39200 From: m. nease Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 4:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendencies, accumulations Part II. Hi Nina, Larry and All, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nina van Gorkom" To: Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendencies, accumulations Part II. op 01-12-2004 22:45 schreef Larry op LBIDD@w...: Second, I have taken a closer look at latent tendencies and > accumulations and I think we need another category for "habit". Is > there such a category? Nina, thanks for the notes on dispositions and tendencies. Larry's question reminded me of something I read recently I think in CMA about 'habitual kamma' (acinna kamma). As I recall it said that habitual kamma could condition rebirth in the absence of stronger past kamma. I also found this material at an interesting Singaporean temple's website at http://www.kmspks.org/activities/bbc/bbc7.htm#tag2c: 3. Habitual Kamma (Acinna Kamma) Acinna Kamma is that which one habitually performs and recollects and for which one has a great liking. Habits whether good or bad become second nature. They tend to form the character of a person. At leisure moments we often engage ourselves in our habitual thoughts and deeds. In the same way at the death-moment, unless influenced by other circumstances, we, as a rule, recall to mind such thoughts and deeds. (i) Cunda, a butcher, who was living in the vicinity of the Buddha's monastery, died squealing like a pig because he was earning his living by slaughtering pigs. (ii) King Dutthagamani of Ceylon was in the habit of giving alms to the Bhikkhus before he took his meals. It was this habitual Kamma that gladdened him at the dying moment and gave him birth in Tusita Realm. Just thought this all might be of interest. mike 39201 From: Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 4:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi Ken, K: "Larry - I think because you think sanna in term as concept that is how you come to this conclusion. A concept can be a paccaya. But when Buddha speaks about D.O. is about reality. The mind is obsessed with concepts because of moha. L: I would say D.O. is about delusion, the reality of delusion. Every link is a mistake. Moha is not a universal cetasika but sanna is. Sanna perceives everything as a concept, even anatta. Concept is the beginning and end of all delusion. If you understand sanna you can see _how_ delusion arises. I don't think you can say the same about moha. Larry 39202 From: Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 4:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendencies, accumulations Part II. Hi Mike, Thanks for this bit on acinna kamma (habitual kamma). If you run across any more on habit I would be interested, particularly with respect to sa~n~naa's role. Larry 39203 From: m. nease Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 4:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendencies. Hi Nina, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nina van Gorkom" To: Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendencies. > Hi Mike, > N: We can say passed on, but this suggests something that lasts. Right--so how would you express it? > Kusala citta does not accumulate new akusala, but it accumulates new > kusala! > This is the action of accumulation. Actually that's what I thought (though much rarer than anuasaya, I think). > If all your questions are not answered, do keep on!!! I think that's all for now Nina, thanks again. > N: Thank you for all your help. Yahoo sent mails back to me, I had not > turned on the new address as standard, but the helpdesk helped fast. Glad to hear it and of course always very glad to be of assistance. mike 39204 From: Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 4:42pm Subject: Vism.XIV,121 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 121. (l) Next to determining, if the visible datum, etc., as object is vivid,49 then six or seven 'impulsions' impel with respect to the objective fields as determined. These are one among (1)-(8) the eight kinds of sense-sphere profitable, or (22)-(33) the twelve kinds of unprofitable, or (72)-(80) the nine remaining sense-sphere functional. This, firstly, is the way in the case of the five doors. But in the case of the mind door those same [impulsions arise] next to (71) mind-door adverting. Beyond [the stage of] change-of-lineage50 any [of the following 26 kinds of impulsion] that obtains a condition51 impels; that is, any kind among (9)-(13) the five profitable, and (81)-(85) the five functional, of the fine-material sphere, and (14)-(17) the four profitable, and (86)-(89) the four functional of the immaterial sphere, and also (18)-(21) the four path consciousnesses and (66)-(69) four fruition consciousnesses of the supramundane. This is how the occurrence of the fifty-five kinds of profitable, unprofitable, functional, and resultant consciousness should be understood as impulsion. -------------------- Note 49. ' "If ... vivid (lit. large)": this is said because it is the occurrence of consciousness at the end of the impulsions that is being discussed. For an object is here intended as "vivid" when its life is fourteen conscious moments; and that should be understood as coming into focus when it has arisen and is two or three moments past' (Pm. 479). Note 50. 'This includes also the preliminary-work and the cleansing (see Ch. XXII, note 7), not change-of-lineage only' (Pm. 479). See also Ch. IV,74 and Ch. XXI,129. Note 51. ' "That obtains a condition": any impulsion that has obtained a condition for arising next to change-of-lineage, as that of the fine-material sphere, an so on' (Pm. 479). 39205 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 4:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendencies, accumulations Part II. Hello Mike, all, I've always found this story disconcerting ... Wonder if it could just have been because there were no narcotics for pain relief available then. Large numbers of people in the world do quite a bit of screaming from unrelieved, and unrelievable, pain in their terminal illnesses. Could there be so many pig slaughterers nowadays, do you think? ... possibly this story was passed on from people experiencing dosa because they were unable to relieve the agony of the dying Cunda, and maybe not even wishing to - so they indulged in a little 'just desserts' victim blaming. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" In the same way > at the death-moment, unless influenced by other circumstances, we, as a > rule, recall to mind such thoughts and deeds. > (i) Cunda, a butcher, who was living in the vicinity of the Buddha's > monastery, died squealing like a pig because he was earning his living by > slaughtering pigs. 39206 From: Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 0:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi, Larry (and Ken) - In a message dated 12/2/04 7:30:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > L: I would say D.O. is about delusion, the reality of delusion. Every > link is a mistake. Moha is not a universal cetasika but sanna is. Sanna > perceives everything as a concept, even anatta. Concept is the beginning > and end of all delusion. If you understand sanna you can see _how_ > delusion arises. I don't think you can say the same about moha. > ====================== Hmm, not sure about this, Larry. The Buddha was free of delusion, but sa~n~na was still operative in him. All conceptualization is based in sa~n~na, and it is all an indirect knowing, but it isn't all a deluded knowing. That depends on whether ignorance still holds sway or not. I agree that in nonarahants concepts can and often do serve as carriers of ignorance. But so do sankhara, vi~n~nana, phassa, and vedana. In an arahant, there are still formational activities, awareness, sense impression, feeling, and perception-recognition. But these operate purely and free of ignorance. 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) 39207 From: Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 0:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Hi, Phil - Accept possibly as regards emphasis, I agree with what you have to say in the following. One keyword you introduce, with regard to the Crossing of the Flood Sutta, for example, and that I think is particularly important, is 'subtle'. All Buddhist practice is subtle, especially after a certain point. Another point that you make, and that I think is worthy of even greater emphasis, is that kusala action, including action motivated by lovingkindness, even when limited in effect, is to the good. As the Buddha instructed in Dhammapada 183, "Avoid evil, do good, and purify the mind. This is the teaching of all Buddhas." With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/2/04 6:21:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, plnao@j... writes: > > > > Hi Howard, and all > > I think this thread has gone on already beyond this, but please allow me to > jump > in quickly. > > >Howard: > > No guarantees, that's right. Many conditions, that's right too. But > >people CAN influence others and do so all the time. C'mon, Andrew, you > know > >that's so! Let's not try to score debating points. I told you about the > condolence > >call I made the other day. That's not something unusual. People help > people > >in many ways, and among them is in helping change their minds and > perspectives. > >This is fact. > > I used to always refer to a teaching I had read somehwere, that the Buddha > said "a thousand candles can be lit by a single flame" or words to that > effect. > I could never trace the proper reference for it. This inspired me, of > course, > and I talked of a metta ripple effect, of how an act of kindness can ripple > through > the world. > > Now having learned more about conditions I would be much more sober in > my assessment of this ripple effect, perhaps thinking more of it as the > ripples > that can spread to a certain degree in running water but are quicly washed > away by the current, rather than the ripples that spread so very nicely in > a placid pond. > > I still do think of how my kindness (or lack of it) that arises in daily > life > can have a beneficial effect on others, or how a thought that I share > here could possibly help others, but am much more sober about it. > > This might be a helpful simile - I thought of it this morning. If there is a > stampede of cows going by in a corral (?), and you open a side gate, > and greet the cows, or offer them whatever cows like, > a few might come your way, but you won't be able to > change the course of the stampede. Not a very good simile - people's > thoughts are > not as conditioned to rush uncontrollably as stampeding cows are - but it > still might be helpful in pointing > at understanding what we are up against when dealing with conditions. > > On the other hand, the effort to help others is always bhavana for > ourselves, so it > doesn't do any harm. And it *does* do good, at least a little. > > > >----------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Oh, please. When the Buddha taught his followers to take specific > >actions, which he most assuredly did, that was prescription, whether one > is an > >Ariyan or a worldling. Andrew, have you bought into the perspective that > there is > >nothing to do and nothing to be done? The perspective that all depends on > >causes and conditions, but your volition and volitional actions are not > *among* > >those conditions? Where is the appeal in such helplessness and > hopelessness? If > >progress on the Buddhist path cannot be affected by our actions, then > taking > >refuge and "being a Buddhist" is utter nonsense. > > ] > Seeing suttas as descriptive doesn't mean that there is nothing to done. > Just that > what is to be done is much subtler than following instructions, much subtler > than taking specific actions. > I think of the > crossing the flood sutta. But I agree with you that there must be a reason > that > the language of the suttas seems as prescriptive as it does. My current > suspicion is that many suttas can should be understood properly both > as descriptive and prescriptive, depending on one's degree of insight, or > the > degree of insight that is there at any one moment. > > I think of this sutta passage, which I paraphrased in another thread: > > "A monk may discern that "when I exert a mental fabrication against this > cause of stress, > then from the fabrication of of exertion there is dispassion....when I look > on > with equanimity at that cause of stress, then from the development of > equanimity, there is dispassion." ( from MN 101) > > Of course, this is only one small peice of a much larger sutta, so it > is not wise to look at it out of context, but I will anyways! > > Seen as prescriptive, the sutta told me that I can discriminate between > sources of suffering and abandon some and tolerate others with equanimity. > In my case this was true, but > the cause of stress I abandoned was very gross, very basic, very > obvious. (I stopped watching the news, and therefore stopped delighting in > chaos in Iraq) > Seen as descriptive, the sutta points at the gradual cultivation of wisdom > that knows what can be abandoned and what can be tolerated. It seems > much more "true" this way, even though it no longer offers me quick > fixes. But the quick fix it *did* offer when seen as descriptive was very > helpful. > An experienced meditator like yourself will appreciate this sutta on a much > deeper level. > I've only begun to think of this descriptive/prescriptive thing and have > only begun > to think about this sutta, but I offer this anyways in passing for what it's > worth. > > Metta, > Phil > > /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) 39208 From: m. nease Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 5:45pm Subject: Habitual Kamma, was latent tendencies, accumulations Part II. Hi Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendencies, accumulations Part II. > Thanks for this bit on acinna kamma (habitual kamma). My pleasure, Sir... > If you run across > any more on habit I would be interested, particularly with respect to > sa~n~naa's role. Of course sa~n~naa is a universal so present with all cittas--I don't know how it might be 'separated out' as a factor of acinna (acutally aaci.n.na) kamma or what its implications might be. I have Wijeratne & Gethin's 'Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma and Commentary' by Achariya Anuruddha handy, so here's what they have to offer: Chapter Five The Process Free Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma [Fourfold Kamma] ... (51) by way of giving results: weighty, near, habitual, and effective kamma: ... Commentary ... Habitual: that which is done often or, although done just once, often dwelt on. ... And from Bhikkhu Bodhi's CMA: The Process-Freed ... §19 By Order of Ripening ... (iii) habitual kamma... ... Guide to §19 ... Habitual (aaci.n.na) kamma is a deed that one habitually performs either good or bad. In the absence of weighty kamma and a potent death-proximate kamma, this type of kamma generally assumes the rebirth-generative function. ... Habitual kamma has seemed important to me for a long time, also before I read the above. Even overlooking its potential rôle in (as) pa.tisandhicitta, the countless results (vipakka) of habitual kamma in 'this lifetime' are attended of course by feeling; so the implications for happiness and unhappiness, kusala and akusala and their respective accumulations seem enormous to me. Just my opinion, of course, which I've found HIGHLY unreliable. mike 39209 From: m. nease Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 5:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendencies, accumulations Part II. Hi Chris, ----- Original Message ----- From: "christine_forsyth" To: Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendencies, accumulations Part II. > possibly this > story was passed on from people experiencing dosa because they were > unable to relieve the agony of the dying Cunda, and maybe not even > wishing to - so they indulged in a little 'just desserts' victim > blaming. I THINK I remember this story from a sutta, so I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand--that said, though, I feel the same way. I'm never easy with the 'stories' explaining kamma/vipakka in a way that sounds a lot like sin and divine retribution. Of course, my distaste doesn't mean they aren't true on some level... Cheers, mike 39210 From: Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 7:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Habitual Kamma, was latent tendencies, accumulations Part II. Hi Mike, I agree with your conclusions, which I snipped. Here are a few additional observations: M: "Commentary ...Habitual: that which is done often or, although done just once, often dwelt on." L: This looks like what Nina is calling accumulations, a habit with a tendency to repeat. However I don't see this sense of aayuuhana in the Buddhist Dictionary: "áyúhana: (karmic) 'accumulation', is a name used in the commentarial literature for the wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities (karma, q.v.) or karma-formations (sankhára; s. paticca-samuppáda), being the bases of future rebirth. " 'Accumulation', is a name for the karma-formations, and signifies those volitions (cetaná) which arise at the performance of a karma, first while thinking 'I will give alms', and then while actually giving alms (e.g.) for one month or a year. The volition, however, at the time when one is handing the alms over to the recipient; is called karma-process (kamma-bhava, s. Vis.M. XVII, IX, X). Or, the volitions during the first six impulsive-moments (javana, q.v.) depending on one and the same state of advertence (ávajjana, s. viññána-kicca), these are called the karma-formations, whilst the 7th impulsive moment is called the karma-process (kamma-bhava).... Or, each volition is called 'karma-process' and the accumulation connected with it, 'karma-formation'. " (Vis.M. XVII). Cf. paticca-samuppáda (2, 10) - (App.)." L: See also Vism.XIV,131: Now it was said above, 'Whatever has the characteristic of forming should be understood, all taken together, as the formations aggregate' (par.81). And here too, what is said to have the characteristic of forming is that which has the characteristic of agglomerating.57 What is that? It is formations themselves, according as it is said, 'They form the formed, bhikkhus, that is why they are called formations' (S.iii,87). ------------------------------ Note 57. ' "The characteristic of agglomerating" means the characteristic of adding together (sampi.n.dana); then they are said to have the function of accumulating, for the dhammas in the formations aggregate are so described because volition is their basis' (Pm.484). L: This adding together is very interesting to me. I've been considering understanding sankhara khandha and sankhara cetasikas as connectors and sankhata dhamma as connected dhamma. Of course no "formation" is an object of consciousness except as concept. So a "formation" is only an appearance to sa~n~naa. Interestingly the principal "connector" is samadhi cetasika. Its function is to "conglomerate conascent states". Food for thought. Larry 39211 From: Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 7:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendencies, accumulations Part II. Hi Christine, I think the pigs squeal because of fear, not pain. Possibly the same could be said of Cunda in that he adopted a similar mind-set out of habituation. Larry ------------------------- "Cunda, a butcher, who was living in the vicinity of the Buddha's monastery, died squealing like a pig because he was earning his living by slaughtering pigs." 39212 From: Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 7:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Howard: "Hmm, not sure about this, Larry. The Buddha was free of delusion, but sa~n~na was still operative in him. All conceptualization is based in sa~n~na, and it is all an indirect knowing, but it isn't all a deluded knowing. That depends on whether ignorance still holds sway or not." Hi Howard, I would say the Buddha's sa~n~na was not deluded only because he didn't believe it. A conceptual knowing is deluded unless it is informed by pa~n~na, seeing reality as it is. H: "I agree that in nonarahants concepts can and often do serve as carriers of ignorance. But so do sankhara, vi~n~nana, phassa, and vedana." L: I agree, particularly in regard to sankhara, but sa~n~na seems to have the explicit function of generating concept AND reasoning. This equals that or this is appropriate to that, seems to me, is the nucleus of logic. Larry 39213 From: Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 4:01pm Subject: Typo Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Hi again, Phil - In a message dated 12/2/04 8:40:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Accept possibly as regards emphasis ===================== I must have been sleepy, Phil! For those on the list who are not native speakers of English, the first word above should have been 'except'. Sorry! ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 39214 From: Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 4:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/2/04 10:47:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > I would say the Buddha's sa~n~na was not deluded only because he didn't > believe it. A conceptual knowing is deluded unless it is informed by > pa~n~na, seeing reality as it is. > ====================== Well, here's a question. Is a mere recognition of hardness *as* hardness deluded? I don't think so. If that recognition also carries with it the idea of hardness being a "thing", especially a self-existent thing, and/or if it carries with it the idea of that hardness being present to a cognizer, there you see ignorance being operative. But if there is nothing more than the recognition of hardness as what it is, I don't see illusion as being involved. 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) 39215 From: Ken O Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 9:56pm Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hi Hugo I am delighted that you are willing to others type of view. Particularly in this list, there is also the emphasis of wise attention. This is a pecular list and I think only in this list where development of panna is the epitome of the way to salvation and others are just consequences of panna. H: Thanks Ken, I think I do that, but unfortunately sometimes that didn't work, that's why I needed to add something else. k: That is true. Most of time it may not work, but that does not mean there is no development panna. Everytime there is wise attention, there is a cause for salvation. I think we should not expect ourselves to overnight solve this type of anger because this anger has been with us since countless lives. There must be patience to eradicate this. I also read the paramis of patience - it can be found in U.P and also Abhidhamma.org where it describe all the paramis under Treatise of all Paramis H > I have done different experiments with anger, even to the point of being meditating and if I detect some anger arising (due to some > thought that appears) I try to "play" with it, a couple of times it > has gone "out of control" in the sense that then I feel really > angry (don't think I go throwing things around the room). > So far, the quickest way to "whack" it is to force a smile, then do > the analysis and observation. BTW during those meditation > sessions, I didn't use the "smile" method, I just watched the breath until the anger was extinguished. k: Hugo, do you have the SN series in hard copy. Read the portion where Buddha talks in D.O where it says on the part, oneself and others. These are very indicative statement on why sometimes purposedly actions can be a hindrance rather than beneficial. We wish we are free of such roots and we also wish there should be a better/quicker way to do this rather than just using wise attention. In the development of the path, we must accept every one step we move forward, there may be a thousand steps move backward. It does not mean that one thousand steps we move backward will negate the one step foward. To me one step forward in the right step, is a start, is a gaint leap. Ken O 39216 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 0:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: AN III - 100 mental misconduct vs. thoughts of ill-will Hi KenH, Phil, Shakti & All, Ken, if you're looking for a paper, take the one with this heading you wrote to Phil(39094) - a gem. I think it says it all. When it comes to the teaching of anatta, I don't think we can ever be extreme enough. > ------------------ > Ph: > Still reflecting on the way intentional action seems to be > effective with crude defilements in a way that it can't be with > moderate or subtle defilements. > ------------------- > KH:> Perish the thought! If there were intentional actions (a polite name > for 'rite and ritual') that dealt with crude defilements, the Buddha > would have delivered an entirely different Dhamma. It would have > listed steps just like we see in the instruction manual to a kit- > form set of shelves (or whatever). Instead, he described all the > different states of consciousness so that we could eventually verify > his descriptions for ourselves. .... S: There's nothing to add to this and other recent comments some of us have been making, but that won't stop me. Shakti summed up the essence of the teaching when she referred to the reminders about developing understanding with detachment on the trip. (And Shakti, I really enjoyed your post a lot - beautifully written.) As I'm writing mainly to the three of you, let me add a semi quote/semi parpahrase of some detail from points K.Sujin was making on another trip on similar themes to the ones you've all raised as I was listening to it/editing this morning and I know you'll find some helpful reminders here. Firstly, following a Qu about dosa (aversion), it was being stressed that we just want to escape from it instead of studying the characteristic when it appears. Usually we'd like to have no dosa and so it's lobha (attachment) again at these times. There must be understanding of the characteristic of dosa, otherwise there can't be the eradication of it. What should be understood first? Wrong view. This ditthi must be eradicated first, the attachment to taking dosa and all the other realities for self. After this, there will still be attachment to sensuous objects, but not 'me' that is attached and has dosa. This is why it takes longer to become an anagami. People think they dislike lobha and dosa so much, but actually it's not true. they cannot live without lobha from day to day. In a day, there is more lobha than anything else. When one doesn't expect anything, such as any result or panna (wisdom), 'the great panna', one lives happily with the development of understanding very naturally, because one can see one's accumulations and one can see that one cannot have the things which have not been accumulated. ... Then a qu about disliking one's accumulations - so little kusala and so much akusala in a day. ... K. Sujin responded by saying that instead of seeing the deeply rooted lobha, the self doesn't like it again. When there's more understanding, one takes it easy. It doesn't matter what is arising, because it has arisen by conditions, completely arisen by conditions. We have the latent tendency for lobha, dosa and other akusala (unwholesome states). But if the akusala moment does not arise, how can one know that one still has it? So, it's good to know the truth of one's accumulations and this is the way to develop panna, because it can understand reality. ... Laughs and Qu about the elimination and eradication of defilements. ... Understanding is like the light. When there is light, there is less darkness, little by little. "We don't have to make the darkness disappear". It's not 'you' doing good deeds or becoming a better person. We must read all the words in the Suttanta, Vinaya AND Abhidhamma. When you just read the Suttanta, you think it's me who can have the gradual elimination of akusala by doing good deeds. But even at those moments, it's not you. "It's not you doing good deeds". Everyone understands about good and bad, but the Buddha pointed out the details much more, up to the Abhidhamma, not 'you' doing good deeds. People cling to results and want to have less and less akusala. When they do good deeds, they expect 'I'll be better or something good will happen for 'me''. We cannot just read some part of the Tipitaka and think it's enough. Without understanding realities, nama and rupa, it's 'me' again, even when we hear about moments of seeing and so on. Vijja (understanding) understands more and works its way to have more kusala, but it's not 'me'. Without vijja, it's avijja (ignorance) - doing good for 'me'. When one develops more understanding, one doesn't need to worry about whether there's more dana, sila or samatha, because vijja works its way. For example, when we give, there can be understanding of pleasant or indifferent feeling or even of conceit. By understanding, we can see that all dhammas are anatta, otherwise it's only in the book. "The function of panna is to detach." "No expectation at all." Metta, Sarah ======= 39217 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 0:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Hi Howard, Andrew wrote: ---------------- > > [Description] looks like prescription. A mountain lake looks like > glare and hundreds of little ripples. But to the Ariyan who sees to > the lake bottom .... > ---------------- And you were singularly unimpressed: ------------ > Howard: > Oh, please. ------------ To me, the understanding of the Buddha's Dhamma as descriptive, not prescriptive, is sacrosanct. It is the best thing that ever happened to me. Your appraisal amounts to, "Oh hogwash!" and "Oh don't be so pathetic!" But I should be the last to object: I have said some uncomplimentary things about formal practices, and I know those practices are dear to you. In any case, I take no offence. You go on to imply that certain DSG people are teaching helplessness, hopelessness and the inefficacy of kamma. You have said as much many times before, and everyone concerned has denied it. So please, quote exactly where this has occurred, and let's look at it again. Kind regards, Ken H > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > Oh, please. When the Buddha taught his followers to take specific > actions, which he most assuredly did, that was prescription, whether one is an > Ariyan or a worldling. Andrew, have you bought into the perspective that there is > nothing to do and nothing to be done? The perspective that all depends on > causes and conditions, but your volition and volitional actions are not *among* > those conditions? Where is the appeal in such helplessness and hopelessness? If > progress on the Buddhist path cannot be affected by our actions, then taking > refuge and "being a Buddhist" is utter nonsense. > ------------------------------------------- snip 39218 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 0:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Value of discussion (was evil thoughts) Hi Phil,(Hugo & KenO), I thought you made many excellent comments in yr post (39088) to Hugo (and Hugo, if this is beginning to sound like biased back-slapping for old friends, let me assure you that I loved your spaghetti and microscope posts and all the points you raise too;-)). --- plnao wrote: > > Phil: So how does sitting on the sidelines help them? Of course, as I > said > above, people get it, or they don't, so your > intervention might seem futile at times, but it can still be right > effort on > your part, and helpful for your own bhavana > even if it doesn't get through. All middle way, of course. .... S: I'm very glad you're no longer cursing those who burst in with other views than yours or Nina's or K.Sujin's - yes, I remember how protective you used to be, but we all have to consider and consider or hear and hear a lot. 'Never enough' as we're always reminded. I'm not sure about this 'people getting it or not business'. I think it's gradual for us all. Many of the points and qus we raised in India are ones we've been raising for yonks it seems. but 'never enough'!! And yes, if it's clear to us, how will staying on the sidelines help others? Very glad that as your computer crumbles, you're still in the centre of the ring. And Ken O, of course I agree with most of what you say and quote so well, especially anything extreme on anatta,(though, as you know I also like friendly greetings and smiles;-).You've been explaining many fine points beautifully imho. You mentioned the dosa at home and my last post is along the lines you've been discussing. I think we can also learn from K.Sujjin's patient responding to our foolish qus over and over without a hint of irritation or intolerance. 'Be the understanding peson' we're told and have metta for those around. Everyone prefers to hear a friendly word and see a little smile;-) No need to force it either way. I must say, we've smiled a lot over the smiling posts - mostly lobha, but then that's just natural;-).We're not so far on yet that we can't enjoy Htoo's little poem for example;-);-). Metta, Sarah ======= 39219 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 1:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What means 'no control' ? And band-aids Hi Joop, --- jwromeijn wrote: > Sarah: Anatta and no control simply means that whether or not we > apply the band-aid, which colour gets to be applied and whether it > will have any desired effect or not will depend on many, many factors. > Joop: I think the 'band-aid' is a usefull metaphore, I think I have > some, belonging to my culture and my (temporary) identity; natural > science as a way of understanding the conceptual reality is one of > them. ..... S: Have you read Vism ch x111 on World Cycles about how the world perishes etc? I think you have Vism, but for those who don't it can be found on line in Buddhism in Translation by Henry Clarke Warren Also, see the Agga~n~na Sutta: On Knowledge of Beginnings, DN27 Happy to discuss further. I think there are some posts on it in U.P. ??'Sasana,Decline of..' (Connie, can you remember?) On animals and lack of wisdom etc, see ch 11, Abhidhamma in Daily Life on 'Different types of Patisandhi citta'. On woeful planes like the animal plane, the patisandhi citta is akusala vipaka. No wholesome roots. No chance to develop panna. Many accounts of the woeful states in the suttas too. Metta, Sarah ======== 39220 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 1:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Metta for oneself translation question Dear Antony, Thanks for considering this area further with me. --- Antony Woods wrote: > I wouldn’t equate metta for oneself with covetousness. I thought that > if, > using the pun, you “mind your own mind’s business” (Nyanaponika) then > this > is metta for oneself without covetousness. Although greed means more > than > wanting the possessions of others. .... S:When we are concerned about our own happiness or peace of mind or experience another's friendlines, is there any metta at such times or is there attachment to oneself? I gave a quote about the development of metta and amity in a post to Phil (the band-aids one). This is the opposite state of feeling hostility towards others.Seeing others as friends and in a friendly manner. Impossible to 'step out' and view ourselves in such a way, I'm sure. .... > Dr Elizabeth Ashby wrote: “The commentators of old were much more > drastic. > Greed is "delight in one's own possessions."” > http://www.buddhanet.net/filelib/genbud/bodhi014.zip ... S: I haven't looked at the link - a bit rushed these days with the tape work. (btw, if you can listen to the recordings, go to Savatthi hotel garden discussion and Chris brings up just your Qs about metta). I don't know what 'drastic' means here. Lobha (greed or attachment) is delight in objects experienced through the senses and the conceptualising on account of them. So we read in the suttas, abhidhamma and commentaries about clinging to visible objects and so on. In other words, clinging to experiences and objects for ourselves, not for others. There is no lack of concern for oneself and one's experiences. The path is towards having less concern, not more, for oneself. Seeing the obsession for what it is. .... > S: If one thinks one should develop metta to > oneself, one will just develop more and more attachment and it will > bring > more and more problems. > > A: The word “should” seems important here. .... S: I agre. When one has this idea, I think it's a wrong practice in addition to the common ordinary attachment to self which is always being accumulated. This is why it's better to have no understanding of the Buddha's teaching than to be developing a wrong understanding which can really lead one into trouble. > > Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote: > > “This might appear to contradict what we said earlier, that metta is > free > from self-reference. The contradiction is only apparent, however, for in > > developing metta towards oneself one regards oneself objectively, as a > third > person. Further, the kind of love developed is not self-cherishing but a > > detached altruistic wish for one's own well-being.” > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/waytoend.html#n19 .... S: I think B.Bodhi is wrong on this point (as he knows!). Someone asked him about the quotes and I recall him agreeing that the quotes do not support this view he has. I think Christine wrote about this. You can ask her when she returns from the weekend. So it's a view that is contrary to the Buddha's words. .... > A friend wrote to me to wish all beings be happy, not all beings except > Antony Woods. .... S:Why not just wish all beings be happy and forget about Antony Woods for a moment? We can see the difference when we wish others well and when we wish ourselves well. .... > What did Munindra say about metta for oneself? I never met him but I > have > confidence in him. ... S:Munindra was someone who, conventionally speaking, was very 'sefless' or very concerned about the others' welfare in my experience. I don't recall him talking about himself or ever suggesting metta for oneself. But it's so long ago that I could be wrong. Actually, I don't remember coming across the idea of metta to oneself until quite recently and to be honest, it doesn't make any sense to me. How or what does it help to have an idea of metta to oneself, do you think? I hope you'll continue to discuss these points. Quote anything you find helpful. If you were to go back and follow the old metta thread in the archives, I think the comments of BB's were in a post of Christine's. He may have written them in a letter to another old teacher of hers. It's like a 'comfort blanket' in spite of the textual support which seems to give a lot of comfort, but actually makes the 'growing up' or development of understanding with detachment so much harder. Metta, Sarah ======== 39221 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 1:57am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 66 - Perception/Sa~n~naa (m) 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.3 Perception(sa~n~naa)contd] ***** When we think of a concept such as a flower, we may take the flower for something which lasts. The ariyans, those who have attained enlightenment, also think of concepts but they do so without wrong view. When they recognize a flower, they do not take that moment of recognizing for self. Neither do they take the flower for something which lasts. So long as defilements have not been eradicated we are subject to rebirth, we have to experience objects through the senses and on account of these objects clinging arises. We tend to become obsessed by the objects we experience. We read in the Middle Length Sayings (I, no. l8, Discourse of the Honey Ball) about the origin of perceptions and obsessions and their ending. Mahå- Kaccana gave to the monks an explanation about what the Buddha had said in brief: *** …Visual consciousness, your reverences, arises because of eye and visual object; the meeting of the three is sensory impingement (phassa); feelings are because of sensory impingement; what one feels one perceives; what one perceives one reasons about; what one reasons about obsesses one; what obsesses one is the origin of the number of perceptions and obsessions which assail a man in regard to visual object cognisable by the eye, past, future, present… *** The same is said with regard to the other doorways. Is this not daily life? We are obsessed by all the objects which are experienced through the six doors, objects of the past, the present and the future. It is due to saññå that we remember what we saw, heard, smelled, tasted, touched and experienced through the mind-door. We attach so much importance to our recollections, we often are dreaming about them. However, also such moments can be object of awareness and thus the thinking can be known as only a kind of nåma which arises because of conditions, not self. When realities are known as they appear one at a time through the six doorways, one is on the way leading to the end of obsessions. ***** [Ch.3 Perception(sa~n~naa)to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 39222 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 2:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] foundation web links Dear Nina, No trouble, but I'm not sure what is active. Kom told me at least a couple are not operating, so I've given him yr message and asked him to put a link in the links section for any which are ok. I believe a lot of work is being done on Dhammahome.com and it should be the current one, but I can't access it now. Metta, Sarah p.s Looking forward to your India series too! Also anusaya2. Rather than 'pertains to' which sounds a little unnatural, could you use 'refers to', 'applies to' or 'concerns'? Perhaps when you start posting them in small segments, it'll be easier to discuss in more detail. Appreciating all your posts and glad broadband is helping with all those posts rushing in;-). When we converted about a year ago only, it made a huge difference to our connection too. ======== --- nina wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > In India I received addresses of the Foundation web. I am not sure about > the > exact addresses, and if possible, would you make links, please? I think > others may like to know too. > Buddha Dhamma Org. > Dhammahome.com > Dhammastudyandsupport.com > The last one is of the Bay area. > 39223 From: Ken O Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 2:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi Larry Sanna does not cognize an object, it marks an object, it is like a painter that paints the wall stroke by stroke but it does not direct it or know the full picture. It is citta function to know, to cognize an object and sanna function it to mark it. Moha does not arise all the time because moha and kusala cittas are exclusive events. They cannot arise at the same time. Moha is to blind us from knowing that "I" we have is a concept. It blinds us to see what is impermanent as permanent. It is lobha that keep loving the view of I but it is moha that prevent us seeing this I to love which in fact is nowhere to be found. When sanna is arise with panna, sanna is kusala if it is arise with moha, it is akusala. I am not the one who say this is right or this is wrong. It is Buddha who say it :). You are disputing with him not me :-) cheers Ken O 39224 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 3:58am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 151 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are other 4 lobha mula cittas. They all are upekkha cittas. That is they are accompanied by upekkha vedana. These 4 lobha cittas are 1. upekkha saha gatam ditthi gata sampayuttam asankharika citta This dhamma molecule is made up of a dhamma atom 'citta' and other atoms which are cetasikas. These cetasikas that arise in this particular citta are 7 universal cetasikas, 5 pakinnaka cetasikas after exclusion of piti, 4 akusala sadharana cetasikas, 1 lobha and 1 ditthi cetasika. So there are 7+5+4+1+1 = 18 cetasikas. When these 18 cetasikas are linked with a citta, that citta then becomes 'upekkha saha gatam ditthi gata sampayuttam asankharika citta. 2. upekkha saha gatam ditthi gata sampayuttam sasankharika citta This citta is accompanied by 18 cetasikas as described above along with 1 thina cetasika and 1 middha cetasika. So there are altogether 20 cetasikas arise with this upekkha citta. 3. upekkha saha gatam ditthi gata vippayuttam asankharika citta This citta is accompanied by 18 cetasikas. They are 7 universal cetasikas, 5 pakinnaka cetasika after exclusion of piti from 6 cetasikas, 4 akusala sadharana cetasikas, 1 lobha cetasika, and 1 mana cetasika. There is no ditthi as this citta is ditthi gata vippayutta citta. 4. upekkha saha gatam ditthi gata vippayuttam sasankharika citta This citta is accompanied by 20 cetasikas. They are 13 annasamana cetasikas, 4 akusala sadharana cetasikas, 1 lobha, 1 mana, 1 thina, and 1 middha cetasika. Citta itself is pure and its function is to know the object. But as other nama dhamma called cetasikas are also co-arising and co-working with it, citta becomes lobha citta, mana citta, piti citta, upekkha citta etc etc. Overall when these akusala cetasikas arise together, the citta becomes akusala citta. Akusala cittas cannot see realities. When you understand realities, at that particular time there is no akusala cittas. Again if there are akusala cittas, realities cannot be understood. Whoever understand dhamma and whoever does not understand dhamma, dhammas happen on their own accord and they will be ongoing according to niyama. 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. 39225 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 4:20am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 152 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 2 dosa mula cittas. They are 1. domanassa saha gatam patigha sampayuttam asankharika citta 2. domanassa saha gatam patigha sampayuttam sasankharika citta Domanassa is made up of 'Do' or 'du' and 'mana + assa'. Do or du means 'bad' 'not good' 'dys-'etc and mana means 'mind' 'heart' 'soul'. So 'domanassa' means 'mental displeasure'. This is a kind of feeling a kind of vedana. This is the function of vedana cetasika. When there is displeasure, pleasure cannot arise. So there is no 'piti' at all in all dosa mula cittas. Saha means 'in conjunction with' 'together' 'being at the same time'. Gata means 'gone' 'gone away' 'arrive at' 'directed to'. So domanassa saha gatam means 'gone together with mental displeasure'. Patigha means 'striking'. It is dosa. As there is mental displeasure, there cannot be mental pleasure. In all dosa cittas, piti cetasika cannot arise at all. So there are 7 universal cetasikas, 5 pakinnaka cetasikas after exclusion of piti, 4 akusala sadharana cetasikas, and 1 dosa cetasika altogether 7 + 5 + 4 + 1 = 17 cetasikas arise with dosa mula citta. When issa arise there will be 18, and when macchariya arise there will be 18 and also when kukkucca cetasika arises there will be 18 cetasikas in those respective dosa mula cittas. But issa, macchariya, kukkucca cetasikas never arise together. And it is also possible that these all 3 dosa rooted cetasikas do not arise in dosa citta. Issa, maccharia, and kukkucca cetasikas are called aniyata yogi cetasikas. Yoga means 'connection' 'bond' 'attachment' 'yoke'. These 3 cetasikas do not always bind or yoke or attach or connect to citta that they can do so. This means there are dosa cittas that do not have any of jealousy, stinginess, and worry at all. When there is sasankharika dosa citta is accompanied by thina and middha cetasika. So there will be 19 cetasikas if they are pure dosa and 20 cetasikas if they are accompanied by one of 3 aniyata yogi cetasikas issa, macchariya, and kukkucca. 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. 39226 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 4:31am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 153 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 12 akusala cittas. 8 lobha mula cittas and 2 dosa mula cittas have been discussed in the previous posts at molecular level. Among 12 akusala citta, there left 2 moha mula cittas. They are 1. upekkha saha gatam vicikiccha sampayutta citta 2. upekkha saha gatam uddhacca sampayutta citta There are 13 annasamana cetasikas. Among them chanda does not arise with moha cittas. There is no wish at all when there is doubt or suspicion or when there is restlessness or upset. In these 2 moha cittas, piti cannot arise. For the vicikiccha citta as it is indecisiveness, adhimokkha cetasika cannot arise as it is decision. So out of 13 cetasikas chanda, piti, and adhimokkha cannot arise in vicikiccha citta. So there are 10 annasamana cetasikas in vicikiccha citta. There also arise 4 akusala sadharana cetasikas namely moha, ahirika, anottappa, and uddhacca. So there are 10 + 4 = 14 cetasikas. Along with vicikiccha cetasika there are altogether 15 cetasikas arise in vicikiccha sampayutta citta. One atom of dhamma, citta is linked with 15 atoms of dhamma 15 cetasikas and this dhamma molecule becomes 'upekkha saha gatam vicikiccha sampayutta citta'. Again, in uddhacca sampayutta citta, there is no vicikiccha. So there are 14 cetasikas. But unlike vicikiccha sampayutta citta there is adhimokkha cetasika. So there also are 15 cetasikas in uddhacca sampayutta citta. 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. 39227 From: plnao Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 4:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Band-aids, Control and Puppy dog Tails...(without much Pali for Joop!) Hi Sarah Thanks for the encouraging post. I'm very tired tonight after a long day and to tell the truth when I came to DSG was feeling overwhelmed by confusion re Dhamma, and irritation with all the back and forth thinking I have on it rather than the interest I usally have. Impatience and doubt. Natural enough, to be expected. In any case, your common-sense post brought me back from getting headaches from trying to figure things out. > We all have our own styles, preferences, methods or techniques for > managing our lives and indeed we often swap band-aids or recipes too. If > we think that we mustn't apply a band-aid or follow a recipe, it would be > indicative of a kind of wrong view of anatta meaning let pups or teenagers > or loud mouths run wild. I started to write some thoughts on this and found myself getting into the same thought patterns as yesterday. I won't get into that again tonight. > > Anatta and no control simply means that whether or not we apply the > band-aid, which colour gets to be applied and whether it will have any > desired effect or not will depend on many, many factors. Every thought, > intention, effort, act, speech, movement, like or dislike, as well as > every other mental and physical element, is dependent on numerous > conditions. The self, which only appears in our fantasies, never has > existed and never will exist to exert any say in the matter at all. This > is the illusion that only a Buddha could discover and teach us. Yes, so if I stop watching the news, it is not because there is a self that is controlling things. That's all that really matters. Right understanding came along and I knew quite clearly that it was time to do that. > So apply as many band-aids as you like (or rather, as conditions allow) > and develop awareness of the realities appearing at these times too, so > that gradually understanding can grow which knows the difference between > when there is and is not any awareness, regardless of whether it's a pink > florescent or a a spotty green band-aid (or no band-aid at all!) that is > being applied at the time. > > Gradually, by developing more understanding, the world of realities will > be clearly distinguished from the world of concepts and there won't be any > question about what actions should or should not be followed, who is > applying the remedies, whether band-aids have anything to do with the Path > or whether pups can really be trained. As Nina said, no controversies, no complications. I was thinking yesterday about how little doubt she has. Very encouraging. > > From Sammohavinodani (Dispeller), Classification of the Foundations of > Mindfulness, 1257f > *** > "Furthermore, six things lead to the abandoning of ill-will: 1) the > acquiring of the sign of amity, 2) devotion to the development of amity, > 3) reviewing ownership of kamma, 4) much reflection, 5) good friendship, > 6) suitable talk. > * Interesting. There is an Angutara Nikaya sutta that has it slightly differently, though it is referring to ill-will towards specific people rather than ill-will in general, I guess. Developing metta, karuna, equanimity, as well as ignoring the person and remember ownership of kamma. Personally, it seems to me that remembering kamma and equanimity are much more direct than feeling metta or compassion, in a way that supercede metta and compassion, but it will depend on conditions which method arises. It seems to me these days that ignoring the person is very helpful! If I don't know the news, the narrative dies out....a very commonsense approach. Sometimes it's not that complicated. Well, off to bed. Thanks again, Sarah. You're a very good Dhamma friend. My best to Jon. Metta, Phil 39228 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 5:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 153 ) Dear Htoo, Excellent detail and I appreciate any repetitions you give. Most helpful, but not easy even when I print them out. I'm a bit behind, so will try to catch up over the weekend and get back to you with qus/comments at the beg. of next week. Have a good weekend yourself and anumodana. Metta, Sarah p.s I get lost on atoms and molecules, so I skip those parts I'm afraid - not my accumulations!! ====== 39229 From: plnao Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 5:35am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hi Hugo > > I join Ken O (and others, I imagine) in wanting to know if there is such a > > teaching, because- in my case at least- > > I would like like to try it if that were the case. But I won't until I know > > that it was the Buddha's teaching. > > Interesting approach. > > I like to try things (no matter who says it) and check if they are in > accord to what the Buddha taught. Yes, you're right. I sounded a bit fundamentalist there. But I am aware that practices that might not be good Dhamma can be seen as good Dhamma because they are pleasant or give the impression of progress on the path when they are in fact just throwing us way off. I don't mean to say the Bhante's smile is such a thing, or yours. > Also, I think there are a lot of documents in Pali (suttas?) that > hasn't been translated, so I think Phil you will have to wait quite a > looooong time to find out ALL that the Buddha taught. Well, I assume that a Bhante would be able to tell me where in the Buddha's teaching anything he teaches is found. Or isn't, if that's the case. As Howard said elsewhere, there are practices that are good Dhamma that were not literally taught by the Buddha, such as bowing to Buddha statues. But claiming easy access to the divine abides is something I will remain dubious of for some time to come, I imagine, as other people are dubious of claims of easy access to jhanas. Again, I have to admit that I didn't reflect deeply enough on the Bhante's post to be able to say for sure whether he was claiming easy access to metta. I apologized for that yesterday. > > I think smiles are much more valuable when they arise due to conditions, as > > they did in the > > story I told you about smiling after doing metta meditation, smiling without > > knowing it. > > If I had smiled intentionally it wouldn't have been such a valuable > > experience, in my > > opinion. > > I think, you, Ken and probably others are approaching my story the > wrong way, one proof is the fact that at least a couple of people > replied with a description on how a smile is produced, which has > NOTHING to do with my story. Sorry, Hugo, there were so many posts. I must have missed your story. I think I was just responding to a post in which KK was telling me that I should at least try the practice. > It is like if I tell story on how I painted my house to a different > color to "camouflage" it when it becomes dirty, and then people reply > describing the chemical composition of paint. I said I used the paint > to accomplish a task, does it matter what is the chemical composition > of the paint? Probably if I want the paint to stay put for 10 or 20 > years, but for the purpose I needed at that time, it worked fine. Ah, I see. This is a metaphor I use for intentional metta practice a lot. I realized I was painting the world in metta. Did it matter what the composition of the metta was? Yes, it did to me because what matters is anatta, and there was no understanding of anatta in the way I was applying metta. But as you say, it can help at the time. But doesn't it become a crutch that we lean on? Instead of getting at the root problem of why the house is burning (since that is the usual metaphor the BUddha uses with houses) don't we instead keep putting out the flames on the surface, even as the foundation is burning all the stronger in places we can't see? Don't we risk missing our rare opportunity of human birth in a time of Dhamma to make real but gradual progress? I have been applying camouglaging paint to cover up a deeper problem recently, so I am by no means denying the value. Just want to be careful about not getting hooked on pleasant remedies rather than using them when it is the wise time to use them. Oh, I'm just babbling, Hugh. Pretty sleepy tonight. > > I will read and learn about painting IF and WHEN it is needed. > > > Phil, have you ever dealt with 2 and 3 years old kids? > > If not, let me tell you they are excellent teachers in this regard. > When they are in a tantrum, if you talk to them in an angry voice, the > tantrum gets worse, not better. I know first-hand, more than a few > times a week, at home, at the mall, etc. I don't have kids, but I teach Japanese kids that are around 3. I find using a harsh voice every once in a while is very effective, because I am usually so nice that it scares the bejeezers out of them when mean Uncle Phil appears! But I really don't know about kids. > So, if my son gives a tantrum, and I am angry, only nasty things > happen that cause suffering to him, to me and to the rest of the > family. If there is a tool (e.g. smile to myself) that helps me > abandon the angry state, I think it is part of Right Effort to use it. Yes, this is a very good example of when common sense should prevail over "pure" Dhamma. It is good Dhamma if it helps us to be non-harmful, yes. There is a time for good, common-sense Dhamma and a time for stricter interpretations. More middle way. I'm sure you're a great Dad. > Did Buddha taught how to deal with 2 or 3 years old?........not that I > know of. So how will you deal with your 2 or 3 year old when he/she > comes? No in this lifetime. But I do have a charmingly short-tempered wife, and lots and lots of adult students that try my patience. I think the Buddha taught us how to deal with everyone, every situation when he taught the FOur Noble Truths. Coming to see the way people are pushed to behave the way they do by clinging to khandas, even in a basic intellectual way, can make us so much more patient with people, whether they are 2 or 92. Last night we went out for dinner and there were these little kids running through the restaurant, screaming. Just unbelievable. I didn't get irritated. Didn't think about the Noble Truths, but I have faith the reflection I've done on them in the past helps. > > I think of smiles as flowers that we can cultivate, but not place on our > > face by intention. > > There is a sutta in Anguttara Nikaya (III.91) in which the Buddha teaches us > > that we can plough > > the field, and water it, and do other preparatory work, but we cannot will > > the plants > > to grow. They grow due to conditions, beyond our control. That's the way I > > feel about smiles. > > mmmm....you are looking at the smile as a goal, my story specifically > says that the smile is a tool. No, I didn't mean that the smile is a goal. The state of mind that produces the smile is the goal in this case. We can't choose a state of mind, it rises due to conditions. I mean, that's for sure, obviously. I'm sure that your smiles are sincere, and are becoming more sincere the more and longer you smile. Of course, there are times when the smile is not sincere, when it arises from an angry citta. I'm sure you know those smiles. My wife does a good imitation of the way I smile when I'm pissed off. But it doesn't matter. Smile on, Hugo. And give your son a big smile for me! Metta, Phil 39230 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 5:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lokuttara Satipatthana? Hi Steve, Nice to hear from you. op 02-12-2004 05:41 schreef seisen_au op seisen_@h...: > I was under the impression that > Satipatthana could be both mundane and lokuttara? > It has in this the couplets section of the Vibangha (p.269)> > (The four foundations of mindfulness) Are supramundane (lokuttara). N: Yes, The four foundations of mindfulness are among the factors leading to enlightenment and thus they can be lokiya and lokuttara. They have to be developed together with the other factors. There are three meanings of satipatthana:1 Sati of satipatthana,2 the objects of satipatthana (four foundations), and the way Buddha and his disciples went. That is, no attachment when people listen, no aversion when they turn away. See the Co. to the Vibhanga, the Dispeller of Delusion. p. 270. Thus, as is often the case dhammas can be considered under different aspects, different headings. Dispeller 351: Dispeller p. 354: We read in the Co to the Satipatthana sutta (Ven. Soma,) about the aspects of: only one Path, ekaayana maggo. I appreciated the post by Ven. Bhante Vimalaramsi. We read on p. 37 where it is refuted that one way is used in the sense of going to nibbaana once: < ...in this instruction the earlier part of the Path is intended to be presented, the preliminary part of the Way of Mindfulness proceeding in the four objects of contemplation is meant here, and not the supramundane Way of Mindfulness. And that preliminary part of the Path proceeds (for the aspirant) many times; or it may be said that there is many a going on it, by way of repetition of practice.> Nina. 39231 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 5:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendencies, accumulations. (Part I) Hi Larry, op 03-12-2004 00:50 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: are latent tendencies and accumulations exactly the same or different? I would say > accumulations can be either wholesome or unwholesome but latent > tendencies are always unwholesome N: This is correct. L: although bhavaraga (relishing the > process) is confined to jhana which is supposed to be wholesome. N: bhavaraaga: the latent tendency of craving for continued existence. Jhanacitta is kusala citta, and when there is craving there is no jhana-citta. bhavaraaga arises with lobha-mulacitta. > N: "Accumulation can be used in a wide sense: all our experiences are > accumulated, so that we remember them later on." > > L: What cetasika accumulates experiences and later remembers them? N: citta and cetasika accumulate. Sañña cetasika remembers. > L: "Are you saying kamma conditions > kamma by natural decisive support condition but not by kamma condition?" > > N: "For kamma to produce result not only kamma-condition is necessary > but > also natural decisive support condition." > > L: I'm not talking about kamma producing result. N: You are right, I oversaw that point, sorry. Thus, the answer is here: by natural decisive support condition. We should remember Mike's examples of habitual kamma. When we talk about kamma, and also about any other notion, we have to ask ourselves; is it citta, cetasika rupa or a concept? I leave out nibbaana. Kamma is cetana cetasika. L: You said javana is > conditioned by accumulations. What are these accumulations? They are the > accumulations of previous javana cittas and related factors such as > actions. However javana cannot condition javana by means of kamma > condition even though javana is kamma. Therefore, javana must condition > javana by natural decisive support condition. N: Yes, you are right. I would like to add this: the javanacittas are actively accumulating just now. Then they fall away, but they go on as accumulated tendencies, good or bad. Thus, I like to differentiate between active accumulating and what has been accumulated. Ayuhaana is used in connection with the accumulation of kamma that can produce result. Thus, I would like to be careful with the word accumulation. We have to see in which context it is used. There are other words. Expositor I, p.56, 57: apacaya: accumulations of kamma and the corruptions, that keep us in the cycle. P 84: cinaati: accumulate. Citta arranges itself in a series: word association of citta and cita. You found the word agglomeration, adding together (sampi.n.dana). We come to that later. > L: "Can panna undermine natural decisive support condition?" > > N: "No. It is the Law of Dhamma, Dhamma Niyama. This condition > comprises many factors." > > L: I disagree. If I am in the habit of becoming angry in a certain kind > of situation there is the possibility that panna could intervene, thus > disrupting the usual reaction. N: Quite so. And how is this conditioned? You have also accumulated pañña, not only anger. And here the accumulated pañña conditions the arising of kusala citta with pañña by way of natural decisive support condition. I like this example. We have to consider many factors here: good friends, listening to the Dhamma. Some conditioning factors stem from long ago. See my Expositor quote. It is interesting to see in our own life that sometimes akusala wins, sometimes kusala. L: This is the virtue of panna, to undermine > latent tendencies and even wholesome accumulations by disrupting natural > decisive support condition. N: Thus, the condition itself is not undermined, but the akusala has no chance when understanding was developed. That is why pañña is an important condition for all kinds of kusala. The kusala can take over. Nina. 39232 From: jwromeijn Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 7:17am Subject: [dsg] Re: What means 'no control' ? And band-aids. And latent tendencies Dear Nina, Sarah, and all Nina, you wrote: Dispositions are not permanent, they change because new tendencies are added to them when akusala citta arises, and also, when understanding is developed they wear away. I think it is the same discussion as Larry and you (and others) had under the title "latent tendencies, accumulations". What you say about "habit" I understand, but it is not special part of the Dhamma? To the concept "habit" belongs to the conventional psychology; it is an aspect of what is called "personality" in modern western psychology: a very conceptual, non-ultimate, word. The most important buddhist principles are for me: dukkha, anatta and anicca. And I test statements (even if they are made by you) to this principles. And of many statements (for example the Mahayana- expression 'Buddha-nature' I think: there is a core of atta-belief in it. So you have not convinced me. The difference between 'to fall away' and 'to wear away' is relative, not absolute; so perhaps we can agree on the statement: also dispositions are appearing and disappearing but not so quick as citta's, not so quick as rupa's, but on another timescale: of years or of hundred of years; and not 'automatically'. Joop: Sarah, I'm still not sure if I continue participating in this DSG. I converted myself to a Theravadin some years ago but I knew from that start that it was not for hundred percent and will not be so either; I'm trying to develop a 'modern buddhism'; on the level of conventional truth I prefer modern science, more than mythology. And it is difficult to discuss with (honorable) members who are hundred percent Theravadins and who don't doubt. My opinion is that what the Buddha said in the Sutta's has primary a soteriological meaning, not an ontological. And that the Buddha used the language, the mythology and the metaphores and the similes of his time and (North-Indian) culture. Sarah: Vism ch x111 on World Cycles about how the world perishes etc. Joop: I like this kind of stories. It's amazing that the time-scales used in it (an aeon has the same magnitude as a billion years), are But, to say it clear and simple: if Buddhagosa or (a reader) think this is meant literal than he is wrong ! Sarah: On animals and lack of wisdom etc, see ch 11, Abhidhamma in Daily Life on 'Different types of Patisandhi citta'. I have read this chapter (again), it's clear and I have no problem with it. But: Sarah: woeful planes like the animal plane. Joop: The question is: what means the term "plane"; because we had to combine the system of the 31 (or whatever number one prefers) planes with the empirical fact that on the planet Earth only animals (plane 2) and human beings (plane 5) are living. If the beings on all the other planes really (in ontological way) exist, is not important; important is the soteriological function of them. Somewhere some hundred thousand years ago thye first Patisandhi citta has been arising: the evolutionary leap from animal to human being. It's a pity Nina and Sarah don't react to my statement that according tot the evolutionary theory some hundred thousand years ago the human species evoluates from an animal-like species. It's more clear when you say: this theory is not correct. I think this theory is correct and what the Tipitaka and the commentaries say about history cannot or should not be taken literal. Metta Joop 39233 From: Hugo Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 7:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Value of discussion (was evil thoughts) Hello Andrew, On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 23:35:47 -0000, Andrew wrote: > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > > Hello Phil, > [snip] > > > > I am not saying that you should not help, I said that if the > > discussion becomes too much "I think", "I imagine", "I suspect", "I > am > > not sure", "I wish", "what if", then it is probably going too far > from > > the facts and getting into the imaginary. > > > > Sometimes a certain dose of imaginary thinking is useful, but watch > out. > > Hi Hugo > > Am I to conclude from the above that you experience some "thinking" > that is not "imaginary"? I am not sure if you are playing semantics over the words, but I will assume you are not, as I really don't like discussions over semantics, I have been involved in plenty of them and I think they do more harm than good. Now, to answer your question, that would be a wrong conclusion, please note that I said: "...if the discussion becomes too much...", emphasis on "IF" and "TOO MUCH". > Can you please elaborate? I meant that if during the course of a discussion none of the parties have direct knowledge of the topic at hand, and everybody is just guessing what is the right answer, the discussion should not continue any longer until the parties get some more knowledge, otherwise there are some risks: a) They convince each other of something that is Wrong View, but because all of them agreed after pondering on it they believe it is true. b) They fight each other and generate bad feeling, and probably even preventing from future discussions to take place, or to even see each other. Or, if there are future discussions, one of the angry parties will automatically (or subconsciously) take the side against whoever was his "enemy" in the last discussion. > There is a sutta in which the Buddha encourages us to say things > like "I think" and "I suspect" when we are not claiming direct > knowledge. In other words, he is warning us against the dangers of > imagining that we know realities that we don't. I couldn't parse your paragraph. A direct yes or no answer to the following question will clarify my doubts, is the Buddha encouraging us to say things like "I think" when we do not have direct knowledge or not? > How should we conduct a Dhamma discussion then, in your opinion? I have described it before, so I will summarize: 1) Good dose of first-hand facts, or at least second-hand facts 2) Good dose of good-will 3) Good dose of will to learn 4) Good dose of humility 5) Good sense on when to stop a specific topic because more facts are needed. 6) Good will to go an investigate what is not known as a fact Also, there are some things that are counterproductive to a discussion: 1) Will to show off 2) Will to impose views on others 3) Will to only speak and not hear 4) Will to only speak but not investigate 5) Will to discuss just for the sake of it > PS yes, I'm grumpy this morning. Will have to drive into town and > find someone to smile at me! [big smile] Don't depend on others, smile yourself to yourself. Now, if this helps: :-) :-D ;-) 8-D 8-) :-P 8-P Greetings, -- Hugo 39234 From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 6:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Dhamma Greetings Howard and Andrew, I think there is something missing and that something is the whole practice that the Buddha prescribed for meditation. In many, many suttas the Buddha said to practice generosity often. The act of giving in body speech and mind is an essential aspect of having a happy mind and therein lies the easy smile. In Asia where Buddhism is practiced in real ways instead of just intellectual ideas and debates, generosity is a very important aspect of life. Every morning the bhikkhus go out on alms round, the people there are very happy when they see the bhikkhus accepting food and other requisites. They become inspired to join in and they do this with a real sincere smile. Too many people in the West think that the end of suffering is to study, talk and practice formal meditation, but this is not following the way they do things in Asia. Generosity can and is practiced in body, helping others in real physical ways, like showing others a smile, or helping others to do things that need to be done. A common expression in Asia is "many hands make the work lighter". Generosity in speech means to say things that make others smile, using speech as a tool to help change a friends frown into a smile. For example, a the food store while waiting in line you notice that the cashier is having a rough time with some customers, when you get up to purchase whatever, you can say something to help the cashier to smile and relax. Generosity in mind means focusing one's mind on wishing others happiness, while waiting in line at the food store. Otherwise mind takes off and has a real chance to get involved with unwholesome thoughts and ideas. The idea to just watch whatever arises and forget mindfulness is a cause of a very dry type of practice, that takes a long time to develop ergo, the idea that it may take many lifetimes to accomplish spiritual advancement. Without the practice of generosity in body, speech and mind, the Buddha's teaching are lost in a sea of intellectualizing, and theory. The Buddha was a very practical teacher, he taught that it is necessary for everyone to be generous as much as possible daily and to do this with a happy mind. As KK put it what we think and ponder on, that is the inclination of one's mind. So thinking kind loving thoughts leads to more kind loving thoughts. Kind loving actions leads to more kind loving actions. Kind loving speech leads to more kind loving speech. And this is only the first step to be practiced many times during the day, when one is serious about the Buddha's path. If one must be serious, be seriously happy and give that happiness away as much as possible. The next step in the Buddha's teachings is keeping and following the 5 precepts. This leads to a tranquil mind that is free from remorse and anxiety. And only then to practice sitting in meditation. It is time to take the Buddha's teachings out of the intellectual and reinstate it into the practical. That naturally leads to more smiles that are sincere and a person who practices this, instead of talking about it, can know for themselves through direct knowledge what this teaching is all about. Maha-Metta always Bhante Vimalaramsi 39235 From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 7:05am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Dhamma Greetings Ken O, With your understanding and belief system this may be true. And is it following what the Buddha's intentions are? When Hugo stated: "Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" -- then you should abandon them..." [...] "...Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness" -- then you should enter & remain in them. Are you following what is said by the letter or intention? To be too literal leads one's mind to rigidity and harshness. Be ware of the critical mind that places the letter of the suttas above the intention. Maha-Metta always Bhante Vimalaramsi PS. The rest of the Kalama Sutta deals with the practice of the Brahma Viharas and this definitely deals with happiness and smiling. Don't you agree? 39236 From: Ken O Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 8:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What means 'no control' ? And band-aids. And latent tendencies Hi Joop > To the concept "habit" belongs to the conventional psychology; it > is an aspect of what is called "personality" in modern western > psychology: a very conceptual, non-ultimate, word. > > The most important buddhist principles are for me: dukkha, anatta > and anicca. And I test statements (even if they are made by you) to > this principles. And of many statements (for example the Mahayana- > expression 'Buddha-nature' I think: there is a core of > atta-belief in it. So you have not convinced me. k: Accumulations may not be a good word, we can use the taints, the fermentations or the underlying tendecies. J: The difference between 'to fall away' and 'to wear away' is relative, not absolute; so perhaps we can agree on the statement: also dispositions are appearing and disappearing but not so quick as citta's, not so quick as rupa's, but on another timescale: of years or of hundred of years; and not 'automatically'. k; Cittas rise and falls like a monkey moving from branches to branches, there is no relative about it. Ideation that stays in our mind because of continuously sucession of such cittas that make this seem "longer" which in fact this is not the case. All cittas that arise must fall away, but disposition can be longer that is because we are being "blind" by ignorance of not able to see the stream of succession of cittas that make us to believe it is longer. > Joop: Sarah, I'm still not sure if I continue participating in this > DSG. I converted myself to a Theravadin some years ago but I knew > from that start that it was not for hundred percent and will not be > so either; I'm trying to develop a 'modern buddhism'; on the level > of conventional truth I prefer modern science, more than mythology. > And it is difficult to discuss with (honorable) members who are hundred percent Theravadins and who don't doubt. k: We have faith in the teachings because we have investigate over and over and over again for unteen times and the conclusion we have is still that it has yet fail us or doubt them in anyway. All convictions to go on the path must start with faith. If everyone keep doubting them and believe what they think is correct, then the dhamma of the teachings will be changed and changed and the end, what has become of the dhamma will not be what is being taught by the Buddha. Teachings of Buddhism is not evolution, do you prefer to join a religion that always evolve its core values. J: It's a pity Nina and Sarah don't react to my statement that > according tot the evolutionary theory some hundred thousand years ago the human species evoluates from an animal-like species. It's more clear when you say: this theory is not correct. I think this theory is correct and what the Tipitaka and the commentaries say about history cannot or should not be taken literal. k: Definitely to me human is evolved from animal and we share many similarities, but one thing make us apart from animals is that we can develop panna, our kusala roots are stronger and not dull as animal. I dont think I have seen Buddha rejected evolution in those texts I have seen. Where does the distinction arise during this evolution does not matter anymore. Ken O 39237 From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 7:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Value of discussion (was evil thoughts) Dhamma Greetings Sarah, By reading so much about lobha when trying to pull up wholesome states of mind is a mistake. Chanda is a wholesome form of desire and gets forgotten about. If one is pulling up a smile this leads to an uplifted mind and doesn't have anything to do with the unwholesome lobha. Chanda is pointing one's mind to the direction of liberation, so it is a wholesome direction even if one has desire in their mind because of the direction one intends to attain. Maha-Metta always Bhante Vimalaramsi 39238 From: Hugo Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 9:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:42:29 -0500, Bhante Vimalaramsi wrote: > It is time to take the Buddha's teachings out of the intellectual and > reinstate it into the practical. That naturally leads to more smiles that > are sincere and a person who practices this, instead of talking about it, > can know for themselves through direct knowledge what this teaching is > all about. Thanks Bhante, your words made a smile arise on me. :-) -- Hugo 39239 From: ashkenn2k Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 9:08am Subject: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hi Bhante, I did not answer Hugo, because these kind of argument are for those who wish to justify themselves when they cannot find sutta evidence to support their dicussion. If you can find a single sentence in the suttas that say smile is a method taught by Buddha and quote the source, I would have accept it when it is first said. If the four immeasurables are to be supported by using smiles as described in the suttas or anywhere in the ancient texts, I would have accepted what you have said. I will give you a comprehensive reply latter on as I am not at home when writing this. Be assure, it will not contained any commentaries or Abhidhamma as I am confident that the sutta itself is good enough. That is how much faith I have in the dhamma even though I have not read all the Nikayas. I not here to defend my point of view because there is nothing in it for me to defend for. I am here to defend the anicent path so that it can be preserved unchanged for the next 2,500 years. I am here to defend the ancient path so that others in the future generations can benefit that these texts are not changed, not even a single word. I am fundamentalist and I know that the anicent path is worth dying for. I dont even know Pali yet I have unshakeable faith in them. Ken O 39240 From: Hugo Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 9:13am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 05:56:59 +0000 (GMT), Ken O wrote: > k: Hugo, do you have the SN series in hard copy. Sorry for asking, but does SN stands for.........? Sutta Nikaya? If that's the question, then the answer is no, I don't have them, I am budgeting to get them next year. > Read the portion where Buddha talks in D.O where it says on the part, oneself and others. > These are very indicative statement on why sometimes > purposedly actions can be a hindrance rather than beneficial. Thanks for the recommendation, I will read them (along with the sutta you mentioned in a previous post: Kakacuupamasutta), I just need to figure it out when.... :-) -- Hugo 39241 From: Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 4:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Hi, Ken - In a message dated 12/3/04 3:19:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > To me, the understanding of the Buddha's Dhamma as descriptive, not > prescriptive, is sacrosanct. It is the best thing that ever happened > to me. Your appraisal amounts to, "Oh hogwash!" and "Oh don't be so > pathetic!" ------------------------------------------ Howard: The statement "Oh, please" certainly does indicate strong disagreement. But as for your final quote, I would prefer that you didn't put nasty words in my mouth. As for what you find to be sacrosanct, you are, of course, welcome to that. I'm happy for you that you have found a perspective that is helpful to you and provides you with a means of grasping the Dhamma. I understand that. My "phenomenalism" serves me in a similar way. Of course, we should each realize that we may well be in error. ---------------------------------------- > > But I should be the last to object: I have said some uncomplimentary > things about formal practices, and I know those practices are dear > to you. In any case, I take no offence. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: That's good. :-) Likewise, though I think the "no-formal-practice" perspective is off the mark, I have not taken offense at criticisms made of formal practice. ----------------------------------------- > > You go on to imply that certain DSG people are teaching > helplessness, hopelessness and the inefficacy of kamma. You have > said as much many times before, and everyone concerned has denied > it. So please, quote exactly where this has occurred, and let's look > at it again. ----------------------------------------- Howard: I've pointed this out, in specific contexts many times, as you say. I am unwilling at this point to scour the archives for references. If you do not think that the view that there is no practice to be willfully done, and none that *can* be so done, is not a view of helplessness and hopelessness, then simply dismiss my perspective as nonsense. That is certainly your prerogative. ======================= 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) 39242 From: Hugo Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 9:27am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Dear Phil, On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:35:25 +0900, plnao wrote: > Sorry, Hugo, there were so many posts. I must have missed your story. > I think I was just responding to a post in which KK was telling me > that I should at least try the practice. Yes, I noticed the confusion. Part of it is that KK talks about "smiling to others", while I was talking about "smiling to yourself". > > It is like if I tell story on how I painted my house to a different > > color to "camouflage" it when it becomes dirty, and then people reply > > describing the chemical composition of paint. I said I used the paint > > to accomplish a task, does it matter what is the chemical composition > > of the paint? Probably if I want the paint to stay put for 10 or 20 > > years, but for the purpose I needed at that time, it worked fine. > > Ah, I see. This is a metaphor I use for intentional metta practice a lot. > I realized I was painting the world in metta. Did it matter what the > composition of the metta was? LOL, more confusion, no I was talking about when Htoo and I think Ken replied with a description on how a smile is generated. But let's leave it at that, the thread has gone too long already. > I don't have kids, but I teach Japanese kids that are around 3. Ah!!!!, no, that's not the same!!! Kids know that teachers should be approached in some way and parents in another!!! Also, teacher deal with them from 8-13 (choose your timing and days), parents...... 24x7. > I find > using a harsh voice every once in a while is very effective, With your children sometimes works, but it is not really a good technique if you want long term results. Once I told my father that I wanted that my kids do what I tell them to do not because they are afraid of me, but because they admire, love and respect me.....I am working on that.....it is tough, though. On the other hand, being a Buddhist, helps a lot! > More middle way. I'm sure you're a great Dad. I only wish....... > Last night we went out for dinner and there were these little kids > running through the restaurant, screaming. Just unbelievable. I didn't get > irritated. That's one of the funny things, when I hear OTHER's kids screaming and throwing tantrums, I feel compassion for the fathers, but when my kids do that, that's different, I feel stress. And the reason is that Wrong View of MY kids versus the OTHER's kids.....I am working on that, plus there is also that sometimes conscious, and sometimes unconscious feeling of "what will others say?". Anyway, I think I am deviating from the topic of the thread. > We can't choose a state of mind, it rises due to > conditions. My experience is that I can create the conditions for certain state of mind to arise, or I can dissassemble the conditions for certain state of mind to not arise. Of course I am not successful 100% of the time, but I have been successful enough times to be convinced that what I do, effectively affects my state of mind. > Smile on, Hugo. And give your son a big smile for me! :-) Thanks, -- Hugo 39243 From: Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 4:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi, Ken (and Larry) - In a message dated 12/3/04 5:43:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > > Sanna does not cognize an object, it marks an object, it is like a > painter that paints the wall stroke by stroke but it does not direct > it or know the full picture. It is citta function to know, to > cognize an object and sanna function it to mark it. > ========================= My understanding is that sa~n~na has both a marking function and a (later) recognition function. 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) 39244 From: Hugo Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 9:45am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) To All, On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:05:46 -0500, Bhante Vimalaramsi wrote: > Are you following what is said by the letter or intention? To be too > literal leads one's mind to rigidity and harshness. Also, if we consider the source of the Tipitaka and how it has been maintained and translated. And after seeing how people (including Bhante Vimalaramsi) has pointed out differences or inaccuracies in translations. Also, let's not forget the cultural and differences in languages, if you know more than one language it is easy to see how difficult is to translate complex documents from one to the other. Now if we consider that we can't find any Pali native speakers whom to ask, and even if there were, it is at least 2500 years later. I have to believe that somewhere, sometime, somebody has made at least ONE mistake. And that mistake if followed by the letter might lead you to some wrong path, but if you read everything and then find the key parts and significance, that's easier to find the right path. Ah, and let's not forget the printing errors!! Months ago (maybe a year) I made a similar comment but about the Christian Bible (same thing, the way it was written, maintained, copied, translated, etc.) when talking with a couple of friends who say that thou shall live as it is explicitely written in the Bible (even without considering cultural differences, time differences and practices). Just a few days after that discussion, I consulted the Bible for something (I don't remember what) and there, I found ONE mistake!!!, it seems it was a printing mistake, they changed one letter, it said: Hombra instead of Hombre (hombre means 'man' in Spanish) which might not be that bad, and it is easy to spot, but can you imagine how many words can change their meaning by altering just one word? And in any case, that simple case breaks the statement that the Bible is free from errors. Also, when I first started the journey into Buddhism, I read about a monk (Can't remember his name) in a website set up by some of his students who took care of him during his last days at the hospital. They said that sometimes somebody would ask him why he didn't quote anything from the Tipitaka when giving Dhamma talks. His reply amazed me because it matched almost exactly what I said before about the possibility of an error in the scriptures, so he said he taught what he knew by direct experience, because that he could explain. Greetings, -- Hugo 39245 From: Hugo Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 9:48am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:45:02 -0500, Hugo wrote: > days after that discussion, I consulted the Bible for something (I > don't remember what) and there, I found ONE mistake!!!, it seems it > was a printing mistake, they changed one letter, it said: Hombra > instead of Hombre (hombre means 'man' in Spanish) which might not be > that bad, and it is easy to spot, but can you imagine how many words > can change their meaning by altering just one word? Oops, the question should have been: Can you imagine how many words can change their meaning by altering just one letter? Otherwise it is too stupid and easy to answer. ;-P Also, "Hombra" doesn't exist as far as I know in the Spanish language that's why it is easy to spot the error. -- Hugo 39246 From: ashkenn2k Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 9:54am Subject: Re: Sanna/Ken O Hi Howard You are right to say that sanna is marking or recognition. <> I was trying to say <> << There are moments of hearing and the saññå which accompanies hearing-consciousness merely perceives the sound, it does not know the meaning of what is said. When we understand the meaning of what has been said there are cittas which experience concepts and the saññå which accompanies those cittas remembers and `marks' a concept.>> Should have used the cetasikas by Nina Ken O 39247 From: Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 4:52am Subject: Kindness in Word, Speech, and Deed Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's ... Hi, Bhante (and Rob M, Ken O, and all) - In a message dated 12/3/04 10:52:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, bhantevimalaramsi@j... writes: > > Dhamma Greetings Howard and Andrew, > > I think there is something missing and that something is the whole > practice that the Buddha prescribed for meditation. In many, many suttas > the Buddha said to practice generosity often. The act of giving in body > speech and mind is an essential aspect of having a happy mind and therein > lies the easy smile. > > In Asia where Buddhism is practiced in real ways instead of just > intellectual ideas and debates, generosity is a very important aspect of > life. Every morning the bhikkhus go out on alms round, the people there > are very happy when they see the bhikkhus accepting food and other > requisites. They become inspired to join in and they do this with a real > sincere smile. > > Too many people in the West think that the end of suffering is to study, > talk and practice formal meditation, but this is not following the way > they do things in Asia. Generosity can and is practiced in body, helping > others in real physical ways, like showing others a smile, or helping > others to do things that need to be done. A common expression in Asia is > "many hands make the work lighter". > > Generosity in speech means to say things that make others smile, using > speech as a tool to help change a friends frown into a smile. For > example, a the food store while waiting in line you notice that the > cashier is having a rough time with some customers, when you get up to > purchase whatever, you can say something to help the cashier to smile and > relax. > > Generosity in mind means focusing one's mind on wishing others happiness, > while waiting in line at the food store. Otherwise mind takes off and has > a real chance to get involved with unwholesome thoughts and ideas. The > idea to just watch whatever arises and forget mindfulness is a cause of a > very dry type of practice, that takes a long time to develop ergo, the > idea that it may take many lifetimes to accomplish spiritual advancement. > > Without the practice of generosity in body, speech and mind, the Buddha's > teaching are lost in a sea of intellectualizing, and theory. The Buddha > was a very practical teacher, he taught that it is necessary for everyone > to be generous as much as possible daily and to do this with a happy > mind. As KK put it what we think and ponder on, that is the inclination > of one's mind. So thinking kind loving thoughts leads to more kind loving > thoughts. Kind loving actions leads to more kind loving actions. Kind > loving speech leads to more kind loving speech. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I strongly agree with you, Bhante, about the great importance of kindness in word, speech, and deed. Actually, it turns out that there is an unusual amount of this to be founbd among the members of this particular list (regardless of how idiosyncratic you and I may find some perspectives expressed here at times! ;-) I think particularly of someone like Rob Moult, just as an example, who lives by this. In that regard, and in relation to the food store example you give above, it *may* have been Rob who gave a similar example of a practice of his, a willed practice, BTW, Ken ;-), that consist of always greeting highway toll takers with a smile and a good word - actions that *prompt* happy responses. Bob is only one example. Good will and its practical expression is very prominent among the DSG membership. In fact, it happens that I've seen more of such here than on some other ostensibly more practice-oriented lists. So - go know!! ;-)) ------------------------------------------ > > And this is only the first step to be practiced many times during the > day, when one is serious about the Buddha's path. If one must be serious, > be seriously happy and give that happiness away as much as possible. > > The next step in the Buddha's teachings is keeping and following the 5 > precepts. This leads to a tranquil mind that is free from remorse and > anxiety. And only then to practice sitting in meditation. > > It is time to take the Buddha's teachings out of the intellectual and > reinstate it into the practical. That naturally leads to more smiles that > are sincere and a person who practices this, instead of talking about it, > can know for themselves through direct knowledge what this teaching is > all about. > > Maha-Metta > always > Bhante Vimalaramsi > ======================= 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) 39248 From: ashkenn2k Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 9:56am Subject: Re: Sanna/Ken O Hi Howard Forget to say thanks for correcting me on Sanna. Ken O 39249 From: ashkenn2k Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 10:18am Subject: Kindness in Word, Speech, and Deed Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's ... Hi Howard and Bhante, There is difference between a smile conditioned by kusala behaviour and using a smile to conditioned a kusala behaviour. When people see Bhikkhu and smile at them, it is because it is conditioned by good will. Just like in ancient times, when some people see Buddha, they felt joyous. If they purposedly have to smile at them, then it is smile that conditioned kusala behaviour. There is a world of difference between them. Sorry geneorsity in speech does not mean make others smile. Please see Prince Abaya sutta what is meant by generosity in speech. And first thing is learning dhamma is about understanding suffering and when we understand that, everything will fall in place. You will naturally be more compassionate, more polite, more kindness and more joyous and not the other way round, that is why Buddha say Arahant will never do any more akusala behaviour because there is direct understanding of suffering, that is why Arahants are also compassion because of this. It is not the other way round as this can be conditioned by akusala cittas. Ken O 39250 From: Hugo Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 10:22am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hello Ken, On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:08:56 -0000, ashkenn2k wrote: > I not here to defend my point of view because there is nothing in it > for me to defend for. I am here to defend the anicent path so that > it can be preserved unchanged for the next 2,500 years. I am here to > defend the ancient path so that others in the future generations can > benefit that these texts are not changed, not even a single word. I > am fundamentalist and I know that the anicent path is worth dying for. > I dont even know Pali yet I have unshakeable faith in them. That sounds in the exact same spirit as those friends of mine that I talked about in my last post (different religion, same spirit). Nowadays we are still good friends, but we don't talk religion anymore. I hope that you and I can keep being good "cyberfriends" and I hope you are still willing to help me if I have questions about Abhidhamma, and other topics you know. I don't know what I can offer to you, though. mmmm...maybe I can offer this to you from the Dhammapada: Sabbe sankhara anicca. All conditioned things are impermanent. The Path is conditioned, thus it is impermanent, don't be attached to it or you will suffer. Or you can take it with a grain of salt and be happy that you know what the result will be, i.e. you will lose the battle but there will be a jolly good fellow coming to re-establish it, according to: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/bfaq.html#maitreya Or you can be happy because during this lifetime the path will remain, therefore you won the battle! Anyway, it is up to you to decide how you want to feel about this. Also, if you want to defend that the texts are not changed even one word, I would suggest that you learn Pali, review all the existing translations and correct them if necessary, for a lot of people (including myself) the English translations are "The Book" because our inability to read Pali. Greetings, -- Hugo 39251 From: Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 5:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sanna/Ken O Hi, Ken - In a message dated 12/3/04 1:01:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > Forget to say thanks for correcting me on Sanna. > > > Ken O > ========================== No problem! Thanks very much for your kindness in writing back. :-) 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) 39252 From: Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 5:26am Subject: Re: Kindness in Word, Speech, and Deed Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's ... Hi, Rob M - A typo correction. In a message dated 12/3/04 1:03:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Bob is only one example. > ================== I meant "Rob"! ;-) 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) 39253 From: Hugo Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 10:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] India discussions - audio version Hello Sarah, On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 05:24:45 +0000 (GMT), sarah abbott wrote: > As promised, the recordings of discussions from our recent trip to India Do they include some of the interactions with the hotel clerks? ;-) -- Hugo 39254 From: Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 5:46am Subject: Re: Kindness in Word, Speech, and Deed Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's ... Hi, Ken (and Bhante) - Although your post is a direct reply to my post entitled "Kindness in Word, Speech, and Deed," it isn't a response to the content of my post, but instead is just further expression of your position with respect to previously discussed material. My post was about kindness and its prominent presence on DSG. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/3/04 1:30:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard and Bhante, > > There is difference between a smile conditioned by kusala behaviour > and using a smile to conditioned a kusala behaviour. When people see > Bhikkhu and smile at them, it is because it is conditioned by good > will. Just like in ancient times, when some people see Buddha, they > felt joyous. If they purposedly have to smile at them, then it is > smile that conditioned kusala behaviour. There is a world of > difference between them. > > Sorry geneorsity in speech does not mean make others smile. Please > see Prince Abaya sutta what is meant by generosity in speech. > > And first thing is learning dhamma is about understanding suffering > and when we understand that, everything will fall in place. You will > naturally be more compassionate, more polite, more kindness and more > joyous and not the other way round, that is why Buddha say Arahant > will never do any more akusala behaviour because there is direct > understanding of suffering, that is why Arahants are also compassion > because of this. It is not the other way round as this can be > conditioned by akusala cittas. > > > Ken O > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 39255 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 0:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: AN III - 100 mental misconduct vs. thoughts of ill-will Dear Sarah, thank you very much. I especially find the quote below helpful. We know we have lobha, and at the same time there is dislike of it, a thought: I should not have akusala. Very good if you now and then quote. Nina op 03-12-2004 09:11 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: > Then a qu about disliking one's accumulations - so little kusala and so > much akusala in a day. > ... > K. Sujin responded by saying that instead of seeing the deeply rooted > lobha, the self doesn't like it again. When there's more understanding, > one takes it easy. It doesn't matter what is arising, because it has > arisen by conditions, completely arisen by conditions. We have the latent > tendency for lobha, dosa and other akusala (unwholesome states). But if > the akusala moment does not arise, how can one know that one still has it? > So, it's good to know the truth of one's accumulations and this is the > way to develop panna, because it can understand reality. 39256 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 0:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: evolution. Dear Joop, op 03-12-2004 16:17 schreef jwromeijn op jwromeijn@y...: > It's a pity Nina and Sarah don't react to my statement that according > tot the evolutionary theory some hundred thousand years ago the human > species evoluates from an animal-like species. It's more clear when > you say: this theory is not correct. I think this theory is correct > and what the Tipitaka and the commentaries say about history cannot > or should not be taken literal. N: The Tipitaka and commentaries do not have as purpose science, evolution theories or history. That is why these matters do not play a part in the teachings. The teachings touch on another aspect. The goal is detachment from the wrongt view of self and eradication of all defilements. So, we can find each other with regard to the three characteristics you mentioned. You find these important. Why are they important? They lead to detachment. They are valid for all beings at all times. No need for a contraversy on science, people have different ideas about it. It really is no problem how you think about evolution. And do discuss it if you like. I hope you will not leave! Nina. 39257 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 0:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Metta for oneself translation question Dear Sarah, That was my impression when I met him in Bodhgaya and later on once in the Hague. He would not impose his ideas on others, he was openminded. Nina. op 03-12-2004 10:53 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: > :Munindra was someone who, conventionally speaking, was very 'sefless' or > very concerned about the others' welfare in my experience. I don't recall > him talking about himself or ever suggesting metta for oneself. 39258 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 0:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] foundation web links Dear Sarah, op 03-12-2004 11:36 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: > Also anusaya2. Rather than 'pertains to' which sounds a little unnatural, > could you use 'refers to', 'applies to' or 'concerns'? Perhaps when you > start posting them in small segments, it'll be easier to discuss in more > detail. N: Yes, that may be better, I was thinking today. I thought : inheres in is inherent in. Originally I had: adheres to. Kamaraga also inheres in feeling, sannña etc. or: what you say: concerns feeling? We ordered now a mini disc for Lodewijk to read the Perfections for the foundation web. Similar to Jon's but a newer model. Since I cannot upload (no sound on computer) we take it to Thailand next time ourselves. I had no time to look at dsg web links, but shall visit now all these sites. Nina. 39259 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 1:33pm Subject: Re: AN III - 100 mental misconduct vs. thoughts of ill-will --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > thank you very much. I especially find the quote below helpful. We know we > have lobha, and at the same time there is dislike of it, a thought: I should > not have akusala. > Very good if you now and then quote. > Nina > op 03-12-2004 09:11 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: > > > Then a qu about disliking one's accumulations - so little kusala and so > > much akusala in a day. > > ... > > K. Sujin responded by saying that instead of seeing the deeply rooted > > lobha, the self doesn't like it again. When there's more understanding, > > one takes it easy. It doesn't matter what is arising, because it has > > arisen by conditions, completely arisen by conditions. We have the latent > > tendency for lobha, dosa and other akusala (unwholesome states). But if > > the akusala moment does not arise, how can one know that one still has it? > > So, it's good to know the truth of one's accumulations and this is the > > way to develop panna, because it can understand reality. Friends Sarah and Nina, I am just jumping into this thread and I haven't followed the entire thread, but I have a question: Is this how the Buddha said one should view the defilements? This seems to be a type of "if it feels good, do it" philosophy. I'm not saying that hating one's defilements is productive (I don't think it is), but I also don't think that one should accept them. What do you think? Metta, James 39260 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 2:02pm Subject: Re: evolution. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Joop, > > op 03-12-2004 16:17 schreef jwromeijn op jwromeijn@y...: > > > It's a pity Nina and Sarah don't react to my statement that according > > tot the evolutionary theory some hundred thousand years ago the human > > species evoluates from an animal-like species. It's more clear when > > you say: this theory is not correct. I think this theory is correct > > and what the Tipitaka and the commentaries say about history cannot > > or should not be taken literal. > N: The Tipitaka and commentaries do not have as purpose science, evolution > theories or history. That is why these matters do not play a part in the > teachings. The teachings touch on another aspect. The goal is detachment > from the wrongt view of self and eradication of all defilements. So, we can > find each other with regard to the three characteristics you mentioned. You > find these important. Why are they important? They lead to detachment. They > are valid for all beings at all times. > No need for a contraversy on science, people have different ideas about it. > It really is no problem how you think about evolution. And do discuss it if > you like. I hope you will not leave! > Nina. Friend Nina (and Joop), I remember a sutta that states something to the effect that the planet used to be inhabited by entities of light but then they ate the sludge of the oceans and gained material form (as humans?). I can't find that sutta now (I'm kinda tired tonight) but perhaps someone else here can identify the sutta I am referring to. Anyway, it does seem to speak to evolution. However, I read some sources which question the authenticity of that sutta as Buddha word, and I have my doubts also. Metta, James 39261 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 2:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] India discussions - audio version Oh Hugo (& Chris), You're a real wag! --- Hugo wrote: > > Hello Sarah, > > On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 05:24:45 +0000 (GMT), sarah abbott > wrote: > > As promised, the recordings of discussions from our recent trip to > India > > Do they include some of the interactions with the hotel clerks? > > ;-) > .... S: I think you'll have to ask Chris next time to go armed with her own tape-recorder to catch these alternative discussions she has;-). She oould then write a book on them.... Metta, Sarah p.s keep an eye out for 'zany' in U.P. currently being updated anytime you feel you need to rebel from straight dhamma;-) ================================================================== 39262 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 2:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 153 ) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Htoo, > > Excellent detail and I appreciate any repetitions you give. Most helpful, > but not easy even when I print them out. I'm a bit behind, so will try to > catch up over the weekend and get back to you with qus/comments at the > beg. of next week. > > Have a good weekend yourself and anumodana. > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s I get lost on atoms and molecules, so I skip those parts I'm afraid - > not my accumulations!! > ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Sarah, Thanks. There are no atoms even in science. But there are molecules. When atoms are intended to study, molecules have to be treated specially. In dhammas, dhamma molecules are treated with 'panna' to separate out dhamma atoms. There is no single citta without any cetasikas. And there are no cetasika without any citta. Citta is an atom of dhamma. Cetasika is another atom of dhamma. Like H2O is a molecule, Ce7Ci is also a dhamma molecule. Ce is cetasika. Ce7 are 7 universal cetasika. Ci is citta. Ce7Ci molecule is pancavinnana molecule. :-) I do not know whether you have physics eye or chemistry eye or bilogy eye or geology eye or philosophy eye etc etc. What I feel is chemistry is the basic of all. Because subatomic level does not deal with realities. Thanks again for your wish. I was considering to post another 3 but not now. Otherwise it will be heavy for today with 6 Dhamma Threads. With Metta, Htoo Naing 39263 From: plnao Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 2:51pm Subject: Re: Kindness in Word, Speech, and Deed Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's ... Hi Ken, and all >>>>And first thing is learning dhamma is about understanding suffering and when we understand that, everything will fall in place. You will naturally be more compassionate, more polite, more kindness and more joyous and not the other way round I think Ken put it very nicely here. I've written before - clumsily - about how I favour equanimity over metta now. Equanimity rooted in understanding the First and Second Noble Truths to the extent that we are capable. If we understanding suffering and the way people are propelled through life by clinging, a compassionate, friendly "we are in the same boat" feeling arises. There is no need to even thinking about smiling when this is the case - the smile arises on its own. And of course it is the mental state that the smile arises from that is the most important thing. Metta, Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: "ashkenn2k" To: Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 3:18 AM Subject: Kindness in Word, Speech, and Deed Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's ... > > > Hi Howard and Bhante, > > There is difference between a smile conditioned by kusala behaviour > and using a smile to conditioned a kusala behaviour. When people see > Bhikkhu and smile at them, it is because it is conditioned by good > will. Just like in ancient times, when some people see Buddha, they > felt joyous. If they purposedly have to smile at them, then it is > smile that conditioned kusala behaviour. There is a world of > difference between them. > > Sorry geneorsity in speech does not mean make others smile. Please > see Prince Abaya sutta what is meant by generosity in speech. > > And first thing is learning dhamma is about understanding suffering > and when we understand that, everything will fall in place. You will > naturally be more compassionate, more polite, more kindness and more > joyous and not the other way round, that is why Buddha say Arahant > will never do any more akusala behaviour because there is direct > understanding of suffering, that is why Arahants are also compassion > because of this. It is not the other way round as this can be > conditioned by akusala cittas. > > > Ken O 39264 From: plnao Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 3:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Dear Bhante Vimiliramso, > In Asia where Buddhism is practiced in real ways instead of just > intellectual ideas and debates, generosity is a very important aspect of > life. Every morning the bhikkhus go out on alms round, the people there > are very happy when they see the bhikkhus accepting food and other > requisites. They become inspired to join in and they do this with a real > sincere smile. I've seen how this practice, as pure as it was in its origins, has evolved in Asia. Here in Japan popular interest in Buddhism has almost completely disappeared, largely because of cynicism brought on by people seeing too many "monks" tooling around in Mercedes Benzes. Buddhism is all about money here, about paying monks to chant at funerals and other rites. Ideas and debates will be necessary if Buddhism is ever to be revived. So the practice of dana is not good in itself. It depends on the citta that accompanies the dana. If the goal is to get one's child into a good university, or earn a higher rebirth by paying more (common practice in Japan) dana has become voodoo, and people who care about true goodness give up on Buddhism and look elsewhere. I speak only of Japan. I have given dana in Thailand and it seemed it was very different there. But even in Thailand, I have read that temples sell talismans that are thought to have magic, protective powers, and these talismans are fiercely bought and sold on the open market. I'm afraid we can't idealize Buddhism in Asia. It all depends on the citta. Making a sincere effort to understand mental moments is the only way to guarantee pure dhamma, in my opinion. Metta, Phil p.s interesting note - most Japanese tend to think that Christianity is a pure religion because they see Buddhism as so corrupt. They don't know about the TV evangelists. The grass is always greener on the other side of the ocean! > > Too many people in the West think that the end of suffering is to study, > talk and practice formal meditation, but this is not following the way > they do things in Asia. Generosity can and is practiced in body, helping > others in real physical ways, like showing others a smile, or helping > others to do things that need to be done. A common expression in Asia is > "many hands make the work lighter". > > Generosity in speech means to say things that make others smile, using > speech as a tool to help change a friends frown into a smile. For > example, a the food store while waiting in line you notice that the > cashier is having a rough time with some customers, when you get up to > purchase whatever, you can say something to help the cashier to smile and > relax. > > Generosity in mind means focusing one's mind on wishing others happiness, > while waiting in line at the food store. Otherwise mind takes off and has > a real chance to get involved with unwholesome thoughts and ideas. The > idea to just watch whatever arises and forget mindfulness is a cause of a > very dry type of practice, that takes a long time to develop ergo, the > idea that it may take many lifetimes to accomplish spiritual advancement. > > Without the practice of generosity in body, speech and mind, the Buddha's > teaching are lost in a sea of intellectualizing, and theory. The Buddha > was a very practical teacher, he taught that it is necessary for everyone > to be generous as much as possible daily and to do this with a happy > mind. As KK put it what we think and ponder on, that is the inclination > of one's mind. So thinking kind loving thoughts leads to more kind loving > thoughts. Kind loving actions leads to more kind loving actions. Kind > loving speech leads to more kind loving speech. > > And this is only the first step to be practiced many times during the > day, when one is serious about the Buddha's path. If one must be serious, > be seriously happy and give that happiness away as much as possible. > > The next step in the Buddha's teachings is keeping and following the 5 > precepts. This leads to a tranquil mind that is free from remorse and > anxiety. And only then to practice sitting in meditation. > > It is time to take the Buddha's teachings out of the intellectual and > reinstate it into the practical. That naturally leads to more smiles that > are sincere and a person who practices this, instead of talking about it, > can know for themselves through direct knowledge what this teaching is > all about. > > Maha-Metta > always > Bhante Vimalaramsi > 39265 From: plnao Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 3:36pm Subject: Re: Kindness in Word, Speech, and Deed Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's ... Hi all > There is no need to even thinking about smiling when this is the case - the > smile > arises on its own. And of course it is the mental state that the smile > arises from > that is the most important thing. To add an afternote, I'd say it is the days when the smile just ain't there but we see the unplesant mood as conditioned nama that we make more progress, perhaps, than on days when we are floating in good will all day. When we are full of good will we will surely fail to see how much lobha is involved. I appreciate the Bhante's often mentioning chanda. Desire is not always a bad thing. Thanks also, Howard. I missed the original post first time around with talk of good-will at DSG. You're right. And Rob M is such a good example. I still disagree with the practice of intending to smile at toll-booth operator though. If one smiles, one smiles. If one reflects on the First and Second Noble truths every morning, the smile will come more often than not, I think. Metta arising from equanimity and wisdom rather than metta arising from wanting everybody including ourselves to be happy. Interesting when I'm teaching on a grumpy day. There is irritation at the beginning of the class, but metta always wins out. I don't know why that is. Maybe my students have come to school intending to smile at me!!!! Metta, Phil 39266 From: connieparker Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 4:05pm Subject: Re: What means 'no control' ? And band-aids Hi, Sarah, Joop, James, I think the Agga~n~na is the 'evolutionary' one James mentioned in another post. UP: Decline & Disappearance of Teachings ( decline of Sasana) 11275, 16462, 20878, 209082,4255, 24257, 24386, 24576, 24577, 26329 Sasana (dispensation of the teachings) - decline of 24255, 24257, 24386, 24576, 24577, 25445, 36693 from another post, Sarah: "... points and qus we raised in India are ones we've been raising for yonks..." yonks? years of not knowing something or are they another kind of mind feeders? peace, connie ..... S: Have you read Vism ch x111 on World Cycles about how the world perishes etc? I think you have Vism, but for those who don't it can be found on line in Buddhism in Translation by Henry Clarke Warren Also, see the Agga~n~na Sutta: On Knowledge of Beginnings, DN27 Happy to discuss further. I think there are some posts on it in U.P. ??'Sasana,Decline of..' (Connie, can you remember?) On animals and lack of wisdom etc, see ch 11, Abhidhamma in Daily Life on 'Different types of Patisandhi citta'. On woeful planes like the animal plane, the patisandhi citta is akusala vipaka. No wholesome roots. No chance to develop panna. Many accounts of the woeful states in the suttas too. Metta, Sarah === 39267 From: robmoult Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 4:13pm Subject: Kindness in Word, Speech, and Deed Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's ... Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Rob M - > > A typo correction. > > In a message dated 12/3/04 1:03:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... > writes: > > > Bob is only one example. > > ================== > I meant "Rob"! ;-) > No problem :-) It is only a name, a concept, a designation ... it is not a reality :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 39268 From: Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 4:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Howard: "Well, here's a question. Is a mere recognition of hardness *as* hardness deluded? I don't think so. If that recognition also carries with it the idea of hardness being a "thing", especially a self-existent thing, and/or if it carries with it the idea of that hardness being present to a cognizer, there you see ignorance being operative. But if there is nothing more than the recognition of hardness as what it is, I don't see illusion as being involved." Hi Howard, Hardness definitely is not hardness, but I fear I've said too much already. Larry 39269 From: Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 11:18am Subject: Re: Kindness in Word, Speech, and Deed Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's ... Hi, Phil - In a message dated 12/3/04 6:45:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, plnao@j... writes: > I still disagree with the practice of intending to smile at toll-booth > operator though. If > one smiles, one smiles. ====================== If the smiling is motivated by the loving wish that others be happy, even if the smile didn't arise without self-prompting, it is kusala. That's my perspective. 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) 39270 From: Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 11:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/3/04 7:17:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Hardness definitely is not hardness, but I fear I've said too much > already. > > Larry > ===================== I *do* follow you here. Put otherwise: "Hardness" definitely is not hardness. I agree with that. Conceived hardness is different from the directly experienced hardness, itself. However, hardness *is* hardness, but THAT can only be known by the operation of sa~n~na. An animal, without speech or very much in the way of conceptual ability, still recognizes extreme hardness, and that recognition sets in after the unpleasantness of the hardness is experienced. 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) 39271 From: Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 4:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Howard: "I *do* follow you here. Put otherwise: "Hardness" definitely is not hardness. I agree with that. Conceived hardness is different from the directly experienced hardness, itself. However, hardness *is* hardness, but THAT can only be known by the operation of sa~n~na. An animal, without speech or very much in the way of conceptual ability, still recognizes extreme hardness, and that recognition sets in after the unpleasantness of the hardness is experienced." Hi Howard and Ken, I would say hardness can only be truly known by pa~n~na and any knowing other than pa~n~na is delusion. Furthermore, I would say the cause of suffering and the object of desire is concept. If the object of desire were a reality it would have to be seen as a reality by pa~n~na. Sa~n~naa knows the world conceptually. Pa~n~na cannot arise without sa~n~naa but that doesn't make sa~n~naa's knowing any less conceptual. Larry 39272 From: plnao Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 4:49pm Subject: Re: Kindness in Word, Speech, and Deed Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's ... Hi Howard Phil > > I still disagree with the practice of intending to smile at toll-booth > > operator though. If > > one smiles, one smiles. > ====================== Howard > If the smiling is motivated by the loving wish that others be happy, > even if the smile didn't arise without self-prompting, it is kusala. That's my > perspective. Yes, but I suspect that for *some* people who are just starting out, the loving wish for others to be happy is really all about wanting to living in a cozy world in which people wish for each other to be happy. That's not the case for you, or Rob. I just thought that prescriptions for generating loving-kindness can take us off the true path if the "metta" is not preceded by at least a basic degree of insight into the noble truths, at least a basic degree of insight into what *really* makes people happy in the long run. The toll booth operator could have a moment of mudita thanks to our smile, and go back to bitterness because of the next cold person. Now, our smile didn't do him any harm, but if we think we are going through life making a lasting change for people due to our kindness, we are disregarding the imposing nature of the noble truths! I know, I know....methinks too much. It's only because I am so interested in the Brahma-Viharas that I do. I meant to add that this could be another "descriptive vs prescriptive" item. It could be that Rob is describing a practice that evolved as a result of his insight the noble truths. Could be. Not for me to say. If I recall, in his original post on this topic, he started by saying something like "I have developed the habit of smiling at toll booth operators." Forgive me if I've mis-paraphrased you here, Rob. "Developed the habit" sounds quite descriptive. Yes, I went back and checked: "Over the past few weeks, I have developed a habit of smiling at toll booth operators as I pass them. I find this to be a truly effective way of putting metta into my daily life." I would say that growing insight put the metta into his life, the metta arose due to conditions. Very presumptuous of me to say that! Rob knows that I say this with fondness and great respect. Metta, Phil 39273 From: robmoult Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 5:09pm Subject: Giving a Smile Hi All, I strongly agree with Bhante Vimalaramsi's post on practcing generosity. Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote an essay on Dana which can be accessed at: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/dana.htm The opening two paragraphs of this essay are as follows: The practice of giving is universally recognized as one of the most basic human virtues, a quality that testifies to the depth of one's humanity and one's capacity for self-transcendence. In the teaching of the Buddha, too, the practice of giving claims a place of special eminence, one which singles it out as being in a sense the foundation and seed of spiritual development. In the Pali suttas we read time and again that "talk on giving" (danakatha) was invariably the first topic to be discussed by the Buddha in his "graduated exposition" of the Dhamma. Whenever the Buddha delivered a discourse to an audience of people who had not yet come to regard him as their teacher, he would start by emphasizing the value of giving. Only after his audience had come to appreciate this virtue would he introduce other aspects of his teaching, such as morality, the law of kamma, and the benefits in renunciation, and only after all these principles had made their impact on the minds of his listeners would he expound to them that unique discovery of the Awakened Ones, the Four Noble Truths. Strictly speaking, giving does not appear in its own right among the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, nor does it enter among the other requisites of enlightenment (bodhipakkhiya dhamma). Most probably it has been excluded from these groupings because the practice of giving does not by its own nature conduce directly and immediately to the arising of insight and the realization of the Four Noble Truths. Giving functions in the Buddhist discipline in a different capacity. It does not come at the apex of the path, as a factor constituent of the process of awakening, but rather it serves as a basis and preparation which underlies and quietly supports the entire endeavor to free the mind from the defilements. More than 25 years ago, I was sitting around a campfire with my girlfriend's father (a Christian minister) talking about a system of beliefs that I had developed on my own after years of internal dialogue. Her father (the father) identified my ideas as being Buddhist. I scoffed, saying that I had never read anything about Buddhism and I doubted that independently I had come up with one of the world's major religions! He suggested that I pick up a book on Buddhism, which I did. I still have the book, though the pages are yellowed and the binding is falling apart. It is Walpola Rahula's 100 page "What the Buddha Taught". And so, I was on my way.... Here is the list of chapters from this book: 1. The Buddhist Attitude of Mind (Man is supreme - one is one's own refuge - responsibility - doubt - freedom of thought - tolerance - religion or philosophy - truth has no label - no blind faith or belief - no attachment, even to truth - parable of the raft - imaginary speculations useless - practical attitude - parable of the wounded man) 2. The First Noble Truth: "Dukkha" 3. The Second Noble Truth: Samudaya, "The Arising of Dukkha" 4. The Third Noble Truth: Nirodha, "The Cessation of Dukkha" 5. The Fourth Noble Truth: Magga, "The Path" 6. The Doctrine of No-Soul: Anatta 7. 'Meditation' or Mental Culture: Bhavana 8. What the Buddha Taught and the World Today Rahula's book written in 1958, is a classic introduction of Buddhism to Western readers. I have read a number of other "Introduction to Buddhism" texts and they follow the same pattern of presentation. I find it curious that the order of presentation practiced by the Buddha is almost the opposite of the way in which Buddhism is presented to the West. Before I meditate or go to deliver a dhamma talk, I perform the five point prostration three times, very slowly, in front of a Buddha image. This practice has an effect of calming the mind and improving my "performance". When I start to sit, I start by relaxing by body - starting with the head, moving to the shoulders, etc.. This practice has an effect of calming the body and improving my "performance". I feel that I am very much a beginner and derive great benefits from these preparatory practices. Of course, like the raft, at some point I will cast them aside. One can enter into all sorts of theoretical discussions regarding the technical points of my smiling at toll booth operators, but if we go back to the Kalama Sutta and ask ourselves: - Is the action rooted in attachment or generosity? - Is the action rooted in aversion or loving-kindness? - Is the action rooted in delusion or wisdom? - Is the action censured or praised by the wise? I deeply appreciate Bhante Vimalaramsi's wise words. Metta, Rob M :-) 39274 From: Ken O Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 5:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi Larry Yes sanna helps to build up the conceptual world, that does not mean that sanna is the one that create all the delusion. Sanna remembers and mark a hardness but it is the citta that will have to cognize the hardness. It have to be moha that prevent us to see the three characteristics of object and lobha to continue attached to this conceptual world that we are living in as a wonderful place for continual existence in the samasara. In the suttas, there are many quotes of eradicating the taints, underlying tendecies of the three roots. In CMA, you can see that akusala cittas are all based on the three roots and not sanna. It is definitely panna that eradicates moha, we definitely need sanna again to mark and recognise the object but it is panna that see the danger of moha and lobha of the object being cognized by citta and not sanna. Conceptual world is definitely a strong paccaya for our continual existence. That is why understanding of the reality is important because it make us to see that this conceptual world is illusion, only reality is real. Only when we see in terms of aggregates in paramatha dhamma, then we will able to break the enstranglement by lobha and moha that keep feeding us the wrong information about reality. That is why I feel that anicent commentors always emphasis on reality. Ken O 39275 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 5:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] India discussions - audio version Hello All Thanks for the feedback on the audio files. I hope you're enjoying the listening. Thanks also to Connie and Tom for pointing out mistakes in the links (see below); these have now been corrected. Any further problems encountered, or suggestions for future recordings, I'd be grateful to hear about. My apologies for the somewhat crude editing. The different segments of each talk have been split by using a program that does not allow me to include any overlap between 1 segment and the next. (Going back and doing this manually will be for a future revision.) Jon Off-list contact: jonoabb @ yahoo.com.hk Corrections made Link to wrong file: B. Benares: 03 (was linked to Benares 01) Link not working: J. Gangtok (Sikkim) afternoon: 01, 02, 03, 04. K. Kolkata: 01, 02, 03. --- sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > As promised, the recordings of discussions from our recent trip to India > have now been uploaded here: > http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ > 39276 From: Ken O Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 5:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Giving a Smile Hi Rob M Let me put it very bluntly, because B Bodhi forgets that adosa is generosity. When the path factor becomes samma, generosity will arise because of adosa. In mundane path, adosa can arise with or without panna. With every kusala behaviour (with or without panna) amoha is already there. And that conditions generosity in root conditions. Even the four immeasurables have to arise with adosa as a root. With that understanding, generosity is taught in the 8NP. Ken O 39277 From: Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 0:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/3/04 7:55:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard and Ken, > > I would say hardness can only be truly known by pa~n~na and any knowing > other than pa~n~na is delusion. > > Furthermore, I would say the cause of suffering and the object of desire > is concept. If the object of desire were a reality it would have to be > seen as a reality by pa~n~na. Sa~n~naa knows the world conceptually. > Pa~n~na cannot arise without sa~n~naa but that doesn't make sa~n~naa's > knowing any less conceptual. > > Larry > ========================= Well, I don't know what the "official" word is on all this, but to me, any cognitive functioning that operates correctly is operating with wisdom, and any that operates incorrectly is operating with ignorance. If a "being" had no recognitional ability, to ap\plly the term 'wisdom' to him/her would strike me as an odd use of language. Now, if one wanted to say say that sa~n~na freed of avijja is exactly what pa~n~na is, well, that would have some appeal to me. Whether that is properly put, however, I don't know. In Pali, are the words 'sa~n~na' and 'pa~n~na' related semantically or by language history or in some other linguistic manner? 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) 39278 From: Ken O Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 5:48pm Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hi Hugo One thing I respect about Ven B Bodhi translation is that he will put notes on the text which he translated if he thinks it is an error or not correct with the pali sources. I dont think any of those Arahants who transmitted the suttas by mouth than to the texts is capable of misrepresenting buddha. They are incapable of doing anything wrong because there is no more aksuala cittas to conditioned them to do wrong. Nonetheless, we can say there could be some mistakes here and there due to some others, but that is also rare. I at times (in fact quite a few times) talk very directly and strongly. I am quite serious when I talk about Dhamma. Sarah will know that during our conversation in breakfast in Jan :-). Furthermore, I am still learning the dhamma from others and from the texts. I learn from you also because in each, I learn something about my own citta that arise when reading the mail and the reacting to it. Ken O 39279 From: Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 1:02pm Subject: Re: Kindness in Word, Speech, and Deed Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's ... Hi, Phil - In a message dated 12/3/04 7:58:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, plnao@j... writes: > Hi Howard > > Phil >>I still disagree with the practice of intending to smile at > toll-booth > >>operator though. If > >>one smiles, one smiles. > >====================== > Howard > If the smiling is motivated by the loving wish that others > be happy, > >even if the smile didn't arise without self-prompting, it is kusala. > That's my > >perspective. > > Yes, but I suspect that for *some* people who are just starting out, the > loving wish for > others to be happy is really all about wanting to living in a cozy world in > which > people wish for each other to be happy. That's not the case for you, or Rob. > I just > thought that prescriptions for generating loving-kindness can take us off > the true path if the > "metta" is not preceded by at least a basic degree of insight into the noble > truths, > at least a basic degree of insight into what *really* makes people happy in > the > long run. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: Most people have a *basic*, conventional insight, into them. What is significant, of course, is to have direct and penetrating insight. ---------------------------------------- The toll booth operator could have a moment of mudita thanks to> > our > smile, and go back to bitterness because of the next cold person. Now, our > smile > didn't do him any harm, but if we think we are going through life making a > lasting change for people due to our kindness, we are disregarding the > imposing nature > of the noble truths! > ------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course, Phil. But every little bit of kusala is to the good. And every lack of it is the opposite. ---------------------------------------- I know, I know....methinks too much. It's only because> > I am > so interested in the Brahma-Viharas that I do. > > I meant to add that this could be another "descriptive vs prescriptive" > item. > It could be that Rob is describing a practice that evolved as a result of > his > insight the noble truths. Could be. Not for me to say. If I recall, in his > original > post on this topic, he started by saying something like "I have developed > the habit of > smiling at toll booth operators." Forgive me if I've mis-paraphrased you > here, Rob. > "Developed the habit" sounds quite descriptive. > > Yes, I went back and checked: "Over the past few weeks, I have developed a > habit of smiling at toll > booth operators as I pass them. I find this to be a truly effective > way of putting metta into my daily life." I would say that growing insight > put the metta > into his life, the metta arose due to conditions. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, Rob will have to say. But "I have developed" doesn't mean to me the same thing as "There has developed". The first suggests intentional action to me. What is this "horror at intention" on this list? I agree that intention misunderstood suggests self. But intention need not be misunderstood, and it *should* not be feared or, even worse, consigned to a limbo of half-existence. ------------------------------------------- > Very presumptuous of me to say that! Rob knows that I say this with > fondness and great respect. > > Metta, > Phil > > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 39280 From: Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 6:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi Ken and Howard, The root of the problem with lobha, dosa, moha is conceptualization. Does that not interest you? What is the source of conceptualization? Larry 39281 From: Ken O Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 7:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O HI Larry The root of the problem is not conceptualization, the root of the problem is the three roots that conditioned these conceptualizations. They are the source. That is why the first thing to eradicate during stream entry is the eradication of a view to self. To me because of the attachment to the view of a self, we keep conceptualization the world, again to me our conceptualization in this world in one way or another is conditioned by the 'I' factor. I hope this helps. Ken O 39282 From: Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 2:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi, Larry (and Ken) - In a message dated 12/3/04 10:07:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Ken and Howard, > > The root of the problem with lobha, dosa, moha is conceptualization. > Does that not interest you? What is the source of conceptualization? > > Larry > ======================== Larry, many animals are relatively free of conceptual function, more than humans. Are they, then, wiser than humans and closer to enlightenment? 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) 39283 From: Ken O Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 8:11pm Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hi Hugo SN is Samyutta Nikaya. In Nidanasamyutta, SN II.17 The Naked Ascetic Kassapa <<"How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering created by onself?" "Not so, Kassapa," the Blessed One said. "Then, Master Gotama, is suffering creating by another?" "Not so Kassapa," the Blessed One said. "How is then, Master Gotama: is suffering creatd both by oneself and another?" "Not so Kassapa," the Blessed One said. "Then is it that Master Gotama: has suffering arisen fortuitously, being created by neither by oneself nor by another?" "Not so Kassapa," the Blessed One said. "How is then, Master Gotama: is there no suffering.?" "It is not that there is no suffering, Kassapa; there is suffering." . . . "Kassapa, [if one thinks] 'The one who acts in the same as the one who experiences [the result], [then one asserts] with reference to one existing from the begining: "Suffering is created by oneself." When one asserts thus, this amounts to eternalism. But Kassapa [if one thinks,] 'The one who act is one, the one who experiences [the result] is another,' [then one asserts] with reference to one stricken by feeling: "Suffering is created by another.' When one asserts thus, this amounts to annihilationism. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tagathata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: 'With ignorance as condition, volitional formation [come to be]......>> k: My comments: When one assert that suffering is creatd by oneself and not by conditions, the attachment to oneself will not ceased. In the same way, when there is believe one can created or do a certain practise and believe that such kusala behaviour is the development of salvation, that is eternalism. k: Without veering towards either...the only way one understand ignorance.... is to have wise attention when such conditions arise and when they fall. Because any attempt in the believe that oneself can create more kusala behaviour there is veering to one extreme. k: When one practise smiling, that smile is veer to oneside because one believe that such a smile can condition kusala behaviour on oneself or others. When one see these three characteristics in the D.O, compassion will arise as one sees beings are deluded and one is strongly conditioned by compassion to teach them the dhamma so that they can also be free of suffering. Compassion arise due to seeing people in suffering. Generosity will also arise. These are purely my personal comments. Ken O 39284 From: Antony Woods Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 8:32pm Subject: Re: Metta for oneself translation question Dear Sarah, Previously I wrote: >Using logic (which isn't a|ways good Dhamma), as the Buddha said >that "one who loves himself does not harm another", whether or not >one *deserves* love and affection for oneself, does it follow that >one who *doesn't* love himself *is* harming others? The translation you quoted was more like “one who loves himself //should// not harm another” which really helps. This makes a huge difference. I think the Buddha meant just that we should not harm others. He wasn’t saying to cultivate concern for oneself in order to love others. Undue concern for oneself can be translated as “worry” which is easier to see as attachment and a hindrance. “Self-obsession” could also apply. A friend of mine says affectionately “Now quit that worrying, silly boy!” May you be well and happy, Antony. 39285 From: Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 8:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi Ken and Howard, Permanence and self are not just concepts. They are the nature of all concepts. All concepts are not impermanent and all concepts assume a self. Any being that desires desires a concept. Larry 39286 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 0:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/3/04 11:34:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Ken and Howard, > > Permanence and self are not just concepts. They are the nature of all > concepts. All concepts are not impermanent and all concepts assume a > self. Any being that desires desires a concept. > > Larry > ======================= Larry, you wrote "Any being that desires desires a concept." Are you completely certain of that, always? The Buddha's layout of D.O. gives phassa -> vedana -> tanha. It is generally understood that the tanha is a craving or aversion directly for the vedana or, indirectly, for the object of the phassa that conditioned the vedana. In either case, unless that object is concept (and there are 5 non-mind-door possibilities beside that), what is desired is not concept. Now, one might ask where sa~n~na fits into this. If I'm correct in my interpolating sa~n~na between vedana and tanha, so that recognition is required for reaction, that's where it fits in. But wordless recognition, say of pleasant warmth upon entering a bath tub, while basis for concept is not yet concept. Concept is projected by sankharic processing (thinking, basically), and sa~n~na is a separate khandha sankhara. At the elementary level, using the tub example, contact with warmth conditions pleasant feeling which conditions (wordless) recognition of the pleasant warmth, which conditions craving and then grasping. Further mental proliferation can quickly yield concept-contacts (pertaining to bathtubs, for example), further associated vedana, further recognition, and further tanha, and at this level, we have desire for concept. That is how I see the matter. 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) 39287 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 0:42am Subject: Typo Correction Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/4/04 8:34:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > sa~n~na is a > separate khandha sankhara ==================== I missed the word 'from'. This was intended to be "sa~n~na is a separate khandha from sankhara." 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) 39288 From: plnao Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 6:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Hello again Bhante, and all Mu apologies for going overboard on criticizing the way dana has come to be practiced in parts of Asia. It is a peeve of mine that comes up every 2 or 3 months, and which I always end up apologizing for. It's just so frustrating to see so many people suffering in Japan (the suicide rate is higher than ever) when Dhamma could help them so much. But it seems Dhamma has been distorted in a way so that its healing truth can't even begin to get through. A good friend in Dhamma consoled me by reminding me that the Buddha predicted such a decline, but it still gives rise to frustration at times. Metta, Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: "plnao" To: Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:02 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas > > > > Dear Bhante Vimiliramso, > > > In Asia where Buddhism is practiced in real ways instead of just > > intellectual ideas and debates, generosity is a very important aspect of > > life. Every morning the bhikkhus go out on alms round, the people there > > are very happy when they see the bhikkhus accepting food and other > > requisites. They become inspired to join in and they do this with a real > > sincere smile. > > I've seen how this practice, as pure as it was in its origins, has evolved > in Asia. Here in Japan popular interest in Buddhism has almost > completely disappeared, largely because of cynicism brought on by > people seeing too many "monks" tooling around in Mercedes Benzes. > Buddhism is all about money here, about paying > monks to chant at funerals and other rites. Ideas and debates will be > necessary > if Buddhism is ever to be revived. So the practice of dana is not good > in itself. It depends on the citta that accompanies the dana. > If the goal is to get one's child into a good university, or earn a higher > rebirth > by paying more (common practice in Japan) dana has become voodoo, > and people who care about true goodness give up on Buddhism and look > elsewhere. > > I speak only of Japan. I have given dana in Thailand and it seemed it was > very different there. But even in Thailand, I have read that temples > sell talismans that are thought to have magic, protective powers, and these > talismans are fiercely bought and sold on the open market. > > I'm afraid we can't idealize Buddhism in Asia. > It all depends on the citta. Making a sincere effort to understand mental > moments is > the only way to guarantee pure dhamma, in my opinion. > > Metta, > Phil > p.s interesting note - most Japanese tend to think that Christianity is a > pure > religion because they see Buddhism as so corrupt. They don't > know about the TV evangelists. The grass is always greener on the other side > of the ocean! > > > > > > > > Too many people in the West think that the end of suffering is to study, > > talk and practice formal meditation, but this is not following the way > > they do things in Asia. Generosity can and is practiced in body, helping > > others in real physical ways, like showing others a smile, or helping > > others to do things that need to be done. A common expression in Asia is > > "many hands make the work lighter". > > > > Generosity in speech means to say things that make others smile, using > > speech as a tool to help change a friends frown into a smile. For > > example, a the food store while waiting in line you notice that the > > cashier is having a rough time with some customers, when you get up to > > purchase whatever, you can say something to help the cashier to smile and > > relax. > > > > Generosity in mind means focusing one's mind on wishing others happiness, > > while waiting in line at the food store. Otherwise mind takes off and has > > a real chance to get involved with unwholesome thoughts and ideas. The > > idea to just watch whatever arises and forget mindfulness is a cause of a > > very dry type of practice, that takes a long time to develop ergo, the > > idea that it may take many lifetimes to accomplish spiritual advancement. > > > > Without the practice of generosity in body, speech and mind, the Buddha's > > teaching are lost in a sea of intellectualizing, and theory. The Buddha > > was a very practical teacher, he taught that it is necessary for everyone > > to be generous as much as possible daily and to do this with a happy > > mind. As KK put it what we think and ponder on, that is the inclination > > of one's mind. So thinking kind loving thoughts leads to more kind loving > > thoughts. Kind loving actions leads to more kind loving actions. Kind > > loving speech leads to more kind loving speech. > > > > And this is only the first step to be practiced many times during the > > day, when one is serious about the Buddha's path. If one must be serious, > > be seriously happy and give that happiness away as much as possible. > > > > The next step in the Buddha's teachings is keeping and following the 5 > > precepts. This leads to a tranquil mind that is free from remorse and > > anxiety. And only then to practice sitting in meditation. > > > > It is time to take the Buddha's teachings out of the intellectual and > > reinstate it into the practical. That naturally leads to more smiles that > > are sincere and a person who practices this, instead of talking about it, > > can know for themselves through direct knowledge what this teaching is > > all about. > > > > Maha-Metta > > always > > Bhante Vimalaramsi 39289 From: plnao Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 6:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Giving a Smile Hi Rob Thanks always for your patience. > Before I meditate or go to deliver a dhamma talk, I perform the five > point prostration three times, very slowly, in front of a Buddha > image. This practice has an effect of calming the mind and improving > my "performance". When I start to sit, I start by relaxing by body - > starting with the head, moving to the shoulders, etc.. This practice > has an effect of calming the body and improving my "performance". This aspect of devotion is missing from my practice. I bow to the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha every morning, but it is in a kind of hurried way, and I wouldn't do it if Naomi were in the room. I'm not comfortable with devotion, yet. Will it arise. Of course I hope it will. > I feel that I am very much a beginner and derive great benefits from > these preparatory practices. Of course, like the raft, at some point > I will cast them aside. You give us all so many opportunities to rejoice in your kusala. Your wife on the beach, the Dhamma meetings at your home, your patience with am irrate woman somewhere, your eightfold path for teens talk....and the toll booth operator. I was thinking today that it was an opportunity to rejoice in your kusala, and I missed it - again. So I rejoice now. > One can enter into all sorts of theoretical discussions regarding > the technical points of my smiling at toll booth operators, but if > we go back to the Kalama Sutta and ask ourselves: > - Is the action rooted in attachment or generosity? > - Is the action rooted in aversion or loving-kindness? > - Is the action rooted in delusion or wisdom? > - Is the action censured or praised by the wise? Again, no doubt about *your* smile. And you didn't post it back then to prescribe it to others, so I'm sorry if I suggested that you were. But yes, it it were *me*, a rank beginner, I would want to be wondering if it were rooted in attachment or generosity, and whether it were rooted in aversion or loving-kindness. For me, metta practice was almost a form of sensual pleasure. I thought of something related to that today. Today it was very cold in our house - there's no central heating here. Some cold days I run a hot bath just to warm up in. Such clinging to warmth, and taking a bath to warm up in that way is so futile, because it wears off so fast. Metta was like that for me, providing balmy comofrt on cold days of the soul. And I think of the sutta in Samyutta Nikaya in which the Buddha says that some people have no way to escape painful feeling except by sensual pleasure. (In the sutta entitled "The Dart") When I practiced metta, it was because I was so alienated in Japanese society. I tried to metta my way out of my discomfort. Sometimes it worked. But seeing through to the reasons people do the things they do liberated me from being hurt by them. Now when metta arises it's because obstacles to it are falling, being eradicated. But that's my story. I was using metta for personal comfort, there's no doubt about that. That is not the case for you - no doubt about that either. Now I *do* promise that I won't bring up the toll booth operator again! Metta, Phil 39290 From: Hugo Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 7:12am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 04:11:55 +0000 (GMT), Ken O wrote: > SN is Samyutta Nikaya. Thanks. > k: Without veering towards either...the only way one understand > ignorance.... is to have wise attention when such conditions arise > and when they fall. Because any attempt in the believe that oneself > can create more kusala behaviour there is veering to one extreme. Let me see if I understand correctly what you are saying. Are you saying that we can't create kusala behaviour at all? > k: When one practise smiling, that smile is veer to oneside because > one believe that such a smile can condition kusala behaviour on > oneself or others. How would you explain the fact that my anger is extinguished once I start smiling to myself? Emphasis on the word "fact", because I have experimented that not once, but many times. Also, how come I feel anger under very specific conditions (well, sometimes not THAT specific), and not just "out of the blue". I mean, I am not meditating and pooof!, anger arises, anger normally follows a thought, a memory, etc. (while in meditation). There have been times when it SEEMS that anger arises out of the blue, but upon observation and analysis, I have discovered that there are certain reasons (a thought, a feeling, a mental fabrication, a perception, etc.). So, something conditioned anger, then anger conditioned akusala actions, that leads me to believe that kusala action CAN be made arise by "preparing a mix" of the right conditions. I am following a similar line of thought that the Buddha used to describe how to dissassemble the Dependent Arising links. > When one see these three characteristics in the > D.O, compassion will arise as one sees beings are deluded and one is > strongly conditioned by compassion to teach them the dhamma so that > they can also be free of suffering. Compassion arise due to seeing > people in suffering. Just by "SEEING" people suffering? I disagree. I bet there are certain behaviours or actions that you perform that you dislike, you know you should NOT do it, you can SEE that you are doing them and yet you keep doing them (maybe you even say to yourself "I shouldn't be doing this"), and still you do it once more time. I can bet on that because that happens to me and a lot of people I know, and even people I don't know (alcoholics, drug addicts, addicted gamblers, etc.) So, just SEEING things happen doesn't make anything arise. I think the Buddha said that the key for all is volition, not seeing, and that you have to make the right choices. -- Hugo 39291 From: Hugo Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 7:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Hello Phil, On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 23:05:16 +0900, plnao wrote: > Mu apologies for going overboard on criticizing the way > dana has come to be practiced in parts of Asia. Actually I thank you very much for that post! I am always looking for those kind of things to keep me "centered" on what I believe in, and practice. We should not be deluded by thinking that having the label "Buddhist" makes you good automatically, because "Buddhist" is just that, a label. My teacher (I still don't know if I should refer to him as "my teacher", but anyhow) has told us some stories about things that are not quite by-the-book in Thailand. Let's also remember that Buddhism could be seen more of a "cultural/religious" phenomena, because people merged their cultural background and old practices with the teachings of Buddha. That's why sometimes I think that if asked I will say that I am an "upasaka" instead of a Buddhist, as to make the point that I follow the instructions of Buddha and not follow any of the cultural traditions of Buddhism. Greetings, -- Hugo 39292 From: Hugo Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 7:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Giving a Smile Dear Phil, On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 23:44:07 +0900, plnao wrote: > This aspect of devotion is missing from my practice. I bow to the Buddha, > the Dhamma and the Sangha every morning, but it is in a kind of hurried way, > and I wouldn't do it if Naomi were in the room. I'm not comfortable with > devotion, yet. Will it arise. Of course I hope it will. Similar feeling at first, and let's not forget the feeling that arose the first time I went to the monastery and bowed there in the middle of the room, with other people!!!, aaaaah!, and what about when the chanting (in Pali) started with the palms together in front of the chest while kneeling!!!! Panic, laugh, fear, confusion, all mixed together in a soup of nerves!!! Ah!, and bowing to the monks??????.....mmmmm......let's pretend I didn't know that was a custom. what I did? Just follow Buddha's instructions to Rahula. When I am performing each bow, I stay with my forehead to the floor and ask myself "why am I doing this?", or I skip the question and give the answer instead. Now, I gladly bow to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, the other day I really appreciated the monks and bowed to them (well, it was only one that day). Actually I have found that's the simplest, most useful and more direct teaching of the Buddha (so far I have read): Ask yourself WHY you do EACH and EVERY thing!!! Try that for just one day and you will see and understand a LOT of things!! Other benefits: it will prevent you from performing akusala actions, it will show you anicca, dukkha and anatta "in action" right on the spot! It really works!!! Greetings, -- Hugo 39293 From: Ken O Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 8:47am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hi Hugo > Are you saying that we can't create kusala behaviour at all? How would you explain the fact that my anger is extinguished once I > start smiling to myself? Emphasis on the word "fact", because I have experimented that not once, but many times. k: We cannot purposedly practise a kusala behaviour. Once there is self involved that "hey I must do this in order for that" then that is eternalism. k: Anger is impermanent so it will ceased to exist once another citta comes to arise. But using smile to a way to eradicate an anger will not develop understanding of the underlying tendecies of anger which is the important for one to become enlighted. You only condition another citta to arise when you used smile. That smile you smile can be likely rooted in lobha because the intention was to change the anger. The more you practise this type of smile, the underlying tendency for lobha becomes more intensify hence the more pleasant feeling you have. SN 12.38 Volition (1) <> H: Just by "SEEING" people suffering? I disagree. k: Hmm then tell me your point of view then. Ken O 39294 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 4:03am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hi, Ken (and Hugo) - In a message dated 12/4/04 11:49:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Hugo > > > >Are you saying that we can't create kusala behaviour at all? How > would you explain the fact that my anger is extinguished once I > >start smiling to myself? Emphasis on the word "fact", because I > have experimented that not once, but many times. > > > k: We cannot purposedly practise a kusala behaviour. Once there is > self involved that "hey I must do this in order for that" then that > is eternalism. ---------------------------------- Howard: Ken, do you presume that because Hugo used the word 'we' and 'I' in speaking of creating kusala behavior, there must be a "self" involved? I believe you use those words all the time, as do we all, and as did the Buddha. Cetana does not require a self. In fact, nothing does, as there is no self. It seems to me that you are setting up a straw man that you point to every time someone speaks about volitional action and that you rely upon to attempt to demonstrate the futility, if not impossibility, of such action, even though the Buddha countenanced it, calling it "kamma". ======================== 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) 39295 From: Hugo Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 9:04am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hello Ken, I don't like to do this kind of thing, and I am still debating if I should do it now, but I can see more harm than good on maintaining this discussion so here I go: In this and previous posts of you, I have found several inconsistencies of logic, one example: You said, in two different paragraphs, but the same message: > k: We cannot purposedly practise a kusala behaviour. > > You only condition another citta to arise when you used smile. So, can I condition something or not? Also you seem to agree with me: > But using smile to a way to eradicate an anger will > not develop understanding of the underlying tendecies of anger which > is the important for one to become enlighted. In the above paragraph I understand that you agree that the smile helps extinguish the anger. Also, you seem to not understand what I said, or you understand it but keep driving the discussion to a topic you know or want to discuss. I NEVER said that the smile will lead me to enlightenment. I said that I used the smile as a tool to prevent me from performing akusala actions. Then once I am more calm I can analyze the situation and develop wisdom. > H: Just by "SEEING" people suffering? I disagree. > > k: Hmm then tell me your point of view then. I already explained (now I really believe that you are not listening to what I say), you SEE, then you DECIDE and ACT. Certainly not all serial murderers feel compassion when they see the suffering of people, maybe not even one of them. Some Intensive care physicians no longer feel compassion for their patients when they see them suffering (I am not a physicians but I know plenty of them in a close-relationship way!). Ken, you keep ignoring several of the comments that I make, while you keep pushing your own views (and let's not forget the incongruencies you expose, like the example above or the fact that you said you are a fundamentalist and at the same time you say you are a follower of Buddha who explained the Middle Way, and being a fundamentalist definitely is not the Middle way), this definitely does not conduce to a good discussion. I think it would be more useful, if we stop discussing, and keep helping us pointing out what WE KNOW in future discussions. Other than that I have nothing else to say and I wish to conclude this discussion. -- Hugo 39296 From: Ken O Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 9:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi Larry L: Permanence and self are not just concepts. They are the nature of > all concepts. All concepts are not impermanent and all concepts assume a self. Any being that desires desires a concept. k: Concepts do not deteroriate or have dukkha because they are not reality. Concepts are imaginery or dreams. But concepts can act has a paccaya. in regard to whether concept is the root of D.O, maybe this will help, SN 14.13 (3) The Brick Hill <> SN 14.12 (2) With a source. <> This shows sensual preception could not arise without a sense data. In this way we can say concepts cannot arise without first being conditioned by reality (sensual elements). Since the underlying tendency is already sensual, so the mind naturally is obsessed with passion over these sensuality. Ken O 39297 From: Ken O Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 9:38am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hi Hugo > You said, in two different paragraphs, but the same message: > > > k: We cannot purposedly practise a kusala behaviour. > You only condition another citta to arise when you used smile. K: I used you here is to show that the I is involved when you used smile because you are purposedly doing it. > So, can I condition something or not? k: Nope, because I is delusion. I is eternalism. > In the above paragraph I understand that you agree that the smile > helps extinguish the anger. k: Sorry for not being clear. I am saying that when you used a smile to change anger, you are not mindful of the anger that arise which means you are not mindful of the underlying tendecies to anger also. Only when there is wise attention (mindfullness + panna), then the underlying tendecies of anger can be eradicated. Path to enlightement is the eradication of underlying tendecies, the taints, the fermentations. > I NEVER said that the smile will lead me to enlightenment. I said > that I used the smile as a tool to prevent me from performing > akusala actions. Then once I am more calm I can analyze the situation and develop wisdom. k: I was saying that using it as a tool only conditioned the I concept. The only way to prevent oneself to doing akusala behaviour is wise attention to anger and not trying to change anger. The calm you experience by doing this is because lobha mula cittas can be both pleasant and calm. What you have done is only strengthening the concept of 'I' . Why? because you are using a tool that you think or you think you intend to change your behaviour. H: You SEE, then you DECIDE and ACT. Certainly not all serial murderers feel compassion when they see the suffering of people, maybe not even one of them. Some Intensive care physicians no longer feel compassion for their patients when they see them suffering (I am not a physicians but I know plenty of them in a close-relationship way!). k: Because of delusion that is why they behave in this way. The suffering is not seen as suffering, impermanent is not seen as impermenant. When we penetrate the meaning of suffering, then compassion will arise. Seeing is just another sense data, there can be also listening that compassion will arise. I should say compassion arise out of "knowing" suffering in others. > > Ken, you keep ignoring several of the comments that I make, while > you keep pushing your own views (and let's not forget the > incongruencies you expose, like the example above or the fact that you said you are a fundamentalist and at the same time you say you are a follower of Buddha who explained the Middle Way, and being a fundamentalist definitely is not the Middle way), this definitely does not conduce to a good discussion. k: You do not understand what I say, that is okay and I am not surprise a single bit because I known people like us are dinosaurs, we are going extinct. People who believe in wise attention are getting lesser and lesser. Ken O 39298 From: Ken O Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 9:53am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hi Howard ---------------------------------- > Howard: > Ken, do you presume that because Hugo used the word 'we' and > 'I' in speaking of creating kusala behavior, there must be a "self" > involved? I believe you use those words all the time, as do we all, and as did the Buddha. Cetana does not require a self. In fact, nothing does, as there is no self. It seems to me that you are setting up a straw man that you point to every time someone speaks about volitional action and that you rely upon to attempt to demonstrate the futility, if not impossibility, of such action, > even though the Buddha countenanced it, calling it "kamma". > ======================== k: When there is purposed action to eradicated a akusala behaviour, the inital basis already itself eternalism. Cetana does not required a self in the D.O - is only applicable to Arahants not us where the Arahant taints have been completely eradicated. For worldings cetana does acquire self in the underlying tendecies (attach to a self view). We have to differentiate that. The only way out as I said, wise attention, that is the middle way. Anyting we wish to use as tool or as a devlopment practise, will hinge on this inital basis. Ken O 39299 From: m. nease Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 10:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken O" To: Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O > There are still more of it I think Nidanavagga is a very good place > to look at the many diverse way D.O is taught I think you're right--I've just been reading this and and can't think of a better or more concentrated example of abhidhamma in the suttas than the ninety-three paragraphs of the Nidaanavagga ('The Kindred Sayings on Cause' per Mrs. Rhys-Davies). Can anyone recommend a better English translation? Thanks for pointing this out. mike 39300 From: Hugo Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 10:27am Subject: Re: Kindness in Word, Speech, and Deed Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's ... On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:02:30 EST, upasaka@a... wrote: > Howard: > Well, Rob will have to say. But "I have developed" doesn't mean to me > the same thing as "There has developed". The first suggests intentional action > to me. What is this "horror at intention" on this list? I agree that > intention misunderstood suggests self. But intention need not be misunderstood, and it > *should* not be feared or, even worse, consigned to a limbo of > half-existence. Or in other words, it is a way to use the concept of "self" skillfully. Also avoiding the use of the words "I", "me", "mine", etc.. does not equal getting rid of the concept of self and viceversa. Otherwise why the Buddha advised his son as follows: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn061.html "What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?" Why he didn't say "What thinking arises Rahula?" "Whenever you want to perform a bodily act, you should reflect on it...." Why he didn't say "Whenever a bodily act arises, a reflection should arise....." ? and heresy!!, the Buddha advices: "This bodily act I want to perform" The Buddha himself is telling his son to think "I WANT", Now, some people will say that the translation is not accurate, so let's look for another: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/061-ambalatthika-rahulovada-e1.htm "Rahula, when a desire arises to do some bodily action, you should reflect. Doing this bodily action, will I be troubled, will others be troubled, will both be troubled." Ah!, here the Buddha indeed says something similar to what I asked before "when a desire arises", so this might be a good translation isn't it? But, continue reading, and it says: "you should reflect.........will I be troubled.....will others.....will both..." mmmmm...so again the Buddha seems to be affirming the self according to some people here isn't it? Now, lets compare to two other languages (German and French): According to : http://www.palikanon.com/majjhima/majjhima1.htm These translations are NOT from Thanissaro's but were done in 1957. "Was immer du, Rahulo, für eine Tat begehn willst, eben diese Tat sollst du dir betrachten:" Again, the Buddha uses "du" (that means you in German). Also we can notice it is a different translation than Thanissaro because it doesn't refer to "body" at all, it uses the word "Tat" which means "Act" (as in action or deed). So, is the Buddha affirming the self? Still not satisfied, let's look for a French translation, unfortunately I didn't find any explanation as of where did they go it: "Quelle que soit l'action que vous voulez faire avec votre corps, ô Rahula, vous devez réfléchir: Cette action corporelle que je veux accomplir avec mon corps" Again, here it uses "vous" and "je" (meaning "you" and "I"), so is it affirming the self?, and in this translation it mentions the body. BTW, anybody could provide the Pali sentence and own translation, my knowledge of Pali, is extreeeeemely basic. Greetings, -- Hugo 39301 From: Hugo Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 10:37am Subject: Fwd: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) mlnease (sorry you didn't sign any name) Sent me the following off-list, but I think it is very useful to have it as part of the thread. ============================================== From: m. nease Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 09:51:44 -0800 I think this one's brilliant--no expectations, no anger. AN X.80: Aghata Sutta ============================================== I just read it (it is very short), it is good, maybe dry, but good. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an10-080.html Greetings, -- Hugo 39302 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 6:27am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hi, Ken - In a message dated 12/4/04 12:39:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > K: I used you here is to show that the I is involved when you used > smile because you are purposedly doing it. > ================== Then do not purposely do *anything*. Do not purposely eat or take medicine or say hello & goodbye or read suttas or study Abhidhamma, for when you do so, so you say, "the I is involved". Ken if one consistently insists on presuming self whenever cetana is involved, one inevitable result will be rapid death. Thank goodness you, depite your heartfelt intentions, cannot be even close to consistent in this!! You are listing way too far to the left, Ken. Or is it to the right? (I never know which political metaphor is appropriate!) 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) 39303 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 6:51am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hi, Ken - In a message dated 12/4/04 12:54:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > k: When there is purposed action to eradicated a akusala behaviour, > the inital basis already itself eternalism. Cetana does not required > a self in the D.O - is only applicable to Arahants not us where the > Arahant taints have been completely eradicated. For worldings cetana > does acquire self in the underlying tendecies (attach to a self > view). We have to differentiate that. The only way out as I said, > wise attention, that is the middle way. Anyting we wish to use as > tool or as a devlopment practise, will hinge on this inital basis ===================== I have three comments, Ken: (1) The exercise of wise attention, unless you believe in conditions arising randomly, requires volitional cultivation,(2) I think you would do well to look up the phrase "Catch 22", and (3) I recommend a fresh reading of the suttas on your part. 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) 39304 From: Hugo Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 0:12pm Subject: Another Danger of discussions: affirmation of Self I just had a quick "standing" meditation (when you stand up close your eyes and meditate for a couple of minutes). I just discovered and experienced the fact that discussions have another danger (I have talked about the benefits and dangers of group discussions in several other threads). This danger that I discovered and experienced (I did not inferred, I experimented it then I reflected on what was that experience) is the fact that if you are not careful, dicussions will lead you to affirm the "SELF". How?, in different ways, but mostly when you start defending "your view", against "the view of the other". In plain English, some people might refer to this phenomena as "taking it personally", I think that phrase reflects what I am trying to say, maybe not 100%, but pretty good. There are other factors that make it worse, if during the discussion any of the three poisons appear (well, it is guaranteed that they will if we are not arahants, but I mean, if they appear extremely obvious). If anger appears, you want to defend your position out of the anger, it affirms the self. If greed appears, you want to defend your position to show off, it affirms the self. If ignorance appears, you may make the other poisons to appear, and you might fuel the other parties poisons. In summary, discuss, but be mindful and keep a balance with the other aspects of the practice. I am babbling, but I hope you get some food for thought, and if not, I don't care (big smile), as there is no "I" who cares. ;-D -- Hugo 39305 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 7:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Another Danger of discussions: affirmation of Self Hi, Hugo - You are correct in what you say in the following [copied below] about the possibility of list discussions supporting sense of self. It can do so primarily by means of clinging to views and, as you well point out, anger. The worst situation is when the anger is so called "righteous anger", which actually has nothing righteous about it! On the other hand, and there almost always is an other hand ;-), if one is mindfully on the look-out for clinging to views and the arising of anger, discussions may afford folks a wonderful practice opportunity. And, of course, there is much to learn about the Dhamma from all the truly knowledgeable and kind folks on DSG and other lists. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/4/04 3:12:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, eklektik@g... writes: > > I just had a quick "standing" meditation (when you stand up close your > eyes and meditate for a couple of minutes). > > I just discovered and experienced the fact that discussions have > another danger (I have talked about the benefits and dangers of group > discussions in several other threads). > > This danger that I discovered and experienced (I did not inferred, I > experimented it then I reflected on what was that experience) is the > fact that if you are not careful, dicussions will lead you to affirm > the "SELF". > > How?, in different ways, but mostly when you start defending "your > view", against "the view of the other". In plain English, some people > might refer to this phenomena as "taking it personally", I think that > phrase reflects what I am trying to say, maybe not 100%, but pretty > good. > > There are other factors that make it worse, if during the discussion > any of the three poisons appear (well, it is guaranteed that they will > if we are not arahants, but I mean, if they appear extremely obvious). > > If anger appears, you want to defend your position out of the anger, > it affirms the self. > If greed appears, you want to defend your position to show off, it > affirms the self. > If ignorance appears, you may make the other poisons to appear, and > you might fuel the other parties poisons. > > In summary, discuss, but be mindful and keep a balance with the other > aspects of the practice. > > I am babbling, but I hope you get some food for thought, and if not, I > don't care (big smile), as there is no "I" who cares. ;-D > > -- > Hugo > /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) 39306 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 1:09pm Subject: Re: Giving a Smile --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi Rob M > > Let me put it very bluntly, because B Bodhi forgets that adosa is > generosity. When the path factor becomes samma, generosity will > arise because of adosa. In mundane path, adosa can arise with or > without panna. With every kusala behaviour (with or without panna) > amoha is already there. And that conditions generosity in root > conditions. Even the four immeasurables have to arise with adosa as > a root. With that understanding, generosity is taught in the 8NP. > > > Ken O Friend Ken O, I wanted to understand your rather cryptic message, especially since it questions the understanding of B. Bodhi, so I went to the trouble of defining all of the Pali terms you use. This is a rather rare even for me I assure you!! ;-)). However, here is what I came up with: Adosa (absence of ill will) Samma (right view) Amoha (absence of bewilderment) Panna (wisdom) Kusala (meritorious, good) Now, here is your message without all of the Pali: "Let me put it very bluntly, because B Bodhi forgets that the absence of ill will is generosity. When the path factor becomes right view, generosity will arise because of the absence of ill will. In mundane path, the absence of ill will can arise with or without wisdom. With every good behaviour (with or without wisdom) the absence of bewilderment is already there. And that conditions generosity in root conditions. Even the four immeasurables have to arise with absence of ill will as a root. With that understanding, generosity is taught in the 8NP." Ken O, what are you talking about?? The absence of ill will isn't automatically generosity; it could be equanimity, or metta, or joy, or bliss…etc., etc., etc. You are making a false assumption. Not only that, your use of Pali terms greatly oversimplifies the matter. It appears to me that you have this idea that dhamma is predominately a matter of simple Pali terms, almost like chess pieces, and those with enough cunning (panna) will win the game. Well, the dhamma isn't a game and there aren't any rules with simple pieces to move around in a manner described by the Buddha. I believe the dhamma is a complex business with infinite variables. Knowing Pali and throwing the terms about indiscriminately doesn't make one wise. Here we have B. Bodhi who gave a very detailed analysis of the importance of generosity in the Buddhist's life, using examples from the suttas and intelligent analysis, and you seem to think that you can dismiss it all with a haphazard explosion of Pali terms. I hope that I am not the only one who sees a problem with that. Ken O, frankly it seems to me that you are very unhappy lately, perhaps for personal reasons, and you want to take it out on others. Really, I hope I have compassion for you and understanding. But that is not the way to handle the situation. Try to follow what everyone has been telling you lately: confront pessimism with optimism; confront a frown with a smile; confront dukkha with nibbana. Hope I haven't been too personal. Good wishes to you. Metta, James 39307 From: robmoult Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 3:07pm Subject: Re: Giving a Smile Hi James / Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O > wrote: > > Hi Rob M > > > > Let me put it very bluntly, because B Bodhi forgets that adosa is > > generosity. When the path factor becomes samma, generosity will > > arise because of adosa. In mundane path, adosa can arise with or > > without panna. With every kusala behaviour (with or without panna) > > amoha is already there. And that conditions generosity in root > > conditions. Even the four immeasurables have to arise with adosa > as > > a root. With that understanding, generosity is taught in the > 8NP. > > > > > > Ken O > > Friend Ken O, > > I wanted to understand your rather cryptic message, especially since > it questions the understanding of B. Bodhi, so I went to the trouble > of defining all of the Pali terms you use. This is a rather rare > even for me I assure you!! ;-)). However, here is what I came up > with: > > Adosa (absence of ill will) > Samma (right view) > Amoha (absence of bewilderment) > Panna (wisdom) > Kusala (meritorious, good) > > Now, here is your message without all of the Pali: > > "Let me put it very bluntly, because B Bodhi forgets that the > absence of ill will is generosity. When the path factor becomes > right view, generosity will arise because of the absence of ill > will. In mundane path, the absence of ill will can arise with or > without wisdom. With every good behaviour (with or without wisdom) > the absence of bewilderment is already there. And that conditions > generosity in root > conditions. Even the four immeasurables have to arise with absence > of ill will as a root. With that understanding, generosity is taught > in the 8NP." > > Ken O, what are you talking about?? The absence of ill will isn't > automatically generosity; it could be equanimity, or metta, or joy, > or bliss…etc., etc., etc. You are making a false assumption. Not > only that, your use of Pali terms greatly oversimplifies the > matter. It appears to me that you have this idea that dhamma is > predominately a matter of simple Pali terms, almost like chess > pieces, and those with enough cunning (panna) will win the game. > Well, the dhamma isn't a game and there aren't any rules with simple > pieces to move around in a manner described by the Buddha. I > believe the dhamma is a complex business with infinite variables. > Knowing Pali and throwing the terms about indiscriminately doesn't > make one wise. > > Here we have B. Bodhi who gave a very detailed analysis of the > importance of generosity in the Buddhist's life, using examples from > the suttas and intelligent analysis, and you seem to think that you > can dismiss it all with a haphazard explosion of Pali terms. I hope > that I am not the only one who sees a problem with that. > > Ken O, frankly it seems to me that you are very unhappy lately, > perhaps for personal reasons, and you want to take it out on > others. Really, I hope I have compassion for you and > understanding. But that is not the way to handle the situation. > Try to follow what everyone has been telling you lately: confront > pessimism with optimism; confront a frown with a smile; confront > dukkha with nibbana. Hope I haven't been too personal. Good wishes > to you. ===== Perhaps I can help here. Here is my interpretation... Bhikkhu Bodhi made a statement, "Strictly speaking, giving does not appear in its own right among the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path...". Bhikkhu Bodhi then says that even though giving is not a path factor, it is an extremely part of Buddhism. Ken O is challenging Bhikkhu Bodhi's statement and is making a claim that giving does, in fact, appear as a path factor. In other words, Ken O says that giving is even more important than Bhikkhu Bodhi says it is. In other words, Bhikkhu Bodhi is saying that giving is "very important" while Ken O is saying that giving is "very, very important". In other words, Ken O isn't really challenging any of the points that Bhikkhu Bodhi made in his analysis... Ken O is agreeing, but even more so. Now let us consider the difference between Bhikkhu Bodhi and Ken O by analyzing the isse of "Does generosity appear in its own right as a factor of the Noble Eightfold Path?" [note that arguing that giving does not appear in its own right as a factor of the Noble Eightfold Path is not dismissing the importance of giving]. It appears as though Ken O dashed off a quick reply (something that I am often guilty of) and made a few typos (I am also guilty). Let me try to re-type Ken O's message to better understand his position (I will also insert English translations of Pali words): Ken O: Let me put it very bluntly, because B Bodhi forgets that adosa (non-aversion) is generosity. Rob M: I assume that this was a typo and Ken O really meant to say that alobha (non-attachment) is generosity. It is true that giving is one manifestation of alobha (renunciation is another). It is also true that non-aversion must arise together with giving because all wholesome mind states have both adosa (non-aversion) and alobha (non- attachment). Ken O: When the path factor becomes samma (right), generosity will arise because of adosa. Rob M: By definition, path factors are always samma (right). For example, we say "sammavaca" to mean "right speech". However, I am not clear as to which path factor Ken O is referring. I am not comfortable with saying that generosity arises "because of" adosa (or alobha). I think Ken O meant to say that generosity arises together with adosa and alobha. Ken O: In mundane path, adosa can arise with or without panna (wisdom). Rob M: I am assuming that "mundane path" means that when path factors arise singularly (as opposed to the supramundane mental states taking Nibbana as object where all path factors arise simultaneously). It is true that in all wholesome mental states, alobha and adosa can arise with or without panna (wisdom). As an aside, please note that four of the eight functional mental states which play the role of javana in an Arahant's thought process are without wisdom. Ken O: With every kusala behaviour (with or without panna) amoha is already there. Rob M: I am assuming another typo as amoha is the same as panna. I think that what Ken O is saying is that with every kusala behaviour (with or without wisdom) alobha / adosa are already there. Ken O: And that conditions generosity in root conditions. Rob M: I think that Ken O means to say that aloba / adosa are part of all kusala behaviours through root condition. Again, I have a problem with the idea that generosity arises because of aloba or adosa. I prefer to say that generosity arises together with alobha and adosa. Ken O: Even the four immeasurables have to arise with adosa as a root. Rob M: The four immeasurables are metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha. As these are all wholesome, by definition, they all include alobha and adosa as roots. Ken O: With that understanding, generosity is taught in the 8NP. Rob M: Now I am really confused. Perhaps what Ken O is trying to say is that all wholesome mental states are part of sammavayama (right effort). Since generosity is a wholesome mental state, it is part of right effort. I now return to Bhikkhu Bodhi's statement, "Strictly speaking, giving does not appear in its own right among the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path...". After having considered Ken O's statements, I still cannot conclude that giving appears in its own right among the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path. Ken O, I have probably misinterpreted one or more of your statements. Please help me to understand better. James, a few months ago, I had the pleasure of a dinner with Ken O. He was charming and intelligent... deeply commited to understanding and sharing the Dhamma. James, I share your compassion. Metta, Rob M :-) 39308 From: plnao Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 3:55pm Subject: Lodewijk's speech - anusayas (was Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts ) ??Hello Nina, and all Nina, I have really enjoyed reading and rereading Lodewijk's speech. I hope I have a chance to meet him someday. I've already heard such good things about him from Dhamma friends here who have met him, and the more I read of him the more fondness and respect I feel for him. I keep associating him with Dag Hammerskjold in my mind, to tell you the truth, because of his diplomatic background! Dag Hammerskjold is a hero of mine! N: I give you part of Lodewijk's address to the 120 Bhikkhus in Sarnath Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 4:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi Howard and Ken, Maybe you guys should just forget dependent arising for a while. It is just confusing you. The only way desire could know feeling as a reality is if panna cetasika accompanied desire. There are only two objects of knowing, concept and reality. There is no other possibility. If desire doesn't know its object as a reality, it must know it as a concept. Simple as that. Using the same reasoning we can say only concept can condition desire. Any way of generalizing or bringing together particulars into a seeming whole is a conceptual knowing, like visual perception, for example. Any recognition must be conceptual because it is equating the present with concept. However, unlike realities, concept manifests only as object of consciousness and cetasikas. In this sense concept is inseparable from reality, the middle way. Furthermore concept must at all times reference reality in some way. Otherwise it is only meaningless intimation rupa. I don't understand why you guys are resisting this concept so much. Try an experiment. The next time a desire arises consider that the object of that desire is only a concept. See if that seems reasonable and, if so, what happens to the desire? Larry 39310 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 5:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Mike: "I think you're right--I've just been reading this and and can't think of a better or more concentrated example of abhidhamma in the suttas than the ninety-three paragraphs of the Nidaanavagga ('The Kindred Sayings on Cause' per Mrs. Rhys-Davies). Can anyone recommend a better English translation?" Hi Mike, I think B. Bodhi's trans. of SN is excellent and well worth the investment. Also Thanissaro Bhikkhu translated some of it for ATI. Larry 39311 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 0:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/4/04 7:49:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard and Ken, > > Maybe you guys should just forget dependent arising for a while. It is > just confusing you. > ------------------------------------- Howard: Gosh, thanks, Larry ;-) ------------------------------------- The only way desire could know feeling as a reality> > is if panna cetasika accompanied desire. > -------------------------------------- Howard: Larry, if you want to apply the foregoing to tanha, then you could just as well apply it to vi~n~nana. Would you also care to say that vi~n~nana could know feeling as a reality (i.e., not as a concept) only when accompanied by pa~n~na? So, without wisdom, there is no direct awareness of feelings? I think you are just plain wrong on this, Larry. Without even a glimmer of wisdom, we are directly aware of feelings, sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and so on. All of the foregoing, directly apprehended, are paramattha dhammas, not concepts, but even so they are misapprehended due to ignorance. They are realities that are direct objects of our awareness, and they are not concepts. Yet avijja causes them to be misapprehended. Avijja certainly does have a fundamental effect. There is something added on to all our cognitive functions: the sense of a split into self-existent subject and self-existent object. That reification is engendered by ignorance, it grows embryonically in the womb of sankhara, it is born into vi~n~nana, and continues on its way from there. Incidentally, I find it strange to speak of desire knowing an object, and I didn't speak in such terms. More about that further on. ----------------------------------- There are only two objects of> > knowing, concept and reality. There is no other possibility. If desire > doesn't know its object as a reality, it must know it as a concept. ---------------------------------- Howard: I never speak of desire knowing something. Perhaps you are comfortable with such locution, but it is meaningless to me. Mental content, object of consciousness, arises that is pleasant, and then there arises desire for that pleasantness. Vi~n~nana knows, vedana feels, sa~n~na recognizes, and tanha desires. ---------------------------------- > Simple as that. Using the same reasoning we can say only concept can > condition desire. > ---------------------------------- Howard: I never read the Buddha to have said that. --------------------------------- Any way of generalizing or bringing together> > particulars into a seeming whole is a conceptual knowing, like visual > perception, for example. ------------------------------- Howard: How do you view phassa? Isn't that a bringing together of particulars? The Buddha said so. So is phassa conceptual? ------------------------------ Any recognition must be conceptual because it> > is equating the present with concept. ---------------------------- Howard: Recognition, even of paramattha dhammas, does require processing. Is that enough to make it conceptual? I don't think so. You know, Larry, in that regard, I don't believe you ever replied to my point that the khandha of sa~n~na is separate from sanharakkhandha in which the conceptual faculty is found. --------------------------- > > However, unlike realities, concept manifests only as object of > consciousness and cetasikas. In this sense concept is inseparable from > reality, the middle way. Furthermore concept must at all times reference > reality in some way. Otherwise it is only meaningless intimation rupa. > ------------------------------------- Howard: Sorry. At this point my eyes are glazing over from over-medication of Abhidhamma. ;-) ----------------------------------- > > I don't understand why you guys are resisting this concept so much. > ------------------------------------ Howard: I'm resisting concept!!!??? I'm one of the few folks on DSG to emphasize the *importance* of concept! ------------------------------------ Try> > an experiment. The next time a desire arises consider that the object of > that desire is only a concept. See if that seems reasonable and, if so, > what happens to the desire? ------------------------------------- Howard: Sorry , Larry. There is immediate desire and there is subsequent desire. When there is a good feeling I immediately desire it, wordlessly and without concept. The mind is programmed by ignorance to react so. The object of that immediate desire, whether it be the pleasant feeling itself or the bodily sensation that was felt as pleasant, is a reality, not a concept. However, should I then begin to think about it, conceptually proliferating, a secondary object will appear, a concept substituted for the reality, and a secondary craving will arise as well. -------------------------------------- > > Larry > > ================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 39312 From: m. nease Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 6:25pm Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hi Ken and Hugo, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken O" To: Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 10:16 AM Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) > I have the same problem with you about anger. I think my wife always > complained I am quick in temper. A short temper's always been a curse to me to, I earlier recommended Aghatasutta, AN X 80 to Hugo. > And I know the only way that anger > is looking it at it is wise attention (understand it as anatta, > anicca and dukkha). Right--I think this quotation from "Discourse on the Twofold Thought" (Middle Length Sayings I, no. 19) in Nina's 'Cetasikas' at http://www.ready2surf.co.uk/cetfinal.html is pertinent: "It is difficult to cultivate kusala vitakka but the Buddha showed that it can be done. Further on in the sutta we read about three kinds of kusala vitakka which are the opposites of the three kinds of akusala vitakka. They are: the thought of renunciation (nekkhamma) the thought of non-malevolence (avyåpåda) the thought of non-harming (avihiósa) The bodhisatta realized that these lead neither to self-hurt, nor to the hurt of others, nor to the hurt of both, but that they are for "growth in intuitive wisdom", that they are "not associated with distress", "conducive to nibbåna". We read about kusala vitakka: "Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on the thought of renunciation he ejects the thought of sense-pleasures; if he makes much of the thought of renunciation, his mind inclines to the thought of renunciation. Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on the thought of non-malevolence he ejects the thought of malevolence¤ Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on the thought of non-harming, he ejects the thought of harming; if he makes much of the thought of non-harming his mind inclines to the thought of non-harming" I think this sutta shows well how wise attention differs from unwise attention in this context and the difference these conditions can make to the present moment." > My preference is to use anatta as it eradicates > the I more effectively so lessen the concept that there is an I that > is angry. I agree with this in principle. Years ago though, when I was doing a LOT of meditation as an ordained layman in a Thai wat, someone told me to 'look at the dosa--find the tilakkhaana'--this is an opportunity for insight'. So I spent a lot of time 'looking at dosa and the more I looked, the more I found--which leads me to another portion of Nina's quotation: ... Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on the thought of malevolence, he ejects the thought of non-malevolence, his mind inclines to the thought of malevolence. Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on the thought of harming, he ejects the thought of non-harming; if he makes much of the thought of harming, his mind inclines to the thought of harming. ... In short, for myself, I found 'looking for the tilakkhaana' in dosa counterproductive. Just me, of course. > There is no other way I think can be more beneficial than > using wise attention. My (tentative) conclusion here was that the conscious effort to evoke yonisoo manasikaara was not effective for me; in other words, I found that 'I' CAN'T use wise attention--'I' can't arise with unwise attention. But at times, reflecting on what Nina called 'kusala vitakka', the words of the Buddha, even though conceptual, whether "What should I expect?" from Aghatasutta or "But while I was reflecting, "It conduces to self-hurt", it subsided; and while I was reflecting, "It conduces to the hurt of others", it subsided; and while I was reflecting, "It is destructive of intuitive wisdom, it is associated with distress, it is not conducive to nibbaana", it subsided." from Discourse on the Twofold Thought, these reflections on present dhammas in the light of the pariyatti were conditions for detachment and relief from domanassa. Of course, that doesn't mean that akusala was replaced by kusala--more likely always that unpleasant akusala was replaced by pleasant akusala (i.e. attachment to pleasant thoughts). This is why I think it's always a good idea to investigate what I take to be kusala with the conceptual tools of abhidhamma. > The problem with anger is sometimes the > intensity or it is out of nowhere it arise strongly, these are due to > our strong underlying tendency (habitual effect since limitless > lives). When that kind of anger arise, I feelt that I am ovewhelm, > and my wise attention did not help much because my panna is not > strong enough to eradicate the underlying tendency. I often feel the same way--then sometimes I think, 'It's the nature of 'I' to be overwhelmed, no 'my' wise attention and no 'my' pa~n~naa'--'I' and 'my' can't arise with wise attention OR pa~n~aa'. And with this thought, sometimes, 'my' aversion to 'my' hindrances to 'my' understanding subside--"what should I expect"? So, a little more kammic relief--kusala? 'I'm' suspicious... But at least I'm not mistaking this relief for bona fide vipassanaa which, as I understand it, must be into paramattha dhammas and not concepts, however kusala. > If I think I > have reach a certain limit on my wise attention which is not strong > enough to help me tide over it, the best sutta I known to recollect > at that moment is Kakacupaama Sutta MN 21. I read it once in a > while to remind myself. I know many times I lose to myself to anger, > but I accept. It is important not to be remoseful over it because > remorse is dosa rooted which in turns conditioned the underlying > tendency (dont add wood into the fire). I couldn't agree more. Those of us who don't experience habitual dosa (and its attendant domanassa) to goad them I think sometimes understimate the value of this kind of kammic relief to those of us who do. > I think Phil is good at this. His experiences in eradicating dosa > using wise attention on that moment it arise, is very good. I learn > a lot from his experiences when he share in the list. I do too, and I think Phil's recent reminder about apamaada is also important in this context as a condition for the arising of yonisoo manasikaara. I'm beginning to like 'vigilance' over 'heedfulness' or 'earnestness'. mike p.s. Thanks for the Kakacupaama Sutta--I'll have another look. 39313 From: m. nease Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 6:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 5:16 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O > I think B. Bodhi's trans. of SN is excellent and well worth the > investment. Also Thanissaro Bhikkhu translated some of it for ATI. Mercy! I didn't realize he'd translated it, probably just forgot or transposed nikayas in my head. Thanks! mike 39314 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 6:42pm Subject: I'm back Hello friends, Letting you know I'm back home and, altho a tad sore, I'm fine. Thanking you all for your kind thoughts and words; I haven't caught up with all the posts since being out of action and I can see there are HEAPS!!!! Dhamma does help in these rather scary situations. To let go [kind of..] and know that there is nothing that can stop any vipakacitta from arising, just like now, is somehow releasing. Except, of course, when one is still throwing up 30 hours after anaesthetic ;-( Right now, I'm fine and looking forward to reading posts again. May we all be well and happy, Azita. 39315 From: m. nease Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 6:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:27 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O > L: I would say D.O. is about delusion, the reality of delusion. Every > link is a mistake. Every link is real, I think. > Moha is not a universal cetasika but sanna is. Yes-- > Sanna > perceives everything as a concept, even anatta. Concept is the beginning > and end of all delusion. This works well with some schools of Buddhism, I think, but not with the Paali texts. I could be mistaken of course--I'd like to see a reference supporting this idea from the Paali tipitaka. > If you understand sanna you can see _how_ > delusion arises. I don't think you can say the same about moha. Sa.n.naa is present even with lokkuttara cittas, as I understand it. In the mind door, it can even take moha as an object I think. Anyway, it doesn't 'perceive everything as a concept', I don't think--am I wrong about this? Sa.n.naa is present whether the object is pa.n.natti or paramattha, isn't it? I don't see it as perceiving 'as'--just as perceiving. In other words, I don't think sa.n.naa 'creates' concepts--do you? mike 39316 From: m. nease Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 7:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi Larry and Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken O" To: Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 7:28 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O > The root of the problem is not conceptualization, the root of the > problem is the three roots that conditioned these conceptualizations. > They are the source. That is why the first thing to eradicate > during stream entry is the eradication of a view to self. To me > because of the attachment to the view of a self, we keep > conceptualization the world, again to me our conceptualization in > this world in one way or another is conditioned by the 'I' factor. Parenthetically: In my experience, one of the greatest obstacles to understanding has been taking insights into concepts as vipassanaa. Speaking strictly for myself, this has certainly led me in the past to think that 'concepts are the root of evil'. Don't know if this is pertinent to anyone else. Interesting reflection, though. All--ALL--of 'my' 'insights' have just been noodling, thinking. I have yet to scratch the surface of the Buddhadhamma. mike 39317 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 7:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi Howard, I think we have taken this argument as far as it will go for now. However, there is one question I didn't understand. H: "You know, Larry, in that regard, I don't believe you ever replied to my point that the khandha of sa~n~na is separate from sanharakkhandha in which the conceptual faculty is found." L: What conceptual faculty? I agree that the two khandhas are two, not one, but they arise and function together. Are you referring to sankhara cetasikas' characteristic of accumulating, combining? Or are you talking about ditthi or vitakka and vicara? Or something else? Larry 39318 From: robmoult Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 7:35pm Subject: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi All, Many on this list attach great importance to the terms "concept" and "reality". Many feel that this issue is central to a proper understanding of the Dhamma. I decided to read what the Buddha and Buddhaghosa said about this topic. Here is the results of my quick literature search (I checked the detailed indicies in the back of the following texts for "concept", "reality" and "pannatti"): Digha Nikaya (648 pages) - Not found (except in one footnote) Majjhima Nikaya (1412 pages) - Not found Samyutta Nikaya (2074 pages) - Not found Anguttara Nikaya (330 pages) - Not found Dhammasamgani (364 pages) - Not found (except in introductory essay and one footnote) Atthasalini (555 pages) - Not found Vibhanga (573 pages) - Not found Sammohavinodani (741 pages) - Not found Even Buddhaghosa's 885 page Visuddhi Magga has only five references to "concept" (plus another 7 references in footnotes) and three references to "reality". My quick literature search covered more than 7500 pages of primary texts. From this quick literature search, I am coming to the conclusion that "concept" and "reality" is not a central theme of the Buddha's teaching. Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) 39319 From: m. nease Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 7:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob, Very interesting and trenchant-- ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 7:35 PM Subject: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts > My quick literature search covered more than 7500 pages of primary > texts. From this quick literature search, I am coming to the > conclusion that "concept" and "reality" is not a central theme of > the Buddha's teaching. I agree--the only central theme, to my understanding, is dukkha and the end of dukkha. That said, though, do you think there's any significant difference between the foundations of mindfulness and concepts? That is, do you think that satipa.t.thaana can arise based equally on either? If not, it hardly seems important to me whether or not 'concept and reality' is a central theme; it suffices, for me, that understanding the difference is crucial to understanding the central theme. What do you think? mike 39320 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 8:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi Mike, re: L: "Sanna perceives everything as a concept, even anatta. Concept is the beginning and end of all delusion." M: "This works well with some schools of Buddhism, I think, but not with the Paali texts. I could be mistaken of course--I'd like to see a reference supporting this idea from the Paali tipitaka." L: See Vism.XIV,130: "But though classed in the same way as consciousness, nevertheless, as to characteristic, etc., it all has just the characteristic of perceiving. Its function is to make a sign as a condition for perceiving again that 'this is the same', as carpenters, etc., do in the case of timber, and so on. It is manifested as the action of interpreting by means of the sign as apprehended, like the blind who 'see' an elephant (Ud. 68-69). Its proximate cause is an objective field in whatever way that appears, like the perception that arises in fauns that see scarecrows as men." L: "Sign" is concept I believe. As for concept being the "beginning and end of all delusion", failure to 'see' the three characteristics and understand the Four Noble Truths could reasonably be said to be an error of complex judgement but the following definition of pa~n~na suggests to me that it is simply a matter if concept vs. reality, which amounts to sa~n~naa vs. pa~n~na, in my mind. Vism.XIV,7 "What are its characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause? Understanding has the characteristic of penetrating the individual essences of states. Its function is to abolish the darkness of delusion, which conceals the individual essences of states. It is manifested as non-delusion. Because of the words 'One who is concentrated knows and see correctly' (A.v,3), its proximate cause is concentration." L: Granted pa~n~na doesn't abolish sa~n~naa but sa~n~naa does very plainly conceal sabhava. Pa~n~na abolishes the belief or clinging to concept and sa~n~naa interprets all experience conceptually. That sa~n~naa arises with lokuttara cetasikas suggests to me that path consciousness is not void of concept. The point of path process is not to "get real" but to stop desiring. So it seems reasonable that concept would be involved in that insight. I don't see a problem with nibbana being an object of sa~n~na. That conceptualizing of nibbana is surely instrumental in the understanding to the effect that the path is completed. Larry 39321 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 3:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/4/04 10:34:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I think we have taken this argument as far as it will go for now. > However, there is one question I didn't understand. > > H: "You know, Larry, in that regard, I don't believe you ever replied to > my point that the khandha of sa~n~na is separate from sanharakkhandha in > which the conceptual faculty is found." > > L: What conceptual faculty? I agree that the two khandhas are two, not > one, but they arise and function together. Are you referring to sankhara > cetasikas' characteristic of accumulating, combining? Or are you talking > about ditthi or vitakka and vicara? Or something else? > > Larry > =========================== I'm talking about thinking and concept formation. (You may choose any and all Pali terms that apply.) It comes under sankharakkhanda. 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) 39322 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 8:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Rob: "My quick literature search covered more than 7500 pages of primary texts. From this quick literature search, I am coming to the conclusion that "concept" and "reality" is not a central theme of the Buddha's teaching." Hi Rob, Is self real or imaginary? Larry 39323 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 8:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Howard: "I'm talking about thinking and concept formation. (You may choose any and all Pali terms that apply.) It comes under sankharakkhanda." Hi Howard, I agree discursive thinking and language formation are different from sa~n~naa. I suppose we could classify them under clinging (upadana).Sankhara cetasikas have both a combining (accumulating) and proliferating quality which I don't understand. Also I don't understand the source of language or how it works and the precise relation to sa~n~naa in all this. Larry 39324 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 3:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi, Rob - In a message dated 12/4/04 10:37:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi All, > > Many on this list attach great importance to the terms "concept" > and "reality". Many feel that this issue is central to a proper > understanding of the Dhamma. > > I decided to read what the Buddha and Buddhaghosa said about this > topic. Here is the results of my quick literature search (I checked > the detailed indicies in the back of the following texts > for "concept", "reality" and "pannatti"): > > Digha Nikaya (648 pages) > - Not found (except in one footnote) > > Majjhima Nikaya (1412 pages) > - Not found > > Samyutta Nikaya (2074 pages) > - Not found > > Anguttara Nikaya (330 pages) > - Not found > > Dhammasamgani (364 pages) > - Not found (except in introductory essay and one footnote) > > Atthasalini (555 pages) > - Not found > > Vibhanga (573 pages) > - Not found > > Sammohavinodani (741 pages) > - Not found > > Even Buddhaghosa's 885 page Visuddhi Magga has only five references > to "concept" (plus another 7 references in footnotes) and three > references to "reality". > > My quick literature search covered more than 7500 pages of primary > texts. From this quick literature search, I am coming to the > conclusion that "concept" and "reality" is not a central theme of > the Buddha's teaching. > > Comments? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > =========================== Yes, a few comments. First of all: Yay!! ;-)) Secondly, you have just supported a point long made by James and Victor and others. Also, while I do think that our erroneous concepts, those defiled by the ignorance of "me and mine", of permanent, self-existent "things", of "cores", and of "selves" are the primary carriers of avijja and are among the strongest of the chains that bind, I agree that the Buddha did not teach the concept vs reality issue as a primary one. Now, I do think that one can validly distinguish between experience that is mentally constructed and direct, sankharically-unconstructed experience, and I note that the Buddha did distinguish between sammuti sacca and paramattha sacca, and that all branches of Buddhism make this distinction. However, I think that what the Buddha most emphasized are the four noble truths, dependent origination and the general theme of conditionality, the tilakkhana, and, perhaps above all, relinquishment and his unique tripartite path of practice leading to enlightenment and liberation. 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) 39325 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 9:03pm Subject: Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: I am coming to the > conclusion that "concept" and "reality" is not a central theme of > the Buddha's teaching. > > Comments? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Friend Rob M, Hope I don't sound too `snorky' (Hi Phil! ;-), but I came to that conclusion some time ago (you also??). Here is my take on the subject: the `reality' vs. `concept' outlook is the thinking person's approach to the dhamma. A quick and easy way to appear to see the impermanence, non-self, and dukkha aspect of conditioned reality is to tell the mind that everything, except component dhammas, is concept only. People: concepts; cars: concepts; trees, concepts; etc., etc., etc. This approach gets the thinking person all excited that true understanding of the Buddha's teaching has arisen. Now, to me, I look at this approach and say to myself, "So what. Who cares? What difference does it make? Let's get to the real heart of the matter: the defilements in one's own mind." You see, the thinking person doesn't want to confront his/her demons. The thinking person doesn't want to stir up the sludge and filth of the mind to see what's there. It's much cleaner and easier, including easier to discuss, to put on a façade of viewing everything as concepts. However, I think that when one truly practices the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, this approach will break down. Secluded from outside sensations, viewing the body in the body, the mind in the mind, the feelings in the feelings, and the mental objects in the mental objects, a concept only approach doesn't make any sense anymore. Concepts can only be called concepts when they are compared to something else, something that is supposedly non-concept. But when there is nothing to compare to, the approach of `concept' vs. `reality' flies out the window. Well, at least that's my take on it…and what do I know? I'm only a concept ;-)). Metta, James 39326 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 4:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi, Larry (and Rob) - In a message dated 12/4/04 11:30:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Rob: "My quick literature search covered more than 7500 pages of primary > texts. From this quick literature search, I am coming to the conclusion > that "concept" and "reality" is not a central theme of the Buddha's > teaching." > > Hi Rob, > > Is self real or imaginary? > > Larry > ======================= "Self" is delusive concept, with no instances. "Dukkha" is undelusive concept. There are no selves, there is dukkha. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 39327 From: Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 4:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/4/04 11:52:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Howard: "I'm talking about thinking and concept formation. (You may > choose any and all Pali terms that apply.) It comes under > sankharakkhanda." > > Hi Howard, > > I agree discursive thinking and language formation are different from > sa~n~naa. I suppose we could classify them under clinging > (upadana). > ---------------------------------- Howard: I don't see that (about upadana). But I do see thinking, concept construction, and language processing as falling under the formational khandha, sankhara. ---------------------------------- Sankhara cetasikas have both a combining (accumulating) and> > proliferating quality which I don't understand. Also I don't understand > the source of language or how it works and the precise relation to > sa~n~naa in all this. > --------------------------------- Howard: I don't understand any of this in any detail. It is very complex. I do think that sa~n~na creates the raw materials upon which thinking and conceptual construction operate. ------------------------------- > > Larry ================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 39328 From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 8:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Dhamma Greetings Andrew, I can show you some examples of how a smile with loving and kind thoughts changes others minds. Over the years I have been invited to visit many people who have terrible disease and are on their death beds. Before I go into the dying persons room I spent time by myself smiling and wishing everyone concerned with the dying person a calm, accepting mind that is open to these loving, compassionate thoughts. Then I go into the room of the often times heavy physical pain, where the dying person is lying. I keep my mind on uplifting thoughts like metta and when the dying person sees me they begin to smile. They have told me that whenever I walk into their room it is like fresh air coming into the room that before had felt stuffy. Even if the dying person is in great physical and mental pain, they begin to have a mind that is more accepting of their situation. This is not my belief that this is happening, it is real because that is what I am told, by both the family and the dying person. Why do you think that this happens? It all starts with a sincere smile and a wish for their well being. Most of the time I teach the dying person how to practice meditation and how to see pain as a part of an impersonal process. The relief that they experience when I walk into the room is truly amazing. I have a definition in practical terms for the word compassion and it is 'Seeing another person suffering (either mentally or physically), allowing them the space to experience that suffering and love them unconditionally'. I say allowing the suffering person to have the space to suffer means that their pain is their's I can't help by trying to take their pain away. That only makes me suffer and doesn't help the person who has the real suffering. I also teach that loving-kindness means loving-acceptance of the present moment. Which also means to give the space for even painful feelings to be there without any resistance at all. I have just given you a descriptive example of many true life experiences and how by my smiling it does change another persons views of what is happening in the present moment. Does smiling lead directly to nibbana? The answer is no, but it sure helps to relieve the suffering in myself and others. Also, when I go to hospitals to visit people they ask me to chant a blessing for them and when I do this they can feel the tranquility coming off of me and they then become tranquil. If you want to change the world around you try smiling from the heart, it does work. And it only works when the smile is sincere. Maha-Metta always Bhante Vimalaramsi 39329 From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 8:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Dhamma Greetings James, Have you ever run across a book called 'Concepts and Reality' by Venerable Nananada? It is worth a read, if you have the time and inclination. Many bhikkhus place a great deal interest on this book. Maha-Metta always Bhante Vimalaramsi 39330 From: robmoult Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 10:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Venerable Sir, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhante Vimalaramsi wrote: > Dhamma Greetings James, > > Have you ever run across a book called 'Concepts and Reality' by > Venerable Nananada? It is worth a read, if you have the time and > inclination. Many bhikkhus place a great deal interest on this book. > > Maha-Metta > always > Bhante Vimalaramsi ===== I read this book some time ago and pulled it out when you referenced it in your post. I quote from the Preface: The analysis of the naure of concepts constitutes an imporant facet of the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta ('not-self'). Buddhism traces the idea of a soul to a fundamental error in understanding the facts of experience. This ignorance (avijja) is reflected to a great extent in the words and concepts in worldly parlance. Being unaware of their limitations, man is generally prone to cling to them dogmatically and this accounts for a good deal of complications in his intellectual and emotional life. Hence an understanding of the nature of concepts as such is a preliminary step in the spiritual endeavour in Buddhism. The Buddha's teachings on this particular aspect of our phenomenal existence can best be appreciated with the aid of the two key-words, 'papanca' and 'papanca-sanna-sankha', an evaluation of which is the aim of this work. I wholehartedly agree with Bhikkhu Nanananda that conceptual proliferation (my translation of 'papanca' and 'papanca-sanna- sankha') is a critical element of Buddhism. However, I contend that the separating of "concept" and "reality" in an ontological fashion is not a key element of the Buddha's teachings. In other words, "conceptual proliferation" vs. "directly knowing" is very important whereas "conceptual object" vs. "real object" is not a key element. My thinking has, in part, been influenced by the Mulapariya Sutta (Mn 1) wherein the Buddha expains the difference in pattern of thinking between the uninstructed worldling (that's us), the learner (Sotapanna, Sakadagami and Anagami), the Arahant and the Buddha. To summarize this complex sutta in a few words: - We perceive then conceive, taking delight because we have not fully understood the object - Learners directly know and may or may not conceive, they should not take delight so that they may fully understand the object - Arahants directly know and do not conceive because they have uprooted the three evil roots - Buddha directly knows and does not conceive because He has fully understood the object to the end and because He has understood dependent origination It is noteworthy that in this sutta, the Buddha lists 24 objects that can be perceived/conceived/directly known. The 24 objects are: - Earth / water / fire / air - Beings / Gods - Pajapati / Brahma / Gods of Streaming Radiance / Gods of Refulgent Glory / Gods of Abundant Fruit / Vanquishers - Base of infinite space / base of infinite consciousness / base of nothingness / base of neither perception nor non-perception - The seen / the heard / the sensed / the cognized - Unity / diversity / all / Nibbana The Sutta treats all of these object in exactly the same way, even though some of the objects would fall into the Abhidhammattaha Sangaha category of "concept" while others would fall into the Abhidhammattaha Sangaha category of "reality". Though the title of Bhikkhu Nanananda's book is "Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought", this book (as indicated in the preface) is a study on conceptual proliferation. In addition to the title, the term "reality" is briefy mentioned only four times in this 150 page book (one of the references is in the chapter titled "Prapanca in Mahayana Buddhism"). The Pali term "paramattha" is not in the index of this book. With great respect, Rob M :-) 39331 From: robmoult Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 10:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Very interesting and trenchant-- > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "robmoult" > To: > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 7:35 PM > Subject: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts > > My quick literature search covered more than 7500 pages of primary > > texts. From this quick literature search, I am coming to the > > conclusion that "concept" and "reality" is not a central theme of > > the Buddha's teaching. > > I agree--the only central theme, to my understanding, is dukkha and the end > of dukkha. That said, though, do you think there's any significant > difference between the foundations of mindfulness and concepts? That is, do > you think that satipa.t.thaana can arise based equally on either? If not, > it hardly seems important to me whether or not 'concept and reality' is a > central theme; it suffices, for me, that understanding the difference is > crucial to understanding the central theme. What do you think? > > mike > ===== Please see my recent reply to Bhante Vimalaramsi. I tend to equate satipatthana with "directly knowing". Metta, Rob M :-) 39332 From: robmoult Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 11:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Rob: "My quick literature search covered more than 7500 pages of primary > texts. From this quick literature search, I am coming to the conclusion > that "concept" and "reality" is not a central theme of the Buddha's > teaching." > > Hi Rob, > > Is self real or imaginary? ===== Please see my recent reply to Bhante Vimalaramsi. Please note that "beings" is one of the types of objects taken by all types of people (uninstructed worldlings, learners, Arahants and Buddha). Metta, Rob M :-) 39333 From: Andrew Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 11:31pm Subject: Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi All, > > Many on this list attach great importance to the terms "concept" > and "reality". Many feel that this issue is central to a proper > understanding of the Dhamma. > > I decided to read what the Buddha and Buddhaghosa said about this > topic. Here is the results of my quick literature search (I checked > the detailed indicies in the back of the following texts > for "concept", "reality" and "pannatti"): [snip]> My quick literature search covered more than 7500 pages of primary > texts. From this quick literature search, I am coming to the > conclusion that "concept" and "reality" is not a central theme of > the Buddha's teaching. > > Comments? Hi Rob M I seem to recall you did something similar to this before to which myself and others responded? Anyway, you have asked for comments so here goes. I have just done a quick literature search of Swedish novels and, because I did not find the word "lonely" very often, I am going to conclude that "loneliness" is not a central theme of Swedish literature. Would I be right? Certainly not. I believe it is an error to conclude that quantitative language searches always translate to qualitative ranking. Big mistake IMHO. Because of the anatta and anicca teachings, the Buddha *had* to say something like this: "Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, he might still say 'I speak'. He might say too 'they speak to me'. Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, he uses such terms as mere expressions" [SN II 17]. I for one completely understand why the Buddha didn't go on and on about the presently-arisen realities behind the "mere expressions" he was using. Have you ever had an extended Dhamma discussion with someone who constantly tells you to think of things in terms of paramattha dhammas rather than the "ocean of concepts" we all float around in? The results of your search: A. don't surprise me in the least, and B. don't make me feel that directly knowing the substance behind our "mere expressions" is not a central part of the Dhamma. The important things are often hidden away from view, don't you think? Well, perhaps you don't ...? My two cents worth. (-: Best wishes Andrew 39334 From: robmoult Date: Sat Dec 4, 2004 11:45pm Subject: Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > I am coming to the > > conclusion that "concept" and "reality" is not a central theme of > > the Buddha's teaching. > > > > Comments? > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) > > Friend Rob M, > > Hope I don't sound too `snorky' (Hi Phil! ;-), but I came to that > conclusion some time ago (you also??). > > Here is my take on the subject: the `reality' vs. `concept' outlook > is the thinking person's approach to the dhamma. A quick and easy > way to appear to see the impermanence, non-self, and dukkha aspect > of conditioned reality is to tell the mind that everything, except > component dhammas, is concept only. People: concepts; cars: > concepts; trees, concepts; etc., etc., etc. This approach gets the > thinking person all excited that true understanding of the Buddha's > teaching has arisen. Now, to me, I look at this approach and say to > myself, "So what. Who cares? What difference does it make? Let's > get to the real heart of the matter: the defilements in one's own > mind." > > You see, the thinking person doesn't want to confront his/her > demons. The thinking person doesn't want to stir up the sludge and > filth of the mind to see what's there. ===== And non-thinking people are not subject to the same tendecies? :-) ===== > It's much cleaner and > easier, including easier to discuss, to put on a façade of viewing > everything as concepts. However, I think that when one truly > practices the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, this approach will > break down. Secluded from outside sensations, viewing the body in > the body, the mind in the mind, the feelings in the feelings, and > the mental objects in the mental objects, a concept only approach > doesn't make any sense anymore. Concepts can only be called > concepts when they are compared to something else, something that is > supposedly non-concept. But when there is nothing to compare to, > the approach of `concept' vs. `reality' flies out the window. Well, > at least that's my take on it…and what do I know? I'm only a > concept ;-)). ===== I have a slightly different take on it. As I see it, this ontological focus on "reality" vs. "concept" really started to take hold in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha fifteen centuries after the death of the Buddha. One must not forget the stated purpose of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha - it is meant to be an introductory text to the Abhidhamma. Bhikkhu Bodhi's introduction says: Among these [compendia of the Abhidhamma], the work that has dominated Abhidhamma studies from about the twelfth century to the present day is the first mentioned, the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, "The Compendium of Things contained in the Abhidhamma." Its popularity may be accounted for by its remarkable balance between concision and comprehensiveness. Within its short scope all the essentials of the Abhidhamma are briefly and carefully summarized. Although the book's manner of treatment is extremely terse even to the point of obscurity when read alone, when studied under a qualified teacher or with the aid of an explanatory guide, it leads the student confidently through the winding maze of the system to a clear perception of its entire structure. For this reason throughout the Theravada Buddhist world the Abhidhammattha Sangaha is always used as the first textbook in Abhidhamma studies. In Buddhist monasteries, especially in Burma, novices and young bhikkhus are required to learn the Sangaha by heart before they are permitted to study the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka and its Commentaries. The second verse of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (following the opening words of praise) is as follows: The things contained in the Abhidhamma, spoken of therein, are altogether fourfold from the standpoint of ultimate reality: consciousness, mental factors, matter and Nibbana. After reviewing many of the original Abhidhamma texts, I am starting to interpret Acariya Anuruddha's statement as meaning that his he using the approach of four ultimate realities as a convenient technique to summarize the vast content of the Abhidhamma. Also note that Acariya Anuruddha only used the term "paramattha" (ultimate reality) twice in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, once in the verse quoted above, and once in conclusion of the sixth chapter. I have huge respect for Acariya Anuruddha's Abhidhammattha Sangaha. As Bhikkhu Bodi says in his introduction: In nine short chapters occupying about fifty pages in print, the author provides a masterly summary of that abstruse body of Buddhist doctrine called the Abhidhamma. My estimate is that the Abhidhamma texts plus commentary run to about ten thousand pages. To summarize this into fifty pages is an unbelieveable accomplishment. The only way that such a compression could have been done would have been to introduce a new simple structure to act as a skeleton. I now see "ultimate realities" in that light. In other words, ultimate realities are an incredibly powerful tool but they are not key to the Buddha's teaching. Personally, my approach has been to get comfortable with the Abhidhammattha Sangaha first and then start to go into the primary texts for an even better understanding. Until I started to go into the primary texts, I too chanted the "concept" vs. "reality" mantra. My deepening understanding of the Abhidhamma does not diminish my respect for the Abhidhammattha Sangaha at all, in fact, my respect has increased! Yesterday, I was wrestling with the Patthana (Conditional Relations) and I still can't make head nor tail of the structure of the text. Metta, Rob M :-) 39335 From: Ken O Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 0:01am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hi Howard > ================== > Then do not purposely do *anything*. Do not purposely eat or > take medicine or say hello & goodbye or read suttas or study Abhidhamma, for when you do so, so you say, "the I is involved". k: Yup one never know even if one purposedly read the text just to gain more dhamma knowledge can be conditioned by lobha as our cetana is conditioned by underlying tendecies. In the strictest sense, saying hello and pleasantaries also can be conditioned by a lobha due to conforming to social norms, there is this possibility. That is why the only way out is still wise attention. > Ken if one consistently insists on presuming self whenever > cetana is involved, one inevitable result will be rapid death. k: Nope unless one understand that underlying tendecies can be eradicated by wise attention, there is hope. We live our life with patience, courage and faith even though the eradication of underlying tendecies can be a very gigantic challenge. It may take us countless aeons to eradicate them but one small step in the right step is a giant leap. Ken O 39336 From: Andrew Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 0:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhante Vimalaramsi wrote: > Dhamma Greetings Andrew, > > I can show you some examples of how a smile with loving and kind thoughts > changes others minds. Over the years I have been invited to visit many > people who have terrible disease and are on their death beds. [snip] Dear Bhante I do appreciate your sharing of some of your experiences helping the sick and dying. I have the greatest respect and admiration for your compassionate work and wish you well with it in the future. On the specific subject at hand, and as a matter of fact, I do not doubt that a sincere smile can help to condition the mind of another in a wholesome direction. Nothing I have written to date was intended to set volition against the arising of a sincere smile. I was trying to make the point that, as the Buddha said in the Bhaddekaraatta Sutta, we should "with insight ... see each presently arisen state" and know it and be sure of it "invincibly, unshakeably". I suggest therefore that it would be good to know, as far as possible, exactly what is happening when our sincere smile to all intents and purposes affects the mind of another in a seemingly wholesome way. My experience is that: 1. it is impossible to know exactly what is going on in another's mind with 100% certainty; 2. sometimes people appear to me to be paying attention to me but actually aren't; 3. sometimes my sincere smile is followed by aggression towards me by the person I was smiling at (eg by a "mentally retarded" person). I therefore conclude that, whilst it seems in many cases that my sincere smile has caused a wholesome response from another, this is because of conditions and not "me". Me smiling sincerely is not a controlling factor such that I can ever smile at someone and think "Let your consciousness be thus" and be guaranteed that it will be so. And because I cannot do this in ALL cases, "my" volition cannot be thought of as a universally causative factor. I am thus unwise to let myself think that the apparent efficacy of my sincere smiling in the majority of cases means that "I can change other's minds" and should go around deliberately trying to do so. I suspect that the process is very complex and that I need to understand my conceiving of things with the insight of the Dhamma. Do you think I am looking at this subject in an insightful manner? Your comments would be gratefully received. With respect Andrew 39337 From: Andrew Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 0:13am Subject: Re: I'm back --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > > Hello friends, > > Letting you know I'm back home and, altho a tad sore, I'm fine. > Thanking you all for your kind thoughts and words; I haven't caught > up with all the posts since being out of action and I can see there > are HEAPS!!!! Dear Azita All the Cooranites were thinking of you this weekend and are glad to know you are on the mend. A little while ago, you asked a question and I promised you we would discuss it and answer it. None of us could remember exactly what your question was but we decided to answer it anyway. But you'll have to wait a little while longer as the answer, whilst present, is still maturing a wee bit. As my granny used to say, you should never scrape the skin off a rice pudding ... I'll report back soon. Best wishes Andrew 39338 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 0:19am Subject: Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Andrew, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > Hi Rob M > > I seem to recall you did something similar to this before to which > myself and others responded? Anyway, you have asked for comments so > here goes. > ===== I tried a slightly different exercise before. I compared the list of wholesome mental states that opens the Dhammasangani with the corresponding list from the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. I noted the following differences: Dhammasangani - Open ended list - Huge overlap in terms (multiple repititions of the same term using slightly different terms) Abhidhammattha Sangaha - Closed ended list - No overlap in terms From this, I postulated that the list in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha was well suited to defining a list of ultimate realities but the presentation of the Dhammasangani indicated that the author had no intention of creating a list of ultimate realities. In any case, this is what I tried to do. Unfortunately, I did not communicate clearly enough and the replies generally tried to defend the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (it was never my intention to attack the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, I have huge respect for this volume). Perhaps, I was too hasty to drop that thread when I sensed that I had not communicated my point clearly enough. Andrew, I apologize if there were any unanswered messages from you. ===== > I have just done a quick literature search of Swedish novels and, > because I did not find the word "lonely" very often, I am going to > conclude that "loneliness" is not a central theme of Swedish > literature. > > Would I be right? Certainly not. I believe it is an error to > conclude that quantitative language searches always translate to > qualitative ranking. Big mistake IMHO. ===== I am willing to concede this point. Quantitive language searches do not ALWAYS translate to qualitative ranking. I would really appreciate your straightening out of my views if you could point me to some Sutta or Abhidhamma refrences. ===== > > Because of the anatta and anicca teachings, the Buddha *had* to say > something like this: "Though the wise one has transcended the > conceived, he might still say 'I speak'. He might say too 'they > speak to me'. Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, he uses such > terms as mere expressions" [SN II 17]. > ===== Given the contents of Mn1 (see my recent message to Bhante Vimalarmmsi), I interpret this as the Budhha saying that He directly knows (He is not subject to conceiving), but even so, He uses terms that lend themselves to conceiving by uninstructed worldlings without misapprehending them. My point here is that I think that the Buddha is talking about "directly knowing" vs. "conceptual proliferation"; I don't think that the Buddha is talking about taking "concept" as an object of thinking vs. taking "reality" as an object of thinking. Again, my understanding is more clearly expressed in my message to Bhante Vimalarmmsi. ===== > I for one completely understand why the Buddha didn't go on and on > about the presently-arisen realities behind the "mere expressions" he > was using. Have you ever had an extended Dhamma discussion with > someone who constantly tells you to think of things in terms of > paramattha dhammas rather than the "ocean of concepts" we all float > around in? The results of your search: > A. don't surprise me in the least, and > B. don't make me feel that directly knowing the substance behind > our "mere expressions" is not a central part of the Dhamma. > > The important things are often hidden away from view, don't you > think? Well, perhaps you don't ...? My two cents worth. (-: ===== Did the Buddha not talk about an "open fist" (i.e. not concealing any part of the Dhamma)? When the audience was correct, I don't think that the Buddha had any problem raising very deep points of Dhamma (the Mulapariyaya Sutta is one example - try reading that Sutta without a commentary on hand!). At this point, it is still a thought (citta-vipallasa?), it is not yet a view (ditthi-vipallasa). I welcome further discussion. Andrew, you may be interested in reading my recent post to James as well. Metta, Rob M :-) 39339 From: Andrew Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 0:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Value of discussion (was evil thoughts) Hi Hugo Thanks for your post. I have noted all the points you made. Thanks also for all the smiles! There is one matter that often confuses me and maybe you can help? It relates to the below: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: [snip] > A direct yes or no answer to the following question will clarify my > doubts, is the Buddha encouraging us to say things like "I think" when > we do not have direct knowledge or not? I have read many suttas where the Buddha talks about "direct knowing" and I assume this is something different from "indirect knowing" (intellectual knowing?). Do you think it is possible to directly know something and later call it to mind such that you can say "back then, I had a moment when I directly knew such-and-such"? This isn't a trick debating question. Don't answer it if you don't feel like it. Anyone else who would like to chime in, please do so. FYI I have a feeling that we worldlings can't recall any moments of direct knowing. But I could be wrong ... Best wishes Andrew 39340 From: Ken O Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 0:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Giving a Smile Hi Rob M Oops I forget to add another one, alobha <> I am saying adosa and alobha are generosity, that is in the 8NP. Why? because he forget that adosa and alobha are both root conditions for all sobhana cittas. Right understanding cannot arise without alobha and adosa, so does the three Abstinences (virati-cetasikas), so does sati, so does the other two immeasureables. Metta is also adosa. The Atthasalini (I, Book I, Part IV, Chapter 1, 127) defines non-aversion, adosa, as follows: << ... Absence of hate has the characteristic of freedom from churlishness or resentment, like an agreeable friend; the function of destroying vexation, or dispelling distress, like sandalwood: the manifestation of being pleasing, like the full moon...>> Equanmity The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 153) states about equanimity : << It has the characteristic of conveying citta and cetasikas evenly. Its function is to prevent deficiency and excess, or its function is to inhibit partiality. It is manifested as neutrality. It should be regarded as like a conductor (driver) who looks on with equanimity on thoroughbreds progressing evenly.>> Visuddhimagga IX, 95) states about mudita which is here translated as gladness: <> Can equanmity and mudita arise without adosa and alobha as root condition- think about it. We do not need to be very learned or quote thousand of suttas or can recite the whole tripitika or very good at pali to know what is dhamma. I dont confront pessimism with optimism because that is not what Buddha taught. One thing a lot of people does not understand this little trick, the more you understand suffering, the happier you are :). The more you understand impermanence, you less attached you are to things, the more you are "feeling free". The more you understand Anatta, the less you are concern about "oneself", or ego, honour etc. Why there is a need to do explain it detail whether genersity is taught because we are scare what society think about us, blah! One understand Buddhism one knows that generosity is part of 8NP, is part of salvation, is auto inclusion, isn't that nice. Ken O 39341 From: Ken O Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 1:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Giving a Smile It should be James and then (Rob M) Rob - thanks - apparently I have mistaken you as James because I read the mail very fast. That is my usual mistake, no patient (dosa mula cittas), look at things too fast and then have a conclusion. Hmm no wise attention at that time . Again Rob thank for telling people about me :-) Deeply appreciated. Ken O 39342 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 1:20am Subject: Re: Evil thoughts (Howard) Hi Ken H, Finally, I reply to this. It is a lazy Sunday afternoon. My wife is on a ten-day meditation retreat (she went for ten days, came home for a week, and now is gone again for another ten days). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Rob M, > > Thanks for your reply. After a cordial exchange of harrumphs, you > wrote: > ---------------- > > I thought that with my puppy-training analogy that we had finally > achieved a breakthrough with a position that we could both support. > > ----------------- > > Rob, you don't read all your messages! Every time you have put > forward your 'habit condition' theory I have pooh-poohed it. (A good > word while we're on a puppy-training theme.) ===== I just noticed a post of Nina's (39191) in which she replied to Larry's request for an example of a habit: Since we are back from India Lodewijk has formed a new habit: reading a sutta at night, and I: reading a sutta with the breakfast coffee. (Phil will like this.) We can form new habits, break old ones, form good and bad habits. Habit: what we usually do, or think. What is often done becomes a habit. What is it? Citta and cetasika, kusala or akusala. It is the action of accumulating, during the period of javana cittas. Accumulation is a difficult word. As I said it also denotes what lies dormant, and these can be: good and bad dispositions. I think that Nina and I are saying the same thing... that repeated actions will tend to repeat again. This is their nature. One moment, I may be thinking of a self who is meditating. The next moment, I am thinking of a person with true metta. As you know, one cannot have attachment to self-view and thoughts of true metta at the same time. Will those thoughts of self-view tend to create further accumulations, a deeper habit? Yup, they will. Will those thoughts of true metta also tend to create further accumulations, a deeper habit? Yup again! This is where right effort of the Eightfold Noble Path comes in. Right effort is making an effort to: - Reduce akusala - Eliminate akusala - Make kusala grow - Maintain kusala Is this not just a more technical way of saying what Nina said, "We can form new habits, break old ones, form good and bad habits." ===== >I have said, "But if > you, as a typical worldling, are sitting in meditation having > thoughts of self and lobha for Path-progress (and dosa for 'having > to do this while your mates are out having a good time' etc.), then > what kind of habit are you developing?" > > The answer is, of course, 'an akusala habit' (which is not a good > conditioning factor for enlightenment)! ===== At those moments when my mind is rooted in akusala, you are dead right, then I am reinforcing those bad habits. However, for those moments when I am being mindful or when I am radiating true metta, then I am reinforcing good habits. The key point here is that weight of the kamma depends on the strength of the volition at the moment. 99.999% of the time, I have akusala thoughts (clinging to sense data, clinging to existence, attachment to self view, etc.) but the kamma created is very weak because the volition is very weak. In that moment of pure metta, the volition is incredibly strong because I am "going against the natural flow". This incredibly strong volition associated with the kusala action creates incredibly powerful good kamma. ===== > > ------------------------- > RM: > Specifically: > - the mind cannot be controlled > ------------------------- > > I'll give that a tick. Some people might protest and quote where the > Buddha extols 'a controlled mind,' but you and I know what we > mean. :-) > > ----------------------- > RM: > - belief that the mind can be controlled could lead to "self > view" > ----------------------- > > Another tick; but is there any "could" about it? In one sutta > (often quoted on DSG) the Buddha said, "If consciousness [body, > feelings, perceptions and volitions] were self, it would be possible > to decree, 'let my consciousness be thus!' [etc.]." > > So it would seem that the idea of self and the idea of control > always go hand in hand. > > -------------- > RM: > - accumulations are an important factor in determining the > current mental state > > -------------- > > Yes (I think I know what you mean). > > --------------------------- > RM: > - accumulations operate through natural decisive support > condition (pakatupanissaya) > - the conditioning factors for pakatupanissaya are: > 1. Strong past rupa > 2. Strong past mental states > 3. Strong past cetasikas > 4. Some strong past concepts > - One of the ways in which a rupa / mental state / cetasika / > concept can be made "strong" is through repeated action (aka > training) > > -------------------------- > > I defer to your superior knowledge. :-) > > ---------------- > RM: > In other words, if I sit for an hour a day radiating metta > with energy (viriya), faith (saddha), concentration (samadhi), > mindfulness (sati) and wisdom (panna), then this will help to create > a "strong past mental state" or a "strong past concept" or a "strong > past cetasika (adosa)" which can exert strong influence over future > mental states. > > ----------------- > > Boy, will it ever! I think if you can do that for one *second* per > day you will be on the verge of enlightenment. How is it done? How > does one decree, "Let my mental states be thus?" > > :-) In other words, we are back where we started: You can't escape > samsara and you can't develop wholesome qualities by wanting > to. The only factors for enlightenment are; association > with wise friends (study), hearing the true Dhamma (study), wise > consideration of the true Dhamma (study) and practice (satipatthana) > in accordance with what you have studied. ===== Ken H, we are closer than you might think :-) Let me pose you a question. I think that we both know that jhanas do not lead to enlightenment. Prior to the Buddha, others (such as Udaka, Gotama's final teacher) reached the highest levels of jhana yet were unable to get enlightened. Since this is true, why did the Buddha not dismiss the jhanas? Why did the Buddha put so much emphasis on the jhanas (i.e. right concentration in the Noble Eightfold Path)? Could it be because jhanas (i.e. "formal meditation") are important preparatory work that helps the mind get ready for enlightenment? Metta, Rob M :-) PS: You might also want to read my recent posts on "Concept and Reality in Primary Texts"; some interesting discussions. 39343 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 1:31am Subject: Re: Lodewijk's speech - anusayas Hello Phil, op 05-12-2004 00:55 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: I keep associating him with Dag Hammerskjold in my > mind, > to tell you the truth, because of his diplomatic background! Dag > Hammerskjold is a hero of mine! N: Lodewijk was pleased with your words and said that on account of them I had a lot of conceit. He admires Dag H. very much. When we first came to New York the accident (sabotage?) had just happened and he was deeply impressed by the commemoration in the u.n. Assembly. He has the book Markings. Dag H was close to Buddhism. He stressed being active in the world and this is what Lodewijk likes to stress. He is not inclined to speak in public but cannot refuse when Kh Sujin requests something. He said that when he saw all the 120 monks sitting there he was so moved. Ph: I read in one of your books that the quality of our birth depends on kamma, > but > our character depends on accumulations. N: In a sutta there was en example: someone was born rich (result of kamma) but he had accumulated stinginess and lived like a miser (habits or character). Ph: I still have trouble understanding how accumulations lie latent in citta, N: When you are fast asleep, no objects appear thorugh the six doors. As soon as you wake up there may be attachment to seeing, visible object etc. Where does this come from? There must be akusala tendencies lying dormant in each citta, even when you are fast asleep. I like what you say about character built up over time. And about truthfulness. Ph: We don't want to be warriors, but we do need courage to begin to see > realities in > a way that ever so gradually begins to allow us to see into anatta and the > four > noble truths. It is so easy to grasp at comfortable, eternal solutions. But > with > courage, we don't do that. N: I like very much what you write here. Nina. 39344 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 1:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kusala and akusala. Dear friend James, It is good you ask, people get misunderstandings when reading quotes. We have to see them in context. Do ask again every time you see a quote, it is useful. op 03-12-2004 22:33 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: . J. quotes: K. Sujin responded by saying that instead of seeing the deeply > rooted >>> lobha, the self doesn't like it again. When there's more > understanding, >>> one takes it easy. It doesn't matter what is arising, because > it has >>> arisen by conditions, completely arisen by conditions. We have > the latent >>> tendency for lobha, dosa and other akusala (unwholesome > states). But if >>> the akusala moment does not arise, how can one know that one > still has it? >>> So, it's good to know the truth of one's accumulations and this > is the >>> way to develop panna, because it can understand reality. J: Is this how the Buddha said one > should view the defilements? This seems to be a type of "if it > feels good, do it" philosophy. I'm not saying that hating one's > defilements is productive (I don't think it is), but I also don't > think that one should accept them. What do you think? N: It is not a question of accepting them, but: understanding them as impersonal, conditioned elements. This is the Middle Way. Dhamma is like a mirror. As you also know from your contacts with others when you were helping meditation groups in the U.S. at the Thai temple, people worry about their akusala, want to ignore it. Try to suppress it with an idea of self and this is not the solution. Some people wonder: why is Kh. Sujin stressing lobha so much instead of emphasizing the development of kusala and abstaining from akusala? The second noble Truth is lobha, all shades of attachment and clinging, including clinging to the wrong view of self. We have to know the second noble Truth at this moment. It is hard to see, and that is why she is explaining this all the time. Also akusala is real, but we take it for my akusala. Know it as non-self. Be truthful to oneself. There are her books on metta and the ten bases of kusala Phil posted. When in Thailand I can notice the emphasis on kusala in the deeds of all my friends there, as Bhante V. also explained. At the same time Kh.S. helps us all not to take kusala nor akusala for self and to learn to detect our clinging to self. The sotapanna (first stage of enlightenment) has eradicated the wrong view of self and his/her kusala is so much purer. Moreover, there are no longer conditions for transgressing the five precepts, no more conditions to harm others in a serious way. I was so impressed by a text for our Pali lesson yesterday: James, do you see: Right view is wholesomeness. Khun Sujin wants to go to the roots. Detachment is stressed, and first: detachment from wrong view. Right view conditions kusala. This sutta is an exhortation not to be satisfied of keeping the precepts without pañña. That is only temporary, when the occasion arises one transgresses them. It is an exhortation to develop pañña. You will see that Kh stresses what is also in the suttas: seeing and the defilements arising on account of visible object. We keep on seeing persons or things in the visible object. Or we cling to my seeing. We fail to consider them as impersonal elements and this gives rise to a great deal of akusala. Nina. 39345 From: plnao Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] I'm back Welcome back, Azita. > Dhamma does help in these rather scary situations. To let go > [kind of..] and know that there is nothing that can stop any > vipakacitta from arising, just like now, is somehow releasing. > Except, of course, when one is still throwing up 30 hours after > anaesthetic ;-( Don't forget to remember that throwing up is a conditioned nama! Or is it a rupa? Oh no, back to the drawing board. I hope your sick feeling passes soon. Metta, Phil 39346 From: plnao Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 2:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob, and all Sorry, just popping in quickly to clarify some beginners' points. Sorry that I don't have time tonight to read the whole thread. 1) Isn't "realities" simply the way "paramattha dhammas" is translated? Obviously it is central to Abhidhamma. 2) Aren't the khandas realities, no matter what they're called? 2) I think I learned that the term "cetasika" also doesn't appear in the Suttanta. Is that right? We know how central that is to Abhidhamma. If something doesn't appear in the Suttanta, does that mean you no longer think it is the Buddha's teaching? 3) Again, I haven't followed the concept vs. reality dispute, but when I look at it it seems obvious. Isn't thinking about anger a concept and the anger itself a reality? Can't we experience anger no matter what we call it? What am I missing here to understand why there is any controversy? Basic questions, I know. Thanks in advance. Metta, Phil p.s I think it is quite groovy the way your wife came home from a meditation retreat, and then took off on another one. More kusala to rejoice in. 39347 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 3:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > 1) Isn't "realities" simply the way "paramattha dhammas" is > translated? Obviously it is central to Abhidhamma. ===== Realities / paramattha dhammas are key to the structure of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, but I am not aware of realities / paramattha dhammas being mentioned as ontological concepts being mentioned in the Suttas or the Abhidhamma texts. See my message #39334 to James for more details. ===== > > 2) Aren't the khandas realities, no matter what they're called? > ===== Khandas are very important in the Buddha's teachings and they appear frequently in the Suttas and in the Abhidhamma. However, I am not aware of any mention of their existence or non-existence (i.e. ontological focus) except in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. ===== > 2) I think I learned that the term "cetasika" also doesn't appear in the > Suttanta. Is > that right? We know how central that is to Abhidhamma. If something doesn't > appear in > the Suttanta, does that mean you no longer think it is the Buddha's > teaching? ===== According to Nyanatiloka's dictionary, the term "cetasika" occurs often in the old sutta texts, but only as adjective (e.g. cetasikam sukham, etc.) or, at times, used as a singular neuter noun (e.g. D. 1; p. 213, PTS). As a designation for mental factors, or concomitants of consciousness (citta-sampayutta dhamma), it is frequently met with in Dhammasangani as cetasika-dhamma, while in Visuddhimagga, Abhidhammattha Sangaha, etc., cetasika is used also as a neuter noun, in the sense of mental phenomenon. Cetasikas (or mental factors) are clearly a part of the Buddha's teaching. However, as with khandas, I am not aware of any mention of their existence or non-existence (i.e. ontological focus) except in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. ===== > > 3) Again, I haven't followed the concept vs. reality dispute, > but when I look at it it seems obvious. Isn't thinking about anger a > concept and the anger itself a reality? ===== Again, why the ontological focus? Why do we need to bundle objects of mental states into "that which exists" and "that which does not exist"? See my recent message to Bhante Vimalaramsi in which I pointed out that the Mulapariyaya Sutta focuses on the thinking processes ("directly knowing" vs. "perceiving / conceiving") but not on the nature of the object (i.e. no difference between earth [a paramattha dhamma] and a being [a concept]). ===== > Can't we experience anger no matter what we call it? What am I missing here > to understand > why there is any controversy? > ===== We experience anger no matter what we call it. Anger (a defilement) arises not because the object is a reality or a concept, but rather because of mental proliferation. The controversy arises because I am saying that the structure around which Acariya Anuruddha chose to structure his summary of the Abhidhamma (i.e. the Abhidhammattha Sangaha) is not key to the Buddha's teachings. ===== > Basic questions, I know. Thanks in advance. > ===== Not basic at all... very important questions! ===== > Metta, > Phil > p.s I think it is quite groovy the way your wife came home from a meditation > retreat, > and then took off on another one. More kusala to rejoice in. ===== I agree... more kusala to rejoice in. Metta, Rob M :-) 39348 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 3:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi All, The Pali word pannatti (concept) does not appear in Nyanatiloka's Dictionary / Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines. Two possible explanations: 1. Ven. Nyanatiloka messed up big time 2. Ven. Nyanatiloka did not consider the term important enough to be included Metta, Rob M :-) 39349 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 4:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hello RobM, all, The word 'conception' appears = 1. thought-c 2.vitakka-vicaara Are the following definitions by Nyanatiloka of any help? vitakka: 'thought', 'thought-conception', is one of the 'secondary' (not constant) mental concomitants (s. Tab. II), and may be either karmically wholesome, unwholesome or neutral. - "There are 3 karmically unwholesome (akusala) thoughts: sensuous thought (káma- vitakka), hating thought (byápáda-v.), and cruel thought (vihimsa- v.). There are 3 karmically wholesome (kusala) thoughts: thought of renunciation (nekkhamma-v.), of hatelessness (avyápáda-v.), of not harming (avihimsá-v.) " The latter three constitute 'right thought', the 2nd link of the 8-fold Path (s. magga 2). On the 'Removal of Distracting Thoughts' (vitakka-santhána), s. M. 20 (tr. in WHEEL 21). vitakka-vicára: 'thought-conception and discursive thinking', (or 'applied and sustained thought') are verbal functions (vací- sankhára: s. sankhára) of the mind, the so-called 'inner speech ('parole interieure'). They are constituents of the 1st absorption (s. jhána), but absent in the higher absorptions. (1) "Thought-conception (vitakka) is the laying hold of a thought, giving it attention. Its characteristic consists in fixing the consciousness to the object. (2) "Discursive thinking (vicára) is the roaming about and moving to and fro of the mind.... It manifests itself as continued activity of mind" (Vis.M. IV). (1) is compared with the striking against a bell, (2) with its resounding; (1) with the seizing of a pot, (2) with wiping it. (Cf. Vis . IV.). metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi All, > > The Pali word pannatti (concept) does not appear in Nyanatiloka's > Dictionary / Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines. > > Two possible explanations: > 1. Ven. Nyanatiloka messed up big time > 2. Ven. Nyanatiloka did not consider the term important enough to be > included > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 39350 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 4:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > >> > Khandas are very important in the Buddha's teachings and they appear > frequently in the Suttas and in the Abhidhamma. However, I am not > aware of any mention of their existence or non-existence (i.e. > ontological focus) except in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. > Dear RobM, Samyutta nikaya Khanda vagga XXII 94 (p.950 of Bodhi translation) "Rupa(matter, physical phenomena) that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say it exists. Feeling...perception..volitional formations..consciouness..that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change..I too say that it exists" endquote RobertK 39351 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 5:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > Hello RobM, all, > > The word 'conception' appears = 1. thought-c 2.vitakka-vicaara > > Are the following definitions by Nyanatiloka of any help? > > vitakka: 'thought', 'thought-conception', is one of the 'secondary' > (not constant) mental concomitants (s. Tab. II), and may be either > karmically wholesome, unwholesome or neutral. - "There are 3 > karmically unwholesome (akusala) thoughts: sensuous thought (káma- > vitakka), hating thought (byápáda-v.), and cruel thought (vihimsa- > v.). There are 3 karmically wholesome (kusala) thoughts: thought of > renunciation (nekkhamma-v.), of hatelessness (avyápáda-v.), of not > harming (avihimsá-v.) " The latter three constitute 'right thought', > the 2nd link of the 8-fold Path (s. magga 2). > > On the 'Removal of Distracting Thoughts' (vitakka-santhána), s. M. > 20 (tr. in WHEEL 21). > > vitakka-vicára: 'thought-conception and discursive thinking', > (or 'applied and sustained thought') are verbal functions (vací- > sankhára: s. sankhára) of the mind, the so-called 'inner speech > ('parole interieure'). They are constituents of the 1st absorption > (s. jhána), but absent in the higher absorptions. > > (1) "Thought-conception (vitakka) is the laying hold of a thought, > giving it attention. Its characteristic consists in fixing the > consciousness to the object. > > (2) "Discursive thinking (vicára) is the roaming about and moving to > and fro of the mind.... It manifests itself as continued activity of > mind" (Vis.M. IV). > > (1) is compared with the striking against a bell, (2) with its > resounding; (1) with the seizing of a pot, (2) with wiping it. (Cf. > Vis . IV.). > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > The Pali word pannatti (concept) does not appear in Nyanatiloka's > > Dictionary / Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines. > > > > Two possible explanations: > > 1. Ven. Nyanatiloka messed up big time > > 2. Ven. Nyanatiloka did not consider the term important enough to > be > > included > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) ===== Thanks for this... Pannatti is a concept, something that exists as distinct from a reality. It has something of an ontological (reality vs. non- reality) aspect to it. The definition of vitakka (and vicara) include the idea of thought- conception but this is not the same as reality vs. non-reality. Metta, Rob M :-) 39352 From: Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 0:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi, Rob (and Bhante, and James) - Bhante, I'm pleased that you brought up that little but wonderful book of Bhikkhu ~Nanananda. I've read it more than once, and still have far from plumbed its depths. I also own, and even more greatly love, his wonderful little commentary on the Kalakarama Sutta. Rob, I very much like what you write in the following. Here are a few comments giving my perspective: 1) I believe that there are realities that are momentary and realities of a relational nature that span many moments. It is not brevity of duration that distinguishes actual from imagined. 2) I believe that both sorts of reality, momentary and non-momentary, can be directly apprehended, but not by everyone. 3) It is standard to apprehend momentary, five-sense-door objects directly, though they are also grasped conceptually throught the mind-door in order to think about them and communicate with regard to them. 4) As far as realities that are not momentary are concerned, they are known by a non-arahant only indirectly through the thinking process and concept construction. No non-arahant grasps relational realities directly. Thus, in the non-arahant, the distinctions (a) between directly known and conceptually known, (b) between ultimate truth and conventional truth, and (c) between momentary and non-momentary all seem to coincide. Only an arahant, having developed supermundane wisdom, has mental function so transformed as to be able to apprehend non-momentary realities directly as well. 5) In a non-arahant, all cognitive functions, whether dealing with momentary or non-momentary realities, are defiled by ignorance, and their objects are misapprehended due to the "original sins" of reification and subject-object duality. In an arahant, however, all realities, momentary and non-momentary, are directly knowable without distortion, as they are, with pristine wisdom. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/5/04 1:40:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Venerable Sir, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhante Vimalaramsi > wrote: > >Dhamma Greetings James, > > > >Have you ever run across a book called 'Concepts and Reality' by > >Venerable Nananada? It is worth a read, if you have the time and > >inclination. Many bhikkhus place a great deal interest on this > book. > > > >Maha-Metta > >always > >Bhante Vimalaramsi > > ===== > > I read this book some time ago and pulled it out when you referenced > it in your post. I quote from the Preface: > > The analysis of the naure of concepts constitutes an imporant facet > of the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta ('not-self'). Buddhism traces the > idea of a soul to a fundamental error in understanding the facts of > experience. This ignorance (avijja) is reflected to a great extent > in the words and concepts in worldly parlance. Being unaware of > their limitations, man is generally prone to cling to them > dogmatically and this accounts for a good deal of complications in > his intellectual and emotional life. Hence an understanding of the > nature of concepts as such is a preliminary step in the spiritual > endeavour in Buddhism. The Buddha's teachings on this particular > aspect of our phenomenal existence can best be appreciated with the > aid of the two key-words, 'papanca' and 'papanca-sanna-sankha', an > evaluation of which is the aim of this work. > > > > I wholehartedly agree with Bhikkhu Nanananda that conceptual > proliferation (my translation of 'papanca' and 'papanca-sanna- > sankha') is a critical element of Buddhism. However, I contend that > the separating of "concept" and "reality" in an ontological fashion > is not a key element of the Buddha's teachings. In other > words, "conceptual proliferation" vs. "directly knowing" is very > important whereas "conceptual object" vs. "real object" is not a key > element. > > My thinking has, in part, been influenced by the Mulapariya Sutta > (Mn 1) wherein the Buddha expains the difference in pattern of > thinking between the uninstructed worldling (that's us), the learner > (Sotapanna, Sakadagami and Anagami), the Arahant and the Buddha. To > summarize this complex sutta in a few words: > - We perceive then conceive, taking delight because we have not > fully understood the object > - Learners directly know and may or may not conceive, they should > not take delight so that they may fully understand the object > - Arahants directly know and do not conceive because they have > uprooted the three evil roots > - Buddha directly knows and does not conceive because He has fully > understood the object to the end and because He has understood > dependent origination > > It is noteworthy that in this sutta, the Buddha lists 24 objects > that can be perceived/conceived/directly known. The 24 objects are: > - Earth / water / fire / air > - Beings / Gods > - Pajapati / Brahma / Gods of Streaming Radiance / Gods of Refulgent > Glory / Gods of Abundant Fruit / Vanquishers > - Base of infinite space / base of infinite consciousness / base of > nothingness / base of neither perception nor non-perception > - The seen / the heard / the sensed / the cognized > - Unity / diversity / all / Nibbana > > The Sutta treats all of these object in exactly the same way, even > though some of the objects would fall into the Abhidhammattaha > Sangaha category of "concept" while others would fall into the > Abhidhammattaha Sangaha category of "reality". > > Though the title of Bhikkhu Nanananda's book is "Concept and Reality > in Early Buddhist Thought", this book (as indicated in the preface) > is a study on conceptual proliferation. In addition to the title, > the term "reality" is briefy mentioned only four times in this 150 > page book (one of the references is in the chapter titled "Prapanca > in Mahayana Buddhism"). The Pali term "paramattha" is not in the > index of this book. > > With great respect, > Rob M :-) > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 39353 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 5:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: AN III - 100 mental misconduct vs. thoughts of ill-will Hi, Phil (and KenH) Butting in here if I may ;-)) --- plnao wrote: ... Needless to say, like all beginners, I see the exhortative, prescriptive sounding language used in the suttas (in translation, at the very least, and presumedly in the original as well) and take it as written. You're right though, it is so much better to see them as descriptive. So, when we read, for example, that one removes an unwholesome thought and replaces it with a wholesome one the way a carpenter replaces a rotten peg with a solid one, it is a description of what happens when panna rules rather than a prescription of what someone should do. Jon: A topic well worth discussing, but I find it helps to have the particular wording to hand. Since I couldn't readily find the peg passage you refer to, I have given below the statement of the 4 padhanas from Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' under the entry 'padhana', a passage that comes up frequently in this context. As we know, the Buddha's whole teaching can be characterised by the general pattern 'when this occurs, that comes to be; when this is absent, that does not come to be', and I think these passages can be seen in the same (i.e., non-prescriptive) vein. It is also worth noting (since we share a background in ESL ;-)), that this and most of the other references one seems to come across are in the third person ('a monk does this and that'), rather than in second person which we would more normally associate with prescriptive language. Did the Buddha tell people to have more kusala, or did he rather help them to see the value of having more kusala, and point out the different kinds of kusala to be developed and their relative merits? To me, the former would suggest that kusala could be made to arise by following a certain set of procedures with the right kind of intention, which is definitely not the flavour of the dhamma overall, as I see it. Phil: For example, we talk of guarding sense doors, and it's easy to think of this as a prescribed practice, but whenever there is kusala citta, the sense doors *are* guarded, because there can only be congnition through one sense door at a time. Jon: Absolutely so. See the reference to guarded sense doors in the first of the 4 right efforts: (1) "What now, o monks, is the effort to avoid? Perceiving a form, or a sound, or an odour, or a taste, or a bodily or mental impression, the monk neither adheres to the whole nor to its parts. And he strives to ward off that through which evil and unwholesome things might arise, such as greed and sorrow, if he remained with unguarded senses; and he watches over his senses, restrains his senses. This is called the effort to avoid. It's interesting to note that the primary meaning of the effort to avoid (i.e., the first of the 2 parts to it) is given in these terms: "Perceiving a form, or a sound, or an odour, or a taste, or a bodily or mental impression, the monk neither adheres to the whole nor to its parts." There is nothing prescriptive about this, surely. Of course, if we read it as referring to something to be done (in the sense of a technique or practice of some kind), then we might assume that we are being told/urged to do it. But I think the stage of 'not adhering to the whole nor [the] parts' of arising sense door objects refers to the presence of a relatively high level of awareness and understanding and is not something that can somehow be 'practised'. So this level of sati and panna would I believe be what is meant by remaining with unguarded senses in the second part of the definition. Phil, much more that could be discussed in your post, particularly the 'active' language issue (which I see as being different to the 'prescriptive' language issue), but this is already long enough. Hoping that this helps you feel more comfortable with a non-prescriptive interpretation of this particular passage. Jon From Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary', 'padhaana': "The monk rouses his will to avoid the arising of evil, unwholesome things not yet arisen ... to overcome them ... to develop wholesome things not yet arisen ... to maintain them, and not to let them disappear, but to bring them to growth, to maturity and to the full perfection of development. And he makes effort, stirs up his energy, exerts his mind and strives" (A. IV, 13). (1) "What now, o monks, is the effort to avoid? Perceiving a form, or a sound, or an odour, or a taste, or a bodily or mental impression, the monk neither adheres to the whole nor to its parts. And he strives to ward off that through which evil and unwholesome things might arise, such as greed and sorrow, if he remained with unguarded senses; and he watches over his senses, restrains his senses. This is called the effort to avoid. (2) "What now is the effort to overcome? The monk does not retain any thought of sensual lust, or any other evil, unwholesome states that may have arisen; he abandons them, dispels them, destroys them, causes them to disappear. This is called the effort to overcome. (3) "What now is the effort to develop? The monk develops the factors of enlightenment, bent on solitude, on detachment, on extinction, and ending in deliverance, namely: mindfulness (sati), investigation of the law (dhamma-vicaya), energy (viriya), rapture (píti), tranquillity (passaddhi), concentraton (samádhi), equanimity (upekkhá). This is called the effort to develop. (4) "What now is the effort to maintain? The monk keeps firmly in his mind a favourable object of concentration, such as the mental image of a skeleton, a corpse infested by worms, a corpse blueblack in colour, a festering corpse, a corpse riddled with holes, a corpse swollen up. This is called the effort to maintain" (A. IV, 14). 39354 From: Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 0:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi, andrew (and Rob) - In a message dated 12/5/04 2:31:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, athel60@t... writes: > Hi Rob M > > I seem to recall you did something similar to this before to which > myself and others responded? Anyway, you have asked for comments so > here goes. > > I have just done a quick literature search of Swedish novels and, > because I did not find the word "lonely" very often, I am going to > conclude that "loneliness" is not a central theme of Swedish > literature. > > Would I be right? Certainly not. I believe it is an error to > conclude that quantitative language searches always translate to > qualitative ranking. Big mistake IMHO. > > Because of the anatta and anicca teachings, the Buddha *had* to say > something like this: "Though the wise one has transcended the > conceived, he might still say 'I speak'. He might say too 'they > speak to me'. Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, he uses such > terms as mere expressions" [SN II 17]. > > I for one completely understand why the Buddha didn't go on and on > about the presently-arisen realities behind the "mere expressions" he > was using. Have you ever had an extended Dhamma discussion with > someone who constantly tells you to think of things in terms of > paramattha dhammas rather than the "ocean of concepts" we all float > around in? The results of your search: > A. don't surprise me in the least, and > B. don't make me feel that directly knowing the substance behind > our "mere expressions" is not a central part of the Dhamma. > > The important things are often hidden away from view, don't you > think? Well, perhaps you don't ...? My two cents worth. (-: > > Best wishes > Andrew > ======================== Although the Buddha did indeed speak of transcending conceiving and also spoke of using concepts but not being fooled, I think that care must be taken in understanding this. I believe that a careful study of how the Buddha talked about conceiving seems to indicate that he was talking about the proliferation of ideas of "me" and "mine" and of substantial self-existence; i.e., of reification, and that he was not criticizing conceptuality in its broadest sense. 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) 39355 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 5:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > > >> > > Khandas are very important in the Buddha's teachings and they > appear > > frequently in the Suttas and in the Abhidhamma. However, I am not > > aware of any mention of their existence or non-existence (i.e. > > ontological focus) except in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. > > > Dear RobM, > Samyutta nikaya Khanda vagga XXII 94 (p.950 of Bodhi translation) > "Rupa(matter, physical phenomena) that is impermanent, suffering and > subject to change: this > the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say it > exists. Feeling...perception..volitional > formations..consciouness..that is impermanent, suffering and > subject to change..I too say that it exists" endquote > RobertK This is excellent. Thank you so much for this Sutta reference. Here is Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary (p1085, n185): This portion of the Sutta offers an important counterpoint to the message of the Kaccanagotta Sutta (12:15). Here the Buddha emphasizes that he does not reject all ontological propositions, but only those that transend the bounds of possible experience. While the Kaccanagotta Sutta shows that the "Middle Teaching" excludes static, substantialist conceptions of existence and non-existence, the present text shows that the same "Middle Teaching" can accomodate definite pronouncements about these ontological issues. The affirmation of the existence of the five aggregates, as impermanent processes, serves as a rejoinder to illusinist theories, which hold that the world lacks real being. This commentary refers to the Kaccanagotta Sutta. Allow me to quote the beginning of this sutta from Access To Insight: Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?" "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view. "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering. Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary (p734, n29) explains that the Kaccanagotta Sutta is not ontologically focused, but rather states that, in this Sutta, the Buddha is rejecting both eternalism and annihilationism. In other words, if we are looking for ontological statements from the Buddha, we should focus on SN XXII.94. From this Sutta, I conclude that the Buddha was aware of ontological issues of existence vs. non-existence. Bikkhu Bodhi's commentary says that: "[the] "Middle Teaching" can accomodate definite pronouncements about these ontological issues. The affirmation of the existence of the five aggregates, as impermanent processes, serves as a rejoinder to illusionist theories, which hold that the world lacks real being. I again state that ontology is not at the core of the Buddha's teachings. Though it is clear from this Sutta reference that the Buddha was aware of ontological issues, He only made one ontological statement (existence of the five aggregates as impermanent processes) to refute a specific wrong view (illusionist theories). Metta, Rob M :-) 39356 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 6:20am Subject: [dsg] Re: Giving a Smile --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: < Why there is a need to > do explain it detail whether genersity is taught because we are scare > what society think about us, blah! One understand Buddhism one knows > that generosity is part of 8NP, is part of salvation, is auto > inclusion, isn't that nice. > > > > Ken O Friend Ken O, B. Bodhi was correct in saying that generosity (dana) isn't part of the Noble Eightfold Path, but it is important. Most importantly, it allows one to continue to be reborn in the higher planes until the good fortune of being reborn in a Buddha Sasana. However, generosity doesn't lead directly to nibbana, therefore it isn't part of the Noble Eightfold Path. B. Bodhi isn't "forgetting" anything. Metta, James 39357 From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 5:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Dhamma Greetings Rob M., One thing you need to understand is that before bhikkhu Nananada became of monk, he was a Bhikkhu Unversity teacher and scholar. He taught bhikkhus and was quite a scholar in his own right. He knew what he was writing about and did this for a definite reason. Sorry he doesn't answer your specific questions, but what book could? Maha-Metta always Bhante Vimalaramsi 39358 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 6:44am Subject: Reminders Hi All, Just a couple of reminders. Trimming When replying to another post, please remember to trim any part of the other post that is not necessary for your reply (whether it appears before or after your own message). If the post you are replying to is a recent one, you may assume that other members will have seen it. Salutation etc Please use a salutation at the beginning of each post, and sign off at the end (preferably with a real name). Thanks for your co-operation. Jon and Sarah PS Comments or questions off-list, please. Thanks. 39359 From: Ken O Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob M Are you saying that the aggregates do not exist? Everthything exist is one extreme - eternalism - because it includes I that is why Buddha say everything exist is not true. Let me quote you another sutta Nidanasamyutta, SN II.17 The Naked Ascetic Kassapa <> everthing does not exist is another extreme << But Kassapa [if one thinks,] 'The one who act is one, the one who experiences [the result] is another,' [then one asserts] with reference to one stricken by feeling: "Suffering is created by another.' When one asserts thus, this amounts to annihilationism.>> because I really experience reality - that is why the experience we have cannot be belong to another. Furthermore before the start of the sutta <<"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when on sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one >> Existence here is reference to the world. While the sutta I quote above is reference to a self. So Buddha is clear, he knows there is existence but it is conditioned as said in D.O.. Existence pertaining to the world, I are concepts, do not exist, not reality. And non-existence is another extreme because there is reality, there are conditions, there is feeling that is how we have experience the flavour of an object from feeling. Regardless whether paramatha dhammas is a later convention used by Abhidhammist, it serve as a convention to differentiate the five aggregates + Nibbana are real, while the rest are just concepts. Concept is not real. If concept is real, Buddha will have say self exist, the world exist. However, feeling is real that is why it is said in the D.O link., in refutation to a non-existence of reality. Ken O 39360 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Rob, I very much like what you write in the following. Here are a few > comments giving my perspective: > 1) I believe that there are realities that are momentary and realities > of a relational nature that span many moments. It is not brevity of duration > that distinguishes actual from imagined. ===== I am not sure where you could find support for this position. As you probably know, the Buddhist Theory of Moments did not really develop until the twelfth century (see "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" by E. R. Sarachchandra p42ff). Those things that are "momentary" are considered in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha to be realities whereas those things which span many moments are either rupa (17 moments) or concepts (non-realities which have no fixed duration). ===== > 2) I believe that both sorts of reality, momentary and non- momentary, > can be directly apprehended, but not by everyone. ===== You seem to be focusing on the object rather than the process. My interpretation of the Mulapariyaya Sutta is that the process is critical but the object is irrelevant. ===== > 3) It is standard to apprehend momentary, five-sense-door objects > directly, though they are also grasped conceptually throught the mind-door in > order to think about them and communicate with regard to them. ===== I think that you are saying that realities are first directly known by all (uninstructed worldling, learners, Arahants, Buddha). This is not my understanding of the Mulapariyaya Sutta. My understanding of this Sutta is that the nature of the object (momentary or momentary) is irrelevant. What is important is the individual. Specifically, an uninstructed worldling will always suffer inital perversion of perception (sanna-vipallasa) with any type of object. Learners, Arahants and Buddhas do not suffer from inital perversion of perception (sanna-vipallasa), though Learners might still conceive the object. ===== > 4) As far as realities that are not momentary are concerned, they are > known by a non-arahant only indirectly through the thinking process and > concept construction. No non-arahant grasps relational realities directly. Thus, in > the non-arahant, the distinctions (a) between directly known and conceptually > known, (b) between ultimate truth and conventional truth, and (c) between > momentary and non-momentary all seem to coincide. Only an arahant, having > developed supermundane wisdom, has mental function so transformed as to be able to > apprehend non-momentary realities directly as well. ===== As mentioned above, my understanding of the Mulapariyaya Sutta is that all types of objects are mis-perceived by uninstructed worldings and all types of objects are directly known by Arahants (and Buddhas). ===== > 5) In a non-arahant, all cognitive functions, whether dealing with > momentary or non-momentary realities, are defiled by ignorance, and their objects > are misapprehended due to the "original sins" of reification and > subject-object duality. In an arahant, however, all realities, momentary and > non-momentary, are directly knowable without distortion, as they are, with pristine wisdom. ===== A learner (Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami) will not suffer sanna- vipallasa as an initial response but may still be subject to conceiving. Metta, Rob M :-) 39361 From: Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 2:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi, Rob - In a message dated 12/5/04 10:07:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > 1) I believe that there are realities that are momentary > and realities > >of a relational nature that span many moments. It is not brevity > of duration > >that distinguishes actual from imagined. > > ===== > > I am not sure where you could find support for this position. As you > probably know, the Buddhist Theory of Moments did not really develop > until the twelfth century (see "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" > by E. R. Sarachchandra p42ff). Those things that are "momentary" are > considered in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha to be realities whereas > those things which span many moments are either rupa (17 moments) or > concepts (non-realities which have no fixed duration). > ====================== I'm not clear on what you are saying there is no support for, momentary realities or extended relational ones, or both. What I am questioning is the notion that to exist is to exist without duration. I don't think that exclusive momentaristic perspective on "reality" is expressed in the suttas. Perhaps not even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Could you please clarify what you are putting forward? 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) 39362 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:13am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Venerable Sir, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhante Vimalaramsi wrote: > Dhamma Greetings Rob M., > > One thing you need to understand is that before bhikkhu Nananada became > of monk, he was a Bhikkhu Unversity teacher and scholar. He taught > bhikkhus and was quite a scholar in his own right. He knew what he was > writing about and did this for a definite reason. Sorry he doesn't answer > your specific questions, but what book could? > > Maha-Metta > always > Bhante Vimalaramsi ===== I find no shortcomings or unanswered questions from this book. I think it is an excellent book. I apologize if my post implied otherwise. With great respect, Rob M :-) 39363 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi Rob M > > Are you saying that the aggregates do not exist? > ===== From SNXXII.94, it is clear that the Buddha said that the five aggregates do exist (Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary explains that they exist as impermanent processes). As far as I know, this is the only time that the Buddha made an ontological statement regarding existence / non-existence. According to Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary, the Buddha made this statement to refute a specific type of wrong view (illusionist theories that the world lacks existence). ===== > Everthything exist is one extreme - eternalism - because it includes > I that is why Buddha say everything exist is not true. Let me quote > you another sutta > Nidanasamyutta, SN II.17 The Naked Ascetic Kassapa > < who experiences [the result], [then one asserts] with reference to > one existing from the begining: "Suffering is created by oneself." > When one asserts thus, this amounts to eternalism.>> > > everthing does not exist is another extreme > << But Kassapa [if one thinks,] 'The one who act is one, the one who > experiences [the result] is another,' [then one asserts] with > reference to one stricken by feeling: "Suffering is created by > another.' When one asserts thus, this amounts to annihilationism.>> > because I really experience reality - that is why the experience we > have cannot be belong to another. > > Furthermore before the start of the sutta > <<"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its > object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when on > sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right > discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not > occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it > actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to > the world does not occur to one >> > > Existence here is reference to the world. While the sutta I quote > above is reference to a self. So Buddha is clear, he knows there is > existence but it is conditioned as said in D.O.. Existence > pertaining to the world, I are concepts, do not exist, not reality. > And non-existence is another extreme because there is reality, there > are conditions, there is feeling that is how we have experience the > flavour of an object from feeling. ===== Bhikkhu Bodhi explains in the commentary, that despite inital appearances, SNII.15 is not about "existence" and "non-existence" in an ontological sense. If we look at p734 of his commentary, it goes into some depth explaining that this Sutta is not about "existence" and "non-existence". The commentary refers back to the Pali roots of the words used to make clear the Buddha's true intention - to refute the ideas of eternalism and annihilationism. As you have pointed out, there are also other Suttas wherin the Buddha made a similar refutation. Probably the most famous is the Brahmajala Sutta (DN1), where the topic is discussed in depth. Ken O, Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary on SNII.15 is a little long. Please let me know if you would like for me to type it out. ===== > > Regardless whether paramatha dhammas is a later convention used by > Abhidhammist, it serve as a convention to differentiate the five > aggregates + Nibbana are real, while the rest are just concepts. > Concept is not real. If concept is real, Buddha will have say self > exist, the world exist. However, feeling is real that is why it is > said in the D.O link., in refutation to a non-existence of reality. ===== In SNXXII.94 the Buddha did say that the five aggregates are real (in an ontological sense) to refute a specific wrong view. I am not aware of any Sutta where the Buddha said that concepts are "not real". If you are aware of any other ontological statements proclaimed by the Buddha, please advise. You raised the question of SNII.17 regarding feeling. Again, Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary (p738) explains that the quadrilemma should be rejected because it stems from distortions (sannacittavipallasa and ditthivipallasa). Again, SNII.17 is not making ontological statements about the existence of feeling (in fact, it does not have to because SNXXII.94 clearly states that feeling exists). Metta, Rob M :-) 39364 From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 6:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Dhamma Greetings Andrew, One thing that I have learned about smiling and sending metta, and that is we never really know for sure when it will have an affect on another person. Metta doesn't work by our time frame. But the whole reason for smiling and sending metta is that your mind becomes peaceful right then right there if it is done correctly and this in itself is a great advantage. It may take a few or even many times to have an effect on a mentally retarded person. But remember when you are sincere in your efforts to smile and send metta it absolutely does have a positive affect on those around you. For example, I have many students in Malaysia who have practiced metta with me for intensive periods of time and they have continued on doing metta in their daily lives. When they go to work, their fellow work mates over time begin to see that their is a change in the way my students approach upsets and stress. Then they begin to talk to the students about why this is happening. They want the same kind of smiling face and want to learn about metta. Which shows a universal truth and that is "everyone wants to smile and be happy". This desire for this kind of life is chanda or a wholesome desire that points mind in the right direction and eventually to nibbana. But of course at first just wanting to seriously talk about the effects of this kind of change is a big step. You want to know something with 100% certainty that it works in the way you want it to. But outside of impermanence is there anything that is 100%? And how do you know that it doesn't work, because you can't see it happen in the way you want it to? Our time frame for things to work immediately is a part of the "western disease". In other words, "I want it, when I want it, right now" or it just doesn't work, but is this realistic? The thing about smiling and metta is, that we need to see things clearly, Lovingly-accept what is happening in the present moment and learn to have true equanimity in our mind. No demands, no desires, no controls, just simply smiling and wishing well to others. This helps us to have a mind that is free from unwholesome states and develops our mind to continually have a wholesome state in it. It does take lots of practice. When mind becomes more familiar with being uplifted, it then is easier to recognize the unwholesome states arise, and it is easier to let go of these unwholesome states. Thus directing mind to a wholesome object of metta and smiling, helps one to be more aware of what mind is doing in the present moment (this is using the whole 8-fold path, especially right effort). One can then begin to see just how tricky mind becomes and then begins to develop true equanimity and mental balance. This directly leads to the cessation of suffering. On this site there seems to be a real fear of "I", "me", "mine", and "self", but what I am talking about leads directly away from this false idea of a self. Try it seriously for a period of time and watch the magic happen. Sometimes it is subtle and sometimes you won't find out until later what effects may have been experienced for others. But that is a fun part of this practice. It may help to stop trying to be so analytical and demanding that reality arise the way you want it to. A lighter approach works much better. I have hesitated to bring this up on this website because it won't be understood very well. But what the heck, if you can develop a true sense of humor about being caught by unwholesome thoughts, and laugh at just how crazy mind truly is. This will change your perspective from this is mine, this is who "I" am (atta), to "Oh! it's only this mental state or feeling and it is not "mine" (anatta). Then it becomes easier to be truly aware and to let it go, with understanding i.e. no more problem with heavy emotional states. So not only does smiling help in one's awareness, but laughing does too. I do know that the intellectualizing people will come up with all kinds of reasons that one shouldn't do this, but I am talking about direct practice and direct experience. So now I'll sit back and watch as this causes a wave of protests and questions. But I'll laugh at them because the true difference between knowing and thinking that one knows is big. And you will never really know until you try it. Maha-Metta always Bhante Vimalaramsi 39365 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:47am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Rob - > > In a message dated 12/5/04 10:07:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, > rob.moult@j... writes: > > > 1) I believe that there are realities that are momentary > > and realities > > >of a relational nature that span many moments. It is not brevity > > of duration > > >that distinguishes actual from imagined. > > > > ===== > > > > I am not sure where you could find support for this position. As you > > probably know, the Buddhist Theory of Moments did not really develop > > until the twelfth century (see "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" > > by E. R. Sarachchandra p42ff). Those things that are "momentary" are > > considered in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha to be realities whereas > > those things which span many moments are either rupa (17 moments) or > > concepts (non-realities which have no fixed duration). > > > ====================== > I'm not clear on what you are saying there is no support for, > momentary realities or extended relational ones, or both. What I am questioning is the > notion that to exist is to exist without duration. I don't think that > exclusive momentaristic perspective on "reality" is expressed in the suttas. Perhaps > not even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Could you please clarify what you are > putting forward? ===== I am saying that in the Suttas and in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, there is no concept of momentary existence (of a reality) or extended existence (of a concept). The concept of realities as dhammas did not really start to gain ground (see Y. Karunadasa's essay on Dhamma Theory) until after the Suttas and in the Abhidhamma Pitaka and obviously, the duration of existence of dhammas (momentary or non- momentary) had to come later. Metta, Rob M :-) 39366 From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 6:50am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Dhamma Greetings Phil, Please remember that I am a teacher and sometimes a student needs to be shocked before they will start to see where their attachments are. Maha-Metta always Bhante Vimalaramsi 39367 From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Giving a Smile Dhamma Greetings Ken O, And where doesn't smiling fit in to what you are saying? Doesn't merriment include smiling? Also what is 8NP? Using letters instead of spelling out the words doesn't help. Maha-Metta always Bhante Vimalaramsi 39368 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 8:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Dear Rob, Thank you for your research. The word dhamma often stands for reality, as I understand it. I made a study of this word and also included the the Saddaniti, a grammar written by the Thera Aggava.msa of Pagan, in 1154. He quoted many meanings of dhamma found in the Tipitaka and also the Expositor. It may be of interest that he gave as one of the meanings of dhamma: paññatti, and this under the aspect of a name for a reality. I just quote: N: Words: pa~n~natti : designation, name, idea, notion. adhivacana (n): term attribute nirutti (f): interpretation, expression. The word pa~n~natti, concept, stands for name and for the idea expressed by a name or term. Names can designate what is reality in the absolute sense (paramattha dhammas, such as kusala, akusala, sound, etc.) and also what is not real in the absolute sense, such as person, house. > Nina. op 05-12-2004 04:35 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > I decided to read what the Buddha and Buddhaghosa said about this > topic. (snipped) > My quick literature search covered more than 7500 pages of primary > texts. From this quick literature search, I am coming to the > conclusion that "concept" and "reality" is not a central theme of > the Buddha's teaching. 39369 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 8:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: I'm back Dear Andrew and Azita, I am glad Azita that you are back and recovering. I thought of the Cooranites weekend. Hoping to hear more, Nina. op 05-12-2004 09:13 schreef Andrew op athel60@t...: > Dear Azita > > All the Cooranites were thinking of you this weekend and are glad to > know you are on the mend. 39370 From: Jim Anderson Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 0:13am Subject: Tipitakadharas of Myanmar [The following was originally posted to my Pali Study discussion group on Dec. 3. Nina and I thought it would be good to re-post it to DSG as well as to the Pali discussion group. My apologies to those who have received more than one copy. --Jim] Dear members, I recently came across this webpage on Tipi.takadharas of Myanmar which I thought might be of interest to you: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tpdkdhra.htm A Tipi.takadhara is a title given to one who has the whole Tipi.taka memorized. According to this webpage it has only been given to 11 bhikkhus in Myanmar from 1948 to 2001. In addition, there are other higher titles given to some of them, ie. Tipi.takakawida, Maha Tipi.takakawida, and Dhammabha.n.daagaarika. In 1982, I had the good fortune of meeting a young and brilliant Burmese bhikkhu (travelling in North America with the Sayadaw U Thilawunta) who had the whole Tipi.taka memorized except for the Yamaka and Pa.t.thaana which he still had to do. I'm not sure if he ever succeeded in getting the title of a Tipi.takadhara. His name is Ven. Ashin Thitzana which I don't see among the 11 but then he could be under a Pali name. He was supposed to have come back to Canada to teach me in particular starting about 1988 but it never came to pass as the conditions didn't seem right for it at the time and I called it off. We did have some letter exchanges and on the letterhead of his letters around 1986-7 is a list of his titles as follows: "dvipi.takadhara, dvipi.takakovida, saasanadhaja siriipavara dhammaacariya, paa.lipaaraguu" Best wishes, Jim Anderson 39371 From: m. nease Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 8:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob, ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 10:56 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts > That is, do >> you think that satipa.t.thaana can arise based equally on either? > If not, >> it hardly seems important to me whether or not 'concept and > reality' is a >> central theme; it suffices, for me, that understanding the > difference is >> crucial to understanding the central theme. What do you think? > Please see my recent reply to Bhante Vimalaramsi. I tend to equate > satipatthana with "directly knowing". I understand that I think--is there a difference, do you think, between what can and cannot be directly known? Could that difference be between concept and reality? If so, then isn't understanding (conceptually) that difference crucial to understanding (conceptually) the central theme? mike 39372 From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:50am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Dhamma Greetings Phil, The reason that I have my students smile is to help them have a more uplifted mind. With this lighter type of mind, joy has a better chance to arise. With joy in one's mind one's awareness sees much more clearly when the joy disappears and a heavier type of mental state arises (unwholesome). Smiling very much helps my students to recognize what is happening in the present moment. As Ken O says, "We live our life with patience, courage and faith even though the eradication of underlying tendencies can be a very gigantic challenge." Smiling is a way to help the meditator overcome the underlying tendencies for unwholesome states to arise and this is what 'right effort' is all about. First, recognizing that an unwholesome state has arisen (i.e. the smile has disappeared), next to let go of that unwholesome state and relax the tension caused by that state, next to bring up a wholesome state (smile again), and then to keep that wholesome state going. This takes real practice to develop and putting a sincere smile on one's face helps one to be able to recognize their mental states when they change. It is following the 8 Fold Path, because it changes one's perspective and helps the meditator's mindfulness to become sharper. Joy and smiling lead to a much finer type of awareness and mindfulness, these states help greatly to be able to watch minds tricky meanderings, so when the recognition of this wandering arises it can be let go of more quickly and more easily. This is another thing that Ken O said it a previous post. It is taken from the Visuddhi Magga: Gladness is characterized as gladdening (produced by others' success). Its function resides in being unenvious. It is manifested as the elimination of aversion (boredom). Its proximate cause is seeing beings' success. It succeeds when it makes aversion (boredom) subside, and it fails when it produces 'merriment'. Doesn't merriment imply smiling? To me it does! Eventually, one can develop the habit of smiling and it will become an automatic thing. But it does take practice to make perfect (if there is such a thing as perfect). Intentional putting a smile on one's face eventually leads to a keener awareness of the present moment. Try it you'll like it! Hope this helps Maha-Metta always Bhante Vimalaramsi 39373 From: Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 4:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi, Rob - In a message dated 12/5/04 10:48:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > I am saying that in the Suttas and in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, there > is no concept of momentary existence (of a reality) or extended > existence (of a concept). The concept of realities as dhammas did > not really start to gain ground (see Y. Karunadasa's essay on Dhamma > Theory) until after the Suttas and in the Abhidhamma Pitaka and > obviously, the duration of existence of dhammas (momentary or non- > momentary) had to come later. > ==================== Okay. I agree with that. My point is really not very different. The Buddha spoke of "things" of various sorts, treating them all as having a middle-way mode of existence constrained by impermanence and conditionality. He really didn't go into it any more than that, and, thus, it is that impermanent and conditioned nature of all phenomena that he seemed to consider to be of importance. I, myself, think that there are levels of existence and various modes and senses of existence. I even think that there is a perfectly reasonable sense in which the tree in my garden, which is a fiction in a sense, is also a reality in the other sense of there being a host of interrelated phenomena of a variety of sense-door types that correspond to and underlie it. To view the tree as an utter fiction, and to really view it that way, would be, in my opinion, to *reduce* our knowledge of reality. However, to understand that its existence is a derivative one adds to our knowledge of the way things are, I believe. In any case, what is absolutely a total fiction is any core of self-existence in that tree. The tree, to the extent that is a phenomenon of any sort, is dependent - dependent on conditions that led to it, dependent on its parts, dependent on the elementary sense-door dhammas that are the basis for it, and dependent on being cognized. The mode of existence of that tree is less fundamental than that of "it's" hardness, its perceived shape, color, etc, but it is still a type of (derivative) existence. I don't see why we can't countenance degrees and modes of existence instead of relying on a strict dichotomy of real vs fiction. But, as you correctly say, the Buddha didn't distinguish modes of existence or make much of the concept vs reality issue (in the commentarial sense), because that was not what he considered important. What he considered important was dukkha, the end of dukkha, and all that leads to that end. 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) 39374 From: Larry Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 9:55am Subject: 3 stages of sati/Nina Hi Nina, In Vism.XIV,3 Buddhaghosa talks about the three modes of knowing: perception, consciousness, and wisdom. The archives are temporarily off-line and I can't find your notes on this paragraph. Do you remember which kind of consciousness is being referred to here? He says perception knows sense consciousness but doesn't know the general characteristics. Consciousness knows sense consciousness and the general characteristics but can't bring about the manifestation of the path. Wisdom knows sense consciousness, the general characteristics and can bring about "by endeavouring" the manifestation of the path. In Vism.XIV,7 he seems to be saying this knowing of wisdom is chiefly a matter of knowing the particular characteristics of objects (sabhava). This analysis doesn't exactly seem like a discrimination between delusion and understanding and the knowing of consciousness seems hard to categorize. I was wondering, since perception (sa~n~naa) is the proximate cause of sati, if this might be a "stages of the path" scheme in three stages. First there is identifying the object without proliferation. Then there is the _conventional_ understanding of the object as impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self, i.e., body, breath, etc. is impermanent, unsatisfactory, not self. Then there is the penetration of conventional identity to the experience of nama and rupa as impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self. Is this a reasonable explanation of what is meant by the knowing of consciousness here? Larry 39375 From: connieparker Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 10:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken o With apologies to All, mn: All--ALL--of 'my' 'insights' have just been noodling, thinking. I have yet to scratch the surface of the Buddhadhamma. c: ditto, mike! Does that make us Noodhists in the search for the naked truth? peace, connie 39376 From: connieparker Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 10:06am Subject: Re: I'm back Nice to see you again, Azita. Azita: Dhamma does help in these rather scary situations. To let go [kind of..] and know that there is nothing that can stop any vipakacitta from arising, just like now, is somehow releasing. Except, of course, when one is still throwing up 30 hours after anaesthetic ;-( c: Thanks for throwing up a reminder that all our situations are scary, maybe especially the pleasant ones - no refuge in lobha, but what a drug! best wishes, connie 39377 From: connieparker Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 10:07am Subject: Re: Evil thoughts (Howard) Hi, RobM, R:)bM: .....for those moments when I am being mindful or when I am radiating true metta, then I am reinforcing good habits. The key point here is that weight of the kamma depends on the strength of the volition at the moment. 99.999% of the time, I have akusala thoughts (clinging to sense data, clinging to existence, attachment to self view, etc.) but the kamma created is very weak because the volition is very weak. In that moment of pure metta, the volition is incredibly strong because I am "going against the natural flow". This incredibly strong volition associated with the kusala action creates incredibly powerful good kamma. >> c: ;) Sidestepping the accumulations / tendencies / kamma distinctions question, do you mean something like "when there is mindfulness or the radiation of metta, there is the accumulation of those cetasikas"? Seriously, is there a difference between developing and radiating metta... does radiation require jhana? peace, connie 39378 From: connieparker Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 10:07am Subject: Re: Lodewijk's speech - anusayas Hi, Phil - Ph: I read in one of your books that the quality of our birth depends on kamma, but our character depends on accumulations. c: A quote from Nina's SPD: << The javana viithi-cittas that are kusala and those which are kusala arise and fall away in succession and they accumulate kusala or akusala all the time. This conditions each person to have different inclinations, a different character and a different behaviour. The accumulations in the citta of each person are most intricate. Also the arahats, those who have reached perfection, have different inclinations, they excel in different qualities. Venerable Såriputta was preeminent in wisdom, venerable Mahaa Moggallaana in superpowers, venerable Mahaa Kassapa in the observance of ascetical practices, which he also encouraged others to observe, and venerable Anuruddha was preeminent in clairvoyance. The javana viithi-cittas of each one of us arrange themselves in their own series or continuity and accumulate different kinds of kusala and of akusala time and again, and this is the reason that, at the present time, we all think, speak and act in completely different ways. Cittas that are kusala, akusala and mahaa-kiriya which arrange themselves in a series of javana, cause people to have a different behaviour through body and speech. It could happen that people who saw an arahat had contempt for him because they judged him by his outward behaviour, which he had accumulated for an endlessly long time. The Brahman Vassakaara, the prime minister of Magadha, for example, made a serious mistake by misjudging an arahat from his outward behaviour. When he saw Mahaa Kacchana coming down from a mountain he said that Mahaa Kacchana behaved like a monkey. Vassakaara's haughtiness was conditioned by the accumulation of his javana viithi-cittas. The Buddha told him to ask Mahaa Kacchana forgiveness, but his accumulated conceit was the condition that he was unable to do so. The Buddha predicted that Vassakaara, after he had died, would be reborn as a monkey in a bamboo wood. Vassakaara had thereupon banana trees planted as well as other things monkeys could eat. Then his food would be all ready for him when he would be reborn as a monkey in that bamboo wood. We should see the danger of the accumulation of akusala in the javana viithi-cittas that arise and fall away in a succession of seven cittas. Akusala is accumulated time and again so that it becomes one's nature and appears in one's behaviour and speech and this accumulated behaviour is called in Paali: "vaasanaa" 2. Even when one has become an arahat there are inclinations accumulated in the citta that condition different kinds of behaviour. The Buddha is the only person who could eradicate "vaasanaa". All arahats have eradicated defilements completely so that not even a germ is left of them, but nevertheless they are unable to eradicate "vaasanaa". This is because they have accumulated "vaasanaa" for an endlessly long time in the cycle of birth and death through the power of javana viithi-cittas. >> I'll spare you my lousy puns and just pass on some definitions from PaliWords: vaasanaa: (f) former impression; recollection of the past vaasana: (nt) perfuming; making to inhabit vasana: (nt) dwelling; living; a cloth peace, connie 39379 From: jwromeijn Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 10:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Dear Rob and all What do you think of this theory: The two-truth model (conceptual and ultimate reality) is in fact a Mahayana-invention, or earlier a Nagarjuna-invention. And some Theravadins have, later, copied it. So that it is in fact not Theravadin? Another question is of the two-truth-model (or two-realities-model, that the same to me) is true; or when truth0doesn't exist, that is useful? To me it is useful, in the stage now of my path. Metta Joop 39380 From: jwromeijn Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 11:17am Subject: [dsg] Re: evolution. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Joop, Nina: The Tipitaka and commentaries do not have as purpose science, evolution theories or history. That is why these matters do not play a part in the teachings. The teachings touch on another aspect. The goal is detachment from the wrongt view of self and eradication of all defilements. Joop: I agree with you but I will also mention the consequences: The Tipitaka should not be seen as a collection of facts which can be used in formulating a theory about natural science, evolutionary theory or history. For example the chapter on Rupa of the Dhamma-Sangani is not an introduction to physics or chemics. Jataka-stories should not be seen as historical facts Even it's better not to give the Abhidhamma the name of 'psychology' because that can give the wrong impression that it can be compared with (modern) psychology as a scientific disipline. Metta Joop 39381 From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 10:32am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Dhamma Greetings Phil, Sorry, I mis-read the quote from the Visuddhi Magga so please forgive me. It was a mistake on my part. I don't mean to cause confusion. By including that statement. And as you might be able to tell, I am sure that smiling is a helpful tool to see how mind works. I've never revealed this publicly but I do have dyslexia and sometimes my mind misses whole sentences or things get changed around. Most of the time I read and re-read things before making comments but this time, I just misunderstood what was being said. Sorry again Maha-Metta always Bhante Vimalaramsi 39382 From: m. nease Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 0:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken o Hi Connie, ----- Original Message ----- From: "connieparker" To: "dsg" Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken o > > With apologies to All, > > mn: All--ALL--of 'my' 'insights' have just been noodling, thinking. I > have yet to scratch the surface of the Buddhadhamma. > > c: ditto, mike! Does that make us Noodhists in the search for the naked > truth? > peace, > connie HAR--I love it--I've often said I'm more nudist than Buddhist (figure painting etc. being an old avocation of mine)...just 'my accumulations'...seriously though, I think 'the naked truth' isn't such a bad metaphor for dhammas stripped of concepts. I have an idea that 'we' (being illusory if I'm not mistaken) can't experience them but, if abhidhamma is correct, satipa~n~naa can and will gradually eradicate the illusion of self and all its attendant dukkha. Here's Hoping, mike 39383 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 0:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: evolution. Dear friend James and Joop, op 03-12-2004 23:02 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > Friend Nina (and Joop), > > I remember a sutta that states something to the effect that the > planet used to be inhabited by entities of light but then they ate > the sludge of the oceans and gained material form (as humans?). N: Dialogues of the Buddha Diigha Nikaya III, no 27. A self-luminous being tasted the earth, and got a solid body, Etc. J:... Anyway, > it does seem to speak to evolution. However, I read some sources > which question the authenticity of that sutta as Buddha word, and I > have my doubts also. N: It is not a dogma. I think evolution does not have to be an issue or a problem. Nina. 39384 From: m. nease Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 0:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Andrew, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew" To: Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 11:31 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts > I have just done a quick literature search of Swedish novels and, > because I did not find the word "lonely" very often, I am going to > conclude that "loneliness" is not a central theme of Swedish > literature. Nice reductio, though I'm not sure it's quite the same (still I appreciate it)-- > Would I be right? Certainly not. I believe it is an error to > conclude that quantitative language searches always translate to > qualitative ranking. Big mistake IMHO. Agreed-- > Because of the anatta and anicca teachings, the Buddha *had* to say > something like this: "Though the wise one has transcended the > conceived, he might still say 'I speak'. He might say too 'they > speak to me'. Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, he uses such > terms as mere expressions" [SN II 17]. This reminded me of: [The Exalted One:--] He of the Brethern who is Arahant, Who hath accomplished all there was to do, Who Drug-immune doth live the final life: He Might say thus: '"I" say'; 'they say 't is "mine."' So saying he, expert in usages Of men, 'ware of the worth of common names, Would speak merely conforming to such use. SN I 1 3 (PTS p21-22) I'm not sure whether 'concept and reality' is quite the same as 'sammuti sacca and paramattha sacca' as Howard referred to in his cheer-leading(!) remarks. That the latter pair refer to speech regarding the former pair does seem correct to me and this does seem to me (as I've said) to be important to conceptual understanding of the Dhamma and of dhammas. Just my opinion or view, of course--I think possibly the crux of this question (in part at least) is whether or not one takes all views to be micchadi.t.thi. In translation, sometimes the Buddha refers to 'holding right views' as a condition for favorable rebirths; whether this is a mistranslation of Paali meant as the cetasika that views rightly is, I think, a question for translators and a very interesting one. Thanks for the quote--looking forward to more of this discussion though I'm afraid I won't be able to participate much due to lack of time... mike 39385 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 1:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: evolution. Dear Joop, op 05-12-2004 20:17 schreef jwromeijn op jwromeijn@y...: > > Nina: The Tipitaka and commentaries do not have as purpose science, > evolution > theories or history. > Joop: I agree with you but I will also mention the consequences: > The Tipitaka should not be seen as a collection of facts which can be > used in formulating a theory about natural science, evolutionary > theory or history. N: Very well said, I could not agree more. J: For example the chapter on Rupa of the Dhamma-Sangani is not an > introduction to physics or chemics. N: I also repeated this very often!!! Glad you say it. > Jataka-stories should not be seen as historical facts N: The stories seem commentaries and the verses are Tipitaka, but I do not know for sure. I take them as lessons for daily life and do not think of history. J: Even it's better not to give the Abhidhamma the name of 'psychology' > because that can give the wrong impression that it can be compared > with (modern) psychology as a scientific disipline. N: Agree, agree!!! Nina. 39386 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 1:08pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhante Vimalaramsi wrote: > Dhamma Greetings James, > > Have you ever run across a book called 'Concepts and Reality' by > Venerable Nananada? It is worth a read, if you have the time and > inclination. Many bhikkhus place a great deal interest on this book. > > Maha-Metta > always > Bhante Vimalaramsi Bhante Vimalaramsi and All, Venerable Sir, no I have not read that book but I came home and found a very nice offer from Rob M. to mail a copy to me. Since I am in Egypt, and the mail service is practically non-existent or at the best donkey cart driven, I am not sure of my kamma to get this book ;-)). However, more importantly, why do you suggest I read it? Why is your post so cryptic and elusive as to your unspoken motivations and thoughts? Rob M. gave a very thorough and intelligent post addressing the nature of this book and you again gave a very cryptic response: "Sorry he doesn't answer your specific questions, but what book could?" Huh? Rob M. didn't ask any specific questions and I don't understand the point of this platitude type of question. Frankly, your posts about this book don't match the openness, friendliness, and frankness of your other posts. What's the deal? It seems we have a mystery and I am very intrigued! ;-)) Perhaps it will be as intriguing as "The Da Vinci Code"? ;-)) With that said, I think that Rob M. gave a very excellent analysis of the book in question (as far as a literary analysis goes, since that is all I can address). It seems that the book is predominately about mental proliferation, not the question of "concept" vs. "reality" so active in this group. If you would like to see an excellent example of this I suggest you view Rob M.'s ppt. presentation about the Noble Eightfold Path (available somewhere but I lost the link ;-). In that presentation, Rob M. gives the example of a rose and how a person can add layer upon layer of mental constructions to that rose until he/she can't really see the rose any longer, they see a concept. That is what the Buddha taught to avoid!! However, to go so far as to say that the rose doesn't even exist, that it is nothing more than the dhammas of color, hardness, cohesion, etc., is going way too far! As Gertruide Stein wrote, "A Rose is a Rose is a Rose" ;-)). (Sorry, the English Teacher in me is showing! ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_is_a_rose_is_a_rose_is_a_rose. Metta, James P.S. To All: mentioning mental proliferation, it seems that the posts of this group are proliferating at a rate faster than I can address them! ;-)) To those who have addressed me specifically, please bear with me as I am quite busy with teaching duties at the moment. 39387 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 2:00pm Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hi, Hugo I've been enjoying your posts. Mind if I butt in here? --- Hugo wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 04:11:55 +0000 (GMT), Ken O > wrote: > > SN is Samyutta Nikaya. > > Thanks. > > > k: Without veering towards either...the only way one understand > > ignorance.... is to have wise attention when such conditions arise > > and when they fall. Because any attempt in the believe that oneself > > can create more kusala behaviour there is veering to one extreme. > > Let me see if I understand correctly what you are saying. > > Are you saying that we can't create kusala behaviour at all? > > > > k: When one practise smiling, that smile is veer to oneside because > > one believe that such a smile can condition kusala behaviour on > > oneself or others. > > How would you explain the fact that my anger is extinguished once I > start smiling to myself? > > Emphasis on the word "fact", because I have experimented that not > once, but many times. Are you saying here that the smiling is kusala, and/or that with the extinguishmnet of the anger there is kusala in its place? It seems to me that unless kusala is being developed, then what we are talking about is just a handy 'anger management' technique. Less anger is obviously 'desirable' in many respects, but it doesn't necessarily mean less akusala, either right away or, more importantly, later, as I see it. Just a thought. Jon 39388 From: Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 9:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: evolution. In a message dated 12/5/2004 1:07:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: J: Even it's better not to give the Abhidhamma the name of 'psychology' > because that can give the wrong impression that it can be compared > with (modern) psychology as a scientific disipline. N: Agree, agree!!! Nina. Hi Joop and Nina This is the first definition of science from the Random House College Dictionary... "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws." Sounds like a great definition of the Tripitaka to me. When I think of science or psychology, I think of the Buddha's teaching as the Standard ... by which modern science and psychology are inefficiently trying to figure out. TG 39389 From: m. nease Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 2:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hello Again Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:24 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O > M: "This works well with some schools of Buddhism, I think, but not with > the Paali texts. I could be mistaken of course--I'd like to see a > reference supporting this idea from the Paali tipitaka." > > L: See Vism.XIV,130: > > "But though classed in the same way as consciousness, nevertheless, as > to characteristic, etc., it all has just the characteristic of > perceiving. Its function is to make a sign as a condition for perceiving > again that 'this is the same', as carpenters, etc., do in the case of > timber, and so on. It is manifested as the action of interpreting by > means of the sign as apprehended, like the blind who 'see' an elephant > (Ud. 68-69). Its proximate cause is an objective field in whatever way > that appears, like the perception that arises in fauns that see > scarecrows as men." > > L: "Sign" is concept I believe. Aside from 'lakkhaana' as 'non-concretely produced' ruupa which, according to BB in CMA is not paramattha dhamma, I don't have a clue. Maybe you're right... > As for concept being the "beginning and end of all delusion", failure to > 'see' the three characteristics and understand the Four Noble Truths > could reasonably be said to be an error of complex judgement but the > following definition of pa~n~na suggests to me that it is simply a > matter if concept vs. reality, which amounts to sa~n~naa vs. pa~n~na, in > my mind. > > Vism.XIV,7 "What are its characteristic, function, manifestation and > proximate cause? Understanding has the characteristic of penetrating the > individual essences of states. Its function is to abolish the darkness > of delusion, which conceals the individual essences of states. It is > manifested as non-delusion. Because of the words 'One who is > concentrated knows and see correctly' (A.v,3), its proximate cause is > concentration." > > L: Granted pa~n~na doesn't abolish sa~n~naa but sa~n~naa does very > plainly conceal sabhava. Pa~n~na abolishes the belief or clinging to > concept and sa~n~naa interprets all experience conceptually. Does it? Can't sa~n~naa arise with pa~n~naa (in fact, doesn't it always)? Concealing is a function of moha, I think, which can't arise with pa~n~naa. > That sa~n~naa arises with lokuttara cetasikas suggests to me that path > consciousness is not void of concept. It certainly isn't devoid of vitakka, as vitakka is a synonym for sankappa. And vitakka can take a concept as an object, but with maggacitta? Or vipassanaa? I don't think so. > The point of path process is not > to "get real" but to stop desiring. Isn't it to end rebirth? The third noble truth isn't 'the cessation of lobha', (though it does end lobha) is it ? It's the cessation of dukkha. Lobha (tanha) is the origin of dukkha, but nibbaana is the cessation of dukkha, not the cessation of the origin of dukkha. An awkward construction but do you see what I mean? > So it seems reasonable that concept > would be involved in that insight. You may be right; but what I've read seems pretty conclusively to state that insight and concept are mutually exclusive. > I don't see a problem with nibbana > being an object of sa~n~na. Right--has to be, I think-- > That conceptualizing of nibbana is surely > instrumental in the understanding to the effect that the path is > completed. Nibbaana arises for only one moment, I think (when 'it' would naturally be 'marked' by sa~n~naa as that is one of sa~n~naa's functions)--I don't see why the reviewing after nibbaana might not take a concept (the memory of nibbaana?) as an object--but I really don't know. mike 39390 From: Andrew Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 2:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi Rob K, > > > Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary (p734, n29) explains that the > Kaccanagotta Sutta is not ontologically focused, but rather states > that, in this Sutta, the Buddha is rejecting both eternalism and > annihilationism. > > In other words, if we are looking for ontological statements from > the Buddha, we should focus on SN XXII.94. From this Sutta, I > conclude that the Buddha was aware of ontological issues of > existence vs. non-existence. Bikkhu Bodhi's commentary says that: > > "[the] "Middle Teaching" can accomodate definite pronouncements > about these ontological issues. The affirmation of the existence of > the five aggregates, as impermanent processes, serves as a rejoinder > to illusionist theories, which hold that the world lacks real being. > > > > I again state that ontology is not at the core of the Buddha's > teachings. Though it is clear from this Sutta reference that the > Buddha was aware of ontological issues, He only made one ontological > statement (existence of the five aggregates as impermanent > processes) to refute a specific wrong view (illusionist theories). Hi to the 2 Robs Bhikkhu Bodhi's n 29 to the Kaccanagotta Sutta includes: "... In view of these explanations it would be misleading to translate the two terms *atthita* and *natthita* simply as "existence" and "nonexistence" and then to maintain (as is sometimes done) that the Buddha rejects all ontological notions as inherently invalid. The Buddha's utterances at 22:94, for example, show that he did not hesitate to make pronouncements with a clear ontological import when they were called for. In the present passage *atthita* and *natthita* are abstract nouns formed from the verbs *atthi* and *natthi*. It is thus the metaphysical assumptions implicit in such abstractions that are at fault, not the ascriptions of existence and nonexistence themselves ..." RobM, isn't BB saying something a bit more than that the Buddha was *aware* of ontological issues? That he actually got involved in them? Best wishes Andrew 39391 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 4:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Andrew, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: of existence and nonexistence themselves ..." > > RobM, isn't BB saying something a bit more than that the Buddha was > *aware* of ontological issues? That he actually got involved in them? You are absolutely correct. The Buddha did get involved - the Buddha made a single ontological statement to counter a specific wrong view. My point is that the Buddha's teaching was not focused on realities and non-realities (concepts). Acariya Anuruddha used ultimate realities as a structure to summarize the Abhidhamma when he wrote the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, but ultimate realities are not an element of the Buddha's teaching. A cursory reading of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha gives the incorrect impression that ontological issues (realities vs. non-realities) is an important part of the Buddha's teaching. Metta, Rob M :-) 39392 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 4:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob, > Thank you for your research. > The word dhamma often stands for reality, as I understand it. I made a study > of this word and also included the the Saddaniti, a grammar written by the > Thera Aggava.msa of Pagan, in 1154. He quoted many meanings of dhamma found > in the Tipitaka and also the Expositor. It may be of interest that he gave > as one of the meanings of dhamma: paññatti, and this under the aspect of a > name for a reality. I just quote: > > > adhivacanaadhammaa"ti-aadiisu pa~n~nattiya.m. > > In such passages as dhamma that is a designation, dhamma that is an > expression, > dhamma that is a term, dhamma means concept.> > > N: Words: > pa~n~natti : designation, name, idea, notion. > adhivacana (n): term attribute > nirutti (f): interpretation, expression. > The word pa~n~natti, concept, stands for name and for the idea expressed by > a name or term. Names can designate what is reality in the absolute sense > (paramattha dhammas, such as kusala, akusala, sound, etc.) and also what is > not real in the absolute sense, such as person, house. > Did the Buddha ever contrast "dhamma" (meaning reality or name of reality) with "non-dhamma" (meanining non-reality or name of non- reality)? In other words, did the primary texts make ontological statements (other than SNXXII.94)? In my opinion, if there are only one or two instances of the Buddha making ontological statements, then I will surmise that reality vs. non-reality is not a key issue in His teachings. Metta, Rob M :-) 39393 From: antony272b2 Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 5:09pm Subject: Re: Tipitakadharas of Myanmar Dear Jim, "Candidates are tested on the doctrinal understanding, comparative philosophy, textual discrimination, taxonomic grouping and analysis and on the interrelationships." "In undertaking the assignments, the Venerable Sayadaw did not just read through the texts with the committee but sought out the different versions, brought out the reference in the Commentaries and Sub-commentaries, explained the implications to the clear understanding of the committee members, sought a unanimous conclusion and wrote the report." http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Library/Suttas/Paritta/BioMingun/biomingu n.html Best wishes / Antony. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Anderson" wrote: > Dear members, > > I recently came across this webpage on Tipi.takadharas of Myanmar > which I thought might be of interest to you: > > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tpdkdhra.htm > > A Tipi.takadhara is a title given to one who has the whole Tipi.taka > memorized. According to this webpage it has only been given to 11 > bhikkhus in Myanmar from 1948 to 2001. In addition, there are other > higher titles given to some of them, ie. Tipi.takakawida, Maha > Tipi.takakawida, and Dhammabha.n.daagaarika. > > In 1982, I had the good fortune of meeting a young and brilliant > Burmese bhikkhu (travelling in North America with the Sayadaw U > Thilawunta) who had the whole Tipi.taka memorized except for the > Yamaka and Pa.t.thaana which he still had to do. I'm not sure if he > ever succeeded in getting the title of a Tipi.takadhara. His name is > Ven. Ashin Thitzana which I don't see among the 11 but then he could > be under a Pali name. He was supposed to have come back to Canada to > teach me in particular starting about 1988 but it never came to pass > as the conditions didn't seem right for it at the time and I called it > off. We did have some letter exchanges and on the letterhead of his > letters around 1986-7 is a list of his titles as follows: > > "dvipi.takadhara, dvipi.takakovida, saasanadhaja siriipavara > dhammaacariya, paa.lipaaraguu" > > Best wishes, > Jim Anderson 39394 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 5:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > > That is, do > >> you think that satipa.t.thaana can arise based equally on either? > > If not, > >> it hardly seems important to me whether or not 'concept and > > reality' is a > >> central theme; it suffices, for me, that understanding the > > difference is > >> crucial to understanding the central theme. What do you think? > > > Please see my recent reply to Bhante Vimalaramsi. I tend to equate > > satipatthana with "directly knowing". > > I understand that I think--is there a difference, do you think, between what > can and cannot be directly known? Could that difference be between concept > and reality? If so, then isn't understanding (conceptually) that difference > crucial to understanding (conceptually) the central theme? The Mulapariyaya Sutta (Mn1) contrasts: - the thinking process of uninstructed worldlings - the thinking process of learners (Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami) - the thinking process of Arahants - the thinking process of Buddhas The Sutta goes through 24 different object of thought, everything from earth / water / fire / wind (what the Abhidhammatta Sangaha would call ultimate realities) to beings / gods (what the Abhidhammatta Sangaha would call concepts). There is no difference in the thinking process of an uninstructed worldling when faced with what the Abhidhammatta Sangaha would call ultimate realities as compared to the thinking process of an uninstructed worldling when faced with what the Abhidhammatta Sangaha would call concepts. There is also no difference in the way that learners think about "realities" as compared to the way that learners think about "concepts". The same holds true for Arahants and Buddhas. In summary, the type of object ("reality vs. "concept") does not play a role in the pattern of thinking. Mike, this is based on my analysis of a single Sutta. My analysis could well be wrong (it would not be the first time :-) ). I will keep my eyes open for any refrences in the primary texts that place importance on different objects of awarenss. Metta, Rob M :-) 39395 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 5:23pm Subject: Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Joop, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > What do you think of this theory: > The two-truth model (conceptual and ultimate reality) is in fact a > Mahayana-invention, or earlier a Nagarjuna-invention. > And some Theravadins have, later, copied it. So that it is in fact > not Theravadin? ===== I do not know enough Buddhist history to make a statement. What is important to me is that the two-truth model as you call it is not central to the primary texts. Which group originated the idea and who might of copied it from whom is of some intellectual interest, but not a key issue for me. ===== > Another question is of the two-truth-model (or two-realities- model, > that the same to me) is true; or when truth doesn't exist, that is > useful? To me it is useful, in the stage now of my path. ===== Joop, I am not clear on your question. Are you asking if truth exists? I equate the Buddha's teaching with the truth. Are you asking if the Buddha's teaching exists? If so, how do you want to define existence? I am confused... :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 39396 From: Andrew Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 5:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" > wrote: > of existence and nonexistence themselves ..." > > > > RobM, isn't BB saying something a bit more than that the Buddha > was > > *aware* of ontological issues? That he actually got involved in > them? > > You are absolutely correct. The Buddha did get involved - the Buddha > made a single ontological statement to counter a specific wrong view. > > My point is that the Buddha's teaching was not focused on realities > and non-realities (concepts). Acariya Anuruddha used ultimate > realities as a structure to summarize the Abhidhamma when he wrote > the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, but ultimate realities are not an > element of the Buddha's teaching. A cursory reading of the > Abhidhammattha Sangaha gives the incorrect impression that > ontological issues (realities vs. non-realities) is an important > part of the Buddha's teaching. Hi Rob M Bit slow this morning (not surprising after our Dhamma discussion weekend). Are you saying that the Buddha took an ontological position, but only as a "technique" to counter one particular wrong view? This reminds me of Ven Thanissaro's take on anatta a wee bit ... I also take it that you and Howard consider that the ignorance of being fooled by concepts is linked to self-view (which BB links to clinging which is conditioned by craving which is conditioned by a more basic level of ignorance). You have searched in vain for a reference where the Buddha states that this basic ignorance includes an inability to distinguish the *existent* 5 sense-bases and mind ("the world in the Noble One's Discipline") from the *nonexistent* rest. Therefore, you conclude that an ability to so distinguish is not an important part of the Dhamma. How does this sit with your view expressed to Mike that the object of citta doesn't matter (presumably it's the understanding that matters). Can you have your cake (it's the understanding that matters) and eat is as well (it doesn't matter if you don't understand the difference between existent and nonexistent)? I don't know for sure if this is a fair question to pose to you, but I'll post it anyway with apologies in advance! (-: Best wishes Andrew PS my BB reference is note 8 SN Vol 1 p 728. 39397 From: Jonathan Pettigrew Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 2:49pm Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Dear Bhante - what a lovely post :x Thank You! Jonathan Bhante Vimalaramsi wrote: Dhamma Greetings Phil, The reason that I have my students smile is to help them have a more uplifted mind. ... 39398 From: m. nease Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 5:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob, ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Thanks for your patience--as you know, I'm not the scholar that you are. I'll try responding below: > The Mulapariyaya Sutta (Mn1) contrasts: > - the thinking process of uninstructed worldlings > - the thinking process of learners (Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami) > - the thinking process of Arahants > - the thinking process of Buddhas It's been a while since I read it, I'll have another look-- > The Sutta goes through 24 different object of thought, everything > from earth / water / fire / wind (what the Abhidhammatta Sangaha > would call ultimate realities) to beings / gods (what the > Abhidhammatta Sangaha would call concepts). OK-- > There is no difference in the thinking process of an uninstructed > worldling when faced with what the Abhidhammatta Sangaha would call > ultimate realities as compared to the thinking process of an > uninstructed worldling when faced with what the Abhidhammatta > Sangaha would call concepts. That makes sense to me--he/she wouldn't see any difference between the two, I would think... > There is also no difference in the way that learners think > about "realities" as compared to the way that learners think > about "concepts". Wouldn't a sotaapanna think about wrong view, envy, avarice and doubt differently from the way a puthujjana would? Or do I misunderstand what you mean by 'the way they think'? Never mind, I think I see what you mean--so a learner of any level would, let's say, 'see' the three characteristics in such as 'beings' just as in PD's? Would that learner be able to experience insight--satipa.t.thaana vipassanaa--with regard to what the ADS calls 'concepts'? Would insights founded on what ADS calls concepts eradicate defilements? > The same holds true for Arahants and Buddhas. As above-- > In summary, the type of object ("reality vs. "concept") does not > play a role in the pattern of thinking. I think the 'pattern of thinking' may be my sticking point here. I'm talking about sabhaava, I guess--and assuming that a learner would think about sasabhaava dhammas differently from asabhaava dhammas (if such a distinction can be properly said to exist). Could you explain what you mean by 'pattern of thinking'? Now that I think of it, this has implications for 'the learner', the arahant and the Buddha, too--in sammuti sacca, the learner, the arahant and the Buddha exists and thinks; in vohaara sacca, the thinking (vitakka-vicaara?) exists but not the thinkers. Do you think this sammuti/vohaara distinction is an error in the texts? Or do you think its basis is in something other than pa~n~natti/paramattha dhamma? Do continue, please... > Mike, this is based on my analysis of a single Sutta. My analysis > could well be wrong (it would not be the first time :-) ). I will > keep my eyes open for any refrences in the primary texts that place > importance on different objects of awarenss. Thanks, Rob--I know my questions are all pretty elementary to you, but I find it helpful (I THINK) to try to articulate them. Hope you don't mind taking the time for a few more answers. mike 39399 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 5:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Hi Howard, ------------------- H: > If you do not think that the view that there is no practice to be willfully done, and none that *can* be so done, is not a view of helplessness and hopelessness, then simply dismiss my perspective as nonsense. That is certainly your prerogative. > -------------------- Dhamma-practice (satipatthana) does contain the mental factor, cetana (volition). So does every other moment of consciousness. But it would be wrong to read into that, the idea of a free will (a will free from the constraints of conditionality). When I say 'it would be wrong' I mean that interpretation of the Tipitaka would certainly be contrary to the interpretation spelt out in the ancient commentaries. In an age when just about everyone claims to be an interpreter of the Tipitaka and an authority on Buddhist meditation, the ancient commentaries are a rare bastion for right view. I shouldn't appoint myself as "Defender of the Commentaries" but nor should I feel obliged to hold my tongue. James has said he would rather I didn't respond to his posts, and I gather you, too, are tired of my "gainsaying." But, in the eyes of some readers, silence does give consent. In a group portraying itself as "Tipitaka and Commentaries based" the inference that the commentaries peddle hopelessness, helplessness and wrong view will not go unnoticed. So, again, for the record, I disagree. :-) Kind regards, Ken H