhere as they are in this sutta (and you'd know best, I'm sure), but if you're suggesting that Dighanakha's views are right or kusala in anyway, I'd be glad to see any references to where right or kusala views are described elsewhere in suttas in this way. I believe some ucchedvada views refer to jhana states. Could there be a connection, I wonder (just speculation on my part)? 2. Texts on Magadhan/Pali - Thx for the passage from the Vism. We discussed this and the Tiika before. It's not easy I agree, (see U.P. - Patisambhida). I've already given a brief summary of my understanding and look forward to further discussion on this. I'd be very interested to see any translation you give of those passages not already translated, esp Vibhanga -tiika, sutta commentaries etc. As I've said, I think in this case you're taking a very literal approach. (A clever and witty sub-comy too, but pls respect others' faith and regard for the ancient commentators). 3. On Faith - The first two thirds of your post back to Andrew T with the weeding hook simile was good (that means I agreed with it). 'The Blessed One is the Teacher…' and your N.B. - you know better than I do that we read in many places that any teaching by his disciples in conformity with his teachings is the Blessed One's teaching…I also disagree with you on your use/meaning of vimamsa (investigation) as relating to the work of scholars/historians and philologists. Where do we read this definition of vimamsa? Perhaps I misunderstand;-). Surely it has to relate to truths. You revert back to 'that child' again who speaks the language of the parent who speaks to him/her first. Isn't this just a general statement suggesting a child learns his mother language first (i.e the language he first becomes familiar with which may or may not be his mother's). 4. No one suggests any blind trust. But it may happen that by testing, checking and proving, we begin to find we really can rely on what the ancient commentators like Buddhaghosa taught us. Others have already picked up on the last comments about the 'corporate faith' etc which I think detract from your excellent detail and analysis. 5. Women, Jataka, Amara Dialogue - thank you very much for providing the Pali, translation and detail. I can only say that our conclusions to date are different and I don't find Nagasena to be giving the 'dumbest arguments', but one's that are deep in meaning and very helpful, especially for any conceit or complacency that might arise on this score. I'll read your comments more carefully and possibly raise them or any of the other points on the trip. I'll let you know if I have anything to add. Meanwhile I'll certainly look f/w to reading any further translations or other replies you give for further reflection. Many thanks again for your assistance with the translations. Metta, Sarah 37503 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:35am Subject: Re: Vism.XIV,107 Dear Larry, Thank you very much for this message Vism.XIV,107. It is very clear and such short message brings up more meaningful input into learner rather than thick messages which are indigestible at once. Mind element is a good word. But manodhatu is also not a long word and if this is repeatedly used that is in association with 'mind element' both will become the same. I prefer Pali words as basic terminology. Because when translated words are used purely, sometimes there does not reflect the original sense. With respect, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV > > 107. Herein, (70) the 'mind-element' has the characteristics of being > the forerunner of eye-consciousness, etc., and of cognizing visible > data, and so on. Its function is to advert. It is manifested as > confrontation of visible data, and so on. Its proximate cause is the > interruption of [the continued occurrence of consciousness as] > life-continuum. It is associated with equanimity only. 37504 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner36-Feeling/Vedana (i) Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Sarah (and Nina, and all) - > > In a message dated 10/14/04 1:35:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, .... Good to see you commenting and helping out on these threads - no time to stop and read or discuss your comments just posted now, but I will print out and share with Nina. I was very glad you answered Herman's qu and it was a very good answer I thought. Some of these areas we've discussed a lot together and it's good to see we're on the same page here for the most part;-). I've also found your discussions with Ken H very good - each time one has to explain or clarify, I think the issues become clearer and i know you're both writing with many kindly and well-meant intentions. When KenH mentions his parrot mode, for example, I know he's being very modest (though of course, if any of us manage to parrot the Buddha just a little, it would be the greatest achievement). Thx also for your middle-way post to Dighanakha and me. You made a good point, but I really think the 'older positions' were very 'complete' and rather than being models, were clear and detailed explanations of the truths that are of great value to us. The Buddha's omniscience - see 'omniscience' in U.P. We can never over-estimate the Buddha's knowledge to know all truths -- past, present, future, whatever he put his mind to, as I understand. Yes, he clearly and perfectly understood 'the all' as did the other arahants. In the Buddha's case, he understood 'the all' connected with all beings, at all times, in all planes and in all possible detail, such as the intricate conditions for any state which no one but a Buddha could have taught. Metta, Sarah ======== 37505 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: question to all members Hi James, I thought of you when I woke up on Tues, turned on the computer and there you were on my screen;-). Glad to see you in good form. Like Nina, I miss your good sutta posts and I'd also be interested to see your comments on Rob M's book (and I'm sure he would too). --- buddhatrue wrote: > > James: I have been to several Buddhist temples in my life, several > times, and have participated in many ceremonies. So I wouldn't say > that "nobody" in this group does those things. ... S: Not at all and we'll be visiting temples and attending ceremonies on our trip too. .... > > Ajahn Jose: I notice when I visit Bangkog and went to see Sujin, at > their centre they have a meeting hall or temple, yet they do not > have an imagine of the Buddha, > > James: Hmmm…I find that very strange. No images of the Buddha > anywhere? That is odd. But I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. > Did you see any statues of K. Sujin around? ;-)) (just kidding) I > think it is important to have statues of the Buddha around to remind > oneself of the qualities of the Buddha. They are a visual reminder > of the Buddhist life to practice. .... ;-) Actually I don't recall any pictures or statues. There's an altar under the glass container with the relic in, always with many flowers. People pay their respects here as they would if there was a Buddha image. I think K.Sujin said they were offered so many statues when the foundation opened (before that for years and years, she used to teach at Wat Bovan in central Bangkok), that they decided to have none. Minimalist. When I lived in London, I had a little shrine, but since we've been married, we haven't had one. No rules;-). Speak later and hope the teaching's going well. Metta, Sarah ======= 37506 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 089 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, So far we have discussed on 7 universal mental factors and 6 particular mental factors, all of which agree with citta they arise together with. In the previous post, akusala cetasikas or destructive ministers of the king citta have been enumerated. First comes 'moha'. Moha. The word is simple. But this word represents many meanings behind it. The word itself when you see is just a figure with colour possibly black or you may constructively hear its name in your mind as voice as 'moha'. But we are not discussing such complicated things. Moha is a cetasika. It is ignorance. It is darkness. When it arises with the king citta, while itself is dark, lightless, wisdomless, it also advises the king citta to become deluded. Sometimes it illudes the king citta. Moha is the leader of all akusala dhamma. Everything in akusala dhamma is based on moha and moha is always there as a base for akusala dhamma whenever akusala dhamma arise, it arises. Moha is frequently referred to as ignorance. This is right but still there might arise some minunderstanding regarding 'ignore' the word that is used in everyday English. Characterwise, moha cetasika is darkness and it covers the light of wisdom which otherwise sees 4 ariyas' sacca or 4 Noble Truths. In its presence, these 4 Noble Truths will not be seen. Because of lack of insight into these 4 Noble Truths, moha then leads to all other things that are away from realization of these 4 ariyas' Noble Truths. Moha also covers paticcasamuppada dhamma. This means that paticca samuppada dhammas are not seen because of the presence of moha. In the presence of moha, as ariyas' saccas are not seen, beings are creating kamma through sankhara dhammas. Sankharas are dhamma that create kamma. They are usually written in as mental formations, mental fabrications and so on. These have to arise because of moha. If there is no moha, there is no reason that these sankhara dhammas should arise. As moha covers all the light of wisdom, it has the greatest power in creation of akusala dhamma and their results kamma which are akusala kamma, all of which always give rise to bad things. Moha appears in many suttas and it comes in many names. Whatever its different names there are, moha is just darkness that covers all the light of wisdom. As long as moha covers these right dhamma that we all should have a direct seeing with ur own mind-eye or through our own panna or wisdom, we will not see real dhamma and then we will still be creating more and more kamma in a daily basis and more worse in most of the moments. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37507 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Sarah] Dan,(Herman in passing) I need to read your post more carefully to do it justice. Just to say, it's been great talking to you again (exhausting as ever;-)), but I always learn from our dialogues. I think I have more idea of where you're heading now and I think there will be less agreement. Just two quick refs come to mind for your consideration and apologies if I'm off-track again in my haste: 1.Mahamalunkya Sutta, MN64 on anusaya (latent tendencies)and the baby that does not have self view, doubt,notion of rules or even some kinds of attachment, BUT, the anusaya are all there.In other words, it's the understanding of the teachings, not the apparent behaviour or personality or measure of kilesa showing that is of importance here. 2.Lots I'd like to quote from the Parinibbana Sutta and comy. Lots on pariyatti and pativedha and so on. [side-note to Herman as I look for a particular quote: "In the text, those who are travelling to visit shrines: Those who make a journey, sweeping here and there in the courtyards of shrines and washing seats and watering Bo-trees, in them there is nothing to criticise. he shows that if people set out with the intention of worshipping a shrine at a certain monastery, even if they should die with thoughts of tranquil faith, they will surely reach heaven without impediment." Better look out a little sweeping brush;-).] Here's the one for Dan: " 'There a [true] renunciate (samana) is not found': it is meant that there a first ascetic, namely a stream-enterer, does not exist....'Others' doctrines are devoid of true renunciates': others' doctrines are vain, empty, devoid of the twelve renunciates, namely the four who undertake insight meditation (vipassanaa) for the sake of the four paths, the four who are on the paths, the four who have fruition......'If they live rightly': If a stream-enterer explains what he has attained to another person, and makes him attain stream-entry, then he is said to live rightly. The same thing applies to a once-returner and the rest. If one is on the path of stream-entry.....If one practises insight meditation for the sake of the path of stream-entry.....lives rightly....". Only one path as I understand, but of course we should respect any kusala, whatever the label or belief or religion. Any lack of tolerance would certainly not be any path. Metta, Sarah p.s I'll read any replies but you should be safe from further responses;-) =================================== 37508 From: Dan D. Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Howard] Dear Howard, Great to have you aboard on this thread! ... ... Of course, I say that before reading your questions... Uff da. > I really like the tenor of this and your preceding post on this > thread. Yet I do have a question I'd like to pose: It pertains to the distinction > between the miccha-ditthi of self, on the one hand, abandoned at stream entry, > being surplanted, presumably, by the right view of no-self, versus the > sense-of-self or "odor of self", on the other hand, which is uprooted only at > achievement of arahanthood. Ultimate right view is, I suppose, the unblemished, direct > knowledge of no-self in all dhammas, or, to put it negatively, the utter and > complete absence of any *sense* of self/core in the empirical "person" or in > any phenomena. > H: How does one distinguish the right view of no-self of the > stream entrant from the right view of no-self of the arahant? Ai-yo! I don't know. Here's what Khemaka, an Anagami says in reponse to a question about the distinction between the conceit "I am" and the view "I am": "I do not say 'I am' in regard to material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, or consciousness, nor do I say that there is an 'I am' apart from material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. However, a sense that 'I am' is still found in me infererence to the five clinging aggregates; but I do not consider 'this I am'... Even though the ariyan disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, nevertheless a residual conceit 'I am', desire 'I am', latent tendency 'I am' still remains in him in reference to the five clinging aggregates." [S 22:89/iii,130, as quoted in the introduction to BB's "The Root of Existence"]. My take on it? With the anagami there is no craving for sensations, material form, or even consciousness; but there is still a craving for being, which is his 'conceit'. With the sotapanna there is no craving for the "I", but there is still craving for sensations, material forms, and consciousnesses. The Buddha's words to describe the differences between the 'views' of the learner and the arahant are curiously similar, yet strikingingly different: "Herein, a disciple of mine (i.e., a learner) sees as it really is all material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, thus: 'This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self.' To this extent my disciple is one who follows my instructions and exhortation, has crossed over doubt, gotten rid of questioning, attained to self-confidence, and dwells independent of others in the dispensation of the Teacher. "Herein, a bhikkhu, having seen as it really is all material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, thus: 'This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self,' is emancipated through non-clinging. To this extent a bhikkhu is an arahant... one who is emancipated by final knowledge." [M 35/i, 235, as quoted in the introduction to BB's "The Root of Existence"] The learner 'sees' the aggregates clearly enough to understand that nowhere therein is "I" to be found. The arahant 'has seen' the aggregates as the learner has BUT is also emancipated through non- clinging. Dispelling the view of "I am" is central to the lower paths; but even when that view is eradicated (i.e., ditthi can no longer arise), clinging still remains. What words describe the residual tendency for even lofty disciples to cling? Conceit, restlessness, ignorance, desire for fine-material existence, desire for immaterial existence -- the five higher fetters, which are all eradicated at the same time and are in some sense synonyms or different-sounding terms for the same underlying reality, which is clinging devoid of the lower fetters. > Most particularly, > what is the right view of no-self gained at stream entry? If it is not a kind of > conventional right understanding that amounts to an unshakable belief - if it > is, instead, a direct knowing, how is it to be distinguished from the right > view of the arahant? I don't think it is distinguishable from the right view of the arahant. However, the arahant no longer has the conceit to crave sensual satisfaction or existence. > Is it a matter of partial wisdom versus complete wisdom in > your estimation? That doesn't strike me as correct inasmuch as the fetter of > sakkaya-ditthi is said to be completely uprooted at stream entry. If it is the > unshakable *disbelief* in self which is achieved at stream entry, is that not > a matter of concept? Yes, I would say "disbelief" lends itself much better to "conceptual right view" than to sammaditthi, but I wouldn't say that eradication of ditthi is anything like "unshakable disbelief in self." > Are not belief and disbelief matters of conceptual view > more than matters of direct knowing? I'd say so. Yes. (with caveat that sometimes these words may be used otherwise). > It seems to me that an initial glimpse of > nibbana creates an unshakable disbelief in self without entirely removing the > sense of self, and that unshakable belief in no-self gained at stream entry > might well be referred to as "conventional right view", whereas the arahant's > knowledge of no-self and his/her invulnerability to a sense of self is ultimate > right view. I don't think there is a difference between the arahant's right view and the sotapanna's right view. The difference is in the defilements - - arahant no longer craves, sotapanna does. Must run. Ran overtime this morning... Metta, Dan 37509 From: Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:10am Subject: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Right View Hi, Dan and all - The Sammaditthi Sutta, taught by Sariputta, seems to have a strong bearing on the issue of conventional versus ultimate right view. In the following, I excerpt a portion of the sutta giving one perspective on what constitutes right view, and I add (brief) comments of mine. (The Wholesome and the Unwholesome) 3. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma. 4. "And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome. 5. "And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome. 6. "And what is the wholesome? Abstention from killing living beings is wholesome; abstention from taking what is not given is wholesome; abstention from misconduct in sensual pleasures is wholesome; abstention from false speech is wholesome; abstention from malicious speech is wholesome; abstention from harsh speech is wholesome; abstention from gossip is wholesome; non-covetousness is wholesome; non-ill will is wholesome; right view is wholesome. This is called the wholesome. 7. "And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome. 8. "When a noble disciple has thus understood the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma." -------------------------------------------- To me, items 1 through 4, and 6 are uncontestably conceptual and conventional. Item 8, involving the removal of anusaya, I see as pertaining to ultimate right view. The rest of the sutta presents alternative descriptions of right view, all of which, in much the same way, seem to involve what we would normally consider to be conceptual or conventional. The ATI url for the sutta is http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html 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) 37510 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:45am Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Right View Howard's comments on 'The Sammaditthi Sutta': To me, items 1 through 4, and 6 are uncontestably conceptual and conventional. Item 8, involving the removal of anusaya, I see as pertaining to ultimate right view. The rest of the sutta presents alternative descriptions of right view, all of which, in much the same way, seem to involve what we would normally consider to be conceptual or conventional. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Howard, I agree with you here. You used 'conceptual' or 'conventional' and 'ultimate' as modifying words for the right view. Understanding of essence is the most important. I prefer 'loki samma-ditthi' and 'lokuttara samma-ditthi'. Loki samma-ditthi can arise alone. But lokuttara samma-ditthi always arises with other paths. That right view is ultimate right view. By the same token, samma-vaca, samma-kammanta, samma-ajiva that arise at magga and phala are lokuttara siila. These 3 arise together. But in lokii siila, they do not arise together. Examples are.. when you avoid a particular word at a time, you are nothing to do with avoiding of killing. Because the objects are different here in lokii siila. Butin lokuttara siila, they arise together because object is nibbana. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37511 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:04am Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 17 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 81, 82, and 83 are OK. Page 84. 1. Foot note 4, 5, 6 and their reference words are not matched, I think. 4 and 5 are explained. But 6 has not been explained. Page 85, 86, 87 are OK. Page 88. 2. Vedana is expressed with 4 factors of 1.lakkhana (characteristic), 2. rasa (function), 3. paccuppatthana (manifestation) and 4. padatthana (proximate cause). Rob M includes 'vedana is not emotion'. This is very good. Yes. Arahats do have feeling or vedana but not emotions of worldly people. 3. Cetana ( volition/ intention/ will ) I think 'will' should not be used for cetana. Otherwise, cetana's function will be confused with chanda or wish. 'Will' and 'wish' are close. Page 89. 4. Manasikara : driving associated states toward the object I doubt that this might confuse with other cetasikas. This kind of 'driving' may be present in 'vitakka' 'cetana' 'manasikara' 'viriya' 'chanda' 'panna'. 5. Apart from 4 factors, Rob M includes 'Regarded as: .. .. ..' which is also good for understanding. But manasikara should not be charioteer. Charioteer is the function of tatramajjhattata. Manasikara should be steerer, even though charioteer also steers. Charioteer equalises the strength or balance the strength. Page 90. 6. Viriya 'Energy' should be used with care. Because, viriya is not energy even though energy may involve. In 'piti' portion Rob M describes 'function: refresh mind and body'. I think this is more like energising than viriya. Appendix I and II are very good and clear provided after some minor correction. To be continued. 37512 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:39am Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 18 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 91. 1. Moha It is good that Rob M describes moha as 'mental blindness'. I use 'darkness' for description of moha. In the Buddha's first discourse, the Buddha preached 'cakku.m' 'nana.m' 'panna' 'vijja' 'aloko' etc etc that He came to know Dhamma in a such way. This is because of total clearence of moha. Aloka means 'light'. Vijja means 'penetrative wisdom'. Panna means 'wisdom'. Nana means 'knowledge'. And cakku.m means 'understanding' 'seeing'. In all these, they all describe absence of moha. Why? As the light appears, darkness runs away instantaneously. So moha is darkness. 2. Regarded as: root of all immoralities. Inclusion is this is very good. Moha always participate in doing any akusala and paticcasamuppada starts with moha or avijja. 3. Anottappa Function: doing evil things without 'shame'. I think Rob M overlooked. Shame was mentioned in ahirika above. It has to be replaced by 'dread' as he includes 'dread' as interpretation of anottappa as dreadlessness. Page 92 is OK. Page 93. 4. Issa This is not only to success of other but also to other achievements of anything of other beings. Sotapams do not have ditthi and they do not see beings as being. So sotapams do not have issa or macchariya. Page 94 and 95 are OK. To be continued. 37513 From: Dan D. Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 0:52pm Subject: out of town Dear All, I'll be out of town and out of internet contact for several days. Please be patient if you are awaiting responses in the continuation of my active threads! Dan 37514 From: Egbert Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:51pm Subject: Re: Games People Play Hi Andrew, What follows from me is entirely conceptual. A > Conceptual thinking about past and future isn't Satipatthana, according to the Abhidhammikas. Just as we can't choose the timing of our death, I suspect we can't choose the timing of our liberation either. IMHO that depends upon accumulations, defilements and conditions including the presence of appropriate volition and wisdom. But you've heard all that before ... > It is not controversial, I believe, to state that there is a level of being at which we can choose the timing of our death, and many people do choose the timing of their death. Of course, this level is supported by a level of being in which neither choice or death or time mean anything. At this more basic level, liberation is also quite meaningless. Death, like liberation, are entirely and only conceptual events. Unless, like the citta-vithi theorists (and KenH :-)) who hold that conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events. Which is basically the same as holding that Newton's mechanics apply at a quantum level. What to do about Mr Heisenberg's objection that knowing an event alters it? Ah, the uncertainty of it all :-) Kind Regards Herman 37515 From: Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism.XIV,107 Htoo "...Mind element is a good word. But manodhatu is also not a long word and if this is repeatedly used that is in association with 'mind element' both will become the same..." Hi Htoo, I agree. These are always good reminders. Thanks for your comments. Larry 37516 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:28pm Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Right View Dear Htoo, You wrote to Howard: ----------------------------- > Howard's comments on 'The Sammaditthi Sutta': To me, items 1 through 4, and 6 are uncontestably conceptual and conventional. Item 8, involving the removal of anusaya, I see as pertaining to ultimate right view. The rest of the sutta presents alternative descriptions of right view, all of which, in much the same way, seem to involve what we would normally consider to be conceptual or conventional. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Howard, I agree with you here. You used 'conceptual' or 'conventional' and 'ultimate' as modifying words for the right view. Understanding of essence is the most important. I prefer 'loki samma-ditthi' and 'lokuttara samma-ditthi'. > ----------------------------- KH: I think you may be missing the central point of this discussion. It is not about 'mundane and supramundane' (lokiya and lokuttara). It is about 'conventional and ultimate' (pannatti and paramattha). Howard (I hope he will correct me if I am wrong) is saying that items 1 to 4 plus 6 are conventional (pannatti) teachings. I disagree entirely. I say the Buddha never taught conventionally. Every time he used conventional language, he did so without being misled by it. In other words, every time he referred to a human being, he was referring to the five khandhas (conditioned namas and rupas). When, for example, the Buddha talks about refraining from killing, he is not referring to concepts (of a person who refuses to take life). He is referring to the five khandhas as they arise in a particular moment. I have strong opinions on this issue, and I would be glad to know what you think of them. I say that most Buddhists care only for the conventional meaning of the Buddha's words. Some others know a little Abhidhamma and see both a conventional and an ultimate teaching. Others still, think ultimate reality is the only reality. Only the last-mentioned group has reached the starting point of Dhamma-study. Conventional reality is an illusory reality, and the Buddha did not give us an illusory teaching. Am I being fanatical? :-) Kind regards, Ken H 37517 From: Egbert Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:36pm Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Right View Hi Ken, Htoo, Howard and all, I'm butting in here. Hope you don't mind. > I have strong opinions on this issue, and I would be glad to know > what you think of them. I say that most Buddhists care only for the > conventional meaning of the Buddha's words. Some others know a > little Abhidhamma and see both a conventional and an ultimate > teaching. Others still, think ultimate reality is the only reality. > > Only the last-mentioned group has reached the starting point of > Dhamma-study. Conventional reality is an illusory reality, and the > Buddha did not give us an illusory teaching. > The Buddha did not teach an ultimate reality, either, Ken. > Am I being fanatical? :-) You are certainly factually incorrect in claiming the dhamma being teachings about ultimate reality. And you have good reason to hate longboarders :-) Kind Regards Herman 37518 From: Egbert Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism.XIV,107 Hi Larry and Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Htoo "...Mind element is a good word. But manodhatu is also not a long > word and if this is repeatedly used that is in association with 'mind > element' both will become the same..." > > Hi Htoo, > > I agree. These are always good reminders. Thanks for your comments. > > Larry Of course we all understand that as a starting point we still need to translate manodhatu into our mother tongue before we can understand what it means. After much repetition manodhatu comes to mean exactly the same as the words from the mother tongue used to translate it. Which in the case of manodhatu is uncontroversial. There are other Pali words whose meanings are unclear, and simply sticking to the Pali does not make the meaning any clearer. Kind Regards Herman 37519 From: Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/14/04 6:56:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Death, like liberation, are entirely and only conceptual events. > Unless, like the citta-vithi theorists (and KenH :-)) who hold that > conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events. ==================== Just for the record, Herman, formulating this as you do ("Conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events"), you will have to include me in that encampment of fearful folk as well! ;-)) As far as I'm concerned, any well grounded percept/concept is indeed based in knowable ultimate events. The only thing that may distinguish me from the others on this issue is that I in no way believe that these so called paramattha dhammas are self-existent entities (or events) that have own-being/essence. I see them merely as fleeting and insubstantial (but distinguishable) aspects of an interconnected, ultimately indescribable experiential reality. The paramattha dhammas exist, but only as things-in-relation and as parts of an interconnected, dynamic network or whole. That whole - that reality, as it actually is, freed of the fragmenting effect of defilements, may well be what nibbana is; but as it appears when experience is in thrall to those poisons, it is what the Zen folks call "the ten thousand things" or "the dust of the world", and what we commonly call "samsara". 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) 37520 From: Mike Nease Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] out of town Hi Dan, Do you suggest that concepts are always attended by views and that, since right view only attends satipatthaana or path and fruition, that concepts are always attended by wrong view? Look forward to your response on your return. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan D." To: Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:52 PM Subject: [dsg] out of town > > > Dear All, > I'll be out of town and out of internet contact for several days. > Please be patient if you are awaiting responses in the continuation > of my active threads! > > Dan 37521 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:23pm Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Herman Hi Herman, -------------- KH: > > Conventional reality is an illusory reality, and the Buddha did not give us an illusory teaching. > > ------- H: > The Buddha did not teach an ultimate reality, either, Ken. -------------- If he didn't teach illusion, he must have taught reality: there are no other options. -------------- H: > You are certainly factually incorrect in claiming the dhamma being teachings about ultimate reality. --------------- Herman, there is no point in your saying, "Nonsense!" every time someone describes the Dhamma as found in the Theravada texts (see our home page). Please quote any part of those texts, that you do regard as genuine, and explain how it is not a teaching of ultimate reality. ------------- H: > And you have good reason to hate longboarders :-) ------------ It's nice that you sympathise even when, as a non-surfer, you cannot know how unlovable a longboarder is. But you are probably a motorist; in which case I can give you some idea. You know those city-dwellers who, for no good reason, desecrate our roads with hulking great four-wheel-drive vehicles? When they go surfing, they ride longboards. :-) Ken H 37522 From: Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Ri... Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/14/04 8:31:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Howard (I hope he will correct me if I am wrong) is saying that > items 1 to 4 plus 6 are conventional (pannatti) teachings. I > disagree entirely. I say the Buddha never taught conventionally. > ======================== Although the Buddha knew exactly what is what, he *always* taught conventionally, and could not have taught otherwise. For example, look at the Satta Sutta, from the Samyutta Nikaya, one of the collections containing the most literally formulated of suttas. I will add comments, interspersed: I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?" "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be 'a being (satta).' "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' ------------------------------------------------ Howard: What is this "one" who is "caught up there, tied up there"? The Buddha knew there is no thing that is a person, but he taught using that concept. Can you imagine his trying to formulate the foregoing sentence without the use of concepts? There is no language communication without the use of concepts. That is what concepts are about - communication. ------------------------------------------------- "Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles (lit: dirt houses): as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: What are "boys"? "girls"? "playing"? "sand castles"? -------------------------------------------------- But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: What are "hands"? "feet"? What is it when hands and feet smash sand castles? This is all standard, conventional language. Imagine communicating what he did without these conceptual, conventional terms. ----------------------------------------------- "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: What is "Radha"? If the Buddha didn't use the above conventional sentence, but spoke only using names for paramattha dhammas, he could not have taught anything! ------------------------------------------------ Practice for the ending of craving for form. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness -- for the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding." 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) 37523 From: Egbert Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:59am Subject: Re: Games People Play Hi Howard, I will duly note your group membership at the next census :-) > > > Death, like liberation, are entirely and only conceptual events. > > Unless, like the citta-vithi theorists (and KenH :-)) who hold that > > conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events. > ==================== > Just for the record, Herman, formulating this as you do ("Conceptual > events are based in knowable ultimate events"), you will have to include me in > that encampment of fearful folk as well! ;-)) As far as I'm concerned, any > well grounded percept/concept is indeed based in knowable ultimate events. > The only thing that may distinguish me from the others on this issue > is that I in no way believe that these so called paramattha dhammas are > self-existent entities (or events) that have own-being/essence. I see them merely as > fleeting and insubstantial (but distinguishable) aspects of an interconnected, > ultimately indescribable experiential reality. The paramattha dhammas exist, > but only as things-in-relation and as parts of an interconnected, dynamic > network or whole. That whole - that reality, as it actually is, freed of the > fragmenting effect of defilements, may well be what nibbana is; but as it appears > when experience is in thrall to those poisons, it is what the Zen folks call > "the ten thousand things" or "the dust of the world", and what we commonly call > "samsara". > What I don't understand is that I agree with you entirely. Am I therefore in the camp of those who put forward an ultimate reality? I don't think so. Anything distinguishable and separable from the whole can only become so by a process of abstraction. What is there, when there is no thinking? Kind Regards Herman 37524 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism.XIV,107 Hi Larry and Htoo, ..snip.. Of course we all understand that as a starting point we still need to translate manodhatu into our mother tongue before we can understand what it means. After much repetition manodhatu comes to mean exactly the same as the words from the mother tongue used to translate it. Which in the case of manodhatu is uncontroversial. There are other Pali words whose meanings are unclear, and simply sticking to the Pali does not make the meaning any clearer. Kind Regards Herman ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Herman, I agree. But as you said, sticking to some important Pali words is uncontroversial. For clarity everyone needs initial translation and extensive searching for the meaning to be much more clearer. What I reminded is not to lose originality which is uncontroversial. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37525 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:26am Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Right View KenH: Dear Htoo, You wrote to Howard: ----------------------------- > Howard's comments on 'The Sammaditthi Sutta': > To me, items 1 through 4, ..snip..or conventional. >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >Dear Howard, I agree with you here. You used 'conceptual' or 'conventional' and 'ultimate' as modifying words for the right view. Understanding of essence is the most important. I prefer 'loki samma-ditthi' and 'lokuttara samma-ditthi'. > ----------------------------- KH: I think you may be missing the central point of this discussion. It is not about 'mundane and supramundane' (lokiya and lokuttara). It is about 'conventional and ultimate' (pannatti and paramattha). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I know from the beginning. Howard is not talking mundane and supramundane. He was talking on pannatti and paramattha. What I put in was that as long as nibbana has not been seen, the understanding is just still 'conventional'. And this is equally still in loki level. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KenH: Howard (I hope he will correct me if I am wrong) is saying that items 1 to 4 plus 6 are conventional (pannatti) teachings. I disagree entirely. I say the Buddha never taught conventionally. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I doubt. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KenH: Every time he used conventional language, he did so without being misled by it. In other words, every time he referred to a human being, he was referring to the five khandhas (conditioned namas and rupas). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I would say that people frequently and increasingly mix pannatti and paramattha dhamma. Once I have heard from a friend regarding a story. There was a couple. Husband totally devotet to The Buddha teachings. He loved paramattha dhamma. I did vipassana and studied dhamma and went to monastries whenever applicable. One day, the couple had a fighting. First started with 'word bullets'. Later the husband hit his wife. Then what the wife shouted to neighbour was.. '' Help me please..!! . Nama and rupa is hitting nama and rupa..O! Bo.ho..ho..ho..'' The husband did not know what to proceed. All neighbour were smiling. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KenH: When, for example, the Buddha talks about refraining from killing, he is not referring to concepts (of a person who refuses to take life). He is referring to the five khandhas as they arise in a particular moment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This is continuation of mixing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KenH: I have strong opinions on this issue, and I would be glad to know what you think of them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: As long as nibbana has not been seen, there is no ultimate right view. This means if the viewer is still puthujana, there is no way to say that he understand ultimate right view. Puthujanno ummattakko. All puthujanas ( each and every puthujana ) are just fools and they are mad at illusionary things. Ulitmate level will not reach from 1 through 4 etc etc. Howard is right. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KenH: I say that most Buddhists care only for the conventional meaning of the Buddha's words. Some others know a little Abhidhamma and see both a conventional and an ultimate teaching. Others still, think ultimate reality is the only reality. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Still mixing of panatti and paramattha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KenH: Only the last-mentioned group has reached the starting point of Dhamma-study. Conventional reality is an illusory reality, and the Buddha did not give us an illusory teaching. Am I being fanatical? :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Still mixing of pannatti and paramattha. The Buddha taught Dhamma and Dhamma are for our understanding and to guide us in achieving liberation. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37526 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:51am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 090 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Moha does not singly arise. It always arises with other three akusala cetasikas even in ekahetuka citta. Ekahetuka means single-rooted. Single-rooted cittas are 2 moha cittas. Even inn these 2 moha mula cittas, there are also 3 other akusala cetasikas. Moha is the king of akusala dhamma. He has 2 great ministers. These 2 ministers are generals. One is the right wing of the king moha. And the other is the left wing of the king moha. So moha has two great disciples. Moreover, the akusala king moha also has another akusala cetasika as its home secretary. The right wing of the akusala king moha is ahirika or shamelessness. The left wing of the akusala king moha is anottappa or fearlessness. Home secretary for the akusala kingdom is uddhacca cetasika. Moha as a leader brings along all these three akusala cetasikas whenever it goes outside ( or whenever akusala citta arises, moha arises with these three akusala cetasikas ). Ahirika and anottappa always work together. They take the same object with their citta. They arise together with the citta which is akusala citta. They vanish when citta passed away. They depend on the same base where the citta and all other cetasikas have to depend on. Ahirika and anottappa are frineds and they are really close friends for a long long time indefinitely. Even though they are associated with moha, they are not moha cetasika. Ahirika and anottappa are not citta. They are not rupa. What is sure is that they are them and they do exist. They are not citta, not rupa, not nibbana but they are cetasikas. Again they are not moha cetasika. They do stand as they have their own characteristics, own markers and their own functions. When these two friends lead the troop of akusala dhamma, any type of akusala how much wicked they are can be committed by these two frineds. They are so powerful that they are also referred to as bala dhamma. There are 9 bala dhamma. 5 bala dhammas are bodhipakkhiya dhammas. Hiri and ottappa are kusala bala dhamma. Ahirika and anottappa are akusala bala dhamma. As bala dhamma, ahirika and anottappa always lead all akusala dhamma. There is no akusala dhamma that are not led by ahirika and anottappa as leaders. All lobha mula cittas are led by ahirika and anottappa. All dosa mula cittas are led by ahirika and anottappa. All moha mula cittas are led by ahirika and anottappa cetasikas. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37527 From: Egbert Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:32am Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Herman Hi Ken, > > If he didn't teach illusion, he must have taught reality: there are > no other options. > > -------------- > H: > You are certainly factually incorrect in claiming the dhamma > being teachings about ultimate reality. > --------------- > > Herman, there is no point in your saying, "Nonsense!" every time > someone describes the Dhamma as found in the Theravada texts (see > our home page). Please quote any part of those texts, that you do > regard as genuine, and explain how it is not a teaching of ultimate > reality. > > ------------- If dependent origination is a teaching of ultimate reality, then, yes I was wrong. Do you see dependent origination as a teaching of ultimate reality? > H: > And you have good reason to hate longboarders :-) > ------------ > > It's nice that you sympathise even when, as a non-surfer, you cannot > know how unlovable a longboarder is. But you are probably a > motorist; in which case I can give you some idea. You know those > city-dwellers who, for no good reason, desecrate our roads with > hulking great four-wheel-drive vehicles? When they go surfing, they ride longboards. :-) :-) Kind Regards Herman 37528 From: sarahprocterabbott Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:09am Subject: Re: flippin off the moon Greetings, Dighanaka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" < dighanakha@y...> wrote: > > Hello Jon. ... > Firstly, I would not make a distinction between sectarian views > and the views of [those whom you call] the traditional > commentators. If one lays aside one's faith bias and views the > matter objectively, the commentators of the Mahavihara are > sectarian commentators no less than those of any of the other > schools generated after the 2nd Council. They differ only in that > the Mahavihara branch of the Tambapanniya sect (now called the > Theravada) survives as a living tradition, while the others can > be known only through texts. I think you are saying that what we have as the commentaries should be seen as the writings of 'just another sect', and that happen to be the one surviving set of texts, while the texts of other (equally authoritative/suspect) sects have not survived. I think that is a somewhat cynical view, although you would not doubt consider the views I express to be unduly naïve, so let me try and explain my position a little more clearly. As I see it, the commentaries are not there to be 'embraced' and accepted as 'the answer' but, like the suttas themselves, are to be tested in real time as to their veracity. I can only say that in my limited experience the commentaries have proved to be very true to the original as we have it. So naturally I am inclined to continue my investigation of them (although it's true that this investigation is not of the academic kind -- see my further comments below). > Secondly, "modern writers" is too broad. I should prefer to limit > it to modern academic scholars with expertise in some field > relating to indology or Buddhist studies. I would also limit it > to their peer-reviewed publications on subjects that lie within > their field of expertise, not just anything that they happen to > write. > > With these qualifications in mind I would then answer yes, with > respect to certain issues there are good reasons for preferring > modern academic scholars to Indian Buddhist sectarian writers, > *if* it is the truth that one wants. But if one is not at heart > really interested in the truth, but only in finding faith-building > material, then probably it would be best to avoid modern scholars > like the plague. Hmm. Depends what you mean by 'the truth'. I think academic analysis is useful as far as it goes, but I don't see that usefulness as going much beyond matters of form rather than substance. What I mean is that while such analysis can help us classify a particular text as having an 'earlier' or 'later' form, it cannot tell us to what extent its content is consistent with the Buddha's original teaching. (In any event, as I see it, the 'dating' of a text cannot establish it's date of *origin*, but only the date of the form in which it has come to us; would that be right?) > As to which issues one would be better off consulting modern > sources for, I dealt with this in summary form in my post to > Robert K. on the pros and cons of the Mahavihara commentators. > To recap, these would be Buddhist history (i.e. the history of both > Buddhist thought and Buddhist institutions), and any subject on > which the commentators erred due to the lack of science in their > day. I think you are giving these last-mentioned texts ('scientific inaccuricies') too literal an interpretation. Now I know you regard me as a fundamentalist, but let me assure you that I'm happy to abandon that when it suites me ;-)). Seriously though, my admiration for the texts on doctrinal matters is such that I have never bothered to spend much time on these other aspects (as previously explained). I accept however that for some these apparent scientific inaccuracies can assume a significance. I would only caution against regarding our present 21st century cultural/scientific perspective as a particularly enlightened one, unless your core values are purely scientific ones. On the specific instance of language acquisition, I think the position you attribute to the commentators (for example, that they truly believed that a child acquires the language of the first of its parents whose voice it hears) is unrealistic. It makes them sound like primitive cavemen or worse! It doesn't take a modern linguist to know that language acquisition is a more complex matter than that. ... > 'Uncritical acceptance' is a fair description of what I am witnessing > on this list. Here are some samples of it: I can only speak for myself here, so I won't comment on the samples you give (snipped), except to say I wonder where you see the 'uncritical acceptance' in the following passage (which seems to me pretty unexceptional -- perhaps it was one of mine ;-)): "There is much that is left unsaid in the suttas (for example, the teaching on dependent origination is very difficult to unravel), yet all the necessary material to fill the gaps can be found in the Abhidhamma and the commentaries to the suttas. We are doing ourselves no favour by relying on our own intuition or the views of others that are not based on the ancient texts." Likewise your comment in an earlier post about regarding the ancient texts as being 'absolute authority'. Again, speaking only for myself, I can only say that that is not how I see it. I certainly see the ancient texts as due more serious consideration than modern commentators when it comes to doctrinal analysis (and it's true I don't have much interest if any in modern commentators who claim to have 'reinterpreted' the suttas by taking a 'fresh look' at them), but that's a far cry from absolute authority, as I see it. Yes, you may call it a bias but, as I've explained before, it's a bias that developed gradually over many years of interest in the teachings. To try and understand your point of view a little better, I'd welcome any examples you'd care to give of commentarial material on doctrinal matters that illustrate your concerns about the authenticity or reliability of that material. Jon PS We're getting a good run out of Ben's original subject. Thought of changing it but wasn't sure what would be a suitable subject for this thread at this stage ;-)) 37529 From: sarahprocterabbott Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > First of all - have a wonderful trip!! Thanks for the good wishes. I'm looking forward to it very much (and will be glad when we are actually underway; the build-up to getting away is never much fun ... ) > Now, to the topic: I see our difference on this issue as partly > substantial and partly a matter of preferred language usage. As to the relation > between hardness and "the consciousness of hardness", I believe that they are > distinguishable but inseparable aspects of an experiential event called "the > experience of hardness," the first being the content of that event and the second > being the mere presence of that content. I do not believe in there being two > separate or separable self-existent entities involved here, and I think that the > reification of subject or object is error. I may be wrong, but I read you here as saying or implying that only the `experiential event called "the experience of hardness"' can be directly experienced by panna, and not its 2 component dhammas. If so that would contradict what I thought had been agreed as common ground earlier in our discussion, namely that the 2 dhammas in question remain at all times capable of direct experience by panna as to their particular characteristic. I am not aware of any mention in the suttas of a dhamma of `experiential event', and accordingly I do not see this as something that can be the object of insight. I'd be interested to know which particular passage in the suttas you base this idea on. (Apologies if I've misread your comments.) Jon PS The group departs Bangkok for Bodh Gaya tomorrow (Saturday). Will try and post from along the way. 37530 From: Mike Nease Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Ken] Hi Again Dan, Hope you'll forgive my continuing this in your absence: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan D." To: Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 7:58 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: More on "Conceptual right view" [Ken] > I really want to emphasize that that sammaditthi and > conceptualizations of any sort are quite distinct, so distinct that > the notion of "conceptual right view" doesn't make any sense at all. The Great Forty (Majjhima Nikaya 117, Mahacattarisaka Sutta) makes a clear distinction between right view in the conventional or conceptual sense (saccanulomika-sammaditthi) and the cetasika (saccapa.tivedha-sammaditthi) that arises only with the mundane path (satipatthaana) or the supramundane paths (magga-phala). Pariyatti, pa.tipatti, pa.tivedha--we've discussed the interdependence of these here before I think. The likelihood of jumping to pa.tivedha via pa.tipatti without ever having heard and understood the Dhamma (pariyatti) is beyond remote I think. The Paali is worth looking at here: sacca: true; real. anulomika: suitable; in proper order. pa.tivedha: penetration; attainment; comprehension. "And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with fermentations [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. "And what is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. "And what is the right view that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor of Awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from fermentations, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path." mike 37531 From: Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/15/04 6:00:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I will duly note your group membership at the next census :-) -------------------------------------------- Howard: Duly noted! ;-) ------------------------------------------- > > > > >>Death, like liberation, are entirely and only conceptual events. > >>Unless, like the citta-vithi theorists (and KenH :-)) who hold > that > >>conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events. > >==================== > > Just for the record, Herman, formulating this as you do > ("Conceptual > >events are based in knowable ultimate events"), you will have to > include me in > >that encampment of fearful folk as well! ;-)) As far as I'm > concerned, any > >well grounded percept/concept is indeed based in knowable ultimate > events. > > The only thing that may distinguish me from the others on > this issue > >is that I in no way believe that these so called paramattha > dhammas are > >self-existent entities (or events) that have own-being/essence. I > see them merely as > >fleeting and insubstantial (but distinguishable) aspects of an > interconnected, > >ultimately indescribable experiential reality. The paramattha > dhammas exist, > >but only as things-in-relation and as parts of an interconnected, > dynamic > >network or whole. That whole - that reality, as it actually is, > freed of the > >fragmenting effect of defilements, may well be what nibbana is; > but as it appears > >when experience is in thrall to those poisons, it is what the Zen > folks call > >"the ten thousand things" or "the dust of the world", and what we > commonly call > >"samsara". > > > > What I don't understand is that I agree with you entirely. Am I > therefore in the camp of those who put forward an ultimate reality? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I think this is a matter of language use and of emphasis. My reply to your post was motivated by the sense that it goes too far to imply that there are not direct experiences unmediated by conceptual construction and underlying our conventional percepts (e.g., the computer monitor that I'm looking at right now) and our concepts (e.g., the idea of computer monitor). But, as I made clear, I think, I don't attribute to those direct elements of experience the same own-being and separate, self-existence that some others here do. I do think that our understandings are close. It is possible, I suppose, that you believe that there are no aspects of experience, and cannot be, that are free of conceptual construction. (The Theravadin, Buddhist academic, David Kalupahana, seems to take that position, BTW.) If that is your view, then that is an area of difference between us. I think that there are, even for worldlings, basic elements of our experience that are free of conceptual construction, though we are largely ignorant of those phases of the cognitive process. I think so, because were that not so, there would be 1) a problem of infinite (constructive) regress involved, and 2) the impossibility of full enlightenment. So, although I do not interpret paramattha dhammas quite as others here do, still I do not see the paramattha vs sammuti dichotomy as an empty distinction. ------------------------------------------------- > I don't think so. Anything distinguishable and separable from the > whole can only become so by a process of abstraction. What is there, > when there is no thinking? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I follow you, Herman. Yet I have no problem distinguishing hardness from sound. They are distinguishable. See what I mean? What is there when there is no thinking? That. (And still, without thinking, our hands fly to our ears when the sound is deafening!) ------------------------------------------------ > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > ========================= 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) 37532 From: Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/15/04 9:29:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@y... writes: > > Hi, Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Jon - > ... > > First of all - have a wonderful trip!! > > Thanks for the good wishes. I'm looking forward to it very much (and will > be > glad when we are actually underway; the build-up to getting away is never > much fun ... ) > > > Now, to the topic: I see our difference on this issue as partly > >substantial and partly a matter of preferred language usage. As to the > relation > >between hardness and "the consciousness of hardness", I believe that they > are > >distinguishable but inseparable aspects of an experiential event called > "the > >experience of hardness," the first being the content of that event and the > second > >being the mere presence of that content. I do not believe in there being > two > >separate or separable self-existent entities involved here, and I think > that > the > >reification of subject or object is error. > > I may be wrong, but I read you here as saying or implying that only the > `experiential event called "the experience of hardness"' can be directly > experienced by panna, and not its 2 component dhammas. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression. I definitely believe that the hardness and the knowing (or experiential presence) of the hardness, though inseparable, are distinguishable, just as outside and inside of a sphere are inseparable but distinguishable. If one were to lose the ability to make such distinguishings, that would not be an enlightenment, but an obfuscation. However, if one conceptually hardens that distinguishabilty into an independent separateness, that is falling prey to reification. ---------------------------------------------- > > If so that would contradict what I thought had been agreed as common ground > earlier in our discussion, namely that the 2 dhammas in question remain at > all > times capable of direct experience by panna as to their particular > characteristic. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: No, no change in position. ---------------------------------------- > > I am not aware of any mention in the suttas of a dhamma of `experiential > event', and accordingly I do not see this as something that can be the > object > of insight. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Well, perhaps that is what contact is, Jon - the event that is the coming together of opened/activated sense door, sense object (or content), and sense-door consciousness (or experiential presence). -------------------------------------- I'd be interested to know which particular passage in the suttas you > > base this idea on. > > (Apologies if I've misread your comments.) > > Jon > > PS The group departs Bangkok for Bodh Gaya tomorrow (Saturday). Will try > and post from along the way. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Have a rewarding and safe trip. (The world is not quite as safe as it used to be, I'm sorry to say.) ====================== 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) 37533 From: dighanakha Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:59am Subject: Re: Scholar Dighanankha Hello Andrew. A> To kick off with a comment though: I can't think of anyone A> on this list who argues that "all you need is faith". It's A> just one necessary factor which some people seem to place A> higher than others. I suspect everyone sees themselves using A> the truth weeding-hook so the real question is: how do you A> use the weeding-hook without slashing yourself? Four applications of the weeding-hook come immediately to mind: Reject without appeal any truth claim that is observably and demonstrably in error. Reject provisionally any truth claim that is established by unsound argument. ('Provisionally' because it may nonetheless be true in spite of the bad argument). If one is going to place oneself under a teacher's guidance then first check him/her out in the way described in the Vimamsaka Sutta (MN 47) and check out his/her teachings using the four great standards of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. Observe the injunctions in the Canki Sutta (MN 95) about being honest (with both oneself and others) about the basis on which one holds something to be true. This the Buddha calls preservation or guarding of truth (saccaanurakkha.naa): "If a person has faith, Bharadvaja, he preserves truth when he says: 'My faith is thus'; but he does not yet come to the definite conclusion: 'This alone is true, all else is false.' In this way, Bharadvaja, there is the preservation of truth; in this way he preserves truth; in this way we describe the preservation of truth. But as yet there is no awakening to truth (saccaanubodha)." This paragraph is then repeated four times, but with 'faith' replaced by 'preference' (ruci) ... 'something received through an oral tradition' (anussava) ... or 'arrived at by speculation' (aakaaraparivitakka) ... or by 'reflective acquiescence in a view' (di.t.thinijjhaanakkhanti). dig>> "Bhikkhus, for a disciple possessed of faith, who is intent dig>> on fathoming the Teacher's Dispensation, it is fitting that dig>> he conduct himself thus: 'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I dig>> am a disciple; the Blessed One knows, I do not know.' dig>> dig>> [N.B. "the Blessed One", not the Mahavihara commentators] A> Is not the above view of faith really only applicable to A> someone in the physical presence of the Blessed One? Someone A> who, when a question arises, can raise it directly with the A> Blessed One and be instructed? No, I think it retains its relevance even after the parinibbana, though with the difference that it is the Dhamma and Vinaya one is approaching and not the Buddha himself. A> One of my problems is that, when I read the Suttas, the A> meaning is often not clear to me. Were I in the presence of A> the Buddha, I would be asking for more explanation. I'm sure A> many bhikkhus did. I don't have direct access to the Buddha A> but I can at least read the explanation in the Commentaries. A> I'm sure you don't have a problem with that. But you think A> we shouldn't apply the above type of faith to the A> Commentaries. Right? Right. Teachings later than the Suttas are acariyavada and should be tested with the four great standards. A> But why not? Do you refuse to believe that the commentary A> writers were arahats because of bizarre comments like the A> Magadha language ones? On the alleged attainments of the commentators I have not made any comment, and in fact have no comment to make. In my opinion it is not an issue worth discussing. The commentators' writings don't make any claims for their authors, and claims made by later generations of Mahaviharan monks, in panegyrics and hagiographies, are of no historical value. Moreover, even if these authors had made claims for themselves, if we are following the Buddhism of the Suttas then the proper response to such claims should be "neither acceptance nor rejection, but questioning" (see the Chabbisodhana Sutta MN 112). And as the commentators are not around for us to question, the recommended procedure is impossible and so we should stick to the recommendation of "neither acceptance nor rejection." Regarding the commentators' claims about the language of Magadha, I disagree with your assessment of them as "bizarre". Far from being bizarre, the idea of a primordial Ursprache from which all other languages derive, and the idea that a child growing up in a wilderness will naturally acquire that language, are common to many savage cultures, and some civilized but pre-scientific ones. Such fanciful notions are not at all surprising in societies that have not yet developed an empirical approach to comparative linguistics. Before the advent of scientific linguistics even the greatest minds tended to spout nonsense when they applied themselves to the subject of linguistic evolution and relationships between languages (e.g. Plato's Cratylus Dialogue). So, the problem with such a view being upheld by the commentators is not that it is bizarre, but that it is demonstrably false and could have known to be false by the commentators themselves, had they bothered to check. Likewise for many of the other putatively scientific claims that they made. Here, for example, is Buddhaghosa on the sun and moon: candama.n.dala.m ekuunapa~n~naasayojana.m suuriyama.n.dala.m pa~n~naasayojana.m "The diameter of the moon is 49 yojanas (= 784 km) "The diameter of the sun is 50 yojanas." (= 800 km) (Paramatthajotikaa -- Selasuttava.n.nanaa) Now what do such statements tell us about the commentators? I think they tell us that they were fallible men who were not above venturing into groundless speculation and presenting as truths assertions based on saddhaa, or ruci, or anussava or takka. I agree of course that it's dhammically inconsequential that Buddhaghosa was wrong about the size of the sun by hundreds of thousands of miles. But it should forewarn us about the man's methods. It should cause us to ask just how much of his exposition of the Dhamma is similarly a product of a priori speculation, uncritical reporting of tradition etc. A> Is it not reported that the Buddha said similarly bizarre A> things (to our minds) like being able to transport himself A> to other realms, the divine eye etc? Yes, these things ARE bizarre, but not in a way that is problematic for me. I have myself experienced enough bizarre things in my life to be open-minded about the supra-normal content of the Suttas. But the point is, though there is much in the Suttas that I have not personally verified, there is nothing that contradicts what I know to be true. The same does not apply to the Commentaries. My academic background is in linguistics and I know that nearly every word that Buddhaghosa writes on this subject is utter twaddle. A> What I'm getting at is - what's the basis of the dividing A> line between the Buddha and arahat commentators? I hope what I've written above has made this clear. dig>> If one just blindly trusts in one or another of the ancient dig>> exegetical traditions, then one will not be getting the dig>> whole truth, because one will be dealing with sources dig>> composed by men whose primary aim was not to report the dig>> truth but to defend a corporate faith (i.e. that of their dig>> own sect or monastery). A> Seeing bad faith or ulterior motives in others can be very A> easy to do and can spiral. So can uncritical appeals to authority based on the authority's posthumously asserted sanctity and infallibility. ;-) A> I wonder what the benefit really is in scouring the Buddhist A> world and trying to second-guess the motives of various A> writers. It seems pretty obvious to me that it benefits our understanding of a writer if we can ascertain something about the conditions under which he was working. In the case of Buddhaghosa & co. it may not be altogether irrelevant that they were part of an enormous institution, the Mahavihara, whose economic survival depended on royal patronage, and which was involved in a bitter four-century-long rivalry with two other enormous viharas, Jetavana and Abhayagiri. Furthermore, although some Ceylonese kings were happy to support all three viharas, most were not; those who were not wanted to invest in the vihara that would give them the best return on their patronage in the form of merit; it was believed that the most merit would be obtained from the vihara that was preserving the true teaching. Each vihara therefore had a material interest in hiring scholastics who could present its teachings in the best possible light, so that the royal families of Kandy and Anuradhapura could be persuaded to support it, and to shun or even suppress its rivals. A> Why shouldn't we accept that Buddhaghosa had faith A> and joy and zeal and was doing the honest thing? Because we know virtually nothing about the man other than what can be inferred from his writings, and these writings do not give the impression of having been composed by a man of your description. They appear to have been composed by a scholarly functionary who will do whatever it takes to defend his vihara's line. Particularly in the Vinaya Commentary, there are passages where Buddhaghosa is clearly not at all "faithful, joyful, zealous and honest" at the content of the work he is translating. Nevertheless he translates it, and tries to smooth over all the points on which it blatantly contradicts what is given in the Vinaya Pitaka. In contrast with, say, Vasubandhu or Dharmakirti, Buddhaghosa's writings are not those of a man who is in a position to think for himself, so no matter how personally honest he may have been, it seems he was working under corporate pressure to defend a sectarian line, no matter what. A> Where's the evidence he was a "corporate" man? Did he live A> in a condo by the beach with free alcohol? Not THAT sort of corporate! Go look up the word in a dictionary. I used 'corporate faith' advisedly, in the mistaken belief that with your Roman Catholic background you would know what I meant by it. I suppose you can't have been paying much attention in catechism class. I was not referring to commercial corporations or suggesting that Buddhaghosa indulged in the sort of perks beloved of corporate executives. For the Pauline origin of 'corporate faith' take a look at 1 Corinthians ch 12, 12-30. A few other quotes on the subject: "Faith is a personal act - the free response of the human being to the initiative of God who reveals himself. But faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. "Whoever says 'I believe' says 'I pledge myself to what WE believe.' Communion in faith needs a common language of faith, normative for all and uniting all in the same confession of faith." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, clauses 166, 185) "They are fully INCORPORATED in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her." (Pope Paul VI, 'Lumen Gentium' 1964) Finally, a Catholic contrasting his church's corporate faith with Protestant individualism: "Environment, culture and other factors shape us all and mould our thinking in different ways. Because of the necessity of unity as an identifiable trait of truth, religious convictions in a large part depend on the social influences that shape us from the time we are born and throughout our lifetimes. It is foolish to claim that we are in any way free from these and other influences impacting our paradigms of thought, yet Protestantism in its individualistic approach seems to deny this claim (and often explicitly at that). If our environment plays a large role in our formation and that if truth must logically lead to unity that the individualistic "personal salvation" mould that Protestantism preaches cannot be true because truth is not relative .... Christianity by its very nature has to be a social and CORPORATE FAITH in order to maintain any semblance of unity of belief. Therefore is it not reasonable that God - knowing about our nature as He does - provided for this in building His Church and promulgating a CORPORATE FAITH that is based on the social elements that make up the nature of mankind? ".... Historic Christianity as manifested by all the Apostolic Churches with ties to the Apostles (the Catholic Church and the sixteen Eastern Churches) is covenantal and CORPORATE .... "Thousands of conflicting denominations within Protestantism .... can never give an orderly definition to truth. Instead, they make a laughing stock of the Christian faith to unbelievers. However, as true as this is, the Catholic and the Eastern Churches need to take a long hard look in the mirror. Thousands of denominations compromise truth indeed, but so does ANY number of "true" churches more than one universal church. The Protestant model does not and cannot work in sustaining unity in faith." (Fr. S. McElhinney, Christian Unity and the Role of Authority, chapter 6. http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/unity8.html) A> Why should I accept that Buddhaghosa's "primary aim" was A> to defend his team and pour dirt on the other teams? If you're really comfortable with Sujin's take on the speculative philosophy of Buddhaghosa, then you probably shouldn't. In a post to Herman you wrote: A> I have a Catholic background and I well remember the concept A> of Christian faith - at every mass, we would all recite in A> unison "We believe in the Father etc etc". And in medieval A> times, if you refused to speak those words, you were A> endangering your life! That was dogmatic faith. Buddhist A> faith (or "confidence" or "trustful confidence") is A> something very different. I suspect you haven't been around much. If you go and study at the feet of Burmese abhidhammikas, you will find that most of them teach Abhidhamma as dogma and the pedagogy is EXACTLY like that of a Catholic or a Communist Party catechism class. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37534 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:05pm Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 19 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 96, 97 are OK. Page 98. 1.Kayujjukata. I think this has been discussed in earlier posts. Rob M already responded on this matter. Page 99 is OK. Page 100. 2. The figure is exceptionally good and very clear. Page 101 is fine. Page 102. 3. Appendix IV is excellent. Page 103. 4. First confused but later clear. Because a piece of message appears in the next page 104. Page 104 to 111 are all fine. But for me they give me head-ache because of simple English. During all these criticism, I left something behind. I said I would go back to them later. I would check old messages ( from 1 to 18 ) and then I would go for the left messages. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37535 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:27pm Subject: Re: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 19 ) by Htoo --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > > Continue-: During all these criticism, I left something behind. I said I would go back to them later. I would check old messages ( from 1 to 18 ) and then I would go for the left messages. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Rob M, It was in the message (14 ). What I left was the table in the page 67. I will deal with it later. With respect, Htoo Naing 37536 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:47pm Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 20 ) by Htoo & conclusion Dear Rob M, Thanks for your effort in writing your ebook of 'Theory Behind The Buddha's Smile'. It is hard to accomplish such work. Your work on this ebook is excellent and I just wrote as critics but mostly in good side as your work is already good. I admire your Engineering idea on construction of figures, tables and illustrations. They make the messages in the ebook much more clearer. I left a page. That page is page 67. That page contains a large table showing 31 bhumis. As words are small, I just left it. Now I have read it. There is only one spelling error. 'Dehapphala Deva' should have been 'Vehapphala Deva'. In the critic message ( 14 ), I wrote that I would leave this table in page 67 and I would leave some pages on citta. But now I could not find the original idea when I wrote that. When I find them, I will discuss as separate topic. This message is a conclusion message that the whole book has been read and criticized. Sorry for my interruptions, delays and my difficulty in reading at 'Files' section. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37537 From: Mike Nease Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: "kenhowardau" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 7:55 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View > I was somewhat surprised to learn about panna experiencing concepts. > Sarah seems to think it is quite common. Pa~n~naa is a synonym for amoha, sammaadi.t.thi and several other words depending on context. As I understand it, it is only restricted to paramattha dhammas when used as a synonym for sammaadi.t.thi of the mundane or supramundane path. In the sense of 'understanding' it certainly can take a concept as an object as I understand it. > I had always thought such > moments were restricted to jhana. No doubt, I have been inattentive > - again. Well, jhaana can certainly take a concept as an object--and at a moment of understanding concentration of the level of jhaana can also arise for a moment, outside the practice of jhaanabhavana, I think. So neither jhaana, pa.n.natti nor pa~n~naa are mutally exclusive, I think--any of the three can arise with or with either of the other two. mike 37538 From: robmoult Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:15pm Subject: Re: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 20 ) by Htoo & conclusion Hi Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Thanks for your effort in writing your ebook of 'Theory Behind The > Buddha's Smile'. ===== You are correct, it was an effort. I want to incorporate all of your feedback and get it printed by the end of the year, so that it is ready for the beginning of my next year's class. I can't thank you enough for your detailed corrections and comments. Metta, Rob M :-) 37539 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View (correction) ...of course I meant: > So neither jhaana, > pa.n.natti nor pa~n~naa are mutally exclusive, I think--any of the three > can > arise with or without either (or both) of the other two. 37540 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:53pm Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner37-Feeling/Vedana (j) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** Somanassa, happy feeling, can arise with cittas of all four jåtis, with kusala citta, akusala citta, vipåkacitta and kiriyacitta. Somanassa is of the same jåti as the citta it accompanies. It does not arise with every citta. Somanassa cannot accompany dosa-múla-citta which has aversion towards an object and it cannot accompany moha-múla-citta, citta rooted in ignorance. Somanassa can accompany lobha-múla-citta but it does not always accompany lobha-múla-citta. Lobha-múla-citta can be accompanied by somanassa or by upekkhå, indifferent feeling. When somanassa accompanies lobha-múla-citta, somanassa is also akusala. There can be pleasant feeling when one likes a pleasant visible object, a beautiful sound, a fragrant odour, a delicious taste, a soft touch or an agreeable thought. We would like to have pleasant feeling all the time, it often seems to be the goal of our life. However, pleasant feeling cannot last and when it is gone we are sad. We find it very important what kind of feeling we have, but feelings are beyond control, they arise because of conditions. Lobha accompanied by somanassa is more intense than lobha accompanied by upekkhå. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37541 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:06pm Subject: India 1 Dear All, We were planning on getting an early flight today from Hong Kong and just staying in transit to meet the group at Bangkok airport, but we got cold feet -- what if our flight was late and so on and so on or we were needed to check in with the group ...too many papanca. So got into Bkk yesterday and meeting up with everyone this morning (the schedule says 11am) for the flight over 3 hrs later (!! ) direct to Gaya, outside Bodhgaya. Must try not to help Azita spill her coffee down her clean clothes as I managed last time when we met at the airport:-(. It'll at least be good to lessen the weight of my day-pack when I hand her a copy of CMA which seems twice as thick now as when I left home. More papanca. Off for a quick swim and somanassa with lobha... Hope to speak from Bodhgaya;-);-) Metta, Sarah ====== 37542 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:45pm Subject: Only Understanding Opens ... BlankFriends: The Power of Comprehension: By Faith one crosses the Flood.. By Awareness one traverses the Ocean.. By Effort one reaches beyond Pain.. By Understanding one is all Purified... Sutta Nipata 184 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.phtml?prod_id=201818 Bhikkhus & Friends, this Supreme State of Sublime Peace has been discerned by the Well-Gone-One, that is Release through Not-Clinging by Understanding as they actually are: The Origination of, the Ceasing of, the Gratification of, the Danger of, & the Escape from the 6 sources of Contact: The Eye, Ear, Nose, Mouth, Body and Mind ... Majjhima Nikaya 102 [ii 238] "Five & Three" http://www.pariyatti.com/book.phtml?prod_id=25072X We have to do the effort ourselves, as nobody can purify another. The Buddha's only rediscover & point out & explain this ancient Way. Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. 37543 From: plnao Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:25pm Subject: LIberation is not only conceptual (was Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play) Hello Herman and all How have you all been? Self attempted to dictate a break from Dhamma discussion in order to concentrate on other projects but as always self is unable to control things in this way. An undeniable desire to continue to develop my understanding of the Buddha's teaching together with others moves my hands to the keyboard! There is no stopping it. At least my hands are not being moved to throttle someone - yet. Herman :> > >>Death, like liberation, are entirely and only conceptual events. > > >>Unless, like the citta-vithi theorists (and KenH :-)) who hold > > that > > >>conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events. Liberation can *certainly* be experienced, even by beginners, as a "knowable ultimate event", if that is to mean free of language, free of concept, as something that is directly experienced to the degree that a beginner like myself is able to experience it. And it can be experienced as a finite event that rises and falls away. Perhaps those of us who are prone to bursts of aversion-rooted anger can understand this most clearly. When one begins to come to understand the great web of conditions that underlies anger (I'm currently reading Nina's "Conditions" - highly recommended) one begins to see it clearly when it arises, as not-self, as impermanent, as dukkha. There are countless opportunities in daily life, for me at least, to see this kind of irritation rising and falling away very clearly. Understanding, even to a basic degree, the first and second noble truths allows us detachment from believing this dosa to be self. Surely we've all experienced such liberation from anger! There are real moments of liberation there. I don't care if dosa is called paramittha dhamma, or daramittha phamma or shake boppa looppa, it is real and experienceable in the moment - it rises and falls away beyond my control, due to conditions. And when panna sees this, it conditions the arising of further moments of liberation. I mean, is there any doubt about this? How could there be? Hasn't your own experience shown you this? These moments of liberation from suffering, though nothing resembling the liberation that the enlightened experience, allow me to start every day in great gratitude to the Buddha, and this gratitude arises during the day, in a way that cannot be controlled, and falls away again as moha floods up again. Liberation is not just a conceptual experience, surely, and believing so is an indication, in my opinion, of the faith faculty being entirely disabled. The Buddha teaches that faith is a faculty to be developed, along with wisdom, concentration, energy and mindfulness. It's wise to be cautious in one's faith, but if one is unable even to recognize that the Buddha's teaching liberates people in a real way, I would say the balance is off. Let's all take note of any gratitude to the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha that does or does not arise through our busy (I assume) daily lives. This is not piety, or neuroticism. It is understanding and appreciating fairly basic aspects of the Buddha's teaching. Metta, Phil 37544 From: Egbert Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:41pm Subject: Re: Games People Play Hi Howard, Thanks for your post. I found it very clarifying. ==== It is possible, I suppose, that you believe that there are no aspects of experience, and cannot be, that are free of conceptual construction. (The Theravadin, Buddhist academic, David Kalupahana, seems to take that position, BTW.) If that is your view, then that is an area of difference between us. ==== This difference can be a flavoursome spice :-) ==== I think that there are, even for worldlings, basic elements of our experience that are free of conceptual construction, though we are largely ignorant of those phases of the cognitive process. I think so, because were that not so, there would be 1) a problem of infinite (constructive) regress involved, and 2) the impossibility of full enlightenment. So, although I do not interpret paramattha > dhammas quite as others here do, still I do not see the paramattha vs sammuti dichotomy as an empty distinction. > ------------------------------------------------- If you feel inclined, I would love to read more of your thoughts on points 1 and 2 above. ==== > > I don't think so. Anything distinguishable and separable from the > > whole can only become so by a process of abstraction. What is there, > > when there is no thinking? > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I follow you, Herman. Yet I have no problem distinguishing hardness from sound. They are distinguishable. See what I mean? >What is there when there is no thinking? That. (And still, without > thinking, our hands fly to our ears when the sound is deafening!) > ------------------------------------------------ Well pointed out! Kind Regards Herman 37545 From: Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/15/04 7:41:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > I think that there are, even for worldlings, basic elements of our > experience that are free of conceptual construction, though we are > largely ignorant of those phases of the cognitive process. I think > so, because were that not so, there would be 1) a problem of > infinite (constructive) regress involved, and 2) the impossibility > of full enlightenment. So, although I do not interpret paramattha > >dhammas quite as others here do, still I do not see the paramattha > vs sammuti dichotomy as an empty distinction. > >------------------------------------------------- > > If you feel inclined, I would love to read more of your thoughts on > points 1 and 2 above. > ============================= I haven't thought these out in great detail, so what I say will be very sketchy. With regard to the first: If every experience we have is a conceptual construct that is an assembly of other such constructs, then there are either infinitely many experiences involved, or recursion involved, or both, but, in any case, it seems to me to become a matter of a house of cards without foundation. Oddly, I have no problem with a similar infinite chain as regards ordinary conditionality (causality). I have no problem, assuming (as I do) a no-beginning to "existence", with the idea that whatever phenomena arise do so in dependence on other co-occurring and pre-occurring similarly dependent phenomena. But in terms of conceptual fabrication, the analogous situation just doesn't make sense to me. It strikes me that a conceptual construct must be built on (or composed of) a finite number of components, not an infinite number. Perhaps that reflects limited imagination on my part. ;-) My perspective on the second point has weaker foundation. About the best I can say is the following: To me, ignorance is concept-based, and wisdom amounts to seeing through our conceptual errors (and seeing through the concepts themselves). But without a foundation of conceptually unmediated experience, there is no basis for evaluating conceptual structures as correct or incorrect - there is no criterion for detecting error. 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) 37546 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:53pm Subject: Re: Scholar Dighanankha --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: >> Here, for example, is Buddhaghosa on the sun and moon: > > candama.n.dala.m ekuunapa~n~naasayojana.m > suuriyama.n.dala.m pa~n~naasayojana.m > > "The diameter of the moon is 49 yojanas (= 784 km) > "The diameter of the sun is 50 yojanas." (= 800 km) > > (Paramatthajotikaa -- Selasuttava.n.nanaa) > > Now what do such statements tell us about the commentators? I > think they tell us that they were fallible men who were not above > venturing into groundless speculation and presenting as truths > assertions based on saddhaa, or ruci, or anussava or takka. > . the point is, though there is much in > the Suttas that I have not personally verified, there is nothing > that contradicts what I know to be true. The same does not apply > to the Commentaries. ========= Dear Dighanaka, How can we be sure that Buddhaghoisa wasn't referring to the moon and sun in relation to the size they appear on the horizon, or in some other way. Or is this a point that is stressed as been of importance by Buddhaghosa? It is good you have faith in the suttas but then sometimes there are things the suttas say about the moon and sun that (on the surface) seems to contradict what we think is true. Take the common passage about the pwoers of those with mastery of jhana: "Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn11.html I don't know how they touch the sun with their hands, but like you I don't doubt the suttas on this matter. But you can imagine some academics might look twice at such a passage; and even say that it shows the Buddha wasn't infallallible! They might consider such passages to be cause to doubt the whole teaching. RobertK 37547 From: Andrew Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:50pm Subject: Re: Objective and Subjective Scientist Herman Hi Herman Sorry for being slow ... cars breaking down and houses needing paint etc. ]--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: [snip] > I think it is useful to distinguish between subjective and objective > sources of experience. I have no doubt that devas are and have been > a reality for folks. What seems to set devas apart from my Mum, for > example, is that a deva is not a shared reality. > > In Maha-samaya Sutta (DN 20) the Buddha enumerates to a group of > 500, mostly arahants, all the devas and other-wordly beings that > have gathered to pay homage to him. The 500 did not see what the > Buddha saw. > > As opposed to my Mum, who on appearing in a room requires no > announcing, mostly by virtue of her imposing figure :-). > > There are many experiences I have had which I have confirmed to have > only been experienced by me, though there were others present. I > think there is room to scientifically differentiate between those > experiences that have an origin external to the mind, which are > sharable, and those that are purely mind-made, which are private. > > What do you reckon? Andrew: I can certainly identify with your experience here. My only query is: how shareable is an experience external to the mind? When you are in a court of law listening to witness after witness testify on oath about a "common experience" (something they all heard/saw), it soon becomes clear that the experience was different for each. Each remembers things differently - often *radically* differently. Yes, some of the witnesses are deliberately lying. But most aren't. I think the human mind and consciousness are incredibly complex - it is indeed like trying to separate the ingredients in a soup to sort things out. And what about the witnesses who all say much the same thing? I suppose that shows that powerful external conditions (like a loud bang) are "shareable" (something about that word seems out of context; it almost implies a "giving" - but who is the "giver"?) End of random thoughts! (-: Andrew T 37548 From: Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Scholar Dighanankha Hi, Robert (and Dighanakha) - In a message dated 10/15/04 10:54:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Take the common passage > about the powers of those with mastery of jhana: > "Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. > With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so > mighty and powerful' > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn11.html > I don't know how they touch the sun with their hands, but like you I > don't doubt the suttas on this matter. ======================== In other suttas the Buddha has spoken of a mind-made body that can be removed from the physical body like withdrawing a sword from its scabbord. That sounds to me like what Theosophists and other occultists call an etheric body or an astral body. Perhaps it is such that is referred to here, flying through space and touching moon and stars. Likewise for the rest of that paragraph: "Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land." That might be an explanation, don't you think? (Not that this is of any importance as regards the Dhamma!) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37549 From: Andrew Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:02pm Subject: Re: Conceptual Right View --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Dear Andrew T, > Thanks for chiming in here. You are getting at the crux of the > matter, viz. BB's comments in the introduction to Discourse on Right > View... > > Sarah and I both reject his interpretation of the sutta because both > the words of the sutta and the commentary strongly suggest a 'direct > veiw' rather than 'proper opinion' interpretation. One of Sarah's > recent posts on the topic discuss this in more detail. > > However, it seems that Sarah accepts his formulation ("to arrive at > direct penetration, one must begin with a correct conceptual grasp of > the teaching ...") but that this particular sutta does not support > the view. > > Me? I don't buy the formulation at all. What about you? Hi Dan D You're outta town, I know, so I'm not holding my breath for a response to this post. Sarah's right, isn't she, in the sense that an incorrect conceptual grasp of the teaching excludes direct penetration. They simply can't co-exist. A correct conceptual grasp implies panna but because the object is not parramattha, direct penetration is excluded. But panna helps condition more panna, as needed for direct penetration. Someone will tell me if I've completely missed (or mangled) the point! Best wishes Andrew T 37550 From: Andrew Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:12pm Subject: Re: Games People Play Hi Herman I've interspersed some comments below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > What follows from me is entirely conceptual. > > A > Conceptual thinking about past and future isn't Satipatthana, > according to the Abhidhammikas. Just as we can't choose the timing > of our death, I suspect we can't choose the timing of our > liberation either. IMHO that depends upon accumulations, > defilements and conditions including the presence of appropriate > volition and wisdom. But you've heard all that before ... > > > > It is not controversial, I believe, to state that there is a level > of being at which we can choose the timing of our death, and many > people do choose the timing of their death. Andrew: Strictly speaking, I think all we can really say is that some beings choose the APPROXIMATE time of their death. Can you give an example of a person who chooses the PRECISE time of their death? We don't control ALL the necessary conditions to achieve this. Of course, this level is supported by a level of being in which neither choice or death or > time mean anything. At this more basic level, liberation is also > quite meaningless. > > Death, like liberation, are entirely and only conceptual events. > Unless, like the citta-vithi theorists (and KenH :-)) who hold that > conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events. Which is > basically the same as holding that Newton's mechanics apply at a > quantum level. What to do about Mr Heisenberg's objection that > knowing an event alters it? Ah, the uncertainty of it all :-) Andrew: Interesting. When the Buddha knew that one of the bhikkhus had died and was able to say where rebirth had occurred, did the Buddha's knowing affect the rebirth? Best wishes Andrew T 37551 From: Andrew Date: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:55pm Subject: Re: Scholar Dighanankha Dear Dighanakha Thanks for another long, considered and interesting reply. I had come across the Canki Sutta and been very impressed with it. Outright honesty. So vital to keeping "faith" from turning into "blind faith" or masquerading as "science". Don't read anything into my wild snipping below, it's just that time is limited at the moment so I will stick to some main ideas. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: > > So, the problem with such a view being upheld by the commentators > is not that it is bizarre, but that it is demonstrably false and > could have known to be false by the commentators themselves, had > they bothered to check. Likewise for many of the other putatively > scientific claims that they made. Andrew: I have just been looking at the Commentary to the Discourse on Right View. When discussing nutriment, the commentator lists some rather unscientific beliefs about animal diets but it is always in conjunction with "they say" eg "they say" crocodiles eat stones which dissolve as soon as they reach the stomach. "They say" clearly indicates that these matters are not being touted as fact. Has Bhikkhu Bodhi translated this correctly? > Here, for example, is Buddhaghosa on the sun and moon: > > candama.n.dala.m ekuunapa~n~naasayojana.m > suuriyama.n.dala.m pa~n~naasayojana.m > > "The diameter of the moon is 49 yojanas (= 784 km) > "The diameter of the sun is 50 yojanas." (= 800 km) > > (Paramatthajotikaa -- Selasuttava.n.nanaa) Andrew: Should "they say" appear in this translation in context? [snip] > I suspect you haven't been around much. If you go and study at > the feet of Burmese abhidhammikas, you will find that most > of them teach Abhidhamma as dogma and the pedagogy is EXACTLY > like that of a Catholic or a Communist Party catechism class. Andrew: It's been decades since anybody told me off for not listening in catechism class! Thanks for the memories! (-: Seriously, though, why do these Abhidhammikas behave in this way? Is it purely a power or towing-the-corporate-line thing? Could it be that cynicism is such a debilitating and "muddying" thing that it needs to be suspended for a time (by a water-clearing gem) so that clarity about the teachings can be achieved, this then leading on to an ability to test the teachings better? There is so much in the teachings one could have doubts about from anger-eating yakkhas to magnificent deva palaces. On DSG from time to time there are passionate debates about sabhava and so on. None of its a problem if we stick to the Canki Sutta, is it? Re Buddhaghosa, I was surprised you didn't mention what I personally consider is the strongest point in your armoury - the Buddha predicting the decline of his teaching. Social pressure, economic pressure and peer pressure are constants and there have been many exceptional individuals who have been able to resist succumbing to them. Whether Buddhaghosa was one of them, I honestly don't know. Best wishes Andrew T 37552 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:06am Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Right View Hi Howard, When I said the Buddha "never taught conventionally" I didn't mean he didn't use concepts. Sorry for giving the wrong impression. --------------- . . . H: > For example, look at the Satta Sutta, ... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' ----------- Howard: What is this "one" who is "caught up there, tied up there"? -------------- Apart from the question of concepts and realities, what does it mean that one is "caught up" in the khandhas? . I know that, at some stage (arahantship?), the khandhas are no longer subject to clinging. I suppose that is when one is no longer caught up in them, but I don't remember the details. Do you? ---------------------------- H: > The Buddha knew there is no thing that is a person, but he taught using that concept. Can you imagine his trying to formulate the foregoing sentence without the use of concepts? --------------------------- Maybe not, but I can imagine it purely in concepts that refer to realities. In that sentence, the concepts "Radha" and "one" refer to a being, which is also a concept, but the remaining concepts refer to realities. ---------------------- "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play." Howard: What is "Radha"? If the Buddha didn't use the above conventional sentence, but spoke only using names for paramattha dhammas, he could not have taught anything! ------------------------ I think I know what you are saying: The Buddha used similes (just as Htoo uses "king and retinue" for "citta and cetasikas"); otherwise he could not have described the paramattha dhammas he was teaching. It's nice that we can agree occasionally, but there still remains the Sammaditthi Sutta, about which you said, "To me, items 1 through 4, and 6 are uncontestably conceptual and conventional." Do you simply mean they contain concepts, or do you mean they contain a conventional teaching? Ken H 37553 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:59am Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Dear Htoo, Thanks for your reply. I think I know what you mean about mixing pannatti and paramattha dhamma and I liked your story about "Nama and rupa is hitting nama and rupa!" :-) However, I prefer to think that pannatti and paramattha dhamma do not mix. Needless to say, an object (arammana) is either one or the other, never a mixture. In a moment of satipatthana, there is no idea of people, places and conventional activities. Conversely, in a moment of pannatti, there is no satipatthana. I know just about all I want to know about conventional reality, but there's an awful lot I need to know about ultimate reality. It seems to be vitally important that I don't confuse the two. Ken H 37554 From: Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: Conventional Right View, and Ultimate Ri... Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/16/04 6:06:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > It's nice that we can agree occasionally, but there still remains > the Sammaditthi Sutta, about which you said, "To me, items 1 through > 4, and 6 are uncontestably conceptual and conventional." Do you > simply mean they contain concepts, or do you mean they contain a > conventional teaching? > ======================== What they are *ultimately* about, what everything is ultimately about, particularly as understood by an arahant, are direct elements of experience, unmediated by concept. However, the matters being discussed in items 1 through 4 and 6 involve such incredible complexity of relation that their communication requires the use of an extremely high level of conceptualization, and would be utterly impossible to convey at a level closer to that of direct "paramatthic" experience. All communication (and thought) is a matter of convention and conceptualizing, but some topics require more of this, and some less. I don't think that we are on different pages in this matter, but have been differing on formulation of the matter. If, in saying that the Buddha never taught conventionally you are merely recognizing that the Buddha didn't attribute anything more than conventional reality to "conventional entities" and that he was not taken in by concepts, I agree. But, again, we *must* think and communicate conventionally, using concepts. For example, consider the TRUE STATEMENT "I woke up late this morning ... at ten," and contemplate what would be required to fully reformulate this in terms even somewhat close to the "paramatthic level," not that I even think there IS a pure paramatthic level for speech. This perfectly clear and true statement would have to be replaced by a discourse larger than the combined texts of all the libraries across the world! 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) 37555 From: Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi, Ken (and Htoo) - In a message dated 10/16/04 7:01:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > I know just about all I want to know about conventional reality, but > there's an awful lot I need to know about ultimate reality. It seems > to be vitally important that I don't confuse the two. > ====================== It IS vitally important to not confuse the two, but this avoidance of confusion cannot be attained just by definitions and attempting to "unpack" all sentences into forms closer to a paramatthic level. Also, there is "knowing" and there is "knowing". The "knowing" about ultimate reality that consists in learning facts is, in fact, a conceptual knowing and is not the knowing that liberates. Some contemplation and study along these lines is, of course, worthwhile, but, as I see it, coming to really see what is what, and to distinguish what seems from what is, requires the full program of practice laid out by the Buddha, especially including a regular mindfulness practice, whether including "formal meditation" or not, cultivating the mind and leading to a direct knowing. As the Zen folks say: "Look! Look!" ;-) 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) 37556 From: dighanakha Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:34am Subject: Re: Scholar Dighanankha Hello Robert. dig>> Here, for example, is Buddhaghosa on the sun and moon: dig>> "The diameter of the moon is 49 yojanas (= 784 km) dig>> "The diameter of the sun is 50 yojanas." (= 800 km) dig>> (Paramatthajotikaa -- Selasuttava.n.nanaa) dig>> Now what do such statements tell us about the commentators? dig>> I think they tell us that they were fallible men who were dig>> not above venturing into groundless speculation and dig>> presenting as truths assertions based on saddhaa, or ruci, dig>> or anussava or takka. R> How can we be sure that Buddhaghoisa wasn't referring to the R> moon and sun in relation to the size they appear on the R> horizon, or in some other way. You be the judge: "The sun deity, having given light all day, goes down and darkness returns. Living beings think: 'Wouldn't it be good if there were another light like that!' Then the moon deity, knowing their chanda (desire), arises. For that reason he is given the name 'canda' ('moon'). The moon deity lives in a mansion made of quartz on the inside and silver on the outside. Both the interior and exterior of the mansion are very cold. The sun deity lives in a mansion made of gold on the inside and quartz on the outside. Both the interior and exterior of the mansion are very hot. "The length of the moon's polar axis is 49 yojanas. Its circumference is 250 yojanas. The length of the sun's polar axis is 50 yojanas. Its circumference is 250 yojanas. The moon is below, the sun is above. They are situated one yojana apart. The distance from the lowest point of the moon to the highest point of the sun is 100 yojanas. The moon rotates slowly, but orbits quickly. Constellations of stars revolve on both sides of the moon. The moon moves close to them like a cow approaching her calf, but the stars do not move from their place. The sun revolves quickly on its polar axis, but orbits slowly. For six months the moon and sun move away from Mt. Sineru, then for six months they orbit towards it .... etc. etc." (from the Commentary on the Agga~n~na Sutta) R> Or is this a point that is stressed as been of importance R> by Buddhaghosa? He repeats the statistics in five different commentaries, so I assume he did think it was something we need to know about. As for your sun and moon on the horizon theory, well that only makes matters worse. The sun and moon as perceived on the horizon have no fixed size at all. Whether one measures them by holding up a finger or by noting landmarks on the horizon, their size will vary according to the season, the kind of horizon (plains, seascapes and mountainscapes will all refract the light in different ways), the observer's distance from the horizon, and the angle from which he views them. R> "Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged R> bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and R> moon, so mighty and powerful' R> I don't know how they touch the sun with their hands, but R> like you I don't doubt the suttas on this matter. But you R> can imagine some academics might look twice at such a R> passage; and even say that it shows the Buddha wasn't R> infallallible! I've never met an academic who said such a thing, but if I do I'll just say, "Listen sonny, if you don't believe humans have the elasticity to touch the sun and moon, just go to dsg and watch how Robert and Sarah stretch themselves defending Nagasena and Buddhaghosa!" :-) (sorry, moderators, couldn't resist it) Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37557 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Howard: Hi, Ken (and Htoo) - It IS vitally important to not confuse the two, but this avoidance of confusion cannot be attained just by definitions and attempting to "unpack" all sentences into forms closer to a paramatthic level. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: That is true. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Also, there is "knowing" and there is "knowing". The "knowing" about ultimate reality that consists in learning facts is, in fact, a conceptual knowing and is not the knowing that liberates. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Yes. I would say 'still not penetrated the thick layer of the darkness'. Understanding of dhamma is good. But just understanding for a while while in contemplation is not a real understanding. The is the point why some people( who have learnt a lot ) are apparently annoying when they face with what they do not like. Some are much annoyed that they have the mind that shows willingness to kill. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Some contemplation and study along these lines is, of course, worthwhile, but, as I see it, coming to really see what is what, and to distinguish what seems from what is, requires the full program of practice laid out by the Buddha, especially including a regular mindfulness practice, whether including "formal meditation" or not, cultivating the mind and leading to a direct knowing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I do not know why some people deny formal meditation. I would define formal meditation as 'a meditation method which was formed by The Buddha'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: As the Zen folks say: "Look! Look!" ;-) 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) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Forgive me if I am intruding others' belief. Whenever I read 'Heart Sutra' I cannot proceed forward. Howard, could you explain 'the essence of Diamond Sutra'? With Metta, Htoo Naing 37558 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:24pm Subject: Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Ken H: Dear Htoo, ..snip.. However, I prefer to think that pannatti and paramattha dhamma do not mix. Needless to say, an object (arammana) is either one or the other, never a mixture. In a moment of satipatthana, there is no idea of people, places and conventional activities. Conversely, in a moment of pannatti, there is no satipatthana. I know just about all I want to know about conventional reality, but there's an awful lot I need to know about ultimate reality. It seems to be vitally important that I don't confuse the two. Ken H ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Very good. So as long as pannatti is the arammana of the citta, it is not satipatthana, do you agree? All rupa jhanas have arammanas and these arammanas are all pannatti, do you agree? With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37559 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:29pm Subject: Re: India 1 Sarah: ...snip...snip... It'll at least be good to lessen the weight of my day-pack when I hand her a copy of CMA which seems twice as thick now as when I left home. More papanca. Off for a quick swim and somanassa with lobha... Hope to speak from Bodhgaya;-);-) Metta, Sarah ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Sarah, Thanks for your sharing regarding trip to India. For me, I am swimming in the dhamma pool with somanassa. :-) Some may say lobha. When you swam, did you control your limbs? :-) With Metta, Htoo Naing 37560 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:32pm Subject: Re: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 20 ) by Htoo & conclusion Rob M: Hi Htoo, ..snip..snip.. You are correct, it was an effort. I want to incorporate all of your feedback and get it printed by the end of the year, so that it is ready for the beginning of my next year's class. I can't thank you enough for your detailed corrections and comments. Metta, Rob M :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Rob M, Actually I must thank you. You sent me with readable form. Otherwise, I could not have read your ebook at Files section. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37561 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:56pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 091 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Ahirika and anottappa are 2 akusala cetasikas that always work together. They are the right wing and the left wing of the akusala king-cetasika moha. Ahirika is a cetasika or a mental factor that always arises with each of akusala cittas. Ahirika is shamelessness. It is shameless. It advises the citta not to be shameful. And it also advises all other associated cetasikas not to be shameful. Becuase of it presence, all mental faculties including citta and its associated cetasikas become shameless. Ahirika is absence of inhibititon. This inhibition is the nature that would otherwise speculate on the possible bad consequences and would inhibit doing the action that may lead to bad consequences because of shame. Its view is with shamefulness. Absence of this shame then makes every akusala possible. The friend of ahirika who always works with him is anottappa cetasika. It is fearlessness. It advises the king citta not to be fearful in doing things that might lead to bad consequences. And it also advises all other associated cetasikas not to be fearful. In the presence of anottappa, any akusala is quite possible. These include from minor ones to the greatest ones like 'anantariya kamma' or the most wicked akusala which invlove patricide, matricide, division of the Sangha, killing of arahats, and harming to The Live Buddha causing brusing. Anottappa is also a kind of disinhibition. This disinhibition is with the view of fearlessness regarding the possible consequences of the current actions. Both of these two friends, ahirika and anottappa, are led by moha who is the leader of all akusala. Again, in the presence of moha or darkness, ahirika and anottappa will not see or speculate on the future and on the possible consequences of the current actions. While ahirika does not see the possible consequences because he is disinhibited with shamelessness, anottappa also does not see the possible consequences because he is disinhibited with fearlessness. Both friends are disinhibitions. But one of disinhibition is without shame and another is without fear. As there is difference, these 2 cetasikas stand as separate cetasikas. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37562 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:04pm Subject: Re: Games People Play Hi Andrew, Thanks for the ongoing food for thought :-) Some more to crunch on below. > > > > It is not controversial, I believe, to state that there is a level > > of being at which we can choose the timing of our death, and many > > people do choose the timing of their death. > > Andrew: Strictly speaking, I think all we can really say is that some > beings choose the APPROXIMATE time of their death. Can you give an > example of a person who chooses the PRECISE time of their death? We > don't control ALL the necessary conditions to achieve this. ==== Personally I do not accept that there is such a thing as a precise time of death. In a complex, interdependent organism part of the organism can be dead, while another part can still be alive. The historical record has many gruesome occurences of death as a definition having been contradicted by the observed phenomena of what was relegated to the morgue "coming back" to life. Who knows how many human beings have been buried or cremated alive? Defined ultimate events such as cuti-citta are, in my book, poor philosophy following poor science. > Of course, this level is supported by a level of being in which > neither choice or death or > > time mean anything. At this more basic level, liberation is also > > quite meaningless. > > > > Death, like liberation, are entirely and only conceptual events. > > Unless, like the citta-vithi theorists (and KenH :-)) who hold that > > conceptual events are based in knowable ultimate events. Which is > > basically the same as holding that Newton's mechanics apply at a > > quantum level. What to do about Mr Heisenberg's objection that > > knowing an event alters it? Ah, the uncertainty of it all :-) > > Andrew: Interesting. When the Buddha knew that one of the bhikkhus had died and was able to say where rebirth had occurred, did the Buddha's knowing affect the rebirth? I do not know the specific intentions of the Buddha in predicting the unpredictable (why do you think the number of rebirths for a sotapanna is not fixed?), but I do know that the intention behind the Buddha's life time was to teach. And he taught the end of suffering. Kind Regards Herman 37563 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Scholar Dighanankha Hi to all those involved in this discussion, Just a general comment. The infallibility of the pope is a belief held dear by billions of members of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and nurtured by those who benefit from it. The infallibility of the Theravadan tradition is likewise held by millions, and similarly nurtured. What is observable in day to day life is the human condition, which for many involves the need for authority. This much can be known, while the infallibility of a tradition cannot. Those who argue from a position of the infallibility of their tradition would do well to come to understand the basis for their conviction. We will be away for a few days, and there are still some unanswered posts, including one from Phil, so I apologise for any delay. Enjoy the discussions Kind Regards Herman 37564 From: Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Hi, Htoo - In a message dated 10/16/04 5:21:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > Forgive me if I am intruding others' belief. Whenever I read 'Heart > Sutra' I cannot proceed forward. Howard, could you explain 'the > essence of Diamond Sutra'? > > ========================= Shall I explain these while standing on one foot? ;-)) More seriously, these are very deep and difficult sutras, and people far more knowledgeable of Mahayana than I would have trouble explaining them. The essence of the Diamond Sutra, I believe, is the distinction between conventional and ultimate truth, and the emptiness (lack of independence) of dhammas. The material from the Diamond Sutra I have as my signature line, of course, is easy to grasp, dealing as it does with the radical impermanence of all phenomena. Inasmuch as these sutras are not from the Pali canon, and are not, IMO, the direct word of the Buddha, I'm not really sure that it makes much sense to pursue them on DSG. If you (and others) would like to form an informal, offlist email group to discuss these suttas trying to figure out what they are about as related to the Dhamma as given in the Tipitaka, or even to set up a Yahoo group for such discussions, I will be happy to participate! Maybe such a Yahoo group would be of value. Let's talk about it. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37565 From: Andrew Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Scholar Dighanankha --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi to all those involved in this discussion, > > Just a general comment. > > The infallibility of the pope is a belief held dear by billions of > members of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and nurtured by those who > benefit from it. > > The infallibility of the Theravadan tradition is likewise held by > millions, and similarly nurtured. > > What is observable in day to day life is the human condition, which > for many involves the need for authority. This much can be known, > while the infallibility of a tradition cannot. > > Those who argue from a position of the infallibility of their > tradition would do well to come to understand the basis for their > conviction. > > We will be away for a few days, and there are still some unanswered > posts, including one from Phil, so I apologise for any delay. Hi Herman Enjoy your few days off. A comment for your return. From this post and others, I get the strong impression that for you, "faith" is interwoven with "authority". The faithful are those who succumb to authority; the unfaithful are those who reject authority. For me, this analysis is far too simplistic. Yes, as a RC, you had to succumb. But my experience in Buddhism has been very different. I have never been told that I must adopt a belief or leave. Instead, I have been told "Look, this may sound strange to you now but it's what the teachings say. Think about it in this context or put it aside for a while and concentrate on the things that your experience demonstrates are accurate ..." It has never been power authoritarianism. For my brand of Dhamma, the faithful are not those who succumb to authority but those who refuse to succumb to every wave of cynicism that sweeps over them. Dighanakha shows that one can be cynical about Buddhaghosa and yet maintain a strong faith in the Dhamma. Others are not prepared to "give up on" Buddhaghosa. There's little to be achieved by sniping at one another. We just follow the Canki Sutta and say "my belief is ..." or "my approach is ..." In short, having faith doesn't necessarily make you a sheep quaking under the shepherd's staff! (-: Best wishes Andrew T 37566 From: plnao Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:51pm Subject: The indispensability of Pali Hello all This is a key phrase repeated four times in the Buddha's first discourse, in three different translations available at access to insight. "Such was the vision, the knowledge, the understanding, the finding, the light, that arose in regard to ideas not heard by me before." "Such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me concerning things not heard before " Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before" This a good reminder that we don't have to go far into the Suttanta before we are reminded that it is impossible to begin to fully understand suttas without turning to Pali for clarification of key phrases, unless we want to take a leap of faith and try to guess at the meaning of each abstract noun that appears. I suppose some would say "rely upon yourself," the most tragically misinterpreted words in the Canon, in my beginner's opinion. Of course, referring to Pali is only a step in the right direction, only a step closer to the words that came out of the Buddha's mouth. Fortunately, we also have ancient commentaries to turn to. The authors were much closer to the source than any of us here - that much is for sure, no matter how we doubt (rightfully) their full reliability. Metta, Phil 37567 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:05pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Sammaditthi Sutta: / Htoo Dear Howard, Thanks for your reply. Sometimes, I might try it. But as I said, I am stopped on the way while sutras are touched. But whenever I touch suttas, vinaya, abhidhamma I am dragged along from the start to the end. With Metta, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Htoo - > > In a message dated 10/16/04 5:21:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > htootintnaing@y... writes: > > > Forgive me if I am intruding others' belief. Whenever I read 'Heart > > Sutra' I cannot proceed forward. Howard, could you explain 'the > > essence of Diamond Sutra'? > > > > > ========================= > Shall I explain these while standing on one foot? ;-)) > More seriously, these are very deep and difficult sutras, and people > far more knowledgeable of Mahayana than I would have trouble explaining them. ...snip...> Yahoo group would be of value. Let's talk about it. > > With metta, > Howard 37568 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:13pm Subject: Re: The indispensability of Pali Phil: Hello all This is a key phrase repeated four times in the Buddha's first discourse,in three different translations available at access to insight. "Such was the vision, the knowledge, the understanding, the finding, thelight, that arose in regard to ideas not heard by me before." ..snip..snip.. Fortunately, we also have ancient commentaries to turn to. The authors were much closer to the source than any of us here - that much is for sure,no matter how we doubt (rightfully) their full reliability. Metta, Phil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Phil, In Myanmar these are daily heard. 'Cakkhu.m udapaadi, nana.m udapaadi, pannaa udapaadi, vijja udapaadi, aloko udapaadi.' Cakkhu or vision arises. Nana or knowledge arises. Panna or wisdom arises. Vijja or penetrative wisdom arises. Aloko or direct light arises. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37569 From: Ken O Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play Hi Herman and Andrew Nobody can choose the precise time of death but Arahants who practise the breath comtemplation will know when is their precise time of death :) Ken O 37570 From: Ken O Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard: > Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression. I definitely > believe that the hardness and the knowing (or experiential presence) of the hardness, though inseparable, are distinguishable, just as outside and inside of a sphere are inseparable but distinguishable. k: If hardness experience at that moment is distinguish with the knowing of the hardness, then in the first instance, what is that recognise the hardness to distinguish it between the knowing of the hardness. There must be something that recognise hardness if we would to distinguish between hardness and the knowing of the hardness. Could you tell me more about your thinking in this? Ken O 37571 From: Andrew Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:00pm Subject: Re: Games People Play Dear Ken O and Herman (in absentia) Thanks for your extra comment, Ken O. What do you think about this view of Herman's: > Personally I do not accept that there is such a thing as a precise > time of death. In a complex, interdependent organism part of the > organism can be dead, while another part can still be alive. [snip] Defined ultimate events such as cuti-citta are, in my book, poor > philosophy following poor science. If I can use my preferred terminology for a moment, Herman is saying that nama-rupa is a composite "interdependent organism", the parts of which die at separate times. In that case, there should be more than one cuti-cittas. The claim that there is only one cuti-citta per nama-rupa stream lifetime indicates to me that a nama-rupa stream should be viewed as a (conventional) whole dependent upon (ultimate) parts. For the cuti- citta to be characterised as a "defined ultimate event", this requires the ultimate parts to fall away in unison. Right? Is "death" one moment ie does "death" equal cuti-citta? Or is "death" a process, the final namic moment of which is cuti-citta? What are your thoughts on that? Best wishes Andrew T 37572 From: Andrew Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:09pm Subject: Re: The indispensability of Pali --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: [snip] > This a good reminder that we don't have to go far into the Suttanta before > we are reminded that it is impossible to begin to fully understand suttas > without turning to Pali for clarification of key phrases, unless we want to > take a leap of faith and try to guess at the meaning of each abstract noun > that appears. Hi Phil For what it's worth, I have always thought that studying Theravadan Buddhism without having anything to do with Pali is like trying to become an expert on Roman literature without learning Latin. This is where scholars play such a useful role - in deciphering meanings and shades of meanings. But direct insight is ultimately up to us ... Best wishes Andrew T 37573 From: Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/16/04 11:07:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > k: If hardness experience at that moment is distinguish with the > knowing of the hardness, then in the first instance, what is that > recognise the hardness to distinguish it between the knowing of the > hardness. There must be something that recognise hardness if we > would to distinguish between hardness and the knowing of the > hardness. Could you tell me more about your thinking in this? > ======================== I think the distinguishing is after the fact. When "I experience the hardness," there is just the hardness. There is no me that is known, and there is no knowing that is known (at least not dualistically, as a subject knows an object). There is just the hardness as an experiential presence. This is the way it appears to me. More than this I can't say. 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) 37574 From: nori Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:32pm Subject: Pride and right view What is pride ? Pride is taking delight, taking pleasure in measuring oneself in regard to others. It is an ignoble pleasure. Some take pride in their view, their virtue and works. Some are motivated in their actions to this end, for obtaining this ignoble delight. I for one am not yet completely free of this defilement, but I am glad at least I see it. There can be no right view when ones view is possessed by this, or any other inclinations. ---- Sutta-Nipâta IV. ATTHAKAVAGGA 3. DUTTHATTHAKASUTTA 2. How can he who is led by his wishes and possessed by his inclinations overcome his own (false) view? Doing his own doings let him talk according to his understanding[4]. 4. SUDDHATTHAKASUTTA 7. They do not form (any view), they do not prefer (anything), … 4. Let him not form any (philosophical) view in this world, either by knowledge or by virtue and (holy) works, let him not represent himself equal (to others), nor think himself either low or distinguished. 8. They do not form (any view), they do not prefer (anything), the Dhammas are not chosen by them, ... ---- 4. SUDDHATTHAKASUTTA 1. `I see a pure, most excellent, sound man, by his views a man's purification takes place', holding this opinion, and having seen this view to be the highest he goes back to knowledge, thinking to see what is pure. 2. If a man's purification takes place by (his philosophical) views, or he by knowledge leaves pain behind, then he is purified by another (way than the ariyamagga, i.e. the noble way), … 3. But the Brâhmana who does not cling to what has been seen, or heard, to virtue and (holy) works, or to what has been thought, to what is good and to what is evil, and who leaves behind what has been grasped, without doing anything in this world, he does not acknowledge that purification comes from another. --- http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe10/index.htm with metta, nori 37575 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Mike, You wrote: --------------- > Pa~n~naa is a synonym for amoha, sammaadi.t.thi and several other words depending on context. > -------------- Panna doesn't have worldly functions, though, does it? For example, our understanding "1 + 1 = 2" is more a matter of recognition than of understanding. -------------- M: > As I understand it, it is only restricted to paramattha dhammas when used as a synonym for sammaadi.t.thi of the mundane or supramundane path. > --------------- That's where I was going wrong: I was restricting it entirely to satipatthana with only one exception - for jhana. But I am happy to learn it is more wide-ranging. ---------------- M: > In the sense of 'understanding' it certainly can take a concept as an object as I understand it. > ---------------- So Panna can arise to know that the concept 'there is no result from kamma' is wrong and the concept 'there is result from kamma is right.' I like that! Too easy! :-) Ken H 37576 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play Hi Andrew and Herman I get these materials from old posts :) about three types of death. Post no 13767 by Nina << I would like to add a quotation from the Dispeller of Delusion (Commentary to the Book of Analysis of the Abhidhamma) Ch 4, 101, about three kinds of death: Momentary death is the falling away at each moment of the khandhas and conventional death takes place when the dying consciousness falls away. Death as cutting off: the final passing away of the arahat who does not have to be reborn.>> Here is a note from RobK at post 13743. I add { } for clarification << At this moment {talking about one citta moment} this process of arising and passing, birth and death, (khanika marana) occurs but because of ignorance we don't perceive it. But truly we are utterly different from what we were a second ago - the reason we look and feel approximately the same is because similar conditions {because of kamma that condition this conventional life we have :)} arise to replace the mentality and materiality that fell away. At conventional death and new birth the changes are more obvious because different kamma change in kamma will produce results. >> To me this meant that we experienced momentary death in billions of citta times while cuti citta only once which we called conventional death. Regarding Herman assertation is basically base on science. We can be clinically death yet our body is alive, why? There could be reasons, clinically death by medical doctor may not mean we are dead, there are stories that those who are clinically dead in live support system still suddenly awakens :) - because kamma likes to play game and decided that conventional death by cuti citta should not arise. However, there are cases when kamma already conditioned conventional death yet the body still alive, it is because science has managed to infuse nutriments and temperature to rupas, that is why the body is alive. Hence we can still keep some part alive while other part died by science. But if we are experience cuti citta - we are surely conventional dead. So what is clinically dead by today standard - I dont know, cuti citta is still something cannot be detected by modern science yet. Ken O 37577 From: Ken O Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard << I think the distinguishing is after the fact. When "I experience the hardness," there is just the hardness. There is no me that is > known, and there is no knowing that is known (at least not dualistically, as a subject knows an object)>> k: replacing I as citta, then in fact you have experience hardness when citta arise. I think another way of explaining why we can distinguished between hardness and the knowing of hardness. When we experience an hardness in ultimate reality sense, that citta already arise. In the experiential world we live in and not in the world of an Arahant, only after we experience hardness in ultimate reality in the sense process, we are then able to know the presence of hardness in the mental process. I think our experiential is limited in scope so we thought we experience hardness after knowing hardness in the mental process. Ken O 37578 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:36am Subject: "Kira" - "so they say..." was: Re: Scholar Dighanankha Hello Andrew. dig>> So, the problem with such a view being upheld by the dig>> commentators is not that it is bizarre, but that it is dig>> demonstrably false and could have known to be false by the dig>> commentators themselves, had they bothered to check. dig>> Likewise for many of the other putatively scientific claims dig>> that they made. A> I have just been looking at the Commentary to the Discourse A> on Right View. When discussing nutriment, the commentator A> lists some rather unscientific beliefs about animal diets A> but it is always in conjunction with "they say" eg "they A> say" crocodiles eat stones which dissolve as soon as they A> reach the stomach. "They say" clearly indicates that these A> matters are not being touted as fact. Has Bhikkhu Bodhi A> translated this correctly? Probably. The word he has translated as "They say..." is 'kira'. Kira is an adverb usually inserted in a sentence to inform about the status of the speaker's claim. In sub-commentarial glosses its range extends from "It is rumoured that..." to "It is generally known that..." But the most common gloss is mayaa suta.m ("it was heard by me..."; "I heard..."). dig>> Here, for example, is Buddhaghosa on the sun and moon: dig>> candama.n.dala.m ekuunapa~n~naasayojana.m suuriyama.n.dala.m dig>> pa~n~naasayojana.m dig>> "The diameter of the moon is 49 yojanas (= 784 km) "The dig>> diameter of the sun is 50 yojanas." (= 800 km) A> Should "they say" appear in this translation in context? No. You won't see a 'kira' when the commentators are doing cosmology, any more than when they're doing paramattha dhammas. In both cases they were making truth claims and historically these claims were taken as truth wherever the Mahavihara's Dhamma prevailed. And I don't just mean among thick peasants; Ledi Sayadaw, the renowned Burmese abhidhammika, was expounding and defending Buddhaghosa's flat earth geocentric cakkavaala right up to his death in the 1920's. dig>> I suspect you haven't been around much. If you go and study dig>> at the feet of Burmese abhidhammikas, you will find that dig>> most of them teach Abhidhamma as dogma and the pedagogy is dig>> EXACTLY like that of a Catholic or a Communist Party dig>> catechism class. A> It's been decades since anybody told me off for not A> listening in catechism class! Thanks for the memories! (-: A> Seriously, though, why do these Abhidhammikas behave in this A> way? Because they can. Historically Theravada Buddhism in SE Asia faced no serious competition. Unlike the Buddhists in India the SE Asian sanghas were not obliged to defend their teachings against the criticisms of brahmins and Jains. Unlike the Western Church in Europe there was no classical humanist tradition to come to terms with. Lack of competition means you never have to confront any challenges to your views, and this leads to intellectual complacency and dogmatic slumber. In pedagogy this leads naturally to a conformist Hegelian model of education, rather than a Deweyan one. To be educated is to be a passive receptacle into which the corporately approved dogma is poured. A> Is it purely a power or towing-the-corporate-line thing? Probably not. Large institutions and their members are seldom purely this or purely that. Nevertheless I think the corporate factor is a significant one. A> Could it be that cynicism is such a debilitating and A> "muddying" thing that it needs to be suspended for a time A> (by a water-clearing gem) so that clarity about the A> teachings can be achieved, this then leading on to an A> ability to test the teachings better? Sure. I did not myself start out with any strong preconceived views about the Mahavihara commentators. My present view is the result of having read them and compared their take on the Suttas with that of other Indian Buddhist writers who were dealing with a very similar body of texts to the Pali Suttas. My reading lead me to respect Buddhaghosa as a grammarian and lexicographer, but as far as Dhamma is concerned I found the Sautrantika writings generally (though not invariably) fared better when examined in the light of the four great standards. A> Re Buddhaghosa, I was surprised you didn't mention what I A> personally consider is the strongest point in your armoury - A> the Buddha predicting the decline of his teaching. Social A> pressure, economic pressure and peer pressure are constants A> and there have been many exceptional individuals who have A> been able to resist succumbing to them. Whether Buddhaghosa A> was one of them, I honestly don't know. Well, I don't actually have an armoury; just a weeding-hook, and a few other gardening tools. I have not brought up the issue of the predicted decline because I take these teachings as being a warning about the sort of thought and behaviour that is to be avoided if the Sasana is to last, not as guidelines for calculating where the Sasana is at. I'm not an historical determinist and don't envisage the Buddha's predictions as coming to pass in a linear and uniform way, such that one could say: "After n years matters will stand like this." So you're not going to hear me say "Don't trust Buddhaghosa, for he lived a thousand years after the Buddha!" but you might hear me drawing attention to particular developments that happened during those thousand years. For example, I regard the composition of the Buddhavamsa, Cariyapitaka and the two Apadanas, and the controversial inclusion of these in the Khuddaka Nikaya, as symptomatic of a partial and localized degeneration, but not an across-the-board one pertaining to the whole Sasana. The school that wrote these texts introduced an unwarranted element of deliberative teleology into the career of the Bodhisatta and his arahant disciples -- something absent in the first four Nikayas. In so doing they fell into the error Bergson and Sartre call 'illusion retrospective du vrai' (i.e. explaining/inventing what happened before to account for what happened later in someone's life). They were fantasy creations and the subsequent evolution of this way of thinking did much to damage and undermine the teachings concerned with awakening. But this same school also did some useful things like preserving the best version we have of the Majjhima Nikaya and the second best version of the Samyutta Nikaya. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37579 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:25am Subject: India 2 Dear All, The waiting around and queueing yesterday were as bad as I was expecting - well over 3 hrs at Bangkok airport before departure and well over two hours at immigration in Gaya, India, waiting for the one customs official with his assistant to individually process the entire plane load. Actually, I had to go back to his desk a second time as I was given the wrong form, fortunately spotted by our tour guide. Without this, I would not be allowed to leave the country in two weeks time:-). Anyway, the whole experience was made bearable for me by the good spirits and humour, not to mention patience of our group members and all the friendly chats along the way. I had one very brief chat with K.Sujin, as we were picking up our bags, about the authenticity or otherwise of the Milinda-panha. She said it didn't matter at all whether it was Theravadan or anything else or which part of the text a dialogue comes from. If it's helpful, fine. If it's not helpful or if it just leads to thinking, doubt or aversion, just leave it aside. The same with difficult parts of the commentaries. We have so little undestanding so we should just leave anything beyond our understanding, rather than just thinking and doubting. It was dark and getting late as the coaches drove the short distance into Bodh Gaya. They headed straight for the cente near the bo tree. The road in looked just as I recalled from 30 yesrs ago - dark, very dark with a few very simple dwellings and tea-stalls, wandering cattle and dogs, white figures squatting in fields. As we approached Bodh Gaya, I began to see the occasional ragther ugly and modern hotel building springing up on the flat land on either side of the road and then we arrived into the centre, into light, trinket and souvenir stalls everywhere, vendors and beggars, new temple buildings and a new walled enclosue of the Bo tree area. Off the bus after a very long day into the hassle and bustle that is now the centre of Bodh Gaya, into the stupa and bo tree area, shoes off and a walk down a new, wide paved path, lined with all kinds of insects. It was impossible to watch one's feet, watch the insects, watch the beggars and watch where the group was going at the same time. Suddenly Nina and Lodewijk appeared as if were the most natural thing to meet here at the Bo tree. They'd been waiting for us all afternoon and looked as well and cheery as usual. Round the temple and straight to the Bo tree. There were more groups reciting familiar chants, lots of paying respect and into the new inner enclosure around the trunk of the very healthy looking Bo tree which is only opened for one or two hours a day. The ground is now so well swept and walked, there was not a Bo leaf in sight to pick up. We laid our flowes at the base of the trunk and then followed an Indian monk chanting familiar pali stanzas paying respect to the qualities of the Buddha and then he recited the Mangala sutta and there were furtherThai offerings of respect too. It was all very moving and a condition for short respite of respect to the Triple Gem for me and some piti and saddha before making our way back to the bus along the obstacle course of severely deformed and handicapped child beggars who at times literally were under our feet. As we stepped to avoid hurting them, we'd almost fall over or knock each other over. Dosa and metta following each other and of course we all had our different stories about the experiences going on, but for many of us it was also a condition for reflections on kamma and opportunities for metta, karuna and upekkha . I forget when we actually had a chance to have a wash, but was too tired to fuss about the mouse running round our smartish hotel bedroom and bathroom, just like mice used to run around in my tent accommodation when I first came to Bodh Gaya or the Thai temple rooms when I last visited Bodh Gaya with K. Sujin and aThai group;-). When I woke up this morning I wondered how I'd manage more queues, bus-loads, vendors and beggars. Fortunately, K.Sujin suggested any of us could stay behind at the hotel for dhamma discussion so whilst most people went off to visit the place where the Buddha floated his bowl and Suchada gave him milk-rice. K.Sujin, Nina, Jill, Azita, O, Jon and myself sat quietly discussing satipatthana for a long while. When someone asked, K.Sujin said she never thinks about feeling tired or fed up with hearing questions or explaining dhamma. We discussed a lot on attachment to sati andother wholesome states, the importance of khanti (patience), how it's not a matter of trying so hard to understand, pariyatti & conceptual understanding, how without understanding intellectually, realities can never be known directly but again even this intellectual or conceptual understanding has to apply to this moment, not just memorizing or reading texts, understanding what appears like lobha rather than what doesn't appear like phassa or indifferent feeling...Lots more to say, but no time. Most of the group have headed back already into Bodh Gaya (5 mins away from our hotel). Jon and I are resting up, checking DSG and will catch up with them for a ceremony with candles and more chanting at the bo tree this evening. Tomorrow is a long bus-ride to Varanasi (Banares). I'll send another note if I have a chance. Metta, Sarah p.s Htoo, no control by me of limbs whether in the pool or at the bo-tree - just namas and rupas conditioned to perform their various functions;-). ===== 37580 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - ... > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression. I definitely > believe > that the hardness and the knowing (or experiential presence) of the > hardness, > though inseparable, are distinguishable, just as outside and inside of a > sphere > are inseparable but distinguishable. So if it is accepted that there are the 2 dhammas that are hardness (Dh B) and the knowing of hardness (Dh A), their relationship can I think be described by saying that 'Dh A knows Dh B'. After all, without the relationship of one dhamma knowing (or experiencing) another, we would be unable to define consciousness or indeed nama. ... > > I am not aware of any mention in the suttas of a dhamma of > `experiential > > event', and accordingly I do not see this as something that can be the > > > object > > of insight. > > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, perhaps that is what contact is, Jon - the event that is > the > coming together of opened/activated sense door, sense object (or > content), and > sense-door consciousness (or experiential presence). > -------------------------------------- As I said, I'd be interested to see a specific sutta passage. Are you referring to the description of the ayatanas? If so, are you saying that one of the ayatanas is in a class of its own as an 'event'? Jon 37581 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] India 2 Hi Sarah, and all Thanks so much for finding the time and energy to send us a message after such a long day(s), Sarah. Before reading your message, I'd been terribly envious of your pilgrimage...now I'm just....mildly envious! haha Sounds wonderful, really. Please send us more if you have time and say hello to everyone. > before making our way back to the bus along the obstacle course of > severely deformed and handicapped child beggars who at times literally > were under our feet. As we stepped to avoid hurting them, we'd almost > fall over or knock each other over. Dosa and metta following each other > and of course we all had our different stories about the experiences going > on, but for many of us it was also a condition for reflections on kamma > and opportunities for metta, karuna and upekkha . This reminds me of a failure of metta to arise when it could have today. As usual on Sunday, I made the long trip into work in Tokyo and was dog tired when I got back and started off on my long walk home from the station. There is a gauntlet of young people on the promenade from the station handing out various promotional brochures, coupons and whatnot. When I'm tired I make such a story out of my fatigue that there is no room for metta to arise and I brush by the sorry part-time pamphlet pushers without a look. A young fellow with brochures for seaside condominiums followed me and made a pitch in English. "Not interested" I snapped back at him, in Japanese. All these failings of metta, but there is no point in regretting. I see the dosa. I experience the dosa. The dosa is not self - it comes and goes. A few moments later there was something nicer when I came across Naomi, by chance, also on her way home from work, on her bike. Ah, but that was lobha, that clinging to a comfortable loved one. Ah, what the hell. It was nice! Metta, Phil 37582 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:38am Subject: Aloko ( wasRe: [dsg] Re: The indispensability of Pali) Hello Htoo, and all Thank you for the feedback, Htoo. > In Myanmar these are daily heard. > > 'Cakkhu.m udapaadi, nana.m udapaadi, pannaa udapaadi, vijja udapaadi, > aloko udapaadi.' > > Cakkhu or vision arises. > Nana or knowledge arises. > Panna or wisdom arises. > Vijja or penetrative wisdom arises. > Aloko or direct light arises. I have a question about aloko. I notice that it is one of the four conditions for an eye-door process to arise, but I don't see it in the compendium of rupa. What is it if it isn't rupa? We occasionally read in suttas reference to light, such as in the Dhammapada when the Buddha says "those whose minds are well-grounded in the seven factors of awakening, who without clinging to anything rejoice in freedom from attachment, whose appetities have been conquered, and who are full of light they win nibbana here in this world..." It is hard for me to know what "full of light" could mean in Dhamma Possibly a poor translation, though I think another version I've read says "resplendent." I don't know the verse number or I would go check for myself what it is in Pali. Thanks in advance Metta, Phil 37583 From: Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi, Ken (and Mike) - In a message dated 10/17/04 2:56:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > So Panna can arise to know that the concept 'there is no result from > kamma' is wrong and the concept 'there is result from kamma is > right.' I like that! Too easy! :-) > > ========================== I'm afraid I have some reservations with regard to an operation of pa~n~na that can directly know the incorrectness of the thought 'there is no result from kamma'. That seems to make pa~n~na into a kind of magical force that can directly know what is not directly knowable. Not all phenomena are directly knowable, only paramattha dhammas, it seems to me. It seems to me that it is by observing sequences of events and the relations among those events that it is possible to realize that kamma has consequences, and that this seeing/knowing comes about in a regular, well structured, certain but inferential way. It doesn't seem correct to me that such knowing is an instance of direct insight-knowing, although it is supported by such. 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) 37584 From: Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/17/04 7:33:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > > >Hi, Jon - > ... > >----------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression. I definitely > >believe > >that the hardness and the knowing (or experiential presence) of the > >hardness, > >though inseparable, are distinguishable, just as outside and inside of a > >sphere > >are inseparable but distinguishable. > > So if it is accepted that there are the 2 dhammas that are hardness (Dh B) > and the knowing of hardness (Dh A), their relationship can I think be > described by saying that 'Dh A knows Dh B'. > > After all, without the relationship of one dhamma knowing (or > experiencing) another, we would be unable to define consciousness or > indeed nama. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, Jon, I'm happier to leave my words as they were. If you wish to paraphrase them in a way that makes them a better "fit" for you, by all means go ahead! ;-) --------------------------------------------- > > > ... > >>I am not aware of any mention in the suttas of a dhamma of > >`experiential > >>event', and accordingly I do not see this as something that can be the > > > >>object > >>of insight. > >> > >--------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Well, perhaps that is what contact is, Jon - the event that is > >the > >coming together of opened/activated sense door, sense object (or > >content), and > >sense-door consciousness (or experiential presence). > >-------------------------------------- > > As I said, I'd be interested to see a specific sutta passage. Are you > referring to the description of the ayatanas? If so, are you saying that > one of the ayatanas is in a class of its own as an 'event'? > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm saying that contact is what I'm talking about, and that in the suttas, though not in Abhidhamma, it is described as a convergence event. ---------------------------------------------- > > Jon > ======================= 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) 37585 From: Mike Nease Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Howard, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 7:49 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View > I'm afraid I have some reservations with regard to an operation of > pa~n~na that can directly know the incorrectness of the thought 'there is > no > result from kamma'. That seems to make pa~n~na into a kind of magical > force that > can directly know what is not directly knowable. Not all phenomena are > directly > knowable, only paramattha dhammas, it seems to me. It seems to me that it > is > by observing sequences of events and the relations among those events that > it > is possible to realize that kamma has consequences, and that this > seeing/knowing comes about in a regular, well structured, certain but > inferential way. It > doesn't seem correct to me that such knowing is an instance of direct > insight-knowing, although it is supported by such. This (last bit) sounds right to me, too--saccanulomika-sammaadi.t.thi isn't the same thing as saccapa.tivedha-sammaadi.t.thi precisely because it can take concepts as objects, as I understand it. The Great Forty seems to me to make it clear that it is consistent with the Dhamma, though. Otherwise how could sammaadi.t.thi 'have fermentations, side with merit & result in acquisitions', and how would this differ from the sammaadidi.t.thi that "is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path"? Or do you think I've mistaken the Buddha's words here? mike 37586 From: Mike Nease Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: "kenhowardau" To: Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 11:54 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View > > Hi Mike, > > You wrote: > > --------------- >> Pa~n~naa is a synonym for amoha, sammaadi.t.thi and several other > words depending on context. > > -------------- > > Panna doesn't have worldly functions, though, does it? For example, > our understanding "1 + 1 = 2" is more a matter of recognition than > of understanding. Not sure, but: saccanulomika: sacca: true; real; anulomika: suitable; in proper order; sounds to me like it might apply to something as simple as 1 + 1 = 2--this is conventionally true, correct and in the proper order. Don't know if this is supportable from the Abhidhamma, though. > > M: > As I understand it, it is only restricted to paramattha dhammas > when used as a synonym for sammaadi.t.thi of the mundane or > supramundane path. > > > --------------- > > That's where I was going wrong: I was restricting it entirely to > satipatthana with only one exception - for jhana. But I am happy to > learn it is more wide-ranging. Yes, a good thing--if understanding couldn't take a concept such as 'akusala kamma leads to akusala vipakka', or that 'the Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation, leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise' then why would we bother? > M: > In the sense of 'understanding' it certainly can take a concept > as an object as I understand it. > > ---------------- > > So Panna can arise to know that the concept 'there is no result from > kamma' is wrong and the concept 'there is result from kamma is > right.' I like that! Too easy! :-) So do I--when I think of pa~n~naa in this way I'm reminded of the expression, 'aadikalyaa.na, majjhekalya.na, pariyosaanakalya.na, 'beautiful in the beginning, beautiful in the middle and beautiful in the end'. If there could be no understanding before the arising of insight, we'd be sunk I think. mike 37587 From: abhidhammika Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:53am Subject: Aloko Is Ruupa ( was Aloko [dsg] Re: The indispensability of Pali) Dear Phil, Htoo, Nina, Mike Nease, Robert K, Bob M and all How are you? Phil asked: "I have a question about aloko. I notice that it is one of the four conditions for an eye-door process to arise, but I don't see it in the compendium of rupa. .. What is it if it isn't rupa? Light is ruupa according to Abhidhamma Pi.taka. Light is one of the visual venues (ruupaayatanam), and listed as such in Dhammasanganii. Please see Sections 616, 617, 618, and 619 there. For example, "616. Katamam tam ruupam ruupaayatanam? Yam ruupam catunnam mahaabhuutaanam upaadaaya va.n.nanibhaa sanidassanam sappa.tigham niilam piitakam lohitakam odaatam kaa.lakam mañji.t.thakam ‚01 hari hariva.n.nam ambaªkurava.n.nam diigham rassam a.num thuulam va.t.tam parima.n.dalam caturamsam, cha.lamsam a.t.thamsam so.lasamsam ninnam thalam chaayaa aatapo AALOKO andhakaaro abbhaa mahikaa dhuumo rajo candama.n.dalassa va.n.nanibhaa suuriyama.n.dalassa ‚ va.n.nanibhaa taarakaruupaanam va.n.nanibhaa aadaasama.n.dalassa va.n.nanibhaa ma.nisa`nkhamuttaave.luriyassa va.n.nanibhaa jaataruuparajatassa va.n.nanibhaa, yam vaa panaññampi atthi ruupam catunnam mahaabhuutaanam upaadaaya va.n.nanibhaa sanidassanam sappa.tigham, yam ruupam sanidassanam sappa.tigham cakkhunaa anidassanena sappa.tighena passi vaa passati vaa passissati vaa passe vaa, ruupam petam ruupaayatanam petam ruupadhaatu pesaa- idam tam ruupam ruupaayatanam." Please take note of the term "AALOKO" in Capital letters in the above quote. I hope that your doubt has been removed if light is matter in the Abhidhamma teaching. Abhidhammatthasangaha is a digest text, so it cannot list all forms of matter. But, it did mention Ruupaayatanam (the visual venue) in item 25 in Ruupaka.n.dam there. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org Hello Htoo, and all Thank you for the feedback, Htoo. > In Myanmar these are daily heard. > > 'Cakkhu.m udapaadi, nana.m udapaadi, pannaa udapaadi, vijja udapaadi, > aloko udapaadi.' > > Cakkhu or vision arises. > Nana or knowledge arises. > Panna or wisdom arises. > Vijja or penetrative wisdom arises. > Aloko or direct light arises. I have a question about aloko. I notice that it is one of the four conditions for an eye-door process to arise, but I don't see it in the compendium of rupa. What is it if it isn't rupa? We occasionally read in suttas reference to light, such as in the Dhammapada when the Buddha says "those whose minds are well-grounded in the seven factors of awakening, who without clinging to anything rejoice in freedom from attachment, whose appetities have been conquered, and who are full of light they win nibbana here in this world..." It is hard for me to know what "full of light" could mean in Dhamma Possibly a poor translation, though I think another version I've read says "resplendent." I don't know the verse number or I would go check for myself what it is in Pali. Thanks in advance Metta, Phil 37588 From: Mike Nease Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken O" To: Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 2:29 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Games People Play > To me this meant that we experienced momentary death in billions of > citta times while cuti citta only once which we called conventional > death. This is the way it seems to me too, and points out the importance of seeing kamma/vipakka in the countless instances in the course of this life (especially at present), rather than focussing on single occurrences of cuti and patisandhi in each conventional lifetime. mike 37589 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:04am Subject: Aloko ( wasRe: [dsg] Re: The indispensability of Pali) Phil: Hello Htoo, and all Thank you for the feedback, Htoo. > In Myanmar these are daily heard. >'Cakkhu.m udapaadi, nana.m uda...snip..Aloko or direct light arises. I have a question about aloko. I notice that it is one of the four conditions for an eye-door process to arise, but I don't see it in the compendium of rupa. What is it if it isn't rupa? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I believe 'light' is rupa. Light is seen by cakkhu pasada. For blindness assessment in science it is recorded as totally blind when light perception is absent. This already means that light is a rupa and it is seen by cakkhu pasada by a partially blind people. Rupaarammana is vanna or colour. It is the object for cakkhuvinnana citta. Colours have different degrees of brightness from completely dark to invisibly bright. Sound, smell, taste, touch also have such different in degrees. This difference causes different 'Visayapavatti'. Visaya means 'object' or 'arammana' and pavatti means 'arising'. Light is a rupa. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: We occasionally read in suttas reference to light, such as in the Dhammapada when the Buddha says "those whose minds are well-grounded in the seven factors of awakening, who without clinging to anything rejoice in freedom from attachment, whose appetities have been conquered, and who are full of light they win nibbana here in this world..." It is hard for me to know what "full of light" could mean in Dhamma Possibly a poor translation, though I think another version I've read says "resplendent." I don't know the verse number or I would go check for myself what it is in Pali. Thanks in advance Metta, Phil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: The Buddha used different and various words so that listeners could understand well. For example 'water' in Pali is 'udaka'. It is sometimes said as 'apo'. Cakkhu.m, nana.m, panna, vijja, aloka are similar but there might be some differences in degree. In human beings, eye-sight is the most sensible. So most similes are related to sight. There are 5 physical senses. 2 are said to be far away. They are sight and sound. Sight may be as far as millions of light years. Sounds may be as far as miles away. But there are 3 senses that need closeness. They are smell, taste, and touch. Even in English, people use 'Oh! I see'. This does not mean that 'their eyes are seeing(see) the object but they understand'. When there is full of light, every thing can be seen clearly. When there is dim of light, some will be seen and some will not be. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37590 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:50am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Howard That will depends on how we define panna. When we observed sequences events and see its relations that is panna + application of thought, which is right view + right thoughts to have such a conclusion. To me, only those who are enlighted could understand the kamma in one citta moment as death is see in each citta, while the rest of us have to use right view + right thoughts to figure it out. Ken O 37591 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard As far as my understanding, you are right to say that contact is the convergence and this contact is not just in the sutta, it also act the same way as in the Abhidhamma. Quote from Nina book on cetasikas. <> In the dependent origination, we can see that contact is the link between our sense consciouness and sense medium with feelings. Hence without contact, there is no convergence with feelings, cravings to arise then again with the cycle that cause rebirth etc. And in another sutta where Buddha clearly discribe that there will be no seeing without seeing consciouness cognize with the visible objects hence contact is the link between them. This contact does not differentiate a subject or an object, the subject and object is one in order to cognize the object. There is no distinguishing that is an object first or the subjective knowledge later, it is the moment of the contact, the experience of the object is know by the subject. Just like the other time when we talk about darkness, a blind man would not know what it is like to visualise the world until somone told him about (contact him with the outside world), or he remains the thought that the world is all darkness. I am most happy we can discuss this further as this train of thoughts help me to have more faith in the sutta and Abhidhamma and their correlation. Ken O 37592 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:09am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 092 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, All akusala dhamma are led by moha cetasika. Moha is the king of akusala dhamma. Moha has two generals of his right wing and his left wing. Right wing general is ahirika cetasika. It is shamelessness. It also advises moha not to be shameful. Moha and ahirika support each other but with different characters. Left wing general is anottappa cetasika. It is fearlessness. It not only advises citta but also advises moha not to be fearful in performing actions. Moha and anottappa support each other and they strengthen each other. Moha still has a third power apart from these two generals of right wing and left wing. This third power is uddhacca cetasika. He is the home secretary of the akusala kingdom. Uddhacca is a mental factor that always arises with any kind of akusala citta. It is upsetness. It is restlessness. It is unstillness. It is a spreading mental factor. It advises the mental king citta to be upset and restless. It also advises other cetasikas to be upset and restless. Here arises 'A PROBLEM'. It is ekaggata cetasika and uddhacca cetasika. They seem to be opposite and they do oppose each other in terms of character. Ekaggata cetasika is one-pointedness. When we say samadhi, it is a collection of ekaggata cetasikas. It is stillness. It is restfulness. It is concentration. But uddhacca is unstillness, unrestfulness or restlessness, upsetness, and spreading. Can they arise together? Yes, they can arise together in case of 'upekkha sahagatam uddhacca sampayutta citta'. This is one of 2 moha mula cittas. In that citta there is ekaggata cetasika. And at the same citta at the same moment and at the same object, there is also uddhacca cetasika. If they arise together, how are they behaving there in that 'upekkha sahagatam uddhacca sampayutta moha mula citta'? That is why I said that ekaggata cetasika fixes at a point rather than one-pointedness. Its function is to fix at a point. To fix at an object. So in case of uddhacca citta, ekaggata cetasika also fixes at the object of uddhacca citta. This means ekaggata cetasika fixes uddhacca citta at that object. At the same citta, at the same object, at the same moment, uddhacca cetasika also arises and it does its job there. Its main function is not fixing. So it becomes restless and upset. In a single uddhacca citta, ekaggata cetasika fixes at the object, while uddhacca cetasika tries to move away. So as soon as the object passes away, uddhacca brings citta and all other cetasikas to another object and as soon as this new object passes away, uddhacca will again bring citta and all other cetasikas to the other objects one after another. But at each object, ekaggata cetasika will fix citta at the object. When we talk on jhananga, ekaggata in uddhacca citta does not deserve as jhananga. Uddhacca cetasika is also a powerful akusala cetasika after moha, ahirika, and anottappa cetasikas. At each akusala moment, uddhacca always arises and help mental facors and citta upsetting. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 37593 From: Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/17/04 12:51:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > That will depends on how we define panna. When we observed sequences > events and see its relations that is panna + application of thought, > which is right view + right thoughts to have such a conclusion. To > me, only those who are enlighted could understand the kamma in one > citta moment as death is see in each citta, while the rest of us have > to use right view + right thoughts to figure it out. > > > Ken O > ======================== It's not a matter of directly seeing kamma ( = intention = cetana) that we are discussing, Ken, but of coming to know that kamma has consequences, a fact which is a matter of conditionality across time. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37594 From: Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/17/04 1:10:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > As far as my understanding, you are right to say that contact is the > convergence and this contact is not just in the sutta, it also act > the same way as in the Abhidhamma. > > Quote from Nina book on cetasikas. > > < Phassa arises together with every citta; it "contacts" the object so > that citta can experience it. When seeing experiences visible object, > phassa which accompanies seeing-consciousness also experiences > visible object but it performs its own function. At that moment > phassa "contacts" visible object and conditions seeing-consciousness > to see. >> > > ===================== No, I see this as quite different. This Abhidhammic view presents contact as some thing (or operation) that arises with a citta (another thing) and that acts by "experiencing an object". On the other hand, in the suttas, the Buddha simply said, in talking about sense object, sense door, and sense consciousness, that "The COMING TOGETHER [emphasis mine] of the three is contact". That makes contact into an experiential event that is a concurrence or convergence, a tripartite experiential event. 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) 37595 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard Abhidhammic view does not present a different from a sutta. It is the same meaning. The three comes together comes contact, similarly in Abhidhamma, contact of the object is only possible when seeing consciousness and visible objects comes together. There cannot be seeing consciouness arise without contacting a visible object when seeing It must come together with contact as link among them. It is not different just that the method in Abhidhamma is maybe a too meticulous way of presenting the sutta meaning, hence could result in not presenting correctly to reader. Just like reader may misunderstood that contact comes as a separate entity in dependent origination which in fact it is the link of convergence between the three as mention by you below. Just like feelings depends on contact to arise, so without contact there is no convergence of feelings, cravings or the sense processs, door and consciouness. To me it is a matter of presentation. Ken O 37596 From: Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/17/04 1:40:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > Abhidhammic view does not present a different from a sutta. It is > the same meaning. The three comes together comes contact, similarly > in Abhidhamma, contact of the object is only possible when seeing > consciousness and visible objects comes together. There cannot be > seeing consciouness arise without contacting a visible object when > seeing It must come together with contact as link among them. It > is not different just that the method in Abhidhamma is maybe a too > meticulous way of presenting the sutta meaning, hence could result in > not presenting correctly to reader. Just like reader may > misunderstood that contact comes as a separate entity in dependent > origination which in fact it is the link of convergence between the > three as mention by you below. Just like feelings depends on contact > to arise, so without contact there is no convergence of feelings, > cravings or the sense processs, door and consciouness. To me it is a > matter of presentation. > > > Ken O > ========================= I don't agree. I think the words of Abhidhamma "speak for themselves", and are quite different on this matter from the suttic material. 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) 37597 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conceptual Right View Hi Howard Knowing kamma has consequences are the the cause of the function of right view + right thoughts. Without right view, there is no knowledge that kamma has consequences and without right thought investigation it, there is no reinforcement of right view to know that kamma has consequences. Directly seeing kamma has consequences in paramatha level is possible because of our past practise of panna to investigate the meaning and consequences of kamma in a citta moment. However the knowledge of its consequences must start somewhere, it must have a begining for investigation - that is now what we are doing. Your view is correct and also the view of others about kamma knowing is correct, it depends on where are we basing on. There is no contradiction, just a matter where do we position ourselves in the discussion. Ken O 37598 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi Howard Maybe if you dont mind, tell me what you are thinking with details why you think it is so different because I could not understand your point on the differences. Maybe if you dont mind, provide mathemathical symbols and equation to present why Abhidhamma is not what its said in the sutta. Ken O 37599 From: Date: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking and thoughts -- status of Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/17/04 2:03:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > > Maybe if you dont mind, tell me what you are thinking with details > why you think it is so different because I could not understand your > point on the differences. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I have no details to add. I don't see why anyone would consider them to be the same! ------------------------------------------------ Maybe if you dont mind, provide > > mathemathical symbols and equation to present why Abhidhamma is not > what its said in the sutta. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) You have a good sense of humor, Ken! ---------------------------------------------- > > > Ken O > > ======================== 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)