41800 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Feb 5, 2005 5:21pm Subject: Re: Anatta, Present Moment and Goal / Kel & Ken H ------ In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > T: That moment between chewings? But which level of "understanding" > do you think the glutton might be able to achieve while being absorbed > in eating pleasure? By the way, isn't nekkhamma sankappa important > for dispassion? How can a person who cannot become dispassionate > with sensual pleasures achieve a vipassana-nana? This is beyond > my imagination! > >======== Dear Tep, The sotapanna has eradicated wrong view, not sense desire. Thus the main factor that needs to be eliminated is wrong view. There are so many stories of sotapanna and sakagami who were still emmersed in sense pleasures. Consider the six archers who tried to kill Buddha but who becmae sotapanna with their bows still in their hands. http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tinhla01.htm "Devadatta went to King Ajatasattu and proposed that he himself would kill the Buddha while Ajatasattu should kill his father Bimbisara. He having received skilful archers from Rajagariha put one on a certain path by which the Buddha would come, two on another, four further up, and so on up to sixteen with strict instructions to kill the Buddha with poisoned arrows. But when the first man approached the Buddha, he became terrified and his body became stiff and unable to raise his hand. The Buddha told him not to fear and the man threw down his weapons and confessed his nefarious purpose. Thereupon the Buddha preached to him, converted him and sent him back by a different route. The next two archers not seeing the man, followed up and found the Buddha seated beneath a tree. They approached the Buddha but could not shoot, and like the first archer they became converted. The same happened to all the rest"" All became sotapanna, there and then. Does this seem strange. But it is not because they had the parami to understand Dhamma. In the time it takes for a flash of lightning, billions of mind moments have arisen and passed away. These are - in the ultimate sense - each a new life, where insight can come in and know the characteristic of nama or rupa. But we tend to cling to the idea of me who exists for seconds or minutes or hours. But no Robert anywhere, and nothing that lasts even for a split second. Just new lives appearing and disappearing by conditions- simply elements - but like puppets on a string they give the appearance of beings who are able to do this or that. Robertk 41801 From: Date: Sat Feb 5, 2005 1:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/5/05 3:03:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Howard (and Jon) > > Thanks for the clarification. > > I see sense-of-self much as you do. But I see this fundamental delusion as > joining other mental constructs to develop self-view. And I see concepts as > > also being mental constructs that are associated with these "self" > perspectives. > Therefore, I really don't see that one is more real than the other. They > proliferate due to conditions. If "sense-of'self" is a real thing, so are > these > other states that are just sense-of-self proliferations. I don't see one > iota of difference between their so-called "reality." > > Nothing can arise without being part of the "conditional matrix" that makes > up the whole field-of-conditions. How could something arise that is less > real > (or not real at all) then something else? And does such a question have > anything to do with the Buddha's teaching? > > TG > > ======================== Perhaps the following will clarify my take on ideas/notions/concepts: I don't think they are single phenomena. When for example the "idea of tree" arises, what is actually happening is a whole bunch of experiential events occurring, including many pictures, remembered (or currently experienced) touchings, odors, word associations etc, etc, plus an over-arching sense of unity, often created by the use of the sound sequence "t r e e". In none of this do I find a single thing (as are hardness, a sight, a sound, etc single phenomena) that is the concept "tree". With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 41802 From: Date: Sat Feb 5, 2005 1:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/5/05 7:11:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: > I believe it is correct to say that consciousness must have an object, > but I am not sure whether that must necessarily be an "actual object", > whatever that may mean, since as far as I understand things there is > nothing 'actual' about thoughts, only about the consciousness > concerned. Sorry I'm not able to explain it any better than this, of > course I'm not speaking from direct experience here ;-)). > ====================== Two thoughts, Jon: 1) A non-actual (i.e. imagined) object is not an object at all. In fact it is nothing. There may be the imagining tht there is an object, but that does not create some thing that is an "imagined object". 2) As far as thoughts not being actual, are not mental pictures, recognitions, and recollections of tastes, sights, and sounds thoughts that are "actual"? Why is a recalled sound any less "actual" than, say, anger? 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) 41803 From: mnease Date: Sat Feb 5, 2005 8:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta, Present Moment and Goal / Kel & Ken H Hi Tep, > Tep: These Merchants must be the very rare kind of trade people > (whose main concern is not money, money, and money) because the > qualification "perfected sila" couldn't be achieved by just listening to > the Great Sage: they had to earnestly train themselves for some time. No trade people, no one there at all--just designations of aggregates, just like you and me. > And on top of the perfected sila foundation, they must have to develop > the seven enlightenment factors and see through the Four Noble > Truths! Siila can't be perfected by non-entities (selves etc.)--only by the path. Whenever 'I' think 'I' can develop the path, already perversion rules. That's how it seems to me, anyway... mike 41804 From: Date: Sat Feb 5, 2005 5:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/5/2005 6:38:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: Perhaps the following will clarify my take on ideas/notions/concepts: I don't think they are single phenomena. When for example the "idea of tree" arises, what is actually happening is a whole bunch of experiential events occurring, including many pictures, remembered (or currently experienced) touchings, odors, word associations etc, etc, plus an over-arching sense of unity, often created by the use of the sound sequence "t r e e". In none of this do I find a single thing (as are hardness, a sight, a sound, etc single phenomena) that is the concept "tree". With metta, Howard Hi Howard Amazing. I see it exactly the same way but draw a very different conclusion. I see all the "bits" that go together to make a concept to be actual states. I don't think of a concept (or anything for that matter) as "separate states." For example, there is no such thing as a "separate state" of consciousness. Therefore, its a non-reality according to that style of analysis. But since I don't accept that style of analysis, its a non-issue to me. This lack of separateness is even true of each of the Four Great Elements. Each of these elements are dependent on the relative configuration of the other three. So how could any "one of them" be a single phenomena? Its not possible IMO. I see where you're coming from, and I agree where you're coming from, I just don't agree where you're going to. ;-) TG 41805 From: Date: Sat Feb 5, 2005 5:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/5/2005 6:56:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: Two thoughts, Jon: 1) A non-actual (i.e. imagined) object is not an object at all. In fact it is nothing. There may be the imagining tht there is an object, but that does not create some thing that is an "imagined object". 2) As far as thoughts not being actual, are not mental pictures, recognitions, and recollections of tastes, sights, and sounds thoughts that are "actual"? Why is a recalled sound any less "actual" than, say, anger? With metta, Howard Hi Howard A "imagined object" is a thought and the thought is the actual object. Where is this idea coming from that a "thought" is supposed to be something other than the thought??? That's the object...the thought. And sure, the thought is a conglomeration of conditions...just as all conditions are. A recalled sound is not the sound, but it is the thought about the sound. The thought about the sound does not reproduce the sound, its not meant to...it remembers the sound through thinking. The thought, or thinking, is the object and it is as "real" as any other state that arises due to conditions. Not to worry, I'm sure I'll get tired of this soon enough. TG 41806 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Feb 5, 2005 11:42pm Subject: Re: Predominant roots? Hi Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: ......snip....... > Buddhaghosa starts out at III 74 listing the 6 temperaments: greedy, > hating, deluded, faithful, intelligent and speculative and then says some > would make that 14. ... "As to meaning the temperaments are one, that is > to say, personal nature, idiosyncrasy." ...96: "However, these directions > for recognizing the temperaments have not been handed down in their > entirety in either the texts or the commentaries; they are only expressed > according to the opinion of the teachers and cannot therefore be treated > as authentic ... this is said: 'A teacher who has acquired penetration of > minds will know the temperament and will explain a meditation subject > accordingly; one who has not should question the pupil'...". 130: ..."a > teacher who has not can know it by putting such questions to him as 'What > is your temperament?' or 'What states are usually present in you?' or > 'What do you like bringing to mind?' or 'What meditation subject does your > mind favour?'..." > 133: ..."he should apprehend from among the forty meditation subjects one > that suits his own temperament..." Azita: ONe would have to really trust that the teacher who was giving this meditation subject, really knew his/her 'stuff'. I believe that if one is meditating on a subject that was unsuitable for that person's temperament, then the outcome is not very good. Please don't ask for references, anybody, I don't have any; just remember something that was discussed in the group with the late Ven. Dhammadharo. > > So, yeah, I suppose we should know our own temperament and I'll just have > to say 'deluded' or that Connie means 'drowning in the ocean of > concepts'. Azita: I like that :-) and I think we could say that was true for all of us who are not ariyans. I am, in this lifetime, in the words of III, 80, one who "has > formerly drunk a lot of intoxicants and neglected learning and > questioning". Azita: mmmm, I can relate to that and would add 'drunk and inhaled...' Furthermore, once I quit drinking, I graduated to > developing some nice needle-toothed vampire marks on my arms and only > returned to any 'learning and questioning' after I'd found some "Buddhist" > books in a dumpster. > > peace, > connie Azita: you make me smile, Connie. I like your candidness - if that's really a word!! At least, this is where we are at the present point in samsara, so lets not waste it this time, who knows when we next get the opportunity. Even knowing this, I sometimes choose to do something else rather than picking up a dhamma book and reading. Or do I really choose? given there is no choice, maybe its accumulations/tendencies, even temperament that goes to the movies instead of dhamma reading? Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 41807 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Feb 5, 2005 11:51pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 117 - Vitality/jivitindriya and Attention/manasikaara (a) 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.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)] ***** Jívitindriya (life-faculty or vitality) and manasikåra (attention) are two other cetasikas among the seven universals which arise with every citta. As regards jívitindriya,(1) this cetasika sustains the life of the citta and cetasikas it accompanies. According to the Atthasåliní (part IV, Chapter I, 123, 124)(2) the characteristic of jívitindriya is “ceaseless watching”, its function is to maintain the life of the accompanying dhammas, its manifestation the establishment of them, and the proximate cause are the dhammas which have to be sustained. The function of jívitindriya is to maintain the life of citta and its accompanying cetasikas. It keeps them going until they fall away. Since jívitindriya arises and falls away together with the citta, it performs its function only for a very short while. Each moment of citta consists actually of three extremely short periods: -the arising moment (uppåda kha.na) -the moment of its presence, or static moment (ti.t.thi kha.na) -the dissolution moment (bha'nga kha.na). *** 1) Jívita.m means “life”, and indriya means “controlling faculty”. 2) See also Dhammasangaùi §19. ***** [Ch.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 41808 From: gazita2002 Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 0:11am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta, Present Moment and Goal / Kel & Ken H Hello MIke, Great and precise reminders Mike, thank you. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "mnease" wrote: > Hi Tep, > > > Tep: These Merchants must be the very rare kind of trade people > > (whose main concern is not money, money, and money) because the > > qualification "perfected sila" couldn't be achieved by just listening to > > the Great Sage: they had to earnestly train themselves for some time. > > No trade people, no one there at all--just designations of aggregates, just > like you and me. > > > And on top of the perfected sila foundation, they must have to develop > > the seven enlightenment factors and see through the Four Noble > > Truths! > > Siila can't be perfected by non-entities (selves etc.)--only by the path. > Whenever 'I' think 'I' can develop the path, already perversion rules. > That's how it seems to me, anyway... > > mike > Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 41809 From: gazita2002 Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 0:19am Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 117 - Vitality/jivitindriya and Attention/manasikaara (a) Hi Sarah, thanx for your efforts on this study corner. I can understand the jivitindriya that sustains the life of 'our' rupa but find it hard to get my thoughts around citta needing something to sustain it. However, it is not a big issue for me, just am surprised that this is so, and the more I contemplate it the more feasible it is. Interesting! Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > 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.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)] > ***** > Jívitindriya (life-faculty or vitality) and manasikåra (attention) > are two other cetasikas among the seven universals which arise > with every citta. > > As regards jívitindriya,(1) this cetasika sustains > the life of the citta and cetasikas it accompanies. > > According to the Atthasåliní (part IV, Chapter I, 123, 124)(2) the > characteristic of jívitindriya is "ceaseless watching", its function is to > maintain the life of the accompanying dhammas, its manifestation the > establishment of them, and the proximate cause are the dhammas > which have to be sustained. > > The function of jívitindriya is to maintain the life of citta and its > accompanying cetasikas. It keeps them going until they fall away. > Since jívitindriya arises and falls away together with the citta, it > performs its function only for a very short while. Each moment of > citta consists actually of three extremely short periods: > > -the arising moment (uppåda kha.na) > -the moment of its presence, or static moment (ti.t.thi kha.na) > -the dissolution moment (bha'nga kha.na). > *** > 1) Jívita.m means "life", and indriya means "controlling faculty". > > 2) See also Dhammasangaùi §19. > ***** > [Ch.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)to be contd] > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== 41810 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 0:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation Hi, Howard OK, well let's agree that the suttas contain both (a) exhortations to a reclusive lifestyle devoted to the development of samatha and vipassana and (b) detailed explanations of aspects such as dhammas (as khandhas, ayatanas, elements, etc.), the 3 characteristics, the 4 Noble Truths, D.O., etc., and exhortations to consider and apply, then and there as well as at other times, what is so explained. I think what you are saying in your answer below, particularly your reference to the listeners at the time of the Buddha being 'well practiced', is that those listeners who benefited from a discourse along the lines at (b) were able to do so because they had already served their time practising as described at (a). I see it somewhat differently. I see the teaching at (a) as a teaching directed to those relatively few monks with already highly developed samatha and insight who were potentially capable of attaining enlightenment based on jhanas and perhaps of attaining other powers also. But the detailed explanation and exhortation to listen more, consider more, apply more, is I believe the general teaching given for both monks in general and for lay people. A reclusive lifestyle is not in itself a condition for the development of insight -- in fact it can only be a supporting condition for those who are truly up to the (much greater) demands of enlightenment 'with distinction' (not with a mere 'pass' grade). Some more comments interspersed below. upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon (and Kel) - > >In a message dated 2/4/05 7:11:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, >jsabbott@n... writes: > > > >>Generally speaking, did the Buddha advise his >>listeners in terms of special practice in a quiet place, or did he >>rather explain in great detail the way things are and urge his listeners >>to consider and apply what he was explaining? >> >> >----------------------------------- >Howard: > Yes, and yes. >----------------------------------- > > > >>How come so many people >>became enlightened while actually listening to a teaching about the >>khandhas or ayatanas, impermanence and not-self: content that may seem >>to us not particularly deep? Are we perhaps missing something? >> >> > >------------------------------------ >Howard: > Yes. what we are missing was 1) the listeners were well practiced, and >2) It was a BUDDHA they were in the presence of. > > Of course the listeners at the time of the Buddha were of more highly developed insight than we are (this is something I have often mentioned); and of course hearing the dhamma from the mouth of a Buddha is an extremely powerful experience. No argument there. Just to clarify, when I asked if we were missing something I did not of course mean, 'Why aren't we becoming enlightened like they did?', but 'Why don't we see the listening to and consideration of those things (at (b) above) as sufficient to lead to the development of insight?'. In other words, why do we think insight cannot be developed without truing to practice in the way given at (a)? There is no suggestion in the texts of intensive, secluded 'practice' as being recommended for those of less-developed insight -- or do you see this kind of message? Jon 41811 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 0:45am Subject: Self view, conceit, sense of self etc. Hi, TG TGrand458@a... wrote: >Hi Howard and Jon > >Question... Does the sense-of-self, self view, conceit of I, etc. arise or >not? If so or if not, how would you distinguish these from concepts? > > I've seen your subsequent exchanges with Howard. I think it may help if you could give some specific examples. 'Sense of self' could mean a number of things, and likewise conceit as used conventionally. Self view and conceit have very specific meanings in the teachings. But well worth pursuing. Jon 41812 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 1:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Revulsion ? Hi Phil. nibbidaa is one of the words, meaning: weariness, disenchantment with worldly life. Often in combination with viraaga: dispassionateness, destruction of passions, emancipation. Nina. op 05-02-2005 23:35 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: > What is the Pali used for "revulsion" and what are its > connotations? Thanks in advance. 41813 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 4:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation Hi, Kel Thanks for the detailed comments and observations. kelvin_lwin wrote: > Kel: I was just being a bit facetious which you noticed. A few >discussion appears to go something like, "that is what Buddha said >but don't you think this is what he actually meant?" I just don't >see how to draw a definite conclusion since he's no longer around to >ask for clarification. > > Fair enough. But how about the commentaries -- or do you see them as part of this problem? The fact is, there's a lot that's left unsaid in the suttas, and even among those who espouse taking the 'plain meaning' of the suttas as they stand there are different interpretations of the same passage ;-)). The commentaries make the picture a lot clearer. > Kel: Yes, you're right on that I do evaluate what is being taught >with my background. ... So it becomes apparent what meshes with your >personality and what doesn't. I would say the courage would be to >practice in a way that works for you regardless of what is >convential wisdom. Ultimately I think that's the only reference we >have to go by. Once we have pretty good understanding, only thing >is to continously practice. > > I think the often quoted passage from the Mahaparinibbana Sutta is to the effect that one should be an island to oneself, with the dhamma as one's refuge. I am not so sure about a 'what works for you' approach. Could there be a danger of self-delusion creeping in? Do we ever get beyond the need for reference to the teachings? >>J: Generally speaking, did the Buddha advise his >>listeners in terms of special practice in a quiet place >> >> > Kel: Howard answer yes to this. I would also say even >mahasatipatthana sutta starts with that advice. > > If you are referring to the passage on mindfulness of breathing, I think we need to consider who it is directed to or who it describes (depending on whether you see the passage as being exhortational or descriptive in nature). This is always an important consideration in 'reading' (I dare not say 'interpreting' ;-)) a sutta, as you observe below. > Kel: He also explained it from different angles for different >audience. But there's always underlying message of applying it >after understanding it. So I would think it depends on the >particular person and what deficiency Buddha was trying to fix. > > Yes, I agree with this. > Kel: ... I think anicca and >anatta concepts are very deep because if we truly understood it, we >would act accordingly to that wisdom. To me if I can't apply it >fully then I only understand the model but still lacking true >understanding. Again only cintamaya-panna and not fully mature >bhavanamaya-panna. > Yes, this is how I see it for myself, too. >Also I think it's curious why Sotapannas are >still immersed in sensual pleasures if they truly understand >anicca/anatta if you go by some people's definitions of what >understanding those concepts mean. > > Well yes, I think we have all wondered this at one time or another, and perhaps still do at times (now being discussed in another thread). To my mind, the difficulty we have reconciling this kind of apparent anomaly indicates that our view of the different dhammas involved (in this case, wrong view and attachment to sensual pleasure) is likely to be not fully in accord with the reality of these dhammas, and that would in turn indicate lack of developed insight. > Kel: I know if I can live the rest of my life in a retreat >setting then it'll have far more kusala moments. I believe the >apparent achievements are some degree of sati/panna but they are not >fully mature yet. If they were then that would make the person an >ariya. Repeated experience of those sati/panna is what will lead to >enlightenment. The faster (frequency) we have those experiences, >earlier we'll achieve the goal. > > Well the idea that genuine achievements of sati/panna gained in one situation can be lost by moving to live in another situation (despite maintaining one's interest in the teachings) does not sound right to me. It seems to suggest that situational factors are more 'powerful' than accumulated sati/panna. To my reading, one of the key messages of the Satipatthana Sutta is how there is no constraint as to the circumstances in which sati may be developed. > It's not said in the texts explicitly about life on a retreat >versus a real life. ... In some sense more viriya is required >for maintaining a lower level sati in everyday life. I definitely >think it benefits me here and now but will pay even more dividends >in a retreat since the mind is now more inclined to sati. > > In the meantime, however, none of us are in a retreat, so there is no point in thinking 'if only' or 'when I eventually ...'. I know that's not what you're not saying, but let's face it if we really think we'd be better off being somewhere else or doing something else then such thoughts are going to keep arising and distracting us from the task at hand, the development of insight in our present circumstances/situation. On the other hand, the less we see our present situation as a handicap, the better chance we have of actually applying what we have heard, reflected on and properly understood. Thanks again for the comments. Jon 41814 From: Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 0:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/6/05 1:21:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Howard > > Hi Howard > > Amazing. I see it exactly the same way but draw a very different > conclusion. > I see all the "bits" that go together to make a concept to be actual states. > > I don't think of a concept (or anything for that matter) as "separate > states." > > For example, there is no such thing as a "separate state" of consciousness. > > Therefore, its a non-reality according to that style of analysis. But since > I > don't accept that style of analysis, its a non-issue to me. > > This lack of separateness is even true of each of the Four Great Elements. > Each of these elements are dependent on the relative configuration of the > other > three. So how could any "one of them" be a single phenomena? Its not > possible IMO. > > I see where you're coming from, and I agree where you're coming from, I just > > don't agree where you're going to. ;-) > > TG ======================= Well, I think this has been wonderful progress in communication between us! Just one more thing for me to add on that perhaps will not only make my position a bit clearer, but may even make our respective positions seem closer: While I speak of *single* phenomena, I mean only that they are distinguishable (a principle with which, if you consider, say, the examples of hardness, and warmth, you will likely agree), and not, themselves, conglomerates, but not that they are separate or independent atomic entities. I do not believe in self-existent, independent existents at any level whatsoever. I see a kind of "unreality" at every level of investigation: not only at the concept level (which, in way, is the easiest level at which to see it), but also at the paramatthic level. I do suspect there is a reality - a truly single, yet dynamic reality, different in kind from everything we normally (think we) see, which is the nibbana element, the direct and true, non-dual "seeing" of which is magga leading to the liberation of phala. 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) 41815 From: Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 0:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG (and Jon) - In a message dated 2/6/05 1:30:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Howard > > A "imagined object" is a thought and the thought is the actual object. > Where > is this idea coming from that a "thought" is supposed to be something other > than the thought??? That's the object...the thought. And sure, the thought > is > a conglomeration of conditions...just as all conditions are. -------------------------------------------- Howard: No, there is no imagined object at all. That is just a manner of speaking. There is no imagined object - there is the imagining that there is an object. (Do you see the difference?) I agree that there are thoughts - elementary aspects of a thought process. What we take to be thoughts are, indeed, conglomerations of conditions, and those conditions, rarely consciously registered, are thoughts (such as mental pictures, fleeting recalled sounds and touchings etc). ----------------------------------------- > > A recalled sound is not the sound, but it is the thought about the sound. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree with that! The sound was rupa, and the recalled sound, a remembering, is nama. (One caveat: Often what we consider to be either the rupa of "a sound" or the nama of "a recalled sound" is not a single phenomenon at all, but a whole sequence of phenomena. We - or, better, I - do not have the training in mindfulness adequate to seeing at the "microscopic" level.) ----------------------------------------- > > The thought about the sound does not reproduce the sound, its not meant > to...it > remembers the sound through thinking. The thought, or thinking, is the > object > and it is as "real" as any other state that arises due to conditions. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: No problem, TG. Nama is as real (or unreal) as rupa. ---------------------------------------- > > Not to worry, I'm sure I'll get tired of this soon enough. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: That would be a shame, as we are just really connecting on this business. ----------------------------------------- > > TG > ==================== 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) 41816 From: Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 0:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/6/05 3:42:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: > Just to clarify, when I asked if we were missing something I did not of > course mean, 'Why aren't we becoming enlightened like they did?', but > 'Why don't we see the listening to and consideration of those things (at > (b) above) as sufficient to lead to the development of insight?'. In > other words, why do we think insight cannot be developed without truing > to practice in the way given at (a)? There is no suggestion in the > texts of intensive, secluded 'practice' as being recommended for those > of less-developed insight -- or do you see this kind of message? > ================== Yes, I do. :-) 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) 41817 From: Tep Sastri Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 6:38am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta, Present Moment and Goal / Kel & Ken H Hi Mike - Thank you for the reply. > Mike: > Siila can't be perfected by non-entities (selves etc.)--only by the path. > Whenever 'I' think 'I' can develop the path, already perversion rules. > That's how it seems to me, anyway... > This is a "Chicken and Egg" puzzle. Whether there is the thinking that 'I am developing the Path' or 'I must do this or that', there still are sila, samadhi and panna to be developed. The necessary work must be done (the Noble Eightfold Path). Otherwise, there will be no change and the samsara will never end. Now, if the necessary development is carried out correctly, the personality view ('mine, me, my self') should become weaker and not so dominating as it used to be. Then, and only then, the "perversion" will no longer be the big ruler. That's how I see it. Warm regards, Tep ========= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "mnease" wrote: > Hi Tep, > > > Tep: These Merchants must be the very rare kind of trade people > > (whose main concern is not money, money, and money) because the qualification "perfected sila" couldn't be achieved by just listening to the Great Sage: they had to earnestly train themselves for some time. > > No trade people, no one there at all--just designations of aggregates, just like you and me. > > And on top of the perfected sila foundation, they must have to develop the seven enlightenment factors and see through the Four Noble Truths! 41818 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 6:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Howard upasaka@a... wrote: >>Jon: >>Well I too am speaking of the presently experienced object, >>specifically, when that is a rupa appearing through one of the 5 >>sense-doors, and I am speaking of that object only (so let's have no >>more talk of 'something underlying the experienced object' or >>an 'alleged inexperienced object' ;-)). >> >>My question is, on what basis do you assert that the presently >>experienced sense-door object arises no earlier than the moment at >>which it is experienced by the sense-door consciousness? >> >> >--------------------------------- >Howard: > Jon, you just agreed that we are talking about what is experienced. > Not quite (although that might be what you'd like me to have agreed ;-)). I agreed that we are talking about the presently experienced object, specifically a rupa presently being experienced by a moment of 5 sense-door consciousness. There is a distinction, as I think you can now see. > Something experienced does not exist >when it is not experienced, because what is not experienced is NOT what is >experienced. > That is so according to your definition of 'what is experienced'. But that has not been the subject of our discussion to date which, to remind ourselves, was your statement that: "Paramattha dhammas are objects of a moment of consciousness, and they are created at that very moment of consciousness, having no 'existence' outside the moment of consciousness of which they are the object." Please consider the following: 1/ All dhammas, including a moment of 5 sense-door consciousness (citta) and its object (a rupa), arise and fall away. 2/ Between the arising and the falling away there is momentary subsistence. 3/ Since the arising of a rupa is conditioned by factors other than the citta of which it is the object (as you have stated), there is nothing that 'ties' the period of subsistence of the rupa to that of the citta. 4/ If a rupa subsists for longer than a citta, then the span of subsistence of the rupa as object will exceed the span of subsistence of the citta by which it is experienced, that is to say, it will either arise before or fall away after the experiencing citta (or both). Accordingly, I am still wondering on what basis you make the assertion that paramattha dhammas (includes rupas) are created at the moment of consciousness of which they are the object. Jon 41819 From: Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Jon - We are *not* discussing the same things. You accept the notion of rupas as phenomena that are what they are in and of themselves, and that cittas arise which somehow observe them. Whether there are such things I don't know, and don't believe we *can* know. (I tend to dismiss, pragmatically, what is in principle unverifiable.) On the other hand, what *I* have been talking about are private, internal experiences. The felt hardness that I experience is a physical experience, and it is *that* which I say arises with the knowing of it, and ceases when that knowing ceases. The hardness *you* (and Abhidhamma) speak of is an alleged external thing that is the basis for up to 16 or 17 (I've seen both numbers) hardness-experiencing cittas. You're talking about apples, Jon, and I'm talking about oranges. With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/6/05 9:48:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: > > Hi, Howard > > upasaka@a... wrote: > > >>Jon: > >>Well I too am speaking of the presently experienced object, > >>specifically, when that is a rupa appearing through one of the 5 > >>sense-doors, and I am speaking of that object only (so let's have no > >>more talk of 'something underlying the experienced object' or > >>an 'alleged inexperienced object' ;-)). > >> > >>My question is, on what basis do you assert that the presently > >>experienced sense-door object arises no earlier than the moment at > >>which it is experienced by the sense-door consciousness? > >> > >> > >--------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Jon, you just agreed that we are talking about what is experienced. > > > > Not quite (although that might be what you'd like me to have agreed > ;-)). I agreed that we are talking about the presently experienced > object, specifically a rupa presently being experienced by a moment of 5 > sense-door consciousness. There is a distinction, as I think you can > now see. > > >Something experienced does not exist > >when it is not experienced, because what is not experienced is NOT what is > >experienced. > > > > That is so according to your definition of 'what is experienced'. But > that has not been the subject of our discussion to date which, to remind > ourselves, was your statement that: > "Paramattha dhammas are objects of a moment of consciousness, and they > are created at that very moment of consciousness, having no 'existence' > outside the moment of consciousness of which they are the object." > > Please consider the following: > > 1/ All dhammas, including a moment of 5 sense-door consciousness > (citta) and its object (a rupa), arise and fall away. > > 2/ Between the arising and the falling away there is momentary subsistence. > > 3/ Since the arising of a rupa is conditioned by factors other than the > citta of which it is the object (as you have stated), there is nothing > that 'ties' the period of subsistence of the rupa to that of the citta. > > 4/ If a rupa subsists for longer than a citta, then the span of > subsistence of the rupa as object will exceed the span of subsistence of > the citta by which it is experienced, that is to say, it will either > arise before or fall away after the experiencing citta (or both). > > Accordingly, I am still wondering on what basis you make the assertion > that paramattha dhammas (includes rupas) are created at the moment of > consciousness of which they are the object. > > Jon > /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) 41820 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 7:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 117 - Vitality/jivitindriya and Attention/manasikaara (a) Dear Azita, It will not be long before we come to jivitindriya in the Vis. and tiika, and then a few more details will follow. Nina. op 06-02-2005 09:19 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...: > I can understand the jivitindriya that sustains the life > of 'our' rupa but find it hard to g 41821 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 7:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Predominant roots? the Guide, Netti. Hi Phil, Connie, Azita, Thanks for the input. I think that it is difficult to say, even though some predomenant traits appear in one life, but there are many liuves. We have all latent tendencies and when there are conditions they cause the arising of all sorts of akusala. People like to know because of choosing meditation subjects, or they wonder what application of mindfulness will help them. As to the last: this depends on sati. Understanding of nama and rupa has to be developed. One moment there may be awareness of rupa, at another moment of feeling, etc. We never can tell. An old commentarial work, the Netti or Guide (p. 247) mentions nineteen types of persons. I repeat what I formerly wrote and quoted. In the following the term steadied is used, a translation of ti.tha, placed. Second, I'd like to ask you all what you know about or think of this > teaching that different roots are more dominant in some people than > others. Does it appear often in the suttanta and commentaries? > I think it's very interesting. 41822 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 7:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anicca as characteristic Hello Phil and Joop, Sarah referred formerly to Dispeller of Delusion (p. 59) about the three characteristics. He taught the characteristic of anatta by means of both the impermanent and suffering. It is explained that impermanence and dukkha are more obvious. op 04-02-2005 00:59 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: > The khandas and the six > sense bases are all about anatta. Abhidhamma is all about anatta, > isn't it? What is the study of cetasikas, for example, except to > develop our understanding that there is no self. And anatta is so > subtle and difficult to penetrate that different approaches, > different classifications are all ways at helping. > > Isn't impermanence perhaps easier to > understand to begin with, thus it comes first in those suttas? 41823 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 7:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi Howard, op 04-02-2005 22:14 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: >> It is said of an *object* >> experienced by citta that it is pleasant (desirable) or unpleasant >> (undesirable), not neutral, even though it may seem so at times. > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > With regard to body sense, I understand that. But are not all visual > objects neutral in feel, with subsequent mind-door objects possibly having > non-neutral feel? > ----------------------------------- N: Also when just seeing now, we cannot> >> find out. but why should we? >> > --------------------------------- > Howard: > Here I am not following you. > ================= N: I am glad you ask. Seeing just sees, it does not know whether visible object is desirable or not, but it is either desirable or undesirable, because of conditions that are not in our power. We should remember that kusala kamma or akusala kamma conditions the seeing, thus moments of seeing cannot be the same. There are in the same eye-door process kusala cittas or akusala cittas with like or dislike, and these arise because of what has been accumulated. Later on in a mind-door process we think or define the object and may know whether it was pleasant or unpleasant. But many moments of seeing just pass and it is not known whether visible object was desirable or undesirable. Like sitting in front of the computer now. The same with hearing. We do not pay attention to words, but the sound of the voice of others may be produced by kusala citta or akusala citta, who knows? What I wanted to say is that it is not beneficial to think much about the object being desirable or undesirable. Dhammas arise and pass away too fast. If sati arises it can be aware of visible object as a kind of rupa. That is more beneficial than thinking of an object as pleasant or unpleasant. Howard wrote: N: Yes, but for communication we can use the word citta and try to keep it very, very low key, keep everything, objects included, low key. But easier said than done. It helps to remember that many conditions are concurring for the arising of this impersonal element that is citta, and then later on pañña, when it is more developed, can realize it as only a conditioned nama. The word *only* is important here. Nina. 41824 From: Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 3:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/6/05 10:45:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: > N: I am glad you ask. Seeing just sees, it does not know whether visible > object is desirable or not, but it is either desirable or undesirable, > because of conditions that are not in our power. We should remember that > kusala kamma or akusala kamma conditions the seeing, thus moments of seeing > cannot be the same. There are in the same eye-door process kusala cittas or > akusala cittas with like or dislike, and these arise because of what has > been accumulated. Later on in a mind-door process we think or define the > object and may know whether it was pleasant or unpleasant. But many moments > of seeing just pass and it is not known whether visible object was desirable > or undesirable. Like sitting in front of the computer now. The same with > hearing. We do not pay attention to words, but the sound of the voice of > others may be produced by kusala citta or akusala citta, who knows? > What I wanted to say is that it is not beneficial to think much about the > object being desirable or undesirable. Dhammas arise and pass away too fast. > If sati arises it can be aware of visible object as a kind of rupa. That is > more beneficial than thinking of an object as pleasant or unpleasant. > > ========================= I understand you to be saying that an object of 5-sensory consciousness may be desirable or undesirable in the sense that when it becomes object of mind-door consciousness it will be felt as pleasant or unpleasant, respectively. However, it was still my understanding that sights in particular, as opposed to body-door sensations, are always neither desirable nor undesirable. In this regard, I quote from your Vedana section of Cetasikas: "The feeling which accompanies kaya-vinnana is either pleasant feeling or painful feeling, it cannot be indifferent feeling. In the case of the other panca-vinnanas (the five pairs of sense-cognitions, seeing, hearing, etc). One of each pair is kusala vipaka and one akusala vipaka. which are seeing, hearing smelling and tasting, the accompanying feeling is always indifferent feeling, no matter whether the vipakacitta which experiences the object is kusaIa vipakacitta or akusala vipakacitta." 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) 41825 From: Larry Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 8:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Howard quoted by Jon: "Paramattha dhammas are objects of a moment of consciousness, and they are created at that very moment of consciousness, having no 'existence' outside the moment of consciousness of which they are the object." Hi Howard, Consider this scenario: I pinch my finger and dislike arises. When dislike arises the object of the consciousness that accompanies dislike is pinch, not dislike. Paramattha dhammas are not necessarily objects of consciousness. Larry 41826 From: Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 4:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/6/05 11:53:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Consider this scenario: I pinch my finger and dislike arises. When > dislike arises the object of the consciousness that accompanies > dislike is pinch, not dislike. > ---------------------------------- Howard: Well, I actually do not agree with that. I believe that what is experienced is dislike at that moment, but such moments are interspersed with recollections of what led to that dislike and moments of thinking that associate the two. ------------------------------------ Paramattha dhammas are not necessarily > > objects of consciousness. ----------------------------------- Howard: Yes, that is said by some. ----------------------------------- > > 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) 41827 From: Larry Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 11:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry - > > In a message dated 2/6/05 11:53:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... > writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > Consider this scenario: I pinch my finger and dislike arises. When > > dislike arises the object of the consciousness that accompanies > > dislike is pinch, not dislike. > > > ---------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, I actually do not agree with that. I believe that what is > experienced is dislike at that moment, but such moments are interspersed with > recollections of what led to that dislike and moments of thinking that associate the > two. > ------------------------------------ > Paramattha dhammas are not necessarily > > > objects of consciousness. > ----------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, that is said by some. > ----------------------------------- > > > > > Larry > > > ===================== > With metta, > Howard > Hi Howard, I agree, but what is experienced isn't an object of consciousness, at least in this case. Larry 41828 From: Tep Sastri Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 11:08am Subject: Re: for James - SammaSankappa and Panna Hi Mike and RobertK - Your reply in message #41790 was highly economical in words. But the whole message (most of which was RobertK's) took me a while longer to read. Your main comments are : 1. The imperturbable states (that are conditioned by jhaana) are also considered (by the Dispeller) in addition to the akusala and kusala dhammas. That is, in RobK's words, "the mudane jhanas - > although classified as samma samadhi are also classified as leading > to accumulation (of rebirth)". 2. RobertK's conjecture that "those monks who had mastery of jhana" could "immeditely after exiting jhana, ...use jhana as a base for development of the eightfold path leading out of samsara" is agreed upon by Mike. But I am not sure about this conjecture. Can RobertK cite a few (out of the "several") suttas he has read to confirm it ? BTW, are the eightfold factors necessary and sufficient for Arahatship? 3. RobertK wrote : > According to the texts these > most developed disciples can no longer exist. Mike did not comment on it. But I don't have any idea what Rob meant. 4. Mike wrote : Sammaasankappa (absent of course from all but the first jhaana) together WITH pa~n~naa constitute the wisdom section of the path-- pa~n~naa cannot discern the tilakkhaa.na alone. Mike, do you mean that samma-sankappa is the same as vitakka (that's why the comment "absent of course from all but the first jhaana")? Why is it so? Why panna alone "cannot discern the 3 characteristics, Mike? Isn't "panna" here the same as right understanding (samma-ditthi, according to Nina)? I can't help get confused by inconsistent uses of the teminologies (although Nina warned me before!). Thank you both RobertK and Mike for your posts. Kindest regards, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "mnease" wrote: > Hi Robert and Tep, > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "rjkjp1" > To: > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 9:29 PM > Subject: [dsg] Re: for James > > > I am not sure if the comments by Venerable Bodhi should be > > considered so highly in this case. (snipped) > > I agree with this exception. Sammaasankappa (absent of course from all but > the first jhaana) together WITH pa~n~naa constitute the wisdom section of > the path--pa~n~naa cannot discern the tilakkhaa.na alone. > > mike > > 41829 From: Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 6:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Self view, conceit, sense of self etc. In a message dated 2/6/2005 12:52:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: I've seen your subsequent exchanges with Howard. I think it may help if you could give some specific examples. 'Sense of self' could mean a number of things, and likewise conceit as used conventionally. Self view and conceit have very specific meanings in the teachings. But well worth pursuing. Jon Hi Jon When I refer to the "sense-of-self," I merely mean the way each of us feels ourselves to be a "me." This might be closest to being compared with conceit. Conceit in English generally has a negative connotation of being overly selfish, arrogant, or "self satisfied." I think of sense-of-self as more palinly stated IMO. Its nothing elaborate. Its just the plain feeling or sense of "I am." This might also be considered an "intuitive sense" albeit delusional. TG 41830 From: nina Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 0:30pm Subject: Pilgrimage India, Ch 5, a. Pilgrimage India, 5a. Chapter 5. Association with Wise Friends We read in the ³Gradual Sayings² , Book of the Fours, Ch XXV, § 6, Growth in wisdom, that the Buddha said: Monks, these four states conduce to growth in wisdom. What four? Association with a good man, hearing the true Dhamma, right attention and practice in accordance with the Dhamma. Association with a good friend in Dhamma is one of the conditions for enlightenment. A good friend in Dhamma is a person who understands Dhamma correctly and can explain it. It is very fortunate that Acharn Sujin is our good friend in Dhamma who reminds us all the time of the meaning of anattå. We continue to take all dhammas for ³self² if right understanding of them is not developed. When kusala citta arises we are likely to take this for ³my kusala² or we may think of ourselves as being a good person, and that is conceit. When akusala citta arises we may have aversion about it or be ashamed about it, and we fail to see it as merely an impersonal element that arises because of its own conditions. There can be mindfulness and understanding of whatever dhamma appears without any selection of the object of awareness. One of my friends, Khun Purani, told me that her father, after the passing away of her mother, was inconsolable and desperate. Khun Purani told me how much Khun Sujin and other friends had supported him during the days preceding the cremation of her mother. Acharn Sujin spoke about the Dhamma right in front of the coffin. Formerly Khun Purani¹s father did not have much interest in the Buddha¹s teachings, but the support of the good friends in Dhamma helped him to have more confidence in the teachings. Khun Purani could persuade him to join our pilgrimage and day by day we could see how he changed. It was like a miracle. The Dhamma can change a person¹s life. **** Nina. 41831 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 0:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the Five Indriyas, what is sati, no 1. Dear Tep, Thank you for your kind words. op 04-02-2005 02:00 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m...: (snipped).. But the > second test as given above is more difficult : sati has to > arise "unexpectantly" through "listening and considering". In other > words, "sati is not thinking about sati; sati is direct awareness". N: Yes, I understand what you mean. It is hard to really understand the anattaness of sati, for all of us. Trying with lobha to have sati can creep in without us knowing it. T: Let's get back to the walking example again. Many times when we > walk we may not be mindful of the walking -- i.e. a sati with the walking > (leg movements) as its object does not arise. N: When we think of legs or walking, we think of a whole of different impressions. Very natural, but it is useful to realize that this is different from just being aware for a moment of a characteristic such as hardness or pressure, or seeing that also occurs while walking. Objects arise all the time, but sati does not often arise. T:Now, suppose that > suddenly while walking with no sati, we realize that we should be > mindful of the walking. N: Walking is not a characteristic of reality. That is why I have a question mark as to walking meditation. It depends on what a person means by this. The satipatthana sutta and Co (Soma Thera) clarify this. Indeed the Vis. gives more details and I am glad you mention this. I shall go into this afterwards. T: That realization is a sati (recollection), but it is > not the kind of sati we would want in walking meditation. N: Sati arises with kusala citta and there are many kinds and levels. It depends on conditions what level of sati arises, but anyway, sati arises with all types of kusala citta. T: To condition the right kind of sati to arise, I would take my awareness > from any outside preoccupations (wandering thoughts) and 'place' a > focused attention on the walking. N: I see a danger here. When one thinks in terms of should not or should (no wandering thoughts, but should be mindful of this or that) is here not a danger of the idea of self directing? I admit that this can arise at any time, also when not walking, but studying texts, etc. . You said that you have thick layers of wrong view, but surely, all who are not ariyans have wrong view. There is the latent tendency of wrong view accumulated. I heard on my MP3 some good reminders, but they may not appeal to everybody. Your comments are always welcome. In fact, they would interest me. I heard you say, in another post, everything is dhamma and I thought of Kh Sujin. She says this often to remind us. T: Sometimes, by "comprehending" the rupa (materiality) during walking as stated in the Visuddhimagga is useful for continuously sustaining sati and sampajanna on the leg movements. N: I think again of the danger as explained above. T: But it seems to me that there is a large degree of thinking involved in the Ven. Buddhaghosa's method. N: This seems so at first sight, but let us look at the context. Is it a method, or does he have another intention? It may be different from what we think. I shall continue later on, because I want to look at the whole Ch XX and I need more time for that. I also have some urgent work on the Visuddhimagga, etc. Besides, family matters, my father is ill. Nina. 41832 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 0:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi Howard, op 06-02-2005 17:13 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > I understand you to be saying that an object of 5-sensory > consciousness may be desirable or undesirable in the sense that when it > becomes object of > mind-door consciousness it will be felt as pleasant or unpleasant, > respectively. N: No, we have to distinguish: the object that is desirable or undesirable, and citta which experiences it with different feelings about it. A pleasant sense object may be experienced with akusala javana cittas accompanied by unpleasant feeling. Possible. H: However, it was still my understanding that sights in > particular, as > opposed to body-door sensations, are always neither desirable nor undesirable. N: No. H: In > this regard, I quote from your Vedana section of Cetasikas: "The feeling which > accompanies kaya-vinnana is either pleasant feeling or painful feeling, it > cannot be indifferent feeling. In the case of the other panca-vinnanas (the > five > pairs of sense-cognitions, seeing, hearing, etc). One of each pair is kusala > vipaka and one akusala vipaka. which are seeing, hearing smelling and tasting, > the accompanying feeling is always indifferent feeling, no matter whether the > vipakacitta which experiences the object is kusaIa vipakacitta or akusala > vipakacitta." N: Yes, this is so. Remember the similes of the hammer and the layers of cotton. Some reviewing of Vis. and tiika: The Vis. (XIV, 41) states about the bodysense: The great Elements are the support of the bodysense. The Expositor (II, p. 349) explains that in the case of the eye-door, ear-door, nose-door and tongue-door, derived ruupa strikes on derived ruupa. Whenever we touch things or walk, elements are impinging on elements, and the body-consciousness that is vipaakacitta is accompanied by pleasant bodily feeling or unpleasant bodily feeling. When we touch something we may believe that the bodily feeling is indifferent, but this is not so. Bodily feeling is merely result and it is very ephemeral, only lasting for one moment. Bodily pleasant feeling has nothing to do with happy feeling accompanying citta rooted in attachment, which is akusala and arises because of different conditions. It may arise very shortly after the body-consciousness and then one may confuse the two kinds of feeling, one being vipaaka and one being akusala. When the javana-cittas in a process are akusala, there are seven of the same type succeeding one another, accompanied by the same type of feeling. Nina. 41833 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 1:05pm Subject: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation Hi Jon, > Fair enough. But how about the commentaries -- or do you see them as > part of this problem? The fact is, there's a lot that's left unsaid in > the suttas, and even among those who espouse taking the 'plain meaning' > of the suttas as they stand there are different interpretations of the > same passage ;-)). The commentaries make the picture a lot clearer. kel: I think commentaries are essential for our understanding and briding the divide from that era to modern world. I don't even know if I can separate my knowledge into original and commentary since it's so intertwined. It's also clear to me the same process is what will lead to end of sasana however. Intepretation upon one another result in practices that have totally lost the original intent. > I think the often quoted passage from the Mahaparinibbana Sutta is to > the effect that one should be an island to oneself, with the dhamma as > one's refuge. I am not so sure about a 'what works for you' approach. > Could there be a danger of self-delusion creeping in? Do we ever get > beyond the need for reference to the teachings? Kel: There is definitely a grave danger! The path is full of potholes and hopefully we don't walk off a cliff. One has to be constantly re-examine oneself. Part of learning to be an objective observer is we can be true to ourselves without distortions of how we want to be. Then there's acceptance of who we are and what we are. Further it becomes clear what we need to do. Atta ditthi > >kel: Also I think it's curious why Sotapannas are > >still immersed in sensual pleasures if they truly understand >J: anomaly indicates that our view of the different dhammas involved (in > this case, wrong view and attachment to sensual pleasure) is likely to > be not fully in accord with the reality of these dhammas, and that would > in turn indicate lack of developed insight. kel: I think it's pretty clear why this is so for Sotapannas. It has to do with understanding of dukkha. I guess it's topic for another thread :) > J: Well the idea that genuine achievements of sati/panna gained in one > situation can be lost by moving to live in another situation (despite > maintaining one's interest in the teachings) does not sound right to > me. It seems to suggest that situational factors are more 'powerful' > than accumulated sati/panna. To my reading, one of the key messages of > the Satipatthana Sutta is how there is no constraint as to the > circumstances in which sati may be developed. Kel: I think you mean genuine to be lasting and I define it for only an ariya. Maybe a simile with the backyard and weeds will show my position better. There's a certain amount of work I can do. So I can pull weeds at some rate. Rain, fertilization and number of seeds make weeds sprout out faster than I can pull them. So while I can keep clear a certain percentage of my backyard, it still has many weeds. Then let's say it's summer with no rain and I pour pesticides over it. Then not only can I pull the weeds out but I can dig further into the soil to get the seeds for the same amount of work. Once I get rid of the seeds, even if it rains again there's less for me to pull out. So eventually I can hope to win by uprooting all the seeds from the backyard. Just to be obvious, in everyday life I'm just barely keeping up with pulling the weeds. In a retreat, I get respite from the rain and maybe even help with pesticide. Then when I emerge again, even if my capabilities are the same, my mind is cleaner. But unless all the seeds are gone, they will multiply once more and eventually win over even with my constant work. Now if the amount of work is already more than the rate weeds grow then I don't need any help. - kel 41834 From: connie Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 3:26pm Subject: Re: Predominant roots? Hi, Azita, [...] Azita: you make me smile, Connie. I like your candidness - if that's really a word!! At least, this is where we are at the present point in samsara, so lets not waste it this time, who knows when we next get the opportunity. Even knowing this, I sometimes choose to do something else rather than picking up a dhamma book and reading. Or do I really choose? given there is no choice, maybe its accumulations/tendencies, even temperament that goes to the movies instead of dhamma reading? Connie, smiling back: Yes, outside of the old and new accumulations in the cittas, and the bodily rupas to get them there, (which is the blind and which the cripple?) what else could ever go to the movies or anything else "I" take credit for? Blast those temperamental little over-indulgent 'selves' running around ignoring the "Clear and Present Danger" (a movie title, I think) & sucking up all the intoxicants they can through the nose, eyes, ears, etc.! Typical junkie behaviour. Buddha told us what a vicious circle it is, but 'who cares?' as long as we're 'high on life' - even when it's a 'bad trip' and we pretend there's no perverse satisfaction in rolling around in our misery. The accumulations or yes, temperament is always right there. Even down to wow! you got sati? Hook me up. Or young Connie thinking 'this Buddhist stuff and all these foreign words are completely beyond me and if I have to follow that 5th precept, I'll never have any friends or fun. Maybe when I'm older.' Good grief, I even had some little fantasy about guys in Tibetan robes showing up to teach me and here they have and I can't stand it but prefer to hang out on the edges of this dsgroup (where 'people', as I imagine these visible objects to be, still talk over my head). I snarf up all the little goodies I can and laugh when it seems I've been here before. There's something on the mp3's about not getting in over our heads like that... just more concepts and not real understanding, but we've got to start somewhere and here I am, sometimes grateful and sometimes hateful. Some other friends use a phrase about 'reading the sutra with our lives'. To me, that says the dhammas are always right there to be known, but how are my reading skills? Not that I can't get anything out of just the pictures, but yes, it helps to know (but always with that little distrust in 'myself'), even in theory, just what sati can be aware of or even that sati doesn't arise with akusala. At least, "its only ever after the fact that I think 'o that was such and such'" we can know that much and that accumulates, too, and like Nina said, there are many lives. The cittas don't misplace or lose anything. Who knows what's next? Ha... most of the time we're lucky to know what just was! Or think we do anyway. It's not just the Pali, but even the English for realities, what are my preconceived ideas to do with anything Buddha explained so carefully? Who'dda thunk they didn't even know the difference between seeing and seen? Anyway, just rambling, connie 41835 From: Philip Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 4:45pm Subject: Request for Htoo (Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 117 jivitindriya Hello Htoo, and all Htoo, yesterday as I was reading through the binder in which I've printed out "Cetasikas" I came across your Dhamma Thread on jivitindriya. I thought it was very interesting and would be a good thing for us to look at along with Nina's but now I can't find the thread. Would you mind reposting it? Thanks in advance. Metta, Phil p.s Sorry for not retyping it myself but there are many threads to catch up on! 41836 From: Philip Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 5:08pm Subject: quiz Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 116 - Concentration/ekaggataa (l) Hi Nina and all Let's see if I can remember what I read yesterday. > i Are ekaggat?Eand samådhi the same cetasika? Yes. Different terms for the same thing. > ii Can there be samådhi with akusala citta? Yes, even when we feel "distracted" there is momentary concentration on the object. It is wrong concentration, but there is concentration with every citta. I'd add that since we are almost always distracted, concentration is almost always wrong concentration. > iii What is the difference between samm?Esamådhi in samatha > and samm?Esamådhi in vipassan?E Samma samadhi in samatha is for tranquility. If I recall correctly, there is the suppresion of defilements. Samma samadhi in vipassana would involve right concentration on whichever reality was arising? Panna knows nama from rupa, for example. There was a very interesting sutta from "Graded Sayings" in which four different ways of developing samadhi are given, only the first of which is through jhanas. Can I remember the other three? The second is something to do with the perception of light, i guess having light as meditation subject. The third sounded like my beginner's understanding of what vipassana is, being aware of realities arising. The fourth...I can't remember. This sutta was very encouraging for me because seeking jhanas is not an option for me at this time and I don't see it becoming an option unless there are dramatic changes in my living conditions. But the Buddha taught other ways to develop samadhi, other ways to develop the path factor of right concentration. > iv If we try to concentrate on sound is that the way to know > sound as it is? No, then there would be clinging to results. It would all be thinking about concentrating. Surely that must go on a lot for beginners like myself, and maybe not just for beginners. Nina, thanks in advance for any (brief!) feedback. I am behind in responding to several of your previous feedbacks but will be printing them out and rereading them when I am offline for awhile after our upcoming move. And I join Azita in thanking Sarah for posting this study corner. Metta, Phil 41837 From: Tep Sastri Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 5:42pm Subject: The Arising of Right View Hi all - Right view(alternatively, Right understanding) is samma-ditthi; it is one of the most discussed topics here at DSG. The following is a post at SariputtaDhamma, a Yahoo! discussion group, on the arising of Right view. I think it might benefit us as well. From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:45 pm Subject: Arising of Right View Dear Dhamma Friends, Earlier today I re-read MN 43, Mahavedalla Sutta by Arahant Sariputta Thera and was delighted again like the other times I had read it in the past. So I thought , "Maybe I should share this with my friends at the SariputtaDhamma". Here it is: "Friend, how many ways are there for the arising of right view? "Friend, there are two ways for the arising of right view. Either hearing it from an outside source or internally reflecting the root causes. In these two ways right view arises. "Friend, in how many ways does there come about, the release of mind with right view and the results of the release of mind, the release through wisdom with right view and the results of the release through wisdom? "Friend, the release of mind with right view and its results and the release through wisdom with right view and its results, come about in five ways. Friend, that right view comes with virtues, learning, discussion, appeasement and wisdom. In these five ways there comes about, the release of mind through right view and its results, and the release of mind through wisdom and its results. [endquote] So you see that two of the five ways are "learning" and "discussion" -- exactly, the activities we have been doing together here. Warmest regards, Tep =========== 41838 From: Philip Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 5:50pm Subject: Re: Predominant roots? Hi Connie, Azita, Joop and all > I wonder what good it does to tell myself I'm predominantly greedy or > hateful or any of the 6 (more or less, depending on who you read) basic > natures. I was thinking about this question yesterday. First of all, I found that the teaching I had gotten this idea from is called "The Exposition of Prevalence (Ussada-Kittana) from the Atthasalini. For example, "In some beings, greed is prevalent, in others hatred or delusion; and again in others, non-greed, non-hatred or non-delusion is prevalent. What is it that governs this prevalence? It is the root-cause in the previous life that governs the prevalence of roots in the present life...in one person, at the moment of (rebirth-producing) kamma-accumulation, greed is strong and non-greed is weak, non-hatred and non-delusion are strong and hatred and delusion are weak; then his weak non-greed is unable to prevail over his greed, but non-hatred and non-delusion being storng, can prevail over his hatred and delusion. Hence when a being is born through rebirth-linking caused by that kamma, he will be greedy, good- natured, not irascible, intelligent and having knowledge that can be linked to a lightning flash." Many other permutations of this sort of thing are given. > Basically, we're all here because of lobha mula citta. How do I > know from minute to minute what "I am" and why would I want to 'set it in > stone' or define/limit myself/possibilities? Not set in stong, but perhaps written in very thick sludge? I was thinking about people I know and whether there basic character has changed in a marked way since I've known them, without some dramatic force like alcholism, drug addiction or trauma intervening. I couldn't really think of anyone. I think of myself. Definitely greedy, definitely with addictive tendencies. If I make progress on one addicition, another one appears. That could be because it is not the object of addicition that is the point, but my root greediness. On the other hand, there seems to be a natural tendency towards friendliness/non-hate. I get weepy-eyed from affection for people in general sometimes. I sit on the train and get weepy-eyed thinking of all the people going to work, pushed and pulled by craving and fear. Combined with a greedy character, this kind of non-hating tendency makes me weepy and ineffectual. As for delusion and non-delusion, I can't say. What is the value of thinking of this sort of thing? If one takes it too seriously or forgets that it's based on subjective thinking without wisdom, it would be dangerous. If one seeks to practice in a certain way based on it, it would be dangerous. But if one reflects on it now and then without taking it too seriously and takes it as another reminder that everything is due to conditions, takes it as another confirmation of the truth of the Buddha's teaching, why not? It's kinda intereresting. >Or have some teacher tell me > since it seems I've mostly seen it in connection with which meditation > subjects are most appropriate for any given personality and there's > usually some advice there about how only a qualified teacher would be able > to tell you. Yes, since I'm just farting around on my own, I won't take it too seriously. >I don't think it matters to sati. Right. I can just imagine what Kh Sujin would say if I brought this topic up in a question! But you were asking about > references, I think. > > Vsm III 121: 10. As to suitability to temperament: here the exposition > should be understood according to what is suitable to the temperaments. > That is to say: firstly the 10 kinds of foulness and mindfulness occupied > with the body are 11 meditation subjects suitable for one of greedy > temperament. Well, this is interesting. I won't rush off right away and start meditating on foulness to deal with my greedy temperament, but this exchange of ours might condition a little bit more reflection on foulness. In "Removal of Distracting Thoughts" we learn that we reflect on foulness re living beings that we are attracted to and impermanence re things. SInce learning that, I do find it arising now and then, especially re the former. >The 4 divine abidings and 4 colour kasinas are 8 suitable > for one of hating temperament. Of course the temperaments are not so consistently exclusive. There are times when we are greedy, and times when we are hating. But there *is* a predominant tendency written in sludge, I would say, though not in stone. (snip - thanks for the long references - I will print them out.) > The Ven. Nanamoli's Vsm glossary gives "cariya, carita - temperament, > behaviour, exercise". I kind of like that 'exercise' bit... which ever > root or quality is most active at any given moment as opposed to 'the > inherent, fundamental flaw in my personality' or something. Yes. But again I think we might find that there is a tendency for certain roots to be more active at more moments than other roots. However, in > one of the preceding chapters, there is some discussion of the kind of > dwelling most suitable to each 'type' and that does make it sound like a > more or less in-born, die-hard trait. Also some examples of different > behaviours that indicate which type you are from how you hold a broom to > how you fall out at night. Right, I remember reading this. Flopping down in bed vs lying down with care or something like that. It was interesting. I'm a greedy flopper. In conclusion, an interesting teaching, and worth reflecting on now and then, but not with too much intensity. And as you said, it doesn't really matter when it comes to sati. Realities are the same - if and when I'm aware of them - whether I'm fundamentally a greedy slob in this conventional lifetime or not. Metta, Phil 41839 From: Philip Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 6:05pm Subject: Re: Predominant roots? Hi Azita and all Connie: > > natures. Basically, we're all here because of lobha mula citta. > How do I > > know from minute to minute what "I am" and why would I want to 'set > it in > > stone' or define/limit myself/possibilities? > > Azita: I kind of agree with you here, but don't you ever see traits > in yourself that you maybe have seen all your life? I know I have > and its what I would call a 'predominant root'. > i personally don't see it as 'setting it in stone' but there is > certainly traits that makes up 'me'. > To see them for what they really are - not me, not mine - is, I > think, part of Buddha's teaching on anatta. For example, this anger > I take to be mine, this generosity I take to be me or mine. So we're playing with fire if we pay too much attention to these traits that we can see in ourselves, because it could lead us to cultivate a strong self-image. If we were constantly experiencing radically different personality traits (as we do at times, of course, but not constantly) it would be so much easier to understand anatta, wouldn't it? Constistent tendencies help us to mentally write stories about ourselves, and clinging to these stories, these self-images is the cause of so much suffering. If I see myself as a basically non- hating person and then have one of my intensely hostile outburts, I could have a lot of suffering because of this discrepancy. I seem to have gotten by that. As I posted the other day, if we happen to shout at a loved one, or a stranger, it's not the end of the world. Just a confirmation of the Buddha's teaching and an opportunity to feel grateful to Him. I still find myself thinking about what Sarah posted the other day, about the fellow she lives with ! :) I felt really confident and calm about being able to see that if I say I'm a greedy, somewhat immoral person and Jon is more firmly rooted in Sati, it is in the end *not* about Phil and Jon. It is about nama and rupa, about kusala and akusala, coming and going in a fluid yet conditioned way through countless lifetimes. There are tendencies in this one lifetime, but in absolute terms they don't really matter. But the conventional thinking can also be helpful for now, because our insight, our panna is still so weak. The tricky thing is to be able to benefit from thinking in conventional terms without getting too caught up in it. More middle way. Metta, Phil 41840 From: Philip Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 6:16pm Subject: Re: Revulsion ? Hi TG, Htoo and Nina Thanks for your feedback on "revulsion." TG > Just a few comments. I believe insight needs to take the mind through a > phase that sees all conditions as tied up with suffering and death with great > clarity. Conditions with this perspective can only be seen as revolting. I was thinking afterwards about "samvega." That sense of urgency that comes when we see how foolishly we have been living. I wonder how samvega relates to the "experiences revulsion" (nibbindati) that appears so often in suttas? >This > type of revulsion is not the emotional type of revultion we normally think > of...it is it is an 'insight attribute' and an unattached spiritual state of mind. Yes, there are so many potentially misleading connotations when we read suttas in English. Thus the importance of trying to understand the Pali. Every little bit helps, in my opinion. I happened across this in Bhikhu Bodhi's commentarial notes to Rahulasamyutta: "Spk does not comment on nibbindati but the commentaries consistently identify the corresponding noun nibbida with strong insight knowledge" (Sorry if this is repeating what Nina wrote - I am going to re-check it now.) Metta, Phil 41841 From: Hugo Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 6:36pm Subject: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? I am not an expert just an Upasaka trying to follow The Buddha's teachings. I have seen a lot of E-mail threads, and I have presented the same questions to myself about "deliberate practice", questions like: Should I do "formal meditation"? Should I just "observe with wisdom"? Is there "free will"? Do I need to read the Suttas or the Abhidhamma? Should I follow the instructions given in the Suttas step-by-step and literally? I don't have any answers for them, all I have is some observations and even more questions, hopefully this will be enough to help find your and my own answers. Obs#1: We know the final goal. That is "don't cling to anything". And it really means anything, including the Path. If you still cling to something (no matter what it is) you haven't "get to" Nibbana. Obs#2: We already cling to a lot of "things" (I mean "things" in the more general sense, not only material things). Obs#3: We can't just say, "stop clinging" and be done with the task. This proves that we can't "get to" Nibbana just by the power of our will. Should we just sit and wait until Nibbana "gets to us"? mmmm...I don't think that is possible, even if some people say that all we need to do is "observe with wisdom", there is something we are doing! And if we are doing it, then it means we wanted to do it, just the fact of sitting there was an act of will. So, this proves that the will plays certain role in attaining Nibbana. If you have had children or play some kind of role in the education of little kids will be easier to understand the following. Should we tell a 3-year old to sit and "observe with wisdom" whenever he is throwing toys around, hitting his/her friends, throwing a tantrum because he attached to certain toy at the store and you didn't buy it? Let's take one of the above examples, hitting others. What should you do? Tell him to "not hit them" and explain him why, and then what? a) Tell him, when you are angry, just observe your anger with wisdom, it will pass away, if you hit your friend again, just keep observing until you stop hitting him or he lays unconscious on the ground, or there is too much blood on your shirt. b) Tell him, when you are angry, go and ask for help, or cross your arms embracing yourself, or smile, or sing, or kiss your friend (this works when the victim is younger and less violent than the aggressor, in other cases, think before recommending it) or better yet "don't do anything" (which in truth "doing anything" is really doing something, but you get the point). If we raise children just by telling them to "observe" and not "do" something, will the defilements diminish or grow? Will he continue hitting or will the hitting be stopped? If this works with the kids, does this work with adults? Adults behave like kids, adults attach to a different set of toys and entertainment, but they really behave the same. The problem with adults is that they think "I know better", so they think that what they do is fine. The mind works the same (for the average human being), no matter your age, if you think differently, just watch more carefully. So, if you have a chance, sit and observe with wisdom (or without it) a bunch of little kids (2-5 years old) and you will see how the human mind works, then go and compare to yourself, you will see what I am talking about. Now onto the questions: Why in many Suttas The Buddha uses verbs that encourage an action? Why in the Vinaya (monastic rules) the rules are mainly directed towards actions that should be or not performed? Why the Vinaya ask for celibacy for the Monks, why it doesn't say, "Ok, it is fine monks, go and have sex, but don't enjoy it too much, observe it with wisdom, OK?". Why in the Vinaya there are rules so specific as those that describe the way they should eat, how to receive and ask for things? Why a monk is expelled from the Sangha if he kills another human?, why the Vinaya doesn't say, "Ok, if you killed, it is just conditions you know, it was not really you, you know, that anatta thing, OK?, if you feel like killing again, just observe with wisdom, preferably BEFORE the killing, hopefully that will make the killing desire to pass away, if not, oh well, there is re-birth and with the law of kamma, that means that the human you killed, deserved it, so no hard feelings, now go on and keep observing with wisdom." In summary why the Vinaya is mainly a set of rules encouraging certain behaviour? Last observation: I am almost 100% sure that all the members of this mailing list cling to the concept of "self", so, use it as a tool!!! Use everything you encounter (things, situations, feelings, personal relationships, the weather, the news, etc.) as a tool to attain Nibbana, just don't forget that you have to drop everything, and because you can't drop everything just by snapping your fingers, you have to "observe with wisdom" (there you go, you have ALSO to "observe with wisdom") what and when to drop each tool you use. mmm...ok, the above sounds like I am giving advice and I know what I am talking about, but I really don't (except for the part about the little kids, I am painfully experienced in that area), and while my mind is much much more peaceful, and my defilements have been tamed to more subtle levels (with an ocassional spike here and there), I am still not qualified to give advice, specially because I still cling to that self who is training (because so far, the illusion is that it is working), so think of all this message as me "thinking out loud". Ajahn Chah (and I think he really knows what he is talking about) said: "What is Dhamma?, there is nothing that it is not". mmm.. not enough Pali in my message?... Ok.. Sabbe-satta avera hontu (May all beings be free from hatred) Sabbe-satta sukhita hontu (May all being be happy) (I hope I got the spelling right). -- Hugo 41842 From: seisen_au Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 7:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Anicca as characteristic Hi Nina and all, >Nina van Gorkom wrote: > The characteristics of impermanence and pain are made known with or >without the arising of Tathaagatas. The characteristic of no-self is >not made known without the arising of the Enlightened Ones, it is >made known only on the arising of the Enlightened Ones...> Wouldnt it be only a conceptual understanding of anicca that is made known without the arising of a tathaagata rather than the anicca characteristic of paramattha dhammas? Thanks steve 41843 From: Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 3:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Self view, conceit, sense of self etc. Hi, TG (and Jon) - In a message dated 2/6/05 2:24:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Jon > > When I refer to the "sense-of-self," I merely mean the way each of us feels > ourselves to be a "me." This might be closest to being compared with > conceit. > Conceit in English generally has a negative connotation of being overly > selfish, arrogant, or "self satisfied." I think of sense-of-self as more > palinly > stated IMO. Its nothing elaborate. Its just the plain feeling or sense of > "I > am." > > This might also be considered an "intuitive sense" albeit delusional. > > TG > ===================== I mean by "sense of self" exactly the same as you, TG. 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) 41844 From: Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 3:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/6/05 3:51:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: > N: No, we have to distinguish: the object that is desirable or undesirable, > and citta which experiences it with different feelings about it. A pleasant > sense object may be experienced with akusala javana cittas accompanied by > unpleasant feeling. Possible. > ===================== What then does it mean for an object to be desirable (or undesirable)? What does it mean for a sense object that is felt as unpleasant to be pleasant. Why is it called "pleasant"? What is the criterion? 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) 41845 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 11:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Hi Phil (Connie, Azita, Joop, Kel & all), Even with your knack for story-telling, I assure you that you’ll never outdo those girls when it comes to ‘colourful’ accumulations and past stories;-). --- Philip wrote: > So we're playing with fire if we pay too much attention to these > traits that we can see in ourselves, because it could lead us to > cultivate a strong self-image. .. … S: I agree with this. Momentary and anatta is the way to go. Only the Buddha had the full knowledge of anusayas (latent tendencies) and could really understand different characters. See more on carita (character) in these past posts, relevant to these discussions I think: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/8750 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/16501 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/31985 We read examples such as the golden lily one (in a Jataka) and referred to in the first post #8750 and the Maha RahulaVada Sutta, when even Sariputta didn’t know the appropriate object for wise reflection at a given time. Also, recently others were mentioning Culapindika (Dhp story & Jataka too I think) whose arahant brother was quite unable to detect what he needed to hear. Only the Buddha could know in these examples what was appropriate at any given time. Different moments, different types….what’s gone is gone and who knows what cittas will arise in future? Yes, as you've been stressing, all types in succession, countlessly in a day. Even if someone like that fellow I mentioned keeps good sila and never speaks harshly throughout this lifetime, what about next lifetime? This life is just such a small blip? And then as you’ve all been pointing out, it is the right view and development of satipatthana that really counts. As we read in the suttas, the most unlikely of candidates became enlightened – drunks, murderers, thieves and so on too. None of this is meant to downplay the importance of sila and all types of kusala. Indeed, sila, samadhi and panna can only be perfected by ariyans. I appreciate Kel’s points about retreat living and having less akusala – as I’ve mentioned before (in one of those boring ‘been there, done that’ stories which James referred to;-)), it wasn’t difficult for me for the best part of a year in a meditation temple when I seldom needed to speak, not to speak harshly at all!! But is that any test of anything other than one’s attachment to being a certain way? The real test is when one leaves the centre and goes back to work with a difficult boss or students, is surrounded by household chores, family and so on, I think. Remember, Kel, the example of the maid-servant who got up later and later to test her calm, patient, even-tempered mistress until the latter snapped? Is the answer to get a better maid-servant or to really understand one's tendencies when they arise with detachment? [As another sideline, I was wanting to refer to the sutta which K.Sujin refers to whereby you can only know about someone's sila by living with them for a long time and being wise enough, about someone's concentration when there is danger and about someone's wisdom by keen questioning. Does anyone know a reference for it?] …. > I still find myself thinking about what Sarah posted the other > day, about the fellow she lives with ! :) … S: I have to tell you, Phil, that Jon was not too keen on me introducing that fellow to DSG, so I was hoping you wouldn’t pick up on that paragraph. Of course, it’s always the side-line note that might better have been deleted that gets the interest and this is the second time you’ve referred back to him.....:-) Anyway, introducing ‘that fellow’ was just meant to be an example that not trying to control cittas or to have all sorts of grand resolves and efforts doesn’t mean all hell will be let loose, as I thought some might fear. Also, I think we all know, that confidence and understanding of the value of what is good and what is bad (as opposed to just being told conventionally by parents, teachers or society) definitely leads to more of the wholesome states naturally. In this way, as panna grows, one is less likely to be influenced by colleagues or friends or ones own latent tendencies which recommend the alternatives at any given moment. Of course, understanding and any kusala is just for a moment, but we all know the precious value of these short moments. <…> >It is about nama and rupa, about kusala > and akusala, coming and going in a fluid yet conditioned way through > countless lifetimes. There are tendencies in this one lifetime, but > in absolute terms they don't really matter. But the conventional > thinking can also be helpful for now, because our insight, our panna > is still so weak. … S: Yes, well-put. Also lots of other good points in your discussions with the others on this thread as well. I've enjoyed everyone's posts and found lots of value. … > The tricky thing is to be able to benefit from thinking in > conventional terms without getting too caught up in it. More middle > way. … S: Well you wondered what K.Sujin would say about some other point and here she’d just say again ‘what appears now?’. The path is never about thinking, but about being aware of the present dhamma appearing or being experienced. No other way to eradicated the idea of self. Metta, Sarah ========= 41846 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 11:25pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 118 - Vitality/jivitindriya and Attention/manasikaara (b) 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.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)contd] ***** Jívitindriya arises with the citta at the arising moment and it maintains the life of citta and the accompanying cetasikas, but it cannot make them stay beyond the dissolution moment; then jívitindriya has to fall away together with the citta and the accompanying cetasikas. The Atthasåliní states concerning jívitindriya: * "…it watches over those states (the accompanying dhammas) only in the moment of (their and its) existence, as water over lotuses, etc. And although it watches over them, arisen as its own property, as a nurse over the infant, life goes on only by being bound up with these states ( accompanying dhammas) that have gone on, as the pilot on the boat. Beyond the dissolution moment it does not go on, owing to the non-being both of itself and of the states which should have been kept going. At the dissolution moment it does not maintain them, owing to its own destruction, as the spent oil in the wick cannot maintain the flame of the lamp. Its effective power is as its duration." * ***** [Ch.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 41847 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 11:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Request for Htoo (Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 117 jivitindriya Hi Phil & Htoo, --- Philip wrote: > Hello Htoo, and all > > Htoo, yesterday as I was reading through the binder in which I've > printed out "Cetasikas" I came across your Dhamma Thread on > jivitindriya. I thought it was very interesting and would be a good > thing for us to look at along with Nina's but now I can't find the > thread. Would you mind reposting it? Thanks in advance. ... S: You're right. It was an excellent D.T. (as were most of the series on Cetasikas and most others too imho). Here's a link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/37088 ***** Also in U.P., there are some others here, but there is jivitindriya the mental factor being discussed here and also jivitindriya, the rupa. Some of these will be referring to the latter. Life Faculty (jivitindriya cetasika/rupa) 27698, 28429, 28480, 28535, 28679, 28681, 29012, 37088 Metta, Sarah p.s Htoo, if you repost your 37088 before seeing this note or in addition, that's fine too - lots of people don't follow links I'm sure. ======= 41848 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 0:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: abhidhamma - Andrew L Hi Andrew L, --- Andrew Levin wrote: > Sorry for the long time between posts, will try to do better in the > future. .. ;-) To start with this note, no problem. I’m just happy that you’re back on the thread. (Meantime, one or two others picked it up and gave me lots of food for thought too, as you probably saw). … > I must agree with another posted who said that the notion of self is > so ingrained in our pycho-physical organism that we operate based on > it, and that attempts to cultivate sati can be successful even while > using it. I am assuming that the wrong views you are talking about > are less significant than the self-nature we operate day by day by. …. S: of course there are degrees of all kinds of kilesa (defilements). Wrong views of all kinds need to be seen for what they are when they arise. I was just reminded of the danger of wrong views when I read in one of Htoo’s threads about kinds of akusala kamma patha and particularly about wrong view which can lead to unhappy rebirths. A sotapanna, of course, had no more wrong view and no more conditions for the kinds of akusala patha that can lead to such rebirths. So I’d say that any moments of attempting to cultivate sati ‘while using it’ (notion of self) will not be helpful at all. Awareness and wisdom need to differentiate between such moments of wrong view or practice and real naturally arising awareness. … > It is good to recognize there is no self, but if we use the > term 'one' or 'person' we should clarify as to how far one can > cultivate sati from 'normal self-view' as I will call self-view that > stays until supramundane paths, or how much one has to give up > control completely and merely wait for the conditions for sati to > arise, or to step back with detachment on it. … S: it seems like there are these various choices and dilemmas, but that’s only because the ideas of self and control etc are so ingrained in our views. No ‘we’ to do or wait. … >If one of the > conditions is to read, study, or discuss dhamma, I would say that > that's still operating with normal self-view, and that's on par with > cultivating sati intentionally. … S: Depends on the presnt moment states. For example, now we’re reading and ‘talking’. Does there have to be any self-view or intention for a self to have sati now? Isn’t there just seeing visible object,reflecting on what we see, thinking, confusion and so on? In the end, only panna (understanding) can know. …. >I haven't tried detachment and > allowing sati to arise on its own, …. S: Excuse me for interrupting your flow, but I don’t think detachment can ever arise or develop by ‘trying’. I think it arises with understanding which ‘knows’ what is being experienced. That’s all. … <…> >if you > study dhamma, are you doing it with the idea "I should study dhamma > to support conditions for sati" or "This is (my/Sarah's) book."? … S: No, surprising as it may be to some here, I’ve never felt ‘I should study dhamma’ (i.e read dhamma) and yet I appreciate it when I have the chance. I think it’s partly K.Sujin’s influence. She’s never told me to read/study texts (unless I want to find some references, for example), but always just to be aware of present dhammas by understanding more and more about their characteristics. I told Phil before that I went through years of having a very busy work schedule and would usually drop off to sleep as soon as I opened a sutta at night. K.Sujin visited us several times then and never once suggested I should work less, read more or do anything different. She’d just talk about seeing, visible object, hearing, sound, thinking, feeling and other dhammas to be known when they appeared as anatta. Very simple, but we have to hear, read and consider a lot to appreciate these words, I think. Thanks to DSG, all Nina's, Htoo's and everyone else's writings and less work these days, I do read much more - but I still don't ever think when I'm working or hiking or doing yoga that I should be reading dhamma or anything like that. As for ‘Sarah’s book’. Of course I often think of ‘Sarah’s book’. This can be with or without wrong view of self however;-) Some people think we shouldn’t have any possessions or have particular beds or seats or spots in the yoga room (as we all tend to do in my morning class!!). However, even the Buddha had his own robes, his own kuti (cell/space) etc. On our recent trip we could see at Jetavana how there were different kutis with the largest for the Buddha, then the key disciples, then Rahula and so on. Also, going up Vulture’s Peak, we saw the special caves for maha Moggallana, Sariputta, maha Kassappa and then the kutis for Ananda and the Buddha. So, just because you or I have a large library, doesn't mean more wrong view;-). It may just indicate a keen interest in the teachings. Again, only panna can know at any given moment. …. >It > seems we can generate the conditions for sati, … S: Excuse me again, but not ‘we’ who can… … >but I'd like to hear > your take on whether or not it is mostly uncontrollable (if it is > uncontrollable, why do we, who are interested in the BuddhaDhamma > experience it, but others do not? … S: Conditions. Having heard, listened, considered and again like now. We think ‘we’ can decide to hear, read posts and so on, but this is only true in a conventional sense. What is this ‘we’? …. >It seems only because of what we > actually do, same with the paramis IMO.) This may seem like a hard- > line stance but it is in accordance with my experience. Still, I > would like to hear about cittas with wrong view of self and their > significance in how our practise unfolds. …. S: What ‘we actually do’, are just cittas and cetasikas performing their functions according to conditions. Considering the quality of metta now, how gentle, friendly and humble it is, is a condition then and there for metta to develop just a little perhaps. If however, there is an idea that by concentrating on oneself, or on the metta sutta to have more metta, or on another being likewise, wrong view of self is sure to be there. One is then following a ritual motivated by clinging to a self with more metta. Oh, the path is subtle;-). Andrew, that was just your first paragraph and there is so much more good material and questions, but I think I’ll leave it there for now as it’s already long enough. Please keep responding and I’ll try to pick up other points/qus later this week (I’ve got lots of posts I’m hoping to reply to). Metta, Sarah ====== 41849 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 1:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dialogue with Htoo1 Hi Htoo, --- htootintnaing wrote: > > > Dear Sarah, > > I think we are missing something. That is you missed something or I > missed something. … S:;-) it can happen easily, but we both mean well. I think it was because I responded to a commented of yours referring to kusala cittas following the experience of a desirable object and suggested the javana cittas might well be unwholesome thought he tadarammana vipaka cittas would be kusala vipaka. My stress was intended to be on the javana cittas but I didn’t make it clear and you took it to be on the tadarammanas. No problem and the other point has been cleared up too. Let me just summarise any outstanding points of difference (while stressing again that I’m sure most your detail is correct and I greatly appreciate it): 1. H:> You may notice that even among these 4 concise summary of conditions > there are upanissaya and kamma. > > So it is not unusual that kamma and upanissaya are mixed. … S: Right and kamma paccaya always needs upanissaya to bring its results too. We were discussing naanaakkhanika kamma paccaya (asynchronous kamma condition) and I like the way you stress in some later threads about kamma patha leading to results in the way of rebirth and during life. … > Htoo: > > As long as dhamma are not abyakata they will be kusala or akusala. If > akusala or kusala why should they not have naanaakkhanika kamma > condition or 'asynchronous kamma condition'. … S: Just because 19 kusala cetasikas (i.e cetana) and 14 akusala cetasikas have this potential does not mean, as I understand that everytime they arise, they act as asynchronous kamma condition. …. > If I were thinking with hatred to destroy something or someone > repeatedly in my mind, should these thought be freed from kamma > condition. … S: There may (like in a dream) be partial kamma patha factors in place. We know that in this case, results can only only arise during the present life, but not rebirth consciousness. Of course, there can be complete akusala kamma patha throught the mind….we could check and analyse the various factors, but I’m not sure how important it is? …. > > I was not killing anyone but was thinking killing someone. I even did > not say a word for killing but still thinking to kill. Should those > thoughts be freed from verdict of kamma paccaya. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- … S: No one is killed and no deed is carried out, so it’s not killing. But again, there is intention and a being – so partial factors. There can be results during life. Even if there were not full or partial kamma patha, the hatred and wrong view would accumulate and assist other akusala kamma (patha) in future by upanissaya paccaya, so it’s not ‘free’ of any verdict!! … Maha Kassapa’s corpse which could not be cremated etc. I’ve not heard this. I’d be interested to know where it can be found if anyone knows, but not important. Metta, Sarah ======= 41850 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dialogue with Htoo 2 Dear Htoo, --- htootintnaing wrote: > > > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for your reply. This is my second reply as the one I have > already type was lost. …. S: I’m always very sorry to hear this. Thank you for taking the trouble to write at length again. Thank you also for all your posts on various realms and so on. I hope to catch up this week with the Chinese new year holiday. Once more, pls assume I agree with all your helpful comments snipped. Just outstanding points left: > What I said about javana citta is in normal conditions agreeable > object or ati-itthia-arammana is unusally apperceived by kusala > javana citta or abyakata javana citta. In that case tadarammana are > kusala vipaka. If javana are somanassa then tadarammana will more > likely to be somanassa cittas. When somanassa citta it is not akusala > vipaka citta. …. S: This is the point we keep getting stuck on. From your other messages, I think you mean is ‘usually apperceived by kusala javana citta or abyakata javana citta’ above. My question before and still is, surely in normal conditions, agreeable objects are usually experienced with lobha (akusala javana cittas) and not by kusala javana cittas??? *We agree on the tadarammana cittas;-)* …. ***** …. On kasinas and jhanas H:> If you choose bhavana-kusala there have to arise bhavana-kusala > cittas. If you choose kasina for example 'white circle' then the mind > will take the idea of white. > > As initiation you will not be all the time on 'the idea of white'. > But there are different thoughts. Again in this bhavana solution > there is dilute-citta-on-the-idea-of-white because you are > thinking 'what you will do tomorrow' 'what you will reply Htoo' 'what > you will cook for the whole family' and endless thought. > > At first you see that 'O! Buddho! My thoughts are no more on the idea > of white and I have been drifted away of tomorrow matters. Then you > will be again onn the idea of white. …. S: To me, you’ve explained how there can be concentration on a white object, but said nothing to suggest why it is wholesome or leading to calm in anyway. Non-distractednes, focus and so on are just as much qualities of akusala jhana factors as of kusala jhana factors. I cannot see any value in such focus, to be honest and think that such a practice if intensely followed could lead to sheer madness, all in the name of jhanas. Apologies for my directness here. … > > At a time, you will be most of the time 'on the idea of white'. This > is because you understand that the thought of tomorrow etc etc called > hindrances are not good and then you re-direct to 'the idea of > white'. This is wisdom. … S: We may just have to disagree here. I watched an interesting interview with Tiger Woods the golf player who was talking about how focused he is at times that he has no idea about any people or things around him at all. Just an idea of white doesn’t make a citta kusala in anyway. How could it without proper understanding first? …. > But it does not cast any light on 'anicca, dukkha, anatta' which is > unique to 'Buddhism'. > > Once you and I argued on jhana matters. You said that jhanas were > taught by The Buddha or something like that and you seemed to mean it > is totally impossible to attain any jhanas without studying jhanas in > Buddhism. … S: You referred to this in another post too and so I’m glad to correct it, Htoo. Sukin will remind you (we discussed it, so I know he’ll remember, but he's too smart to buy into trouble;-);-)). It was you who was referring to Buddhist and non-Buddhist jhanas and it was I who was saying that jhana cittas are jhana cittas regardless of whether one is a Buddhist or not;-) ;-). I could find the old posts, but it doesn’t matter who said what. It’s more important that we just discuss and agree now if possible. So, we both agree now? …. >At that time, I said there are 2 teachers who attained 3rd > and 4th arupa jhana respectively and they did not know any anicca, > dukkha, anatta and they were not taught by The Buddha but they taught > The Bodhisatta Siddhattha Gotama. … S: Yes. … Tikkha and mandha puggala – thank you for explaining about the 2 or 3 phala cittas etc. I’ve read about this in Vism but wasn’t familiar with these terms. I don’t know if you’re right to use as examples ‘intelligent scientists’ etc here in the same paragraph as ariyans and phala cittas. When it comes to the two and three roots Connie was referring to, the kind of intelligence to develop insight has no correlation (as far as I know) with the kind of intelligence we conventionally think about or is necessary for a scientist. Just a thought. Metta, Sarah p.s Larry and Jon recently quoted the following: >See CMA p.172: "Whether on a given occasion one experiences an >undesirable, a moderately desirable, or an extremely desirable object is >governed by one's past kamma. Thus the object experienced provides the >opportunity for kamma to ripen in the form of resultant states of >consciousness (vipaakacitta). The resultant cittas accord with the >nature of the object spontaneously, without deliberation, just as a >facial reflection in a mirror accords with the features of the face." …. S: So when it comes to the bad news or foul smell, for example, it will depend at any given moment whether akusala vipaka cittas will arise, primarily conditioned by previous kamma but supported or given ‘the opportunity’ by the object. For example, hearing is conditioned primarily by kamma, but without sound having arisen, ear-base and so on (as you’ve explained many times), no hearing. I don’t think we have any disagreement here;-). 41851 From: Sukinder Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 4:02am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. Dear Tep, Thanks for your other post. :-) I'll reply to this one by inserting comments between your own. > S: (about pariyatti and patipatti) From my perspective, pariyatti is > inferior to patipatti only in that the latter is direct knowing of that which > the former points to. > > T: I am in agreement with you here, except that I think only pativedha > (penetration, realization) is "direct knowing", not patipatti. Sukinder: Yes, I think pativedha is `knowing' of a deeper level than patipatti. However this relates to realization, before this stage panna *knows* by degrees and satipatthana is knowing nama and rupa with different levels, and this is patipatti. > T: There is more than one way to reach the top of a mountain. Most > monks and laypersons I know, who are "serious" Buddhists, believe in > finding the shortest cut through Sila- Samadhi- Panna, where Samadhi > means Samadhi-bhavana and Panna means Vipassana-bhavana as > expounded in the Visuddhimagga (which is based on many suttas). Sukinder: But do you see that the idea of `finding the shortest cut through Sila- Samadhi- Panna' may go against the Teachings about the need to `develop the parami' and that the process involves `long time development' (meaning aeons over aeons)? Do you also make the conclusion that the Buddha taught a short-cut method? > T: The "moment of satipatthana", as I understand it, is a part of > Vipassana for attaining pativedha. Sukinder: Do you mean to associate satipatthana with so called `Vipassana meditation'? > T: Dana and Sila are part of the "brick-laying" like Connie used to say. > If you want to call that parami, not included in patipatti, it is fine with me > too. Sukinder: I think Dana and Sila are parami only when they are known with sati and panna. A Christian or Moslem with wrong view, being generous and moral is not in my opinion developing the parami at any time, though this may condition a good habit. And if and when in the future he or she comes to appreciate the Dhamma, this accumulated habit can become an asset in terms of developing the parami. And obviously developing the parami *is* patipatti. > T: Being alone is kaya-viveka ('abiding in solitude free from alluring > sensuous objects'). Sukinder: I think that this is important for developing Jhana, but is it of any consequence in terms of developing vipassana panna? > S: We don't know what level of akusala will arise at any given moment, > likewise what level of sati and panna. This is why it is good to listen > and consider more and more, because we need all sorts of reminders. > > T: I think you need to do more bhavana and less reading and listening > (unless you listen to Dhamma talks given by an Ariya). Sukinder: I agree with anyone who states that patipatti is more important than pariyatti. But I think that it may be self-defeating to think that "I can or should develop more patipatti and be less concerned about pariyatti." Firstly both these terms refer to levels of panna not necessarily related to any conventional activity. Secondly, they are anatta and arises and falls because of conditions unrelated to any thinking and decision on my part. In other words, if my level of understanding is such that I seek to understand more on the `conceptual' level, I will read dsg, but there is no guarantee that there will be any understanding. However, if indeed the conditions are right, even while reading, there can be a moment of satipatthana. And this I believe would have been in part because there was no `self' trying to direct the show. ;-) > S: We do however need to know the difference between samatha and > vipassana. We should see the importance of developing panna as > taught particularly by the Buddha. Also it is important to know > clearly their difference. > > T: How would you know "the difference between samatha and > vipassana" if you do very little (or zero?) samatha-bhavana but a lot > more on listening and reading? Sukinder: As has often been pointed by some of us, pariyatti *is* a level of panna which should not be overlooked. And this is not a matter of theorizing, but right understanding of particular level. So there can be *right* understanding of the concept of samatha-bhavana esp. when informed by a corresponding level of understanding about conditionality. So don't you think that this may be more reliable than any reference to experience which may have resulted from lobha and ditthi? There is no `learning from experience' if driven by avijja. And wrong view does appear right to the person who has it, no? > S: (About the importance of Right exertion and viriya-bala) Are you > thinking that there is some `short cut method', one that will bypass any > lack of accumulated parami? Many people view meditation practice, > particularly `jhana', in this way. They think that these are special > techniques taught by the Buddha and developed by later `masters' > (Zen, Dzogchen etc) for the purpose of getting to enlightenment `in this > very life'. I think this is all symptomatic of `attachment to self'. > > T: Those later masters cannot be complete fools. Don't put them down > too easily! The strength of Right exertion/effort that is the characteristic > of viriya bala is important like a rocket booster to propell a spacecraft > into the outer space. Many, many stories of successful monks during > the Buddha Era and after that to the recent history, e.g. those several > well-known Burmese and Thai acariyas ( the Forest monks) are my > supporting evidence, Sukinder. How many monks and lay-persons > you know have achieved an Ariya-magga without the "formal > meditation" and jhanas? Can you give me just one name, please?:-) Sukinder: I was particularly talking about Mahayana, and no, I don't think there can possibly be one enlightened person within this group. In fact I think the label Buddhism should not include both the Pali and the Mahayana teachings, they are too different and only one of them is right. I have little knowledge of the so-called `Burmese and Thai acariyas', and have no reason to think them enlightened, unless of course I believe what most people say about them. I heard that many years ago there was a monk in some part of Thailand who was considered an ariyan by many people. Even he thought that he had `attained' something. But he heard K. Sujin on radio and soon came to realize that he really did not attain even the first level of insight. So he decided to disrobe and from then on became K. Sujin's student. At one time of course, I thought *all* of them were enlightened, even famous teachers of other religions. Now my view has changed. I also speculated about certain living person, thinking that he or she must be enlightened; now it does not matter at all. What good will it do to me to try and find out if someone is enlightened or not. After being convinced about the supreme enlightenment of the Buddha, my only duty is to try to understand his Teachings. I think we should consider and reflect on the causes instead of dwelling on the results. I am a beginner and I like to hear about the basics which I know only intellectually, again and again. Difficult concepts like D.O. don't interest me as much. Do I know tanha, do I know vedana, and do I know jati? My understanding of aversion, attachment, feeling, conceit, jealousy, seeing, hearing, hardness, taste and so on is so infused with `self', how can I understand the D.O. except in theory. And with all the tanha and avijja, would I not risk fooling myself into thinking that I know and understand more than I really do? I think most of us in this day and age are beginners. So to me a good teacher is one who is always pointing to the basics. In this regard I think K. Sujin is unique and I consider her a superior teacher. There are some who listen to her and grow tired of her repeating the same old basic things over and over again. They want to hear her expound the Patthana and other difficult texts, and leave when they see that she does not encourage such ambition. I think these people are `stupid'. They do not even appreciate the fact that she is being so very patient, more than a mother to her child. How many of us can be so patient with our own children when they come back to us with the same old problems. I certainly don't! In the end, it is panna which seeks and recognizes panna and there is no need for any conventional designation. As to viriya, it can be both akusala and kusala, Bodhidharma sitting facing the wall for 11 years may impress many people, but you and I, having pariyatti understanding about dhammas, should not be fooled by outer appearance. Besides it is very easy to confuse the ability to put into own words what one has read in the texts and think it to be direct and own understanding. I judge again from what the person teaches. Does he know what a beginner needs to hear? Does he come out with a voice of authority and says to the effect, "Just sit"? Such statements in my view are one of the most uncompassionate and irresponsible ones. > T: Okay, you want to talk theoretical dhammas. Let's discuss like two > bookworms would do. First, everything is dhamma. Second, when > viriya becomes samma-vayama (Right effort/exertion) along with > samma-sati and samma-ditthi, the other Path factors become highly > developed. When all the 7 Path factors are matured, samma-samadhi > arises (See the Great Forty, MN 117). > > Further, do you remember the following passage from the > Visuddhimagga (VM I,7)? "Develops consciousness and > understanding: develops both concentration and insight. For it is > concentration that is described here under the heading > of 'consciousness', and insight under that of 'understanding'. Ardent > (aataapin): possessing energy. For it is energy that is called 'ardour' > (aataapa) in the sense of burning up and consuming (aataapana- > paritaapana) defilements." This shows how important trying-hard-the- > right-way is. Sukinder: Unfortunately I find the Visuddhimagga extremely hard to read, so I don't ever. I depend on friends here to give a sub-commentary in plain English. I am not saying that viriya is not important, it is. But without panna, what would be the object of viriya? > > Tep: Further, the four right exertions above show clearly that the > > monk has an intention, a purpose to develop and culminate > > his arisen skillful qualities (kusala dhammas) towards Nibbana > > (as the goal). I think you are talking about the one who is able to > > "know and see things the way > they really are", not about > > the mind of a worldling who has not reahed > that state. > > Before getting "there" you need "an act of will" with right exertions; > > once there, no need for intention. > > [ T: Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi probably shares the above view for he defines > samma-sankappa as Right intention.] Sukinder: If we can differentiate between cetana and vitakka, and if we would like to identify `thinking with a particular objective in mind' as `one's intention to do something', then I have no problem with calling this right/wrong intention. But as a dhamma I would not think this to be cetana, but rather vitakka (and any necessary associated state). But then Right intention would be determined by Sati and Panna, because only then the object would be a paramattha dhamma and not an `idea of a self wanting to do and achieve something'. > T: I completely agree with you (and Nina) about the danger of 'self' that > is subtly directing everything because of tanha and avijja. But I also > see a real danger in being an Armchair Dhamma Discusser, who > knows everything but accomplishes little because he/she does not > want to try "too hard" and wants to hold on to all (mundane) precious > things in life. Sukinder: There is danger at every turn as long as the conditions for lobha and avijja are there. Lobha acts as both the teacher as well as the student. And the concept of "trying hard" may be an instance of this same lobha. Panna sees the value in detachment and not to hold on to either theory or an idea of practice. Yes life is precious, and wrong practice would be a big waste of time. > Tep: May I stop at this point because the remainder does not involve new > issues? > > It is nice discussing with you, Sukinder, because you are, without any > doubt, a very intelligent man. I always learn from intelligent people, one > way or another. Sukinder: Thank you so much for taking the time to reply to my long post. Please feel free to respond to this one at any convenient time. Metta, Sukin. 41852 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 5:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG TGrand458@a... wrote: >A mind-object would be classified as a nama. Namas do not exist without >being based on rupa. > > 'Nama' is the designation for dhammas that experience and object. If you say that thoughts are nama it suggests they experience an object (just like consciousness). But if thoughts are themselves mind-object, what object do they experience? >I really think the term "dhamma" has done far more harm than good. There are >not these "real states" out there with individual essence. You may think >that this is not what you are saying, but I don't see how it can be anything >other than that. To me, this "isolation" of trying to see individual states as >having realities...is taking the mind away from reality, not bringing it toward >it. > > I'd be interested to hear about the reality that you refer to here, and how it relates to the development of insight. Jon 41853 From: jwromeijn Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 5:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anicca as characteristic --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Hello Phil and Joop, > Sarah referred formerly to Dispeller of Delusion (p. 59) about the three > characteristics. He taught the characteristic of anatta by means of both the > impermanent and suffering. Dear Nina You stated: "It is explained that impermanence and dukkha are more obvious. " My question to Phil was: Do you think there is a hierarchy between anatta-dukkha-anicca ? In fact you (or the 'Dispeller') say: yes, anatta is higher, deeper, more difficult, than anicca! I do not agree with this, and I have Nyatiloka on my side: (as in # 41706) Nyatiloka: "It is from the fact of impermanence that, in most texts, the other two characteristics, suffering (dukkha) and not-self anattá), are derived." So I stick to my little theory: people fighting against their strong ego prefer anatta aspects as the core (of emptiness), people fighting against a need of ontology prefer anicca aspects. More general: partly it's a topic of difference in personality and partly it's a topic of difference in tradition if 'anatta' is the central concept or 'anicca; I got the impression the Dispellers belong to the anatta-tradition. Metta Joop > It is explained that impermanence and dukkha are more obvious. characteristic of no-self is unobvious, dark, unclear, subtle, difficult to > penetrate, difficult to illustrate, difficult to make known. > The characteristics of impermanence and pain are made known with or without > the arising of Tathaagatas. The characteristic of no-self is not made known > without the arising of the Enlightened Ones, it is made known only on the > arising of the Enlightened Ones...> > op 04-02-2005 00:59 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: > > > The khandas and the six > > sense bases are all about anatta. Abhidhamma is all about anatta, > > isn't it? What is the study of cetasikas, for example, except to > > develop our understanding that there is no self. And anatta is so > > subtle and difficult to penetrate that different approaches, > > different classifications are all ways at helping. > > > > Isn't impermanence perhaps easier to > > understand to begin with, thus it comes first in those suttas? 41854 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 6:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Howard upasaka@a... wrote: >You accept the notion of >rupas as phenomena that are what they are in and of themselves, and that cittas >arise which somehow observe them. Whether there are such things I don't know, >and don't believe we *can* know. > Could you explain further why you say that the notion of rupas as phenomena, with own characteristic, cannot be known/verified. That seems to suggest that developed panna cannot know the true nature of the presently experienced sense-door object. Why do you take that view? >(I tend to dismiss, pragmatically, what is in >principle unverifiable.) > > Hmmm. A useful strategy. If you deem it unverifiable, you can conveniently decline to discuss it ;-)) > On the other hand, what *I* have been talking about are private, >internal experiences. The felt hardness that I experience is a physical experience, >and it is *that* which I say arises with the knowing of it, and ceases when >that knowing ceases. The hardness *you* (and Abhidhamma) speak of is an alleged >external thing that is the basis for up to 16 or 17 (I've seen both numbers) >hardness-experiencing cittas. You're talking about apples, Jon, and I'm >talking about oranges. > > Well, we'reboth talking about paramattha dhammas, but yours are a Howard version (mine are the Abhidhamma version as best I understand it). I hope you don't mind my asking, but is your description based on your own experience, or does it have some other source? Whichever of the two it is, how reliable is that source? Why do you regard them as 'paramattha dhammas'? "Paramattha dhammas are objects of a moment of consciousness, and they are created at that very moment of consciousness, having no 'existence' outside the moment of consciousness of which they are the object." Jon 41855 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 6:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anicca as characteristic Dear Joop, Nina, Steve & All, More from the earlier quote from Dispeller which I gave before. Having said that no-self is taught by means of the impermanent or by means of suffering or by both in the suttas, we read the passage about how no-self is 'unobvious, dark, unclear, difficult to penetrate, difficult to illustrate, difficult to make known' in comparison. further: From: The Dispeller of Delusion (Sammohavinodani),Classification of Bases, 242f: "The characteristics of impermanence and pain are made known with or without the arising of the Tathagatas. The characteristic of no-self is not made known without the arising of the Englightened Ones; it is made known only on the arising of the Enlightened ones. For such wanderers and ascetics (taapasa) as the master Sarabhanga are mighty and powerful and are able to express "the impermanent and painful": (but) they are unable to express "no-self". For if they were able to express "no-self" in a present assembly there would be penetration of path and fruition in the present assembly. For the making known of the characteristic of no-self is not the province of anyone else; it is the province of the Fully Enlightened Ones only. Thus the characteristic of no-self is unobvious. That is why the Master, when teaching the characteristic of no-self, taught it by means of impermanence or by means of pain or by means of both impermanence and pain. But here it should be understood that he taught it by means of both impermanence and pain. But it is owing to not keeping what in mind, owing to non-penetration of what and owing to concealment by what that these characteristics do not appear?. Firstly the characteristic of impermanence does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating rise and fall owing to its being concealed by continuity (santati). The characteristic of pain does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating continuous oppression and owing to its being concealed by the postures (iriyaapatha). The characteristic of no-self does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating the resolution into the various elements (naanaadhaatu-vinibbhoga) owing to its being concealed by compactness. But when continuity is dissected by laying hold of rise and fall, the characteristic of impermanence appears in accordance with its true essential nature. When the postures are exposed (ugghaa.tita) by keeping in mind continual oppression, the characteristic of pain appears in accordance with its true essential nature. When resolving of the compact (ghanavinibboga) is effected by resolution into the various elements, the characteristic of no-self appears in accordance with its true essential nature. And here the following difference should be understood: impermanence and the characteristic of impermanence, pain and the characteristic of pain, no-self and the characteristic of no-self. Herein, the five aggregates (pa~ncakhandha) are impermanent. Why? Because they rise and fall and change, or because of their absence after having been. Rise and fall and change are the characteristic of impermanence, or mode of alteration (aakaaravikaara) called absence after having been. But those same five aggregates are painful because of the words "what is impermanent is painful" (S iv 1). Why? Because of continual oppression. the mode of being continually oppressed is the characteristic of pain. But those five aggregates are no-self because of the words "what is painful is no-self" (S iv 1). Why? Because there is no exercising power over them. The mode of insusceptibility to having power exercised over them is the characteristic of no-self." ***** Metta, Sarah ======= 41856 From: nina Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 6:55am Subject: Visuddhimagga XIV, 136 Visuddhimagga XIV, 136 Vis. XIV, 136. (iii)-(v) What should be said about 'applied thought', 'sustained thought' and 'happiness' has already been said in the commentary on the first jhana in the Description of the Earth Kasina (Ch. IV,88-98). N: Applied thinking (vitakka), sustained thinking (vicaara) and rapture (piiti, here translated as happiness), are cetasikas that do not accompany every citta, such as the universals (sabbacitta-saadhaaranaa). They are among the cetasikas called the particulars (paki.n.naka). However, they accompany cittas of the four jaatis, of kusala, akusala, vipaaka and kiriya. The Visuddhimagga (Ch IV, 88-98) has already dealt with these cetasikas in the context of the development of samatha. They are among the jhaana-factors which inhibit the hindrances in the development of samatha. Applied thinking, sustained thinking and rapture are enumerated here in this context of Vis. XIV, 136, since they are cetasikas included in sa²nkhaarakkhandha that accompany the first type of mahaa-kusala citta of the sense-sphere which is associated with paññaa and accompanied by pleasant feeling. Applied thinking and sustained thinking are not the same as what we mean by thinking in conventional sense. They also accompany cittas arising in sense-door processes. In the case of cittas of the sense-sphere, they accompany all cittas, except the two pairs of sense-cognitions. Thus, when seeing arises depending on the eye-base, it sees, and it does not need applied thinking and sustained thinking for the experience of visible object. The Visuddhimagga (IV, 88) defines vitakka as follows: ...Herein, applied thinking (vitakkama) is applied thought (vitakka); hitting upon, is what is meant. It has the characteristic of directing the mind onto an object (mounting the mind on its object). Its function is to strike and thresh- for the meditator is said, in virtue of it, to have the object touched and struck at by applied thought. It is manifested as the leading of the mind onto an object. The Visuddhimagga (IV, 88) defines vicaara as follows: ...Sustained thinking (vicara.na) is sustained thought (vicaara); continued sustenance (anusañcara.na), is what is meant. It has the characteristic of continued pressure on (occupation with) the object. Its function is to keep conascent (mental) states (occupied) with that. It is manifested as keeping consciousness anchored (on that object). Vitakka touches the object and directs citta to the object, and vicaara keeps the citta occupied with the object. However, they arise with citta at the same time and fall away together with it. Thus, they perform their functions only during an extremely short time. The Visuddhimagga uses similes to show the difference between these two cetasikas, it illustrates that vitakka is more gross and vicaara more subtle. Applied thought is like the first striking of a bell and sustained thought the ringing of the bell. When the first type of mahaa-kusala citta arises it needs vitakka and vicaara for the experience of its object. Vitakka is a factor of the eightfold Path and it is in that case called, right thinking, sammaa-sa²nkappa. When insight is developed, vitakka touches the naama or ruupa that appears so that understanding can penetrate its characteristic. Right thinking is necessary so that precise understanding of one object at a time can be developed. When there is mindfulness of sound, vitakka Œhits¹ that object, so that understanding of sound can be developed and can realize it as a type of rupa. When there is mindfulness of hearing, vitakka Œhits¹ that object, so that there can be understanding of hearing as a type of nama. Paññaa and right thinking, sammaa-sa²nkappa, are the wisdom of the eightfold Path. Understanding of nama and rupa cannot develop without right thinking. The Visuddhimagga (IV, 94) defines piiti, rapture, as follows: ...It refreshes (pii.nayati, gladdens, satisfies), thus it is happiness (piiti). It has the characteristic of satisfaction (sampiyaayana). Its function is to refresh the body and the mind; or its function is to pervade (thrill with rapture). It is manifested as elation... In the case of kaamavaacara cittas, piiti accompanies all the cittas that are accompanied by happy feeling. It is delighted with the object citta and the accompanying cetasikas experience and it refreshes them. The Visuddhimagga describes the different intensities of piiti. In the foregoing definition the Visuddhimagga referred to pervading rapture, which is of the highest degree and this is a jhaana-factor. In the case of cittas of the sense-sphere piiti also arises with akusala cittas, namely the lobha-muulacittas that are accompanied by pleasant feeling. In this context, where the Visuddhimagga deals with the khandha of formations, it refers to piiti arising with the first type of maha-kusala citta which is associated with wisdom and accompanied by pleasant feeling. A desirable object is one of the conditions for citta to be accompanied by pleasant feeling and thus also by rapture or enthusiasm. We read in the (Expositor I, p. 100): When there is strong confidence in the Triple Gem and the development of kusala, including right understanding, there are conditions for kusala citta with pa~n~naa that is accompanied by pleasant feeling and enthusiasm (piiti). When someone who performs daana has an excellent gift to be given and a receiver is present, there are conditions for happy feeling and enthusiasm. The Tiika to Vis. 84, explains as conditions for happy feeling accompanying kusala citta with paññaa: < an abundance of confidence, purity of view, the fact of having seen the benefit of wholesome deeds, a rebirth-consciousness with pleasant feeling, eleven factors that are the foundations for the enlightenment factor of rapture...> The enlightenment factors are developed through satipa.t.thaana. Among these are sati, investigation of dhamma, which is paññaa, and also rapture. We read in the Expositor (I p. 100): Without the development of satipa.t.thaana the enlightenment factor of rapture and the other enlightenment factors cannot develop. It is beneficial to remember that many conditions are needed for the arising of enthusiasm. When we have confidence in the benefit of siila, we can observe it with enthusiasm. Helping is also a form of siila, it is kusala through body or speech. When we read suttas about helping and serving others, we may have more confidence in the benefit of kusala and this is a condition for performing it with joy and enthusiasm. Attachment to such a type of kusala citta may arise shortly after the kusala citta. At such a moment there may be happy feeling and enthusiasm that is akusala. We can easily delude ourselves, and therefore, it is important to develop understanding that can discern different dhammas arising because of different conditions. **** Nina. 41857 From: Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 3:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Jon and TG - You two seem to be in disgreement with each other. I, being equal-opportunity disagreeable, find that I have problems with each of your "positions". I will address them as they arise below. In a message dated 2/7/05 8:42:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: > Hi, TG > > TGrand458@a... wrote: > > >A mind-object would be classified as a nama. Namas do not exist without > >being based on rupa. > ------------------------------------ Howard: What do you mean by a "mind-object"? Do you mean a mind-door object? (What I mean by a mental phenomenon is any experience that is neither sight nor sound nor taste nor smell nor bodily sensation. That sort of "everything but" definition seems to me to be precise, without exception, and nicely avoiding the question of taking an object or not.) ------------------------------------- > > > > > > 'Nama' is the designation for dhammas that experience and object. If > you say that thoughts are nama it suggests they experience an object > (just like consciousness). But if thoughts are themselves mind-object, > what object do they experience? > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Jon, right away there is an exception to the definition of a nama as dhamma that experiences an object, namely nibbana. It is an exception, and no contortions will make that otherwise (unless, of course, one wants to take nibbana to be an objectless consciousness reminiscent of the Vedanta Brahman!). Moreover, there are plenty of other mental phenomena that can be viewed as taking an object only if the meaning of the word 'object' is stretched very far. Sadness, for example, may have been conditioned by some experiential event, but that event is not *known* by the sadness. In fact, the event may be long gone and not even remembered, but the sadness remain. In fact, sadness typically does not know, but is *known*. The sadness itself is typically a citta object or a citta "flavor". (Of course one may *say* that the object of one's sadness is the experiential event that led to it, but that is just an informal, conventional way of speaking!) The same thing is true about those actual dhammas that are elementary thoughts. A thought, such as a mental image, does not know anything - it is *known*, it is a citta object. And thinking is a process consisting of a sequence of mindstates with such thoughts as objects. Thoughts don't "do", they just arise and cease as fleeting experiential content. ------------------------------------------------ > > >I really think the term "dhamma" has done far more harm than good. There > are > >not these "real states" out there with individual essence. You may think > >that this is not what you are saying, but I don't see how it can be > anything > >other than that. To me, this "isolation" of trying to see individual > states as > >having realities...is taking the mind away from reality, not bringing it > toward > >it. > ------------------------------------- Howard: TG, 'dhamma' need not mean anything more than "elementary phenomenon", i.e., elementary experiential content. It is a mere evanescent flickering, momentarily appearing "on stage" when conditions have come together for it to do so, and whose brief appearance is entirely dependent on those equally empty conditioning phenomena. Such an event is not a self-existent thing; it is like "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," to quote from my signature line. Now, of course, when some folks think of dhammas as true entities that at one point are not, then become true (self-)existents, and then are annihilated, they are adopting both a substantialist and an annihilationist perspective. I don't believe that Jon is one who does this, though I do think a few here on DSG do. But, TG, just because some people are inclined to reify the notion of "dhamma" isn't sufficient reason for throwing out the term. Dhammas are just phenomena - distinguishable but interdependent, and all anicca, dukkha, and anatta. (But not nothing at all.) ---------------------------------------------- > > > > > > I'd be interested to hear about the reality that you refer to here, and > how it relates to the development of insight. > > Jon > ===================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 41858 From: Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 3:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/7/05 9:35:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: > Hi, Howard > > upasaka@a... wrote: > > >You accept the notion of > >rupas as phenomena that are what they are in and of themselves, and that > cittas > >arise which somehow observe them. Whether there are such things I don't > know, > >and don't believe we *can* know. > > > > Could you explain further why you say that the notion of rupas as > phenomena, with own characteristic, cannot be known/verified. That > seems to suggest that developed panna cannot know the true nature of the > presently experienced sense-door object. Why do you take that view? > ------------------------------------ Howard: Jon, we are having a communication problem that I don't know how to rectify. What I am saying is unknowable is an alleged entity that lies beyond experience. When I feel hardness, that experienced hardness is not beyond experience. What I am saying the existence of which is unknowable is an alleged rupa of hardness that exists on its own, beyond experience. That is the best that I can do in explaining myself, but I'm afraid it isn't good enough. :-( ------------------------------------ > > >(I tend to dismiss, pragmatically, what is in > >principle unverifiable.) > > > > > > Hmmm. A useful strategy. If you deem it unverifiable, you can > conveniently decline to discuss it ;-)) > ------------------------------------ Howard: You don't get it, Jon. (My fault, not yours.) What is not experiential is not experiential! ----------------------------------- > > > On the other hand, what *I* have been talking about are private, > >internal experiences. The felt hardness that I experience is a physical > experience, > >and it is *that* which I say arises with the knowing of it, and ceases when > > >that knowing ceases. The hardness *you* (and Abhidhamma) speak of is an > alleged > >external thing that is the basis for up to 16 or 17 (I've seen both > numbers) > >hardness-experiencing cittas. You're talking about apples, Jon, and I'm > >talking about oranges. > > > > > > Well, we'reboth talking about paramattha dhammas, but yours are a Howard > version (mine are the Abhidhamma version as best I understand it). > ------------------------------------- Howard: Jon, yours are inferred. Mine are experienced. ------------------------------------ I > > hope you don't mind my asking, but is your description based on your own > experience, or does it have some other source? > ------------------------------------- Howard: Gosh, I just love it when you bring in an argument from authority! ;-)) ------------------------------------- Whichever of the two it > > is, how reliable is that source? Why do you regard them as 'paramattha > dhammas'? -------------------------------------- Howard: Jon, I would answer this if we were discussing the same subject. But we are not. We are just using similar speech for different subjects. ------------------------------------ > > "Paramattha dhammas are objects of a moment of consciousness, and they > > are created at that very moment of consciousness, having no 'existence' > outside the moment of consciousness of which they are the object." > > > Jon > > > ===================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 41859 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 8:59am Subject: Jivitindriya Cetasika But Not Atta Dear Dhamma Friends, For favour of someone's request [Phil?], this whole message is re- posted. This post is Dhamma Thread (077). It is about jivitindriya cetasika. Further discussions are welcome. There are 7 universal mental factors. Phassa or contact, vedana or feeling, cetana or volition, sanna or perception, ekaggata or one- pointedness, jivitindriya or mental life, and manasikara or attention. The first five cetasikas have been discussed in the previous posts. Jivitindriya is a cetasika. It is mental life. It is not a citta. But it accompanies a citta. Any citta has jivitindriya as its accompanying cetasika. Without this cetasika, citta the king cannot survive. And without this jivitindriya cetasika, citta will never arise. Jivitindriya is a life faculty. It is a life. It support the citta to live on his own. This cetasika also support other associated cetasikas with his life faculties. Without jivitindriya, these cetasikas cannot also arise. Actually these nama dhamma cetasikas are difficult to understand. They always co-exist when in a citta. These cetasikas and citta are inseparable. They are like milk. In milk there are water component, protein components, salt components, vitamin components and many other unrecognized particles. But they cannot be separable as milk. Like this citta and cetasikas including jivitindriya cetasika are not separable. This is the nature. This relation between and among nama dhammas is called sampayutta paccaya. Even though they cannot be separated, jivitindriya does it job. That is the job of supporting citta and associated cetasikas with life faculties. As it has its own characteristic and it does its own job or function, it is worthy to study this cetasika. Jivitindriya exists in all kind of citta. At patisandhi, it arises together with patisandhi citta and support patisandhi citta along with sampayutta dhamma other cetasikas. Jivitindriya cetasika also supports bhavanga cittas. Because of this cetasika, bhavanga cittas have life and they serve as life continuum when there are no other vithi cittas arise. Again at cuti, jivitindriya cetasika also arises with cuti citta and this is the last jivitindriya cetasika in that whole life and its job has done. It dies out and there is no more life. All kammaja rupa, cittaja rupa and aharaja rupa die out with this jivitindriya cetasika death while cuti citta passes away. While vithi cittas arise, again jivitindriya cetasika arises with each of these vithi cittas and it supports them as life faculties. Panca dvara avajjana citta is a vithi citta which is a non-javana kiriya citta. This citta is the first citta in any series of panca vinnana vithi vara. It is supported by jivitindriya as life faculties. Each of all panca vinnana cittas are supported by their co-arising jivitindriya cetasikas. All sampaticchana cittas whether akusala or kusala, all santirana citta whether akusala or kusala/ upekkha or somanassa, are supported by this cetasika jivitindriya without which they cannot arise at all. The most important citta among 89 cittas is mano dvara avajjana citta. This citta can do many things. It can take any object unlike other cittas who do have at least limitations. This citta mano dvara avajjana citta is also supported by jivitindriya cetasika and without its support, mano dvara avajjana citta will never arise. There are different javana cittas which mostly create kamma. These javana cittas are also supported by jivitindriya cetasika. Except kiriya javana cittas, all other javana cittas create kamma while they arise. All akusala cittas are supported by jivitindriya. All kusala cittas are supported by jivitindriya. Kusala cittas here comprise kamavacara kusala cittas, rupavacara kusala cittas which are rupa jhanas, and arupavacara kusala cittas which are arupa jhanas. There are 8 lokuttara cittas. All these 8 lokuttara cittas are also supported by jivitindriya cetasika. While these 8 lokuttara cittas are viewing nibbana as their object, jivitindriya cetasika support them so that they can see nibbana. Jivitindriya is life. Without jivitindriya, there will be no life. If there is no life nothing will have essence and we all do not need to learn anything. But as there are jivitindriya everywhere, we do need to learn what jivitindriya and its function. Through this, we can follow the liberation path. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 41860 From: Hugo Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation Kel wrote: > >I agree that real judge of progress is in how well we > >handle vicissitudes of life. I don't necessarily agree that normal > >life is a good setting to practice for everyone. People who are > >firmly established in practice are able to do it I'm sure. For > >myself I know, I'm just barely hanging on and gradually slipping > >when I'm back to normal life. Only in a quiet and protected > >environment of a retreat, I'm able to recharge so to speak. It's > >just a fact that I've observed about myself and others around me. Jon wrote: > I understand the phenomenon you refer to here, whereby achievements made > in retreat are gradually lost when we are back in the real world. I > think it's fair to ask ourselves in this case whether the apparent > achievements were really the sati/panna or whatever that we took them > for. Again, is this something we read about in the texts? The reason this happens is because you make the retreat and the "real world" two different things. Same as when you make a difference between a "formal meditation" and the "real world". In other words, don't be a "cushion Buddhist". If you look carefully, the "real world" offers you more variety of opportunities to practice than a retreat or a "formal meditation session". But it would be better to stop labeling and make "your life" = "your practice". I am taking a shower, I am practicing, I am eating alone, I am practicing, I am eating with the whole family and the neighbors, I am practicing......in short I am not doing anything else, but practicing. -- Hugo 41861 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:07am Subject: [dsg] Request for Htoo (Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 117 jivitindriya Life Faculty (jivitindriya cetasika/rupa) 27698, 28429, 28480, 28535, 28679, 28681, 29012, 37088 Metta, Sarah p.s Htoo, if you repost your 37088 before seeing this note or in addition,that's fine too - lots of people don't follow links I'm sure. ======= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for your kind word. As you thought I did not see your message because I first caught Phil message and I re-posted the whole message again. But the heading was changed as it is specific. Actually jivitindriya is very interesting. Someone outside of Buddhism and even some Buddhists who have not learned detail might think jivitindriya may be equivalent of soul, spirit etc. But no, this is completely wrong. With respect, Htoo Naing PS: Sarah, you are a considerate person. You have a sense that what I would do. Do you have any divine eyes? :-) 41862 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:52am Subject: Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Dear Hugo, Thank you very much for your thoughtful message and it is like someone expressing all his feeling and all his beliefs. Anyway you posted clearly. I left one of your message untouched at dhamma-list because I did not think it would be beneficial. But this message invites me to discuss. With Metta, Htoo Naing PS: The discussion is below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo wrote: I am not an expert just an Upasaka trying to follow The Buddha's teachings. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Good! I too am. I am not an expert as some would say. I am also an upasaka trying to follow The Buddha's teachings. You admitted and this is good for further discussion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo murmured: I have seen a lot of E-mail threads, and I have presented the same questions to myself about "deliberate practice", questions like: Should I do "formal meditation"?[Htoo gave number this as Q1] Should I just "observe with wisdom"?[ This as Q2] Is there "free will"?[This as Q3] Do I need to read the Suttas or the Abhidhamma?[This as Q4] Should I follow the instructions given in the Suttas step-by-step and literally?[This as Q5] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Like you I had thought the same. But may I answer your questions. Hugo's question 1-: Q1. Should I do ''formal meditation''? Htoo's answer 1-: A1. If you ask 'Should I do 'meditation'?', the answer will definitely be 'Yes, you should.' As I prefer Pali if you ask 'Should I do bhavana?' the answer will be 'Yes. You should'. I was thinking whether The Buddha left that adjective 'formal' for modification of 'meditation' or 'bhavana'. More importantly, effort has to be right effort. If it is just a loose effort, it will not work whatever there are very very great intelligence and great understanding. If you think 'effort' is not needed then try 'just reading, trying to absorb, trying to understand, trying to logic out what you have read from texts of whatever Suttas or Abhidhamma, and see yourself whether it works for you or not. If it works, it is OK for you and just carry on and NEVER DO 'formal meditation'. I think this is a clear answer that you have been longing for. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo gave Hugo's question a number. Hugo asked: Hugo's question 2-: Q2. Should I just 'observe with wisdom'. Htoo's answer 2-: A2. This will depend on how far and how deep you have learned. If you know everything in Tipitaka but you have not practised yet then it is OK for you 'to just observe with wisdom'. But this wisdom has to be wisdom. The observation has to be non-judgemental but marks and characteristics if ever have to be picked up. The answer is yes because you included 'wisdom'. But there are other things that should have done along with this 'non-judgemental observation with wisdom'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo asked: Hugo's question 3-: Q3. Is there 'free will'? Htoo's answer 3-: A3. There is free will but it has to be simless 'free will'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo asked: Hugo's question 4-: Q4. Do I need to read the Suttas or the Abhidhamma? Htoo's answer 4-: A4. This will depend on your inclination and your accumulation. But there are few exceptions who did not need anything but by chance hearing of Dhamma, a single word, a single event led them enlightenment. As the exceptions were few, it is better to study as much as possible while at the same time do meditation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo asked; Hugo's question 5-: Q5. Should I follow the instructions given in the Suttas step-by-step and literally? Htoo's answer 5-: A5. This again will depend on how you can understand the messages in the Suttas. If you are following the wrong translation and then following the wrong interpretation it might well not as effective as in fully understood case. Many more are coming and as Hugo's original message was very very long I will stop here and continu in the next portion. With Metta, Htoo Naing To continue: 41863 From: Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 4:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/7/2005 5:42:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: 'Nama' is the designation for dhammas that experience and object. If you say that thoughts are nama it suggests they experience an object (just like consciousness). But if thoughts are themselves mind-object, what object do they experience? Hi Jon Jon, haven't you ever heard of consciousness taking a past consciousness as object? How would you classify the object in that case? TG 41864 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:03am Subject: Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Delibrate practice Part 2: Hugo continued: I don't have any answers for them, all I have is some observations and even more questions, hopefully this will be enough to help find your and my own answers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Now you have already got the 5 answers to your 5 questions in the Part 1 of Re:Delibrate practice. If you have more questions, it is fine and just post them. I will follow what you said below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo's observations: Obs#1: We know the final goal. That is "don't cling to anything". And it really means anything, including the Path. If you still cling to something (no matter what it is) you haven't "get to" Nibbana. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Very true, Hugo. Even if one clings to the doctrine it is still clinging. As long as there is clinging there will still be becoming. As long as there are becoming there will be rebirth. As long as there are rebirths there will be getting-old, contracting-diseases, sorrow, lamentation, pains, dissatifaction, despair and endless sufferings. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo's observation continued: Obs#2: We already cling to a lot of "things" (I mean "things" in the more general sense, not only material things). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Sure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo's observation continued: Obs#3: We can't just say, "stop clinging" and be done with the task. This proves that we can't "get to" Nibbana just by the power of our will. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Just will without action means 'nothing'. But 'will' is a 'willpower' and it brings into action if it is a true 'will' but if it is not a true will and just a wish then it will be useless. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo murmured helplessly: Should we just sit and wait until Nibbana "gets to us"? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Nibbana will never come in this way. Just sit and wait is just a helpless action. This is the end of Part 2. With Metta, Htoo Naing To be continued: 41865 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:26am Subject: Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Delibrate practice Part 3: Hugo sighed: mmmm...I don't think that is possible, even if some people say that all we need to do is "observe with wisdom", there is something we are doing! And if we are doing it, then it means we wanted to do it, just the fact of sitting there was an act of will. So, this proves that the will plays certain role in attaining Nibbana. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Actually this is talking on non-technical words and it is good. Yes. 'Will' plays a certain role in attaining Nibbana. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo continued: If you have had children or play some kind of role in the education of little kids will be easier to understand the following. ------------- Htoo: Good example. Let's see. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo's example model: Should we tell a 3-year old to sit and "observe with wisdom" whenever he is throwing toys around, hitting his/her friends, throwing a tantrum because he attached to certain toy at the store and you didn't buy it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo's comment: If someone has not learned enough it will be futile to suggest him 'observe with wisdom' because he does not still have wisdom. In the above example of children behaviour it is highly connected with what he has learned in his 1st and 2nd year. You can definitely see different child will react differently and this depends on their inclination and accumulation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo continued: Let's take one of the above examples, hitting others. What should you do? Tell him to "not hit them" and explain him why, and then what? a) Tell him, when you are angry, just observe your anger with wisdom, it will pass away, if you hit your friend again, just keep observing until you stop hitting him or he lays unconscious on the ground, or there is too much blood on your shirt. b) Tell him, when you are angry, go and ask for help, or cross your arms embracing yourself, or smile, or sing, or kiss your friend (this works when the victim is younger and less violent than the aggressor, in other cases, think before recommending it) or better yet "don't do anything" (which in truth "doing anything" is really doing something, but you get the point). If we raise children just by telling them to "observe" and not "do" something, will the defilements diminish or grow? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Sociology, behaviourology, interactive psychology, personality etc etc all acquire through learning, trials and errors and experiences. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo continued: Will he continue hitting or will the hitting be stopped? If this works with the kids, does this work with adults? Adults behave like kids, adults attach to a different set of toys and entertainment, but they really behave the same. The problem with adults is that they think "I know better", so they think that what they do is fine. The mind works the same (for the average human being), no matter your age, if you think differently, just watch more carefully. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree. 7 years and 80 years do not much differ. Because the mind works the same. If someone think 80 years is better than 7 years or 7 years is better than 80 years then there is propensity. There is clinging. I am 80 and he is 7. So I have more experience. etc etc.. indicates that there is clinging and it is mixed with conceit. There was no human arahat below the age of 7. But there were arahats at the age of 7. This indicates that 7 years is as ready as 100 years to attain arahatta magga nana. Because the mind works the same. In human anatomy the brain is already occupied with a defined amount of nerve calls at birth. So as soon as a human being is born all human beings are the same. The reason that maturity takes for 7 years is just for re-arrangement of pathways and cells. Since human beings are born they are losing their nerve cells second after second, minute after minute, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, decade after decade. So if born in manussa bhumi or if born as a human being then all born are the same and age does not speak anything. This is the end of Part 3. With Metta, Htoo Naing To be contiuned: 41866 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:33am Subject: Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Delibrate practice Part 4: Hugo continued: So, if you have a chance, sit and observe with wisdom (or without it) a bunch of little kids (2-5 years old) and you will see how the human mind works, then go and compare to yourself, you will see what I am talking about. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Babysitters and nusery school teachers know well this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo continued: Now onto the questions: Why in many Suttas The Buddha uses verbs that encourage an action? Why in the Vinaya (monastic rules) the rules are mainly directed towards actions that should be or not performed? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Because an action means 'Kamma'. Because actions mean 'Kamma'. As The Buddha discover all the pros and cons of action, He with His limitless compassion laid out these vinayas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo continued: Why the Vinaya ask for celibacy for the Monks, why it doesn't say, "Ok, it is fine monks, go and have sex, but don't enjoy it too much, observe it with wisdom, OK?". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: As He Himself discovered all the pros and cons of all things let alone kama things, sex things, The Buddha would NEVER said as you said 'above' that is ''OK, it is....wisdom, OK?''. This is the end of Part 4: With Metta, Htoo Naing To be continued: 41867 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:41am Subject: Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Delibrate practice Part 5: Hugo continued: Why in the Vinaya there are rules so specific as those that describe the way they should eat, how to receive and ask for things? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Because The Buddha saw the benefits of prescribing these vinayas as rules. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo continued: Why a monk is expelled from the Sangha if he kills another human?, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This is automatic matter. Killers cannot be non-killers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo continued: why the Vinaya doesn't say, "Ok, if you killed, it is just conditions you know, it was not really you, you know, that anatta thing, OK?, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Arahats will never say 'O! come on nama and rupa. Wash with this rupa which is panattically called water' to rupa which is panattically called 'contaminated feet'. And have a rupa which is panattically called 'drinking water'. Express paramatthically called kaya-vinatti and vaci-vinatta rupa. That is why there are 3 baskets of teachings. Otherwise there will be a single tank of all teachings. This is the end of Part 5. With Metta, Htoo Naing To be continued: 41868 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:02am Subject: Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Delibrate practice Part 6: Hugo continued: if you feel like killing again, just observe with wisdom, preferably BEFORE the killing, hopefully that will make the killing desire to pass away, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This just shows 'unability to understand The Buddha Teachings'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo: if not, oh well, there is re-birth and with the law of kamma, that means that the human you killed, deserved it, so no hard feelings, now go on and keep observing with wisdom." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Wisdom does not arise all the time. This is true even in the case of arahats. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo summaried: In summary why the Vinaya is mainly a set of rules encouraging certain behaviour? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Because these behaviours are actions and actions are kamma and kamma are causing suffering and suffering is not what The Buddha wanted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo's last observation: Last observation: I am almost 100% sure that all the members of this mailing list cling to the concept of "self", so, use it as a tool!!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Please shout loud. But your message here is not that clear even though you may be shouting out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo continued: Use everything you encounter (things, situations, feelings, personal relationships, the weather, the news, etc.) as a tool to attain Nibbana, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: :-). It was initially good and later worse and now the worst. Where are you leading to, if I may ask? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo continued: just don't forget that you have to drop everything, and because you can't drop everything just by snapping your fingers, you have to "observe with wisdom" (there you go, you have ALSO to "observe with wisdom") what and when to drop each tool you use. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: :-)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo expressed his emotion: mmm...ok, the above sounds like I am giving advice and I know what I am talking about, but I really don't (except for the part about the little kids, I am painfully experienced in that area), and while my mind is much much more peaceful, and my defilements have been tamed to more subtle levels (with an ocassional spike here and there), I am still not qualified to give advice, specially because I still cling to that self who is training (because so far, the illusion is that it is working), so think of all this message as me "thinking out loud". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Hugo's thinking out loud ends. At some time some people thought that they have very few defilements. :-)) Sitting under a tree, thinking defilements are free Sneaking ajar is a shee, thinking that might be Eeee.. SNAKE !!! HELP ME PLEASE!!! Running under the zeal, many tanha have fleed Coming some after the deal, many tanha still are growing .. O! Am I still not an arahat. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo quoted: Ajahn Chah (and I think he really knows what he is talking about) said: "What is Dhamma?, there is nothing that it is not". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dhamma he said has to be defined again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo continued to murmured: mmm.. not enough Pali in my message?... Ok.. Sabbe-satta avera hontu (May all beings be free from hatred) Sabbe-satta sukhita hontu (May all being be happy) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Understanding is first. Whether there are Pali or not is not important. Sabbe sattaa sukhi attaanam pariharantu. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing > (I hope I got the spelling right). > -- > Hugo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: At least it makes sense. :-))) With Metta, Htoo Naing 41869 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dialogue with Htoo1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: Hi Htoo, S:;-) it can happen easily, but we both mean well. I think it was becaus..snip..... No problem and the other point has been cleared up too. Let me just summarise ..snip..your detail is correct and I greatly appreciate it): S: Right and kamma paccaya always needs upanissaya to bring its results too.We were discussing naanaakkhanika kamma ..snip.. partial kamma patha factors in place. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: :-) Partial kamma patha? :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: We know that in this case, results can only only arise during the present life, but not rebirth consciousness. Of course, ..snip.. Maha Kassapa's corpse which could not be cremated etc. I've not heard this. I'd be interested to know where it can be found if anyone knows, but not important. Metta, Sarah ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Sarah, I snipped out nearly all as all things are clear. If you are thinking that kamma patha dhammas are dhamma that give rise to patisandhi or rebirth it is OK. OK here doe not mean anything. My thoughts are that regarding patisandhi it is always linked with marana-asanna-javana or dying-mental impulsion. These javana cittas may well be what you called kamma-patha related javana cittas. What I talked as akusala are akusala is that akusala are always akusala amd they do have their vipaka. Killing in the mind is byapaada. It is also kamma patha dhamma and not just a partial kamma patha. But 100 5 full kamma patha dhamma because it is byaapaada and it is mano-kamma type of akusala even though it is not kaaya-kamma type which needs death of a being. I hope this is clear. With Metta, Htoo Naing 41870 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:37am Subject: Re: Dialogue with Htoo 2 My question before and still is, surely in normal conditions, agreeable objects are usually experienced with lobha (akusala javana cittas) and not by kusala javana cittas??? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Sarah, agreeable seems like attachment-loaded. Ittha-arammana of The Buddha images cause arising of kusala javana cittas. Tadarammana cittas are OK now. *We agree on the tadarammana cittas;-)* …. ***** …. On kasinas and jhanas H:> If you choose bhavana-kusala there have to arise bhavana-kusala cittas. If you choose kasina for example 'white circle' then the mind will take the idea of white. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Is that bhavana kusala citta, kusala anyway? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >As initiation you will not be all the time on 'the idea of white'. But there are different thoughts. Again in this bhavana solution there is dilute-citta-on-the-idea-of-white because you are thinking 'what you will do tomorrow' 'what you will reply Htoo' 'what you will cook for the whole family' and endless thought. >At first you see that 'O! Buddho! My thoughts are no more on the idea of white and I have been drifted away of tomorrow matters. Then you will be again onn the idea of white. …. S: To me, you've explained how there can be concentration on a white object, but said nothing to suggest why it is wholesome or leading to calm in anyway. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Because the practitioner knows that drifting thoughts are akusala and he is avoiding these akusala. 'White itself' is pannatti and nothing. But arising mind is a pure mind which has panna. It is a citta that takes that white object. That citta is tihetuka citta. It knows this is akusala that is akusala and so on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Non-distractednes, focus and so on are just as much qualities of akusala jhana factors as of kusala jhana factors. I cannot see any value in such focus, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Because you are concentraing on 'concentration'. :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: to be honest and think that such a practice if intensely followed could lead to sheer madness, all in the name of jhanas. Apologies for my directness here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: It is OK. Directness is sometimes good. This is a point why Mahasi Sayadaw did not encourage jhana practice purely. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: We may just have to disagree here. I watched an interesting interview with Tiger Woods the golf player who was talking about how focused he is at times that he has no idea about any people or things around him at all. Just an idea of white doesn't make a citta kusala in anyway. How could it without proper understanding first? …. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I remember your word on 'concentraion and acrobats'. That is why I said above that you are concentrating on 'concentration'. Actually I focus on tihetuka citta. Tiger Wood's mind could not be tihetuka citta at the time he was playing golf. Because it is linked with subtle lobha to win his own physical action of steadiness not just for to win others players. Ekaggata or concentration is present in all kinds of citta. It is miccha-samadhi that works in stealing, fishing, acrobating etc etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: I could find the old posts, but it doesn't matter who said what. It's more important that we just discuss and agree now if possible. So, we both agree now? …. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: OK. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tikkha and mandha puggala – thank you for explaining about the 2 or 3 > phala cittas etc. I've read about this in Vism but wasn't familiar with > these terms. I don't know if you're right to use as examples `intelligent scientists' etc here in the same paragraph as ariyans and phala cittas. When it comes to the two and three roots Connie was referring to, the kind of intelligence to develop insight has no correlation (as far as I know)with the kind of intelligence we conventionally think about or is necessary for a scientist. Just a thought. Metta, Sarah p.s Larry and Jon recently quoted the following: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Yes. Conventioanl intelligence is not related to dvihetuka and tihetuka patisandhi. But generally it seems like dvihetukas are not as intelligent as tihetukas. With Metta, Htoo Naing 41871 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi Howard, I am glad you ask. I wanted to add some more info, I was somewhat short on the object being desirable or undesirable. op 07-02-2005 05:32 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: >> N: No, we have to distinguish: the object that is desirable or undesirable, >> and citta which experiences it with different feelings about it. A pleasant >> sense object may be experienced with akusala javana cittas accompanied by >> unpleasant feeling. Possible. >> > ===================== H: What then does it mean for an object to be desirable (or undesirable)? N: You remember that we had many debates with Rob M? Htoo also explained with his example of rotten flesh being undesirable. The Co to the Abhidhamattha Sangaha (T.A. p. 14, 22, 30) speaks about an object desirable or thought to be desirable. By nature or by judgement. It can be desirable or moderately desirable. Of some objects it can be said that they are agreeable or disagreeable to the majority of people (government officials were mentioned). I think that we cannot always pinpoint this. Kusala kamma or akusala kamma produces the sense-cognitions, vipaakacittas that experience agreeableor disagreeable objects, not neutral objects. Vipaakacittas are the passive side of life. Our reactions towards objects are the active side of life, these have repercussions on our life in the future. It is so beneficial that the Buddha taught vipaakacittas, kusala cittas and akusala cittas. In many suttas we read about a pleasant object and reactions towards it with wise attention or unwise attention. H: What does it mean for a sense object that is felt as unpleasant to be > pleasant. Why is it called "pleasant"? What is the criterion? N: When some people of other religions saw the Buddha, the visible object was very agreeable, intrinsically pleasant, but because of their accumulated defilements cittas rooted in aversion accompanied by unpleasant feeling arose. We have to distinguish vipaakacittas and their accompanying feelings, and kusala or akusala javana-cittas with their accompanying feelings. We also have to distinguish sense-door cittas, the cittas arising in a subsequent mind-door process that still experience the same rupa as object, and mind-door process cittas arising later on that think about concepts related to visible object. If there are not such distinctions there will be confusion as to cittas, their objects and feelings. You may still find that there are unsolved questions. When there is a pleasant object such as a beautiful sound, the accumulated tendency of sense desire may condition akusala citta rooted in desire and accompanied by pleasant feeling. Dispeller of Delusion (II, 207): The arising of greed is completely habitual for beings. But, in the case of the first citta of the sense sphere, accompanied by paññaa and pleasant feeling, a pleasant object is not necessarily a condition for citta with attachment, as the Tiika to the Vis. explains. See my post on rapture. Reviewing: Nina. 41872 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Arising of Right View Hi Tep, wonderful, thank you. I store it in my sutta collection and when I have time I look at the Co. Nina op 07-02-2005 02:42 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m...: > Earlier today I re-read MN 43, Mahavedalla Sutta by Arahant Sariputta > Thera and was delighted again like the other times I had read it in the > past. 41873 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anicca as characteristic Dear Joop, op 07-02-2005 14:58 schreef jwromeijn op jwromeijn@y...: > In fact you (or the 'Dispeller') say: yes, anatta is higher, deeper, > more difficult, than anicca! > > I do not agree with this, and I have Nyatiloka on my side: (as in # > 41706) > Nyatiloka: "It is from the fact of impermanence that, in most texts, > the other two characteristics, suffering (dukkha) and not-self > anattá), are derived." N: Yes, I read these excellent texts, In Kindred Sayings IV. The Buddha explained this. But the question was, how was it before his time. The Dispeller stresses: only a Buddha can teach anatta. I do not see any points of controversy here. But once we discussed in India with Kh Sujin and the late Ven. Dhammadharo which of the three characterstics will be penetrated just before enlightenment. The opinion was that it depends on people's accumulations. But in realizing one of the three you understand also the other two. Nina. 41874 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] quiz Re: Concentration/ekaggataa (l) Hi Phil, op 07-02-2005 02:08 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: >> iii What is the difference between sammaasamådhi in samatha >> and sammaasamådhi in vipassan?E > > Samma samadhi in samatha is for tranquility. If I recall correctly, > there is the suppresion of defilements. N: It concentrates on the meditation subject. It assists sati sampajañña to know: this is lobha, this is kusala citta with calm. Ph: Samma samadhi in vipassana would involve right concentration on > whichever reality was arising? Panna knows nama from rupa, for > example. N: It is khanika samaadhi, momentary concentration, and it assists paññaa to penetrate the characteristics of nama and rupa, and later on the three characteristics, one at a time, of nama and rupa. When it arises with lokuttara citta it has developed, and its strength is like the first jhaana, in the case of a "dry insight worker". Ph: There was a very interesting sutta from "Graded Sayings" in which > four different ways of developing samadhi ... > But > the Buddha taught other ways to develop samadhi, other ways to > develop the path factor of right concentration. N: Not separately, the Path factors (usually five or six) develop together. Right concentration of the eightfold Path is not right concentration when it is not together with sammaadi.t.thi. Ph: iv If we try to concentrate on sound is that the way to know >> sound as it is? > > No, then there would be clinging to results. It would all be > thinking about concentrating. Surely that must go on a lot for > beginners like myself, and maybe not just for beginners. N: Very good. There is sound, and just some slight inclination to concentrate on it for a split second even, or thinking about it, holding on to it. Wrong already. Thanks for the reminder, great! But it is so common that we remind ourselves, and we take it for awareness. We may remind ourselves without words, good to detect. All the best with your moving, Nina. 41875 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anicca as characteristic Hi Steve, op 07-02-2005 04:35 schreef seisen_au op seisen_@h...: >> Nina van Gorkom wrote: >> The characteristics of impermanence and pain are made known with or >> without the arising of Tathaagatas. The characteristic of no-self is >> not made known without the arising of the Enlightened Ones, it is >> made known only on the arising of the Enlightened Ones...> > S: Wouldnt it be only a conceptual understanding of anicca that is made > known without the arising of a tathaagata rather than the anicca > characteristic of paramattha dhammas? N: Wise people before the Buddha had not merely conceptual understanding of cittas. They developed jhanas. They had to have sati sampajañña that knows citta with attachment and citta with calm. They had to have masteries (vasii) of jhana so that they could enter and emerge from the different stages of jhana at any time, and then attain arupa-jhana. Thus, they had more than just conceptual understanding of different cittas arising and passing away. However, only the Buddha could teach impermanence in an unsurpassable way. Nina. 41876 From: nina Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:55am Subject: Pilgrimage India, 5b Pilgrimage India, 5b Acharn Sujin spoke about another case where the Dhamma changed a person¹s life. After a woman had suffered a stroke the doctors told her that she could not become cured from her paralysis. But she had great confidence in the Dhamma and she regained her former health completely. This was also like a miracle. During our pilgrimage Lodewijk and I experienced that it is beneficial to be in the company of good friends. Someone who had received an inconvenient room in one of the hotels did not complain. She said that before taking part of this journey she had reminded herself not to have any expectations. As Acharn reminded us time and again: the different situations of our life are a test for our understanding. We read in the suttas that the Buddha spoke about energy or effort which should be exerted in order to understand the four noble Truths. We may wonder whether we should make an effort to develop right understanding. As soon as we think of effort, we cling, unknowingly, to the idea of ³my effort². Wrong view of self is bound to arise, even though we know in theory that effort is a conditioned nåma. We do not detect this easily, we need a good friend in Dhamma to remind us. I am very grateful to Acharn Sujin to point out to us time and again that we are always lured by attachment, that we are unknowingly overwhelmed by it. We read in the Commentary to the ³Cariyåpiìaka² (translated by the Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi) about the Perfections which the Bodhisatta developed for aeons. We read about the perfection of energy: ³Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the purpose desired since it is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse energy at all than to arouse it in the wrong way. but when energy is conjoined with wisdom, there is nothing it cannot accomplish, if equipped with the proper means...² ***** Nina 41877 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 0:29pm Subject: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation Hugo, For a self-proclaimed Upasaka, you seem to speak from the position of an expert. What you described below are being mindful of merely pannattis and far away from paramattha dhamma. I still don't see how you refute a retreat is a better environment. Maybe if someone can keep that environment no matter the situation but I know I'm not one yet. Before I reach that stage however I have enough sense to admit it to myself. - kel > But it would be better to stop labeling and make "your life" = "your practice". > > I am taking a shower, I am practicing, I am eating alone, I am > practicing, I am eating with the whole family and the neighbors, I am > practicing......in short I am not doing anything else, but practicing. 41878 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 0:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Sarah, > S: not to speak harshly at all!! But is that any test of anything other than > one's attachment to being a certain way? The real test is when one leaves > the centre and goes back to work with a difficult boss or students, is > surrounded by household chores, family and so on, I think. kel: Did I not already conced that this is not the real or full- proof test? It still doesn't change the fact it's a nicer environment to cultivate and practice in. > Remember, Kel, the example of the maid-servant who got up later and later > to test her calm, patient, even-tempered mistress until the latter > snapped? Is the answer to get a better maid-servant or to really > understand one's tendencies when they arise with detachment? Kel: The answer is to find even the most subtlest tendencies and get rid of them. When your mind is already at certain level of calm, the subtler tendencies will be more obvious. And my contention is you aren't going to get very far is you're trying to in the midst of domanassa all the time. - kel 41879 From: connie Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 0:42pm Subject: Re: Predominant roots? Hi, Phil, When I saw Sarah'd already answered your posts I thought, good, I'll just toss this one, but what the hey... I'll send it before I change my mind again. Hope you got the books you wanted from Santa. I like your 'written in very thick sludge' better than my 'set in stone' for thinking about these basic traits. Still, the sludge thing reminds me a bit of the descriptions (Jain?) of how karma sticks to your soul. I was just thinking that we can get all hung up on thinking I'm this or that way and maybe then a little blinder to the other times when "I wasn't myself" or yeah, as you said to Azita, "it could lead us to cultivate a strong self-image". BTW, the part you quoted from the Atthasalini sounds like the Vsm just before the belly flopping deluded sleeper and other examples 'by the posture'. Actually, I can't really say about the deluded type, either. The 'drank a lot' example Buddhaghosa gives is one of his "some say" examples and that seems to be one of his standard "I'm just being fair and presenting all sides here" disclaimers. Anyway, we never know when the hateful or faithful or whatever will show itself and if we know what was taught specifically for each one, that might pop into the mind when we can use it, like with your "Removal of Distracting Thoughts" example. No running home to 'meditate on my colour to deal with hate' kind of thing because if I'm doing that, I'm not being hateful right then and would be better off knowing I can't outrun the lobha that's dragging me down the street. peace, connie 41880 From: Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 7:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/5/2005 4:11:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: I believe it is correct to say that consciousness must have an object, but I am not sure whether that must necessarily be an "actual object", whatever that may mean, since as far as I understand things there is nothing 'actual' about thoughts, only about the consciousness concerned. Sorry I'm not able to explain it any better than this, of course I'm not speaking from direct experience here ;-)). Jon Hi Jon and Howard One more follow up. I've decided to go ahead and call concepts and thoughts as aspects of perception. Therefore...thoughts are mind objects because perceptions are mind objects. They are also Nama based on this classification. And they are also "real" based on this classification. Nyanatiloka's dictionary has 'sanna' defined as perception. He ties sanna into "distinctive marks, memory, ideas, wrong notions," among some other things. Conceptualization would therefore be linking together various perceptions in complex patterns. Of course I'll be interested in reading your responses to this. TG 41881 From: Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 7:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/7/05 3:03:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: > Hi Howard, > I am glad you ask. I wanted to add some more info, I was somewhat short on > the object being desirable or undesirable. --------------------------------- Howard: Thank you for the following. I still find the matter unclear, unfortunately. I will make a couple comments below. -------------------------------- > op 07-02-2005 05:32 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >>N: No, we have to distinguish: the object that is desirable or > undesirable, > >>and citta which experiences it with different feelings about it. A > pleasant > >>sense object may be experienced with akusala javana cittas accompanied by > >>unpleasant feeling. Possible. > >> > >===================== > H: What then does it mean for an object to be desirable (or undesirable)? > N: You remember that we had many debates with Rob M? Htoo also explained > with his example of rotten flesh being undesirable. > The Co to the Abhidhamattha Sangaha (T.A. p. 14, 22, 30) speaks about an > object desirable or thought to be desirable. By nature or by judgement. It > can be desirable or moderately desirable. Of some objects it can be said > that they are agreeable or disagreeable to the majority of people > (government officials were mentioned). > I think that we cannot always pinpoint this. > Kusala kamma or akusala kamma produces the sense-cognitions, vipaakacittas > that experience agreeableor disagreeable objects, not neutral objects. > Vipaakacittas are the passive side of life. > Our reactions towards objects are the active side of life, these have > repercussions on our life in the future. It is so beneficial that the Buddha > taught vipaakacittas, kusala cittas and akusala cittas. In many suttas we > read about a pleasant object and reactions towards it with wise attention or > unwise attention. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: Well, the conventional sense of dsirable or undesirable, which is what seems to be addressed above, is a matter of opinion or judgement or personal preference. Each person has his/her own reasons for that. ------------------------------------ > > H: What does it mean for a sense object that is felt as unpleasant to be > >pleasant. Why is it called "pleasant"? What is the criterion? > N: When some people of other religions saw the Buddha, the visible object > was very agreeable, intrinsically pleasant, but because of their accumulated > defilements cittas rooted in aversion accompanied by unpleasant feeling > arose. > -------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. But my question is what are the criterion for something being intrinsically pleasant. If it is not a matter of how it is experienced, then what *is* it a matter of? It is not enough that someone STATES that dhamma D is intrinsically pleasant. What is the basis? ------------------------------------- > We have to distinguish vipaakacittas and their accompanying feelings, and > kusala or akusala javana-cittas with their accompanying feelings. > We also have to distinguish sense-door cittas, the cittas arising in a > subsequent mind-door process that still experience the same rupa as object, > and mind-door process cittas arising later on that think about concepts > related to visible object. If there are not such distinctions there will be > confusion as to cittas, their objects and feelings. You may still find that > there are unsolved questions. > --------------------------------------- Howard: I apologize, but I still don't seem to have an answer for my question. --------------------------------------- > When there is a pleasant object such as a beautiful sound, the accumulated > tendency of sense desire may condition akusala citta rooted in desire and > accompanied by pleasant feeling. > Dispeller of Delusion (II, 207): > dear in this world. Saataruupa.m ("agreeable") is what is classed as > agreeable. [This signifies] a desirable object as proximate cause of > enjoyment. Ettha sattaana.m raagaanusayo anuseti ("here inheres the beings' > inherent tendency to greed"): in that desirable object, being' s inherent > tendency to greed in the sense of its being unabandoned inheres. Just as > there is water below and above and on all sides of one who is immersed in > water, so indeed in a desirable object the arising of greed is completely > habitual for beings, and likewise in an undesirable object the arising of > annoyance (pa.tigha)...> > ------------------------------------ Howard: What is "dear to the world" is a matter of convention, not objectivity. ---------------------------------- > The arising of greed is completely habitual for beings. But, in the case of > the first citta of the sense sphere, accompanied by paññaa and pleasant > feeling, a pleasant object is not necessarily a condition for citta with > attachment, as the Tiika to the Vis. explains. See my post on rapture. > Reviewing: of the first type of kusala citta of the sense-sphere: accompanied by wisdom > associated with pleasant feeling and unprompted. A desirable object is one > of the conditions for citta to be accompanied by pleasant feeling. It is > explained that a desirable object is not necessarily a condition for citta > with attachment. Citta can rejoice in the object with wise attention.> > Nina. > > ======================== I'm sorry, Nina, but I still do not know what intrinsic pleasantness can mean in something that is experienced as unpleasant. There must then be some other criterion for its pleasantness, and that has not been stated. 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) 41882 From: Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 8:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/7/2005 10:02:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: Hi Jon Jon, haven't you ever heard of consciousness taking a past consciousness as object? How would you classify the object in that case? TG Hi Jon This question came out terribly poorly. I didn't mean it to be demeaning. Sorry about that. I think the question doesn't matter in light of my previous post to you and Howard regarding thoughts as aspects of perception. That would trump anything this question has to offer. TG 41883 From: connie Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 2:10pm Subject: Re: Pilgrimage India, 5b Dear Friends, Nina wrote, "Acharn Sujin spoke about another case where the Dhamma changed a person¹s life. After a woman had suffered a stroke the doctors told her that she could not become cured from her paralysis. But she had great confidence in the Dhamma and she regained her former health completely. This was also like a miracle." I'd just heard this part on mp3 this morning and wondered how we can say these kinds of things are due to faith in Dhamma any more than others know they are due to the grace, love or whim of their particular god. [Yes, TG, I'm really thinking about a certain group who spend their time 'chanting for Cadillacs' as the saying goes]. peace, connie 41884 From: mnease Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 2:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: for James - SammaSankappa and Panna Hi Tep, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tep Sastri" To: Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 11:08 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: for James - SammaSankappa and Panna > Hi Mike and RobertK - > > Your reply in message #41790 was highly economical in words. But the > whole message (most of which was RobertK's) took me a while longer > to read. Your main comments are : > > 1. The imperturbable states (that are conditioned by jhaana) are also > considered (by the Dispeller) in addition to the akusala and kusala > dhammas. That is, in RobK's words, "the mudane jhanas - > > although classified as samma samadhi are also classified as leading > > to accumulation (of rebirth)". > > 2. RobertK's conjecture that "those monks who had mastery of jhana" > could "immeditely after exiting jhana, ...use jhana as a base for > development of the eightfold path leading out of samsara" is agreed > upon by Mike. But I am not sure about this conjecture. Can RobertK cite > a few (out of the "several") suttas he has read to confirm it ? > BTW, are the eightfold factors necessary and sufficient for Arahatship? > > 3. RobertK wrote : > > According to the texts these > > most developed disciples can no longer exist. > > Mike did not comment on it. But I don't have any idea what Rob meant. > > 4. Mike wrote : > > Sammaasankappa (absent of course from all but the first jhaana) > together WITH pa~n~naa constitute the wisdom section of the path-- > pa~n~naa cannot discern the tilakkhaa.na alone. > > Mike, do you mean that samma-sankappa is the same as vitakka > (that's why the comment "absent of course from all but the first jhaana")? > Why is it so? Sammaasankappa is identified often in the abhidhamma as the path-factor vitakka. I accept it as such--hypothetically--both because it accords with the AD texts and because it seems to me to make perfect sense in the contexts of the suttas as well as my own experience. > > Why panna alone "cannot discern the 3 characteristics, Mike? > Isn't "panna" here the same as right understanding (samma-ditthi, > according to Nina)? I can't help get confused by inconsistent uses of > the teminologies (although Nina warned me before!). Also from the Dispeller: "441. Also as regards Right View and Right Thinking, understanding cannot of its own nature determine an object as 'impermanent, painful, no-self', but with applied thought giving [assistance] by repeatedly beating [upon the object] it can. How? Just as a money-changer, having had a coin placed in his hand...and being desirous of looking at it on all sides equally, cannot turn it over with the power of his eye only, but by turning it over with his fingers he is able to look at it on all sides; likewise understanding cannot of its own nature determine an object as impermanent, etc., but with applied thought with its characteristic of focusing the mind and its function of striking and threshing, as it were beating and turning over, it can take what is given and determine it. Therefore Right View only is included here in the understanding group as being of the same kind, but Right Thinking is included because of its action [of assisting]." Again I like this as it seems to me to accord perfectly with the suttas and with my own experience. Though I don't claim to know it as fact, it makes far more sense than does any other explanation or intuition in my experience. I think Nina's advice is sound--many Paali words have different meanings in different contexts and though this can be confusing I think it's well worth the time to try to sort these out, especially with the help of the texts. By the way, I've been reading through the Dispeller of Delusion V. 1 and am nearly finished, looking forward to V. 2. I can't recommend it too highly to anyone with a taste for and/or confidence in the Abhidhamma. mike 41885 From: Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG (and Jon) - In a message dated 2/7/05 3:58:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Jon and Howard > > One more follow up. I've decided to go ahead and call concepts and thoughts > > as aspects of perception. Therefore...thoughts are mind objects because > perceptions are mind objects. They are also Nama based on this > classification. > And they are also "real" based on this classification. > > Nyanatiloka's dictionary has 'sanna' defined as perception. He ties sanna > into "distinctive marks, memory, ideas, wrong notions," among some other > things. > > Conceptualization would therefore be linking together various perceptions in > > complex patterns. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: While I am a bit leery about what you say earlier in this post, I think this last sentence is right on target. I do think that conceptualization is exactly such a process as you describe, and that it indeed involves a complex pattern of percepts, mental pictures, primitive memories, and a variety of other elementary mental phenomena, many of which are rupa-derived. I do believe that there is conceptualization, thinking, projecting, etc, etc, all complex processes. I just have a bit of a probelm with identifying any single aspect of all that as a concept. ------------------------------------------ > > Of course I'll be interested in reading your responses to this. > > TG > > =========================== 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) 41886 From: mnease Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 4:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta, Present Moment and Goal / Kel & Ken H Hi Tep, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tep Sastri" To: Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 6:38 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta, Present Moment and Goal / Kel & Ken H > Thank you for the reply. My pleasure... > > Mike: > > Siila can't be perfected by non-entities (selves etc.)--only by the path. > > Whenever 'I' think 'I' can develop the path, already perversion rules. > > That's how it seems to me, anyway... > > > This is a "Chicken and Egg" puzzle. I don't think so-- > Whether there is the thinking that 'I am developing the Path' or 'I must > do this or that', there still are sila, samadhi and panna to be > developed. Even the mundane path factors--those of satipa.t.thaana--arise only in the absence of "I" I think-- > The necessary work must be done (the Noble Eightfold > Path). --then the path itself does the work, I think--assuming the work you mean is insight. > Otherwise, there will be no change and the samsara will never > end. Sure-- > Now, if the necessary development is carried out correctly, the > personality view ('mine, me, my self') should become weaker and not > so dominating as it used to be. Hearing and considering the Dhamma can certainly be done with a sense of self or even self-view present. When this results in insight, though, no sense of self or self-view present at that moment. (Nearly all forms of kusala are conditioned by ignorance and thus contribute to continued rebirth--but satipa.t.thaana is not and does not). If these moments are profound enough or accumulate sufficiently, then self-view is attenuated and evenutally eradicated at stream entry, as I understand it. But the idea that 'I can achieve this' does not contribute to this process in my opinion. It is much more likely to distract from it, I think. > Then, and only then, the "perversion" > will no longer be the big ruler. That's how I see it. Perversion, vipallaasa, continues until arahattaa, according to the texts--but eradication of self-view occurs with the first stage of liberation, stream-entry, as I understand it. This is not necessarily so of sense of self--not sure about this though. mike 41887 From: Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/7/2005 3:49:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Hi Jon and Howard > > One more follow up. I've decided to go ahead and call concepts and thoughts > > as aspects of perception. Therefore...thoughts are mind objects because > perceptions are mind objects. They are also Nama based on this > classification. > And they are also "real" based on this classification. > > Nyanatiloka's dictionary has 'sanna' defined as perception. He ties sanna > into "distinctive marks, memory, ideas, wrong notions," among some other > things. > > Conceptualization would therefore be linking together various perceptions in > > complex patterns. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: While I am a bit leery about what you say earlier in this post, I think this last sentence is right on target. I do think that conceptualization is exactly such a process as you describe, and that it indeed involves a complex pattern of percepts, mental pictures, primitive memories, and a variety of other elementary mental phenomena, many of which are rupa-derived. I do believe that there is conceptualization, thinking, projecting, etc, etc, all complex processes. I just have a bit of a probelm with identifying any single aspect of all that as a concept. Hi Howard What is conceptualization other than a "string (or chain) of concepts"? Concepts, according my above, being a "string (or chain) of perceptions." TG 41888 From: Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 0:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/7/05 7:41:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Howard > > What is conceptualization other than a "string (or chain) of concepts"? > Concepts, according my above, being a "string (or chain) of perceptions." > > TG > ====================== But, you see, a string or chain of perceptions is, itself, not something ever directly observed. The perceptions fly by, and then there are memories of them, and then there is the mental operation of seeming to grasp them as a whole, but that "whole" is never actually encountered. So, to me, the term 'concept' is extremely imprecise -- ultra-fuzzy in fact, and it only serves to make us *believe* we know what we are talking about! 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) 41889 From: Tep Sastri Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 5:14pm Subject: Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Friend Hugo (and Htoo) - I read your first message under this thread, 'Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"?', with real joy! I love your creative presentation, Hugo. It is true, like you said, this topic is right at the center of several threads at DSG, so this message is important not only for me. Your five questions, and the 3 observations that follow them, are a neat introduction of the problem about atta/anatta, cetana, panna, upadana, and Nibbana. The example of the 3-year old (there is a 3-year old inside me too) helps paint the picture of the human's mental behavior quite vividly. Quite a few dhamma discussers like to talk about the "final goal" such direct knowing, the arising of sati and panna, and the self-less mind state that is free from lobha and moha just like these end-goals are implementable simply by "just do it, you fool!". So I am pleased to read the following comments you have made: ## We can't just say, "stop clinging" and be done with the task. This proves that we can't "get to" Nibbana just by the power of our will. Should we just sit and wait until Nibbana "gets to us"? ##(About the 3-year old who is hitting others) Tell him, when you are angry, just observe your anger with wisdom, it will pass away, if you hit your friend again, just keep observing until you stop hitting him or he lays unconscious on the ground, or there is too much blood on your shirt. ## Why a monk is expelled from the Sangha if he kills another human?, why the Vinaya doesn't say, "Ok, if you killed, it is just conditions you know, it was not really you, you know, that anatta thing, OK? I am now 6 messages behind you and Htoo in the discussion! I will have jump in later to join it. Thank you for initiating this thread. Warm regards, Tep ========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > I am not an expert just an Upasaka trying to follow The Buddha's > teachings. > > I have seen a lot of E-mail threads, and I have presented the same > questions to myself about "deliberate practice", questions like: > > Should I do "formal meditation"? > > Should I just "observe with wisdom"? > > Is there "free will"? > > Do I need to read the Suttas or the Abhidhamma? > > Should I follow the instructions given in the Suttas step-by-step and > literally? > > > I don't have any answers for them, all I have is some observations and > even more questions, hopefully this will be enough to help find your > and my own answers. > > > Obs#1: We know the final goal. That is "don't cling to anything". > And it really means anything, including the Path. If you still cling > to something (no matter what it is) you haven't "get to" Nibbana. > > Obs#2: We already cling to a lot of "things" (I mean "things" in the > more general sense, not only material things). > > Obs#3: We can't just say, "stop clinging" and be done with the task. > This proves that we can't "get to" Nibbana just by the power of our > will. > > Should we just sit and wait until Nibbana "gets to us"? > > mmmm...I don't think that is possible, even if some people say that > all we need to do is "observe with wisdom", there is something we are > doing! And if we are doing it, then it means we wanted to do it, just > the fact of sitting there was an act of will. > > So, this proves that the will plays certain role in attaining Nibbana. > > > If you have had children or play some kind of role in the education of > little kids will be easier to understand the following. > > > Should we tell a 3-year old to sit and "observe with wisdom" > whenever he is throwing toys around, hitting his/her friends, throwing > a tantrum because he attached to certain toy at the store and you > didn't buy it? > > Let's take one of the above examples, hitting others. > > What should you do? > > Tell him to "not hit them" and explain him why, and then what? > > a) Tell him, when you are angry, just observe your anger with wisdom, > it will pass away, if you hit your friend again, just keep observing > until you stop hitting him or he lays unconscious on the ground, or > there is too much blood on your shirt. > > b) Tell him, when you are angry, go and ask for help, or cross your > arms embracing yourself, or smile, or sing, or kiss your friend (this > works when the victim is younger and less violent than the aggressor, > in other cases, think before recommending it) or better yet "don't do > anything" (which in truth "doing anything" is really doing something, > but you get the point). > > > If we raise children just by telling them to "observe" and not "do" > something, will the defilements diminish or grow? > > Will he continue hitting or will the hitting be stopped? > > If this works with the kids, does this work with adults? > > Adults behave like kids, adults attach to a different set of toys and > entertainment, but they really behave the same. The problem with > adults is that they think "I know better", so they think that what > they do is fine. The mind works the same (for the average human > being), no matter your age, if you think differently, just watch more > carefully. > > So, if you have a chance, sit and observe with wisdom (or without it) > a bunch of little kids (2-5 years old) and you will see how the human > mind works, then go and compare to yourself, you will see what I am > talking about. > > Now onto the questions: > > Why in many Suttas The Buddha uses verbs that encourage an action? > > Why in the Vinaya (monastic rules) the rules are mainly directed > towards actions that should be or not performed? > > Why the Vinaya ask for celibacy for the Monks, why it doesn't say, > "Ok, it is fine monks, go and have sex, but don't enjoy it too much, > observe it with wisdom, OK?". > > Why in the Vinaya there are rules so specific as those that describe > the way they should eat, how to receive and ask for things? > > Why a monk is expelled from the Sangha if he kills another human?, why > the Vinaya doesn't say, "Ok, if you killed, it is just conditions you > know, it was not really you, you know, that anatta thing, OK?, if you > feel like killing again, just observe with wisdom, preferably BEFORE > the killing, hopefully that will make the killing desire to pass away, > if not, oh well, there is re-birth and with the law of kamma, that > means that the human you killed, deserved it, so no hard feelings, now > go on and keep observing with wisdom." > > > In summary why the Vinaya is mainly a set of rules encouraging certain > behaviour? > > > Last observation: I am almost 100% sure that all the members of this > mailing list cling to the concept of "self", so, use it as a tool!!! > > Use everything you encounter (things, situations, feelings, personal > relationships, the weather, the news, etc.) as a tool to attain > Nibbana, just don't forget that you have to drop everything, and > because you can't drop everything just by snapping your fingers, you > have to "observe with wisdom" (there you go, you have ALSO to "observe > with wisdom") what and when to drop each tool you use. > > mmm...ok, the above sounds like I am giving advice and I know what I > am talking about, but I really don't (except for the part about the > little kids, I am painfully experienced in that area), and while my > mind is much much more peaceful, and my defilements have been tamed to > more subtle levels (with an ocassional spike here and there), I am > still not qualified to give advice, specially because I still cling to > that self who is training (because so far, the illusion is that it is > working), so think of all this message as me "thinking out loud". > > > Ajahn Chah (and I think he really knows what he is talking about) said: > "What is Dhamma?, there is nothing that it is not". > > > mmm.. not enough Pali in my message?... Ok.. > > Sabbe-satta avera hontu > (May all beings be free from hatred) > > Sabbe-satta sukhita hontu > (May all being be happy) > > > (I hope I got the spelling right). > -- > Hugo 41890 From: Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 5:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi Howard and Nina, I have a couple of thoughts on this subject and a question for Nina at the end. First, this classification of desirable and undesirable objects only applies to objects of kamma resultant cittas. This classification is a way of accounting for the coincidence of kamma. Kamma resultant consciousness and a coincidentally appropriate object arise together. The object is not kamma resultant or necessarily kamma produced, but in order for kamma to come to fruition an appropriate object must arise for the kamma resultant consciousness. To some extent we can guess at our past good and bad volitional activity by the objects that rise to consciousness in our lives. If anything, this is meant to give us reason to consider the course of our present volitional activities and their likely fruition. To me, kamma makes more sense on a conventional level, but whether we are looking at it conventionally or ultimately, there is a certain amount that is simply not explained. For example, there is no list of what is desirable, very desirable, or undesirable, but the indication is that these are characteristics recognizable to the "average person", e.g., the appearances of sunsets and blood. An interesting facet of this is that a king and his servant share the same kamma insofar as they both experience the beauty of the palace and queen. Also it must be said that even a very desirable object is dukkha. Nina, is the object of resultant jhana cittas classed as desirable? This would be a concept. Larry 41891 From: Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 5:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga XIV, 136 Hi Nina, It seems that vitakka and vicara can help or hinder concentration. Is there anything said about how that works? Larry 41892 From: gazita2002 Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 5:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 117 - Vitality/jivitindriya and Attention/manasikaara (a) Dear Nina, thank you, I will keep a look out for it. Patience, courage and good cheer Azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Azita, > It will not be long before we come to jivitindriya in the Vis. and tiika, > and then a few more details will follow. > Nina. > op 06-02-2005 09:19 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...: > > > I can understand the jivitindriya that sustains the life > > of 'our' rupa but find it hard to g 41893 From: Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 0:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi, Larry (and Nina) - In a message dated 2/7/05 8:22:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard and Nina, > > I have a couple of thoughts on this subject and a question for Nina at > the end. > > First, this classification of desirable and undesirable objects only > applies to objects of kamma resultant cittas. This classification is a > way of accounting for the coincidence of kamma. Kamma resultant > consciousness and a coincidentally appropriate object arise together. > The object is not kamma resultant or necessarily kamma produced, but in > order for kamma to come to fruition an appropriate object must arise for > the kamma resultant consciousness. To some extent we can guess at our > past good and bad volitional activity by the objects that rise to > consciousness in our lives. If anything, this is meant to give us reason > to consider the course of our present volitional activities and their > likely fruition. > To me, kamma makes more sense on a conventional level, but whether we > are looking at it conventionally or ultimately, there is a certain > amount that is simply not explained. For example, there is no list of > what is desirable, very desirable, or undesirable, but the indication is > that these are characteristics recognizable to the "average person", > e.g., the appearances of sunsets and blood. > > An interesting facet of this is that a king and his servant share the > same kamma insofar as they both experience the beauty of the palace and > queen. > > Also it must be said that even a very desirable object is dukkha. > > Nina, is the object of resultant jhana cittas classed as desirable? This > would be a concept. > > Larry > ========================== Larry, while you don't quite explicitly say it, it seems to me that your point is that whether a dhamma is inherently pleasant or inherently unpleasant is a matter of the kamma (volitions) that were conditions for it. Whether that is so or not, and whatever the details of it might be if it *is* so, this is just the sort of thing I was looking for when I requested a criterion! One needs an instrumentally efficaceous definition - a testable criterion - on which to base a statement of the form "A is desirable" or "B is undesirable". 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) 41894 From: Tep Sastri Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 6:05pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. Hi Sukinder, my pal (and all interested members)- Like I said before, I always learned something from a wise person. To answer your questions your lengthy mail is broken into seven parts. My answers for part I - VI are one-to-one corresponding to your single point in each part. The last part, VII, is more complex. You did an excellent self defense (that is almost offensive). (I) > T: There is more than one way to reach the top of a mountain. Most > monks and laypersons I know, who are "serious" Buddhists, believe in > finding the shortest cut through Sila- Samadhi- Panna, where Samadhi > means Samadhi-bhavana and Panna means Vipassana-bhavana as > expounded in the Visuddhimagga (which is based on many suttas). Sukinder: But do you see that the idea of `finding the shortest cut through Sila- Samadhi- Panna' may go against the Teachings about the need to `develop the parami' and that the process involves `long time development' (meaning aeons over aeons)? Do you also make the conclusion that the Buddha taught a short-cut method? T: According to the suttas that I have studied, the Buddha always encouraged His monks to attain Nibbana, nothing less, and He gave clear-cut discourses for them to achieve that purpose. Yes, that's a short cut. I have not seen even one sutta in which He instructed the monks to develop 'the parami' first, no matter how long the process might be. He even compared the urgency of reaching Nibbana to having one's hair and clothes on fire. So, from my perspective I do not see what I have written as going against the Teachings. ---------------- (II) > T: The "moment of satipatthana", as I understand it, is a part of Vipassana for attaining pativedha. Sukinder: Do you mean to associate satipatthana with so called `Vipassana meditation'? T: I mean satipatthana, according to the Satpatthana Sutta, which is samma-sati (Right mindfulness), is a Path factor that supports samma- samadhi. And, in turn, sama-samadhi supports sama nana(Right knowledge) and samma vimutti(Right release), according to the Great Forty [MN 117]. "Bhikkhus, here right view becomes foremost. How does right view become foremost? To one with right view arise right thoughts. To one with right thoughts arise right words. To one with right words arise right actions. To one with right actions arise right livelihood. To one with right livelihood arise right endeavour. To one with right endeavour arise right mindfulness. To one with right mindfulness arise right concentration..To one with right concentration arise right knowledge. To one with right knowledge arise right release. Thus the trainer has eight factors and the perfect one has ten factors.[endquote] If vipassana meditation accomplishes Right release as explained above, then the answer is 'yes'. ---------------- (III) Sukinder: I think Dana and Sila are parami only when they are known with sati and panna. A Christian or Moslem with wrong view, being generous and moral is not in my opinion developing the parami at any time, though this may condition a good habit. And if and when in the future he or she comes to appreciate the Dhamma, this accumulated habit can become an asset in terms of developing the parami. And obviously developing the parami *is* patipatti. T: Your example is confusing. With sila-visuddhi, does it matter whether one has accumulated parami or not? Every Buddhist I know gives out dana and practices sila (even only at the level of the Five Precepts, the sila is pure) with gladness and awareness of their kusala kamma. So it is clear that sati and panna, being associated with saddha, are automatically present. On the other hand, your intention to accumulate a 'good' habit or 'parami' may or may not be free from lobha (a desire to accumulate parami) or ignorance (say, you just follow your parents' tradition). Now, if we give dana by our own free will and follow the Precepts to the perfected state because of our saddha in the Triple Gem alone, without anyone telling us to do it, isn't that kusala kamma already free from lobha and moha? Besides, we don't have to have that ditthi to look down upon a Christian or Moslem as having a "wrong view". (Our view is purer because we are Buddhists?) --------------- (IV) > T: Being alone is kaya-viveka ('abiding in solitude free from alluring sensuous objects'). Sukinder: I think that this is important for developing Jhana, but is it of any consequence in terms of developing vipassana panna? T: Yes, vipassana panna is supported by Right concentration. "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities ..." [DN 22] So kaya-viveka supports Right concentration. ----------------- (V) > T: I think you need to do more bhavana and less reading and listening (unless you listen to Dhamma talks given by an Ariya). Sukinder: I agree with anyone who states that patipatti is more important than pariyatti. But I think that it may be self-defeating to think that "I can or should develop more patipatti and be less concerned about pariyatti." Firstly both these terms refer to levels of panna not necessarily related to any conventional activity. Secondly, they are anatta and arises and falls because of conditions unrelated to any thinking and decision on my part. In other words, if my level of understanding is such that I seek to understand more on the `conceptual' level, I will read dsg, but there is no guarantee that there will be any understanding. However, if indeed the conditions are right, even while reading, there can be a moment of satipatthana. And this I believe would have been in part because there was no `self' trying to direct the show. ;-) T: I didn't say that patipatti was more important that pariyatti. I just said that you should do more bhavana, because it is lacking. At our level of "satipatthana" the 'self' is always unavoidable, regardless of your chanting that there is "no 'self' trying to direct the show". That is not understanding, it is memorizing.( ;>|) ---------- (VI) > T: How would you know "the difference between samatha and vipassana" if you do very little (or zero?) samatha-bhavana but a lot more on listening and reading? Sukinder: As has often been pointed by some of us, pariyatti *is* a level of panna which should not be overlooked. And this is not a matter of theorizing, but right understanding of particular level. So there can be *right* understanding of the concept of samatha-bhavana esp. when informed by a corresponding level of understanding about conditionality. So don't you think that this may be more reliable than any reference to experience which may have resulted from lobha and ditthi? There is no `learning from experience' if driven by avijja. And wrong view does appear right to the person who has it, no? T: Sure, pariyatti should not be overlooked; even the first level of parinna(full understanding) is about knowing specific characteristics of nama and rupa. That requires pariyatti knowledge and noone can overlook that fact. But I don't believe in the speculation that "there can be *right* understanding of the concept of samatha-bhavana esp. when informed by a corresponding level of understanding about conditionality". If reading and studying without true experience of the Dhamma is that great, they wouldn't have residence programs in almost every hospital. A book-expert medical-school graduate would start working right away in a hospital, prescribing medicines, performing surgery, etc. You can imagine, that would be chaotic and dangerous. Another analogy is, for example, the reading and studying ('pariyatti') how to drive an automobile would not help you to be able to drive it safely on the road right after reading the book. Only with a practice ('bhavana'), then you can. No, I don't have to do the samatha-bhavana that is driven by lobha and ditthi like you have imagined. Of course, lobha and moha still are with us, because we are worldlings. But they can be peeled off layer by layer when both samatha and vipassana are more and more developed and become well balanced. I know it because I have done some myself. Starting as a novice, no matter how well you think you know about the dangers of lobha and ditthi (moha), you still are not better of than any other practictioner, because that book-knowledge of the concepts is too weak to fight with lobha and moha or any defilement. No, that book-knowledge is not *right* understanding! Right understanding (or Right view) is samma-ditthi, meaning you are free from the first 3 fetters! [I have a sutta support for that.] Again, what you think you know from studying the concepts is totally different from seeing and knowing as the result of bhavana. Indeed, "learning from experience" helps peeling off the wrong-view-layers of the avijja onion. ------------- (VII) > S: (About the importance of Right exertion and viriya-bala) Are you thinking that there is some `short cut method', one that will bypass any lack of accumulated parami? Many people view meditation practice, particularly `jhana', in this way. They think that these are special techniques taught by the Buddha and developed by later `masters' (Zen, Dzogchen etc) for the purpose of getting to enlightenment `in this very life'. I think this is all symptomatic of `attachment to self'. > > T: Those later masters cannot be complete fools. Don't put them down too easily! The strength of Right exertion/effort that is the characteristic of viriya bala is important like a rocket booster to propell a spacecraft into the outer space. Many, many stories of successful monks during the Buddha Era and after that to the recent history, e.g. those several well-known Burmese and Thai acariyas ( the Forest monks) are my supporting evidence, Sukinder. Sukinder: I was particularly talking about Mahayana, and no, I don't think there can possibly be one enlightened person within this group. In fact I think the label Buddhism should not include both the Pali and the Mahayana teachings, they are too different and only one of them is right. I have little knowledge of the so-called `Burmese and Thai acariyas', and have no reason to think them enlightened, unless of course I believe what most people say about them. I heard that many years ago there was a monk in some part of Thailand who was considered an ariyan by many people. Even he thought that he had `attained' something. But he heard K. Sujin on radio and soon came to realize that he really did not attain even the first level of insight. So he decided to disrobe and from then on became K. Sujin's student. T: I wouldn't conclude that way about Mahayana monks. Remember, there are several paths to the top of a mountain. About that converted monk, it was a pity. Has he now achieved enlightenment under Acharn Sujin? Probably at the time he was in monkhood, he didn't know or care about attaining an Ariya-magga. --------------- >T: How many monks and lay-persons you know have achieved an Ariya-magga without the "formal meditation" and jhanas? Can you give me just one name, please?:-) Sukinder: At one time of course, I thought *all* of them were enlightened, even famous teachers of other religions. Now my view has changed. I also speculated about certain living person, thinking that he or she must be enlightened; now it does not matter at all. What good will it do to me to try and find out if someone is enlightened or not. After being convinced about the supreme enlightenment of the Buddha, my only duty is to try to understand his Teachings. I think we should consider and reflect on the causes instead of dwelling on the results. I am a beginner and I like to hear about the basics which I know only intellectually, again and again. Difficult concepts like D.O. don't interest me as much. Do I know tanha, do I know vedana, and do I know jati? My understanding of aversion, attachment, feeling, conceit, jealousy, seeing, hearing, hardness, taste and so on is so infused with `self', how can I understand the D.O. except in theory. And with all the tanha and avijja, would I not risk fooling myself into thinking that I know and understand more than I really do? T: If the Buddha and His Disciples were not enlightened there would not be the Buddhsasana that has lasted over 2500 years, and nobody would have faiths in the Teachings. But His Dhamma has been testproven to be true, and the Truths are timeless, etc. So it is extremely important to find out if the easy-going-book-study scheme (not taught by the Buddha), which is not supported by samatha- vipassana bhavana (taught by the Buddha), is going to help you or anybody become enlightened or not. Or, if you can find an evidence that someone else is enlightened without the "formal meditation" and jhanas taught by the Buddha, then you'd have your point proved too. I believe that the only way to prove that your "understanding of aversion, attachment, feeling, conceit, jealousy, seeing, hearing, hardness, taste and so on" is able to eradicate the personality view of 'self' is when you become an Ariya yourself. Then, you would not risk fooling yourself into thinking and believing that you know and understand more than you really do. ;-). --------- > T: Okay, you want to talk theoretical dhammas. Let's discuss like two bookworms would do. First, everything is dhamma. Second, when viriya becomes samma-vayama (Right effort/exertion) along with samma-sati and samma-ditthi, the other Path factors become highly developed. When all the 7 Path factors are matured, samma-samadhi arises (See the Great Forty, MN 117). > > Further, do you remember the following passage from the Visuddhimagga (VM I,7)? "Develops consciousness and > understanding: develops both concentration and insight. For it is concentration that is described here under the heading > of 'consciousness', and insight under that of 'understanding'. Ardent (aataapin): possessing energy. For it is energy that is called 'ardour' (aataapa) in the sense of burning up and consuming (aataapana- paritaapana) defilements." This shows how important trying-hard-the- right-way is. Sukinder: Unfortunately I find the Visuddhimagga extremely hard to read, so I don't ever. I depend on friends here to give a sub-commentary in plain English. I am not saying that viriya is not important, it is. But without panna, what would be the object of viriya? T: About the Visuddhimagga just read it slowly and ponder over what you've read. You need to find your way around that sticking point which keeps coming back to the discussion! It is stated above that samma-ditthi (which you call panna or understanding?) is the forerunner as stated in the Great Forty [MN 117]. "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities -- right view, right effort, & right mindfulness -- run & circle around right view.... ". The object of viriya in this sutta quote is miccha- ditthi and it is turned into samma-ditthi later. Samma-vayamo, samma-sati, and samma-ditthi are the three qualities that circle around each Path factor to make it mature too. Nekkhamma sankappa can be an object of viriya, for example. When the three qualities circle around nekkhama sankappa, the latter is turned into a Path factor. -------------- > > Tep: Further, the four right exertions above show clearly that the monk has an intention, a purpose to develop and culminate his arisen skillful qualities (kusala dhammas) towards Nibbana (as the goal). I think you are talking about an Ariya who is able to "know and see things the way they really are", not about the mind of a worldling who has not reahed this state yet. Before getting "there" you need "an act of will" with right exertions; once there, no need for intention. > > [ T: Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi probably shares the above view for he defines samma-sankappa as Right intention.] Sukinder: If we can differentiate between cetana and vitakka, and if we would like to identify `thinking with a particular objective in mind' as `one's intention to do something', then I have no problem with calling this right/wrong intention. But as a dhamma I would not think this to be cetana, but rather vitakka (and any necessary associated state). But then Right intention would be determined by Sati and Panna, because only then the object would be a paramattha dhamma and not an `idea of a self wanting to do and achieve something'. T: I have no problem with that. But I doubt if the idea of self is completely gone from an Armchair Dhamma Discusser who understands Paramattha dhamma. You should read Hugo's first message under the thread, 'Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"?' ---------- > T: I completely agree with you (and Nina) about the danger of 'self' that is subtly directing everything because of tanha and avijja. But I also see a real danger in being an Armchair Dhamma Discusser, who knows everything but accomplishes little because he does not want to try "too hard" and wants to hold on to all (mundane) precious things in life. Sukinder: There is danger at every turn as long as the conditions for lobha and avijja are there. Lobha acts as both the teacher as well as the student. And the concept of "trying hard" may be an instance of this same lobha. Panna sees the value in detachment and not to hold on to either theory or an idea of practice. Yes life is precious, and wrong practice would be a big waste of time. T: Again, I repeat, trying hard the right way (as explained above) does not have to be loaded with lobha and avijja. In fact, viriya-bala associated with samma-vayama is not loaded with lobha and avijja. But, to keep on chanting your book knowledge about the danger is not going to eliminate your lobha and avijja for you either. ;-)) ------------- Sukinder: Thank you so much for taking the time to reply to my long post. Please feel free to respond to this one at any convenient time. T: One disadvantage of this in-line question-and-answer is that it keeps getting longer and longer! We should find a better way rather than this ineffective dialoguing. Yet, I thank you for taking time to respond with such a great detail. Warm regards, Tep =============== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Thanks for your other post. :-) > I'll reply to this one by inserting comments between your own. > 41895 From: Tep Sastri Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 6:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Arising of Right View Dear Nina, I am happy that you like MN 43, Mahavedalla Sutta. Indeed, I need some interpretation of "the release of mind with right view and its results, and the release through wisdom with right view and its results". Would you be kind enough to explain i) what the results are, and ii) what is the difference between the two cases? I am sorry to hear that your father has been ill. I wish him quick recovery from the illness with good health after that. My mother is 97 and is in good health, except for the fact that she cannot walk around much without supports. Looking at my mom and I can see Dukkha very clearly. Kindest regards, Tep ============= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Hi Tep, > wonderful, thank you. I store it in my sutta collection and when I have time > I look at the Co. > Nina > op 07-02-2005 02:42 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m...: > > > Earlier today I re-read MN 43, Mahavedalla Sutta by Arahant Sariputta > > Thera and was delighted again like the other times I had read it in the > > past. 41896 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 6:50pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: >. Many, many stories of successful > monks during the Buddha Era and after that to the recent history, e.g. > those several well-known Burmese and Thai acariyas ( the Forest > monks) are my supporting evidence, Sukinder. > >========== Dear Tep, These Thai Acariyas that you know, Do you mean they are arahant? Who are they? Robertk 41897 From: Tep Sastri Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 7:18pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. Dear RobertK, It is nice, I think, to see a mail from you again. You asked: > These Thai Acariyas that you know, Do you mean they are arahant? > Who are they? Are you familiar with Thai Forest Monks' stories? Acariya Mun BhuridattaThera was Arahant and most of his close disciples were Arahants too. Some of their names can be found at Access to Insight and at a few Thai Web sites (or try Web search with the following key words: Thai Forest monks, LuangTa Maha Boowa, Laung Pu Dun). A clue for confirming Arahuntship is crytal-like relics after the monk passed away. They are displayed at certain temples in Thailand. I guess this is all you wanted to know. Kind regards, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > wrote: > >. Many, many stories of successful > > monks during the Buddha Era and after that to the recent history, > e.g. > > those several well-known Burmese and Thai acariyas ( the Forest > > monks) are my supporting evidence, Sukinder. > > > >========== > Dear Tep, > These Thai Acariyas that you know, Do you mean they are arahant? > Who are they? > Robertk 41898 From: Hugo Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 7:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Hello Htoo, I see you just misunderstood the whole message I was trying to convey. First, I was not making direct questions, expecting direct answers to each one. Second, see below, On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:02:12 -0000, htootintnaing wrote: > Hugo continued: > > if you feel like killing again, just observe with wisdom, preferably > BEFORE the killing, hopefully that will make the killing desire to > pass away, > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > This just shows 'unability to understand The Buddha Teachings'. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The way you quoted above seems to imply that I support, or that it is my view the three lines that you quoted after writing "Hugo continued:". And that is not true. I think you should re-read a few lines before and a few lines after those three lines you quoted. Actually if you look carefully you will notice that I wrote all that in a single paragraph, exactly to avoid misquotes, so it seems that you put extra effort in extracting those three lines to make "my quote", is that a case of "selective quoting in order to build a strawman"? (you don't need to answer this question). > :-). It was initially good and later worse and now the worst. Where > are you leading to, if I may ask? Yes, you may ask, but if you didn't get the message I was trying to convey, I don't think I can do a better job re-explaining it, the best I can do is to tell you that my message was with the intention of encouraging certain kind of questions, more than making any statement or claiming that it was The Truth, as I said, I have asked myself all these questions and more, and also as I said, I don't have the answers yet, yes I have some answers, but I don't know if they are The Truth, how can I know The Truth?, I am still full of greed/hatred and delusion, and that's why I am still practicing and still in this and other mailing lists, because I am searching for it. > Htoo: Hugo's thinking out loud ends. At some time some people thought > that they have very few defilements. :-)) Htoo, you are not direct, when you say "some people" do you mean "Hugo"?? Hugo knows that he is full of defilements, if you read with attention my message I said: ...and while my mind is much much more peaceful, and my defilements have been tamed to more subtle levels (with an ocassional spike here and there), I am still not qualified to give advice.... I have seen a lot of your posts directed towards other people (and myself), and it seems that you are a "sniper" kind of person, with that, I mean that you camouflage your attacks under the disguise of humor, generalities, etc. If you are indeed doing that then I don't think we can have a productive discussion, so please be direct, I am not easily offended if you are direct, but if you are not direct, I can't answer anything because I don't know what do you mean with your comments. An example of one of those messages I mentioned above is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/38507 In that message you said to me: "I can see you have a good command in Dhamma as well as mental power." I gave the benefit of doubt, but I have seen you doing this kind of thing to many people in different mailing lists, this lead me to believe what I said about you being a "sniper". And this automatically makes you unsuitable for discussion, because I know that your smiles and your "with Metta" and suposedly questions and comments are not with the real intention of helping but with the intention of insulting and degrading others. Other examples are those messages you recently crossposted from Dhammasukkha about your exchange with KK, in your replies to her you point out and make fun of typos and other non-important things. (note that I don't agree 100% with KK in certain points, nor I am on "her side" at all). Ok, I think I have said enough, and with that generated bad kamma, but somehow I thought I needed to express. In short, Htoo, you are disrespectful to people. -- Hugo 41899 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 8:08pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Anicca as characteristic --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > wrote: > > Hello Phil and Joop, > > Sarah referred formerly to Dispeller of Delusion (p. 59) about the > three > > characteristics. He taught the characteristic of anatta by means of > both the > > impermanent and suffering. > > Dear Nina > > You stated: "It is explained that impermanence and dukkha are more > obvious. subtle, difficult to penetrate, difficult to illustrate, difficult to > make known. > The characteristics of impermanence and pain are made known with or > without the arising of Tathaagatas. The characteristic of no-self is > not made known without the arising of the Enlightened Ones, it is > made known only on the arising of the Enlightened Ones...>" > > My question to Phil was: Do you think there is a hierarchy between > anatta-dukkha-anicca ? > In fact you (or the 'Dispeller') say: yes, anatta is higher, deeper, > more difficult, than anicca! > > I do not agree with this, and I ....> > So I stick to my little theory: people fighting against their strong > ego prefer anatta aspects as the core (of emptiness), people fighting > against a need of ontology prefer anicca aspects. > ================== Dear Joop, Is it great you have no ego, congratulations. But not only the commentaries explain the great difficulty of understanding anatta but also the suttas. The Buddha was anattavadin, teacher of anatta. Take for example http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitaka/mn-11.htm Majjhima Nikaya 11 Culasihanada Sutta The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar 2. "Bhikkhus, only here is there a recluse, only here a second recluse, only here a third recluse, only here a fourth recluse. The doctrines of others are devoid [*p.64] of recluses: that is how you should rightly roar your lion's roar. [1] Though certain recluses and brahmins claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging ... they describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. They do not understand one instance ... therefore they describe only the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. [8] 13. "Bhikkhus, in such a Dhamma and Discipline as that it is plain that confidence in the Teacher is not rightly directed, that confidence in the Dhamma is not rightly directed, that fulfilment of the precepts is not rightly directed, and that the affection among companions in the Dhamma is not rightly directed. Why is that? Because that is how it is when the Dhamma and Discipline is [*p.67] badly proclaimed and badly expounded, unemancipating, unconducive to peace, expounded by one who is not fully enlightened. "endsutta Bodhi note: "This passage clearly indicates that the critical differentiating factor of the Buddha's Dhamma is its "full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self." This means, in effect, that the Buddha alone is able to show how to overcome all views of self by developing penetration into the truth of non-self (anatta)." Robertk 41900 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 8:29pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: >> Are you familiar with Thai Forest Monks' stories? Acariya Mun > BhuridattaThera was Arahant and most of his close disciples were > Arahants too. Some of their names can be found at Access to Insight > and at a few Thai Web sites (or try Web search with the following key > words: Thai Forest monks, LuangTa Maha Boowa, Laung Pu Dun). > > A clue for confirming Arahuntship is crytal-like relics after the monk > passed away. They are displayed at certain temples in Thailand. > >======== Dear Tep, I have had a look at the biography of Acariya Mun. I really can't see why crystal like relics would mean someone was an arahant, I think it is not how they were known in the Buddha's time. Do you know the international controversy after the Bio of Acariya Mun was published. Here is a section from the World Fellowship of Buddhists Magazine VolXIII no1 (BE2519/1976) From Nyanaponika Mahathera Forest Hermitage Kandy, Ceylon ..the shock I felt when reading the statement in the 4th section (p.135) that "a number of Buddhas togther with their arahant disciples" had paid a vists to the Acharn to "offer their congratulations upon his achievement". The controversy that understandably arises upon such a statement can I think be conclusively and decisively settled..[he then quotes sutta passagae ] Obviously , the statements abscribed to venerable Acharn Mun are in contradication with the afore quoted sutta passage. There are also conflicts with other well-known utterances of the Master on the nature of Tathagatha, on Nibbana, and the khandhas..Admirers [of acharn Mun] will have to face the dilemma and solve it for themselves, honestly without misinterpreting the Buddha- word" endquote from Nyanatiloka 41901 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 8:34pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. -sorry should have been NyanapONIKa not nyanatiloka In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In> solve it for themselves, honestly without misinterpreting the Buddha- > word" endquote from Nyanatiloka > > > Robertk 41902 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:06pm Subject: Re: for James - SammaSankappa and Panna --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > 3. RobertK wrote : > > According to the texts these > > most developed disciples can no longer exist. > > Mike did not comment on it. But I don't have any idea what Rob meant. > >===== Dear Tep, I meant that those were jhanalabhi and able to master jhana and attain nibbana could only exist at the first stages of the sasana. After taht there can still be sukkha vipassaka arahanst for anotehr 1000 years, but at this time there can only be anagami who are sukkhavipassaka. The Netti-pakarana (587) "Tattha Bhagava tikkhindriyassa samatham upadassati, majjhindriyassa Bhagava samathavipassanam upadissati, mudindriyassa Bhagava vipassanam upadassati. Herein the Blessed one teaches samatha to one of keen faculties; The blessed one teaches samatha and insight to one of medium faculties and the blessed one teaches insight [alone] to one of blunt faculties. Again in the Netti (746)it says that the Buddha teaches insight [alone] to one who is guidable (neyya) and teaches in detail to neyya. At this time (acording to the texts) there are only padaparama and neyya. Padaparama cannot attain in this life, although they can in future lives.. We in this age- so the Theravada commentaries say- are either padaparama or neyya and we need many details. Only the very wise ones with great accumulations could master jhana and use it as the base for insight. Nevertheless all types of kusala - of which samatha is one of the highest- should be developed as all kusala assists insight. From Ledi sayadaw http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/individu.htm ""(1) A Ugghatitannu : an individual who· encounters a Buddha in person, and who is capable of attaining the Holy Paths and the Holy Fruits through the mere hearing of a short concise discourse. (2) A Vipancitannu: an individual who · encounters a Buddha in person, but · who is capable of attaining the Paths and the Fruits only when the short discourse is expounded to him at some length. At the present day, only the following Neyya and Padaparama classes of individuals remain. (3) A Neyya : an individual who needs · to study the sermon and the exposition, and then · to practise the provisions contained therein for 7 days to 60 years, to attain the Paths and the Fruits during this lifetime if he tries hard with guidance from the right teacher. (4) A Padaparama : is an individual who cannot attain the Paths and the Fruits within this lifetime can attain release from worldly ills in his next existence if he dies while practising samatha or vipassana and attains rebirth either as a human being or a deva within the present Buddha Sasana. ""endquote Ledi sayadaw. The commentaries on the Vinaya Pitaka and the Anguttara-nikaya indicate their will be one thousand years for Arahats who attain mastery of jhana with abhinna,then a further one thousand years for Arahats who are sukkhavipassaka, after that one thousand years where it is still possible to be Non-returners, then one thousand years for Once-returners, and one thousand years for Stream-winners. Robertk 41903 From: Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Howard: "Larry, while you don't quite explicitly say it, it seems to me that your point is that whether a dhamma is inherently pleasant or inherently unpleasant is a matter of the kamma (volitions) that were conditions for it." Hi Howard, I think it is more a matter of the common nature of human being (for human kamma), but the commentary says it is an inherent characteristic of the rupa. Maybe it's a little of both. I can't think of any other way of describing its conditional arising except as "coincidental". Whatever it is, there is possibly an important ethical and aesthetic philosophy in here somewhere that relates to all kinds of values. It is an interesting idea that there could be an inherent goodness or badness in some rupa just as there is an inherent goodness or badness in some consciousnesses. The commentary also mentions something about sanna vipallasa (perversion of perception), but I'm not sure it really applies here. Here's the definition of vipallasa from "The Buddhist Dictionary": "vipallása: 'perversions' or 'distortions'. - ''There are 4 perversions which may be either of perception (saññá-vipallása), of consciousness (citta v.) or of views (ditthi-v.). And which are these four? To regard what is impermanent (anicca) as permanent; what is painful (dukkha) as pleasant (or happiness-yielding); what is without a self (anattá) as a self; what is impure (ugly: asubha) as pure or beautiful'' (A. IV, 49). - See Manual of Insight, by Ledi Sayadaw (WHEEL 31/32). p.5." For one thing this definition doesn't say anything about perceiving what is desirable as undesirable. Also, it seems to me, even if you correctly perceived what is desirable as desirable, if you failed to also see that it is impermanent, or dukkha, or anatta, then that would also be a perversion, imo. Larry another thought: even if you correctly perceived what is desirable as desirable, any desire that arises is still akusala. So that would seem to cancel one's correct perception. 41904 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:15pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 119 - Vitality/jivitindriya and Attention/manasikaara (c) 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.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)contd] ***** Citta and cetasikas cannot arise without jívitindriya which maintains their lives and jívitindriya cannot arise without citta and the accompanying cetasikas. When, for example, seeing arises, jívitindriya must accompany seeing. Seeing needs jívitindriya in order to subsist during the very short period of its life. When seeing falls away jívitindriya also falls away. Then another citta arises and this citta is accompanied by another jívitindriya which sustains citta and the accompanying cetasikas during that very short moment of their existence. Jívitindriya has to arise with every citta in order to vitalize citta and its accompanying cetasikas. ***** [Ch.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 41905 From: frank Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:40pm Subject: Revulsion, Nibbindati, viraga, these are a few of my favorite things. Since this is one of my favorite words and favorite aspects of Buddhist lifestyle, I couldn't resist adding my 2 cents. I don't remember which pali dictionary I got this from: Nibbindati - to get wearied of (c. loc.); to have enough of, be satiated, turn away from, to be disgusted with. In the Majjhima Nikaya, B.Bodhi translates Nibbindati as "disenchanted". In the Samyutta, he translates that word as "revulsion". All of those English translations have their merits, but also a few elements of confusion since conventional understanding of those words carry western cultural baggage. I had always wondered why B.Bodhi chose the use of "revulsion" rather than "disenchantment" when he translated the Samyutta nikayas. I never asked him to confirm it, but I have a pretty good guess as to why he went with "revulsion" later on. I found [m 148] to be extremely illuminating in getting a proper sense of "nibbindati". http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn148.html Thanissaro also uses "disenchantment" (instead of revulsion). "Disenchantment" really is an awesome choice of words to translate Nibbindati. It strongly conveys a sense of perceiving reality correctly, breaking the spell and becoming "dis-enchanted" with our previously deluded perception of reality which bound us to such immense suffering. I can see no fault with that word. However, I believe B.Bodhi started going with "revulsion" despite its possible shortcomings because it has such a STRONG connotation. Whereas "disenchantment" could be selective, there's something about "revulsion" that seems to cover our entire realm of experience. For example, one could easily become disenchanted with paying taxes, dating a playboy playmate, yet still have underlying tendencies that cause us to perceive fine wine, fine art, classical music alluring. "Revulsion" has such a strong connotation, when used in context of experiencing our world of the six sense bases, there is no wiggle room to misinterpret the extent and profound sense of weariness with sensual pleasure. A passage in [m148.28] makes this clear: "when one is touched by a pleasant feeling, if one delights in it, welcomes it, and remains holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust lies within one... Monks, that one shall here and now make an end of suffering without abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling... this is impossible." "Revulsion" expresses that fundamental shift in perception of what is TRUE happiness, recognizing that what we formerly believed to be pleasant feeling leading to happiness is actually a booby trap that baits us with a short pleasant burst of stimuli, which then binds us and tricks us into nourishing the seeds for immense future suffering. How could one not feel a sense of disgust and revulsion when we realize what we thought was worthwhile to pursue was actually a scam, a swindle, a trick to rob us of our wealth, our energy, our wisdom? The misconception that people have about "revulsion" is due to our common understanding of the word having an element of emotional, passionate aversion, which clearly is not the case if you look at the context of the suttas. Also in [m148.28], the Buddha explicitly states that " if the underlying tendency to aversion lies within one... that one shall here and now make an end to suffering without abandoning this underlying tendency to aversion is impossible." There is no aversion component in the "revulsion" of "nibbindati". In the Buddhist context, revulsion is not a petty human emotion, but a fundamental shift in our perception of reality triggered by a profound realization of the suffering inherent in sensual pleasure. If there is any kind of emotional component to "revulsion" (in a Buddhist sense), I can only imagine it to be utter joy. Whenever a sense of "revulsion" towards the sense pleasures arise in me, I feel a deep sense of pleasure. Formerly all of our energy was channeled with futile devotion into activities that were full of tension and angst, yet we perceived that activity as "pleasant". How perverse is that? To change course and see that we thought pleasant was in fact a honeyed razor, a fatal booby trap - what a relief and what joy! How can we feel anything but disenchantment and revulsion when we look at the world with even just a mundane level of right view? [m148.41] "Being disenchanted (nibbindati), he becomes dispassionate (viraga). Through dispassion [his mind] is liberated. When it is liberated, there comes the knowledge: "it is liberated.' He understands: 'birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what has to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being." -fk p.s. raga is lust, vi-raga is absence of lust. Thus, we can see how revulsion/nibbindati would lead to vi-raga, or absence of lust. In an interesting coincidence, Viagra is a medication used to incite and multiply lust for men with erectile dysfunction. Truly the Buddhist way goes against the stream. The worldling wants to take Viagra, the cultivator strives for vi-raga. -----Original Message----- From: Nina van Gorkom [mailto:vangorko@x...] Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 11:43 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] Revulsion ? Hi Phil. nibbidaa is one of the words, meaning: weariness, disenchantment with worldly life. Often in combination with viraaga: dispassionateness, destruction of passions, emancipation. Nina. op 05-02-2005 23:35 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: > What is the Pali used for "revulsion" and what are its > connotations? Thanks in advance. 41906 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 0:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Salesmanship: Re: abhidhamma - Andrew L Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: Actually, I think the first baby step is the perfection of > sila; …. S: OK, let’s pause here if this is the first baby step. Please explain what you understand by sila and how it is perfected (as a baby step!!). ….. >but then the Buddha recommends mindfulness of breathing (You > read the sutta I quoted. What do you have to say about that sutta > in particular?). … S: My comments would just be a little like the white kasina qus I asked Htoo yesterday. If we read such a sutta and think we should then focus on the breath and that this in itself will lead to any kinds of wholesome states, how can it and why should it? …. >It was what his son, Rahula, first began to > practice as a child. It isn't listed in every sutta because every > sutta serves a different purpose and is for a different audience. …. S: Here we are in full agreement. Do we have Rahula’s knowledge and understanding? Yes, different audiences. No rule that what was suitable for Rahula is suitable for us. ….. > Sarah: In your experience, can there be `real practice' or > development of insight into presently arisen states (dhammas) when > you're not having `painful sitting in meditation' or focused on > breath? <…> > James: This is a very nice question. Thank you! From my > understanding, traditionally the process goes like this: Sila -> > Panna -> Samadhi. …. S: Assuming you’ve answered and explained the first question about sila. How does sila in itself (as defined by you), lead to panna? …. >One must first perfect sila, then build the seven > path factors lead by right view, and finally develop Samadhi > (jhana). …. S: Ok, you begin to explain a little here. How does ‘one’ ‘build the seven path factors led by right view’? What exactly do you mean by the ‘one’ here? …. >This is the most direct route to enlightenment, which the > monks practiced. However, householders are not on the fast track to > enlightenment and should develop whatever path factors as they can. > In other words, even a meat butcher or fisherman (wrong livelihood) > can do his/her best to develop samadhi, and the other path factors, > in this lifetime in order to reach sotapanna. …. S: I understand you are saying that for those with poor sila – most householders—should look to any other path factors to develop first, but this is a slower track. … >Does this answer your > question? …. S: It helps me understand more about your viewpoint, thank you. One last question here: How does your understranding of practice on the breath, developing sila, samadhi or other path factors differ from similar practices of those who have never heard the Buddha’s teachings? Again, I’d truly be glad to hear your views. Metta, Sarah ====== 41907 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 1:15am Subject: Butting in on Right Concentration (was for James) Hi Tep, RobertK & Connie, Butting in late here… --- Tep Sastri wrote: > Dear RobertK (and Connie), > > In message #41678 you expressed a concern on the referencing of > the "commentary summary" I got from Connie's message #41576. Let > me paste Connie's whole message for you to look at: > > Message # 41576: > > from the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha translation and commentary > summary ('Guide') known as Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma-- > VII, 30 "Of the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, right view <…> > Right concentration is defined in terms of the four jhanas of the > Suttanta > system." [end of passage] ….. S: I agree with Rob that we need to be a little cautious when using the mostly very helpful Guide notes (mostly as explained to me by BB, these are U Rewata Dhamma’s which he has edited). Rob already wrote a very good post with the extracts from the Atthasalini etc. Just a couple of points to add: 1.BB’s comments from his article ‘the Jhaanas and the Lay Disciple”: a. “All noble disciples acquire the right concentration of the Noble Eightfold Path, which is defined as the four jhanas. This need not be understood to mean that stream-enterers and once-returners already possess jhaana before they reach stream-entry.” b.”….I would regard the use of the jhaana formula here as a way of showing *the most prominent type of concentration* to be developed by the noble disciple. I would not take it as a rigid pronouncement that all noble disciples actually possess all four jhaanas, or even one of them”. [S: I think many suttas and references to jhanas, abhinnas, patisambhidas, phala and niroda samaphati etc etc should be read in this way as applying to the most eminent (rather than prominent) disciples]. 2.From Summary (comy to Abhid. Sangaha), which presumably these Guide notes were based on: “Right concentration is that by means of which consciousness is placed rightly and evenly; one-pointedness is fivefold as the first jhana, etc….” [S: ‘one-pointednes is fivefold….’ I take to mean is equivalent in the strength to one of the jhanas depending on whether which --if any-- is used as a base for liberation. For sukkha vipassakas (dry insight attainers), the right concentration is equivalent in strength to that of first jhana (appana samadhi).] …. > The matter of fact is, I just quoted from the above passage without any > clue about the name of the writer. Perhaps, Connie can tell you better. …. S: Many of us quote from this translation of Abhidhammattha Sangaha with its helpful notes all the time, Tep. Mostly they are closely based on the ancient commentaries. There are a few errors, however, as we’ve found. Under the line I quoted above from the commentary under ‘Path factors’, we read the following sobering reminder: “…Wrong view, etc, are path factors because they constitute the path to unhappy destinies.” Metta, Sarah ======= 41908 From: Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi, Larry - I reply to just a part of your post: In a message dated 2/8/05 12:10:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I think it is more a matter of the common nature of human being (for > human kamma), but the commentary says it is an inherent characteristic > of the rupa. Maybe it's a little of both. I can't think of any other way > of describing its conditional arising except as "coincidental". Whatever > it is, there is possibly an important ethical and aesthetic philosophy > in here somewhere that relates to all kinds of values. It is an > interesting idea that there could be an inherent goodness or badness in > some rupa just as there is an inherent goodness or badness in some > consciousnesses. > ====================== I do accept that the affective nature of an arammana (whether rupa or nama) is intrinsic *in the sense* that the pleasant pressure I feel now is not the same rupa as the unpleasant pressure I felt before, even though "objective evaluations" may say that the pressures are the same and that I'm simply feeling it differently now from before. I think it is simply an error to describe the two rupas as "the same". Likewise, for example, with regard to tastes. If I find a flavor pleasant and another person finds "that same" flavor unpleasant, I simply think that it is an error to refer to them as "the same flavor". Now, my functional criterion for whether an arammana is desirable or not is a matter of whether it is pleasant or not *as experienced* by the individual. On the other hand, there are cultural norms for what is desirable and what is not, and exceptions to these are considered "abnormal" or perversions. In addition to *cultural* norms, there may also be some "natural" norms, particularly in terms of utility. What is useful to a person according to a range of factors may determine "natural norms". Perhaps what the Buddha meant by 'desirable' is such a feature as "conducive to calm". 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) 41909 From: Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Revulsion, Nibbindati, viraga, these are a few of my favorite things. Hi, Frank - In a message dated 2/8/05 2:42:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, frank@4... writes: > Truly the Buddhist way goes against > the stream. The worldling wants to take Viagra, the cultivator strives for > vi-raga. > ====================== Hah! ;-)) That is very clever! (Made me smile. :-) 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) 41910 From: jwromeijn Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 3:27am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anicca as characteristic Dear Nina, Sarah, Kel and Robertk Nina: But the question was, how was it before his (the Buddha's) time? J: Sorry; but that was not one of my questions when I started this thread. My question here was: Do you think there is a hierarchy between anatta-dukkha-anicca, wherin anatta is higher, deeper, more difficult, than anicca ? N: But once we discussed in India with Kh Sujin and the late Ven. Dhammadharo which of the three characterstics will be penetrated just before enlightenment. The opinion was that it depends on people's accumulations. J: I'm glad we agree; you use Abhidhamma-language; I'm using psychology based conventional language when I (as a hypothesis) state: people fighting against their strong ego prefer anatta aspects to contemplate, people fighting against a need of ontology prefer anicca aspects. But in fact we say the same. J: I had another question, not yet answered till now that I can make broader. Nina, you talk about 'accumulations'; as far as I had understood it are accumulated parts of cetasikas. Why these accumulations don't obey the 'law of anicca' and disappear ? And not sure accumulations are a part of kamma, but I repeat my question about it: Why doesn't kamma obey the 'law of anicca' and disappears after the 'disappearing-time of kamma' (like a rupa has a disappearing-time and nama has another disappearing-time) ? For more details see below. Sarah: I have read your quote of the Dispeller (I think that's one of the books Buddhaghosa has written, you did not say that). But again: I am interested in 'anicca' and the quote is more about 'anatta'. Do you have quotes from the Suttas, from Buddhaghosa or from modern explanators that I can use contemplating about 'anicca'? Or aren't there many quotes from the Suttas and is my little theory correct that the concept 'anicca' is a virus put in the software of the Pali Canon by Mahayanists of Madhyamakanists ? Robertk: Thanks for your quotes about anatta, they are clear. But still I have the same question to you about anicca-quotes. Understanding atta is difficult, also to me; but to me understanding anicca is even more difficult, and my intuition is that contemplating anicca is the best step in my path now. You (and Nina and Sarah) are right in stating that the Buddha was the Teacher of anatta. But was the Buddha not also the Teacher of anicca, or did the anicca-principle alreay exist in prebuddhistic India ? I don't think so. Metta Joop More details of my not-understanding what 'Kamma' is: I understood that there are two types of Dhamma: pannatti (concepts) and paramattha. And that there are four of these paramattha, ultimate, realities: citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana. Of these four only Nibbana is nonconditioned, the other three are falling away (disappear in my language). So in my understanding I have three possibilities: - Kamma is none of these four paramatthas but is a panatti - Kamma is none of these four paramatthas but is a fifth type of paramattha - Kamma is the accumulated sum of certain types of cetasikas When one of the first two possibilities are right: that's new information to me. When the third possibilitiy is right, then my question is: why does this accumulation not obey the 'law of anicca' and just disappeatrs after its proper time When none of the three are right, then there is the theory that 'kamma' is the energy that arises when a citta is falling away, an energy that is transmitted (or: transmits itself) to the next citta that arises. But of this theory my question is: what is fact is 'energy'? Is this word used as a metaphore, is it a kind of electromagnetism that arises when electric and magnetic fields are changing? I that 'energy' not itself a Dhmma (a fifth paramattha)? It's a good exemple of my big 'ontological need' that I think the answers I got till now on this questions are not complete, cannot be the ultimate answers. 41911 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 3:56am Subject: Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Friend Hugo (and Htoo) - I read your first message under this thread, 'Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"?', with real joy! I love your creative presentation, Hugo. It is true, like you said, this topic is right at the center of several threads at DSG, so this message is important not only for me. Your five questions, and the 3 observations that follow them, are a neat introduction of the problem about atta/anatta, cetana, panna, upadana, and Nibbana. The example of the 3-year old (there is a 3-year old inside me too) helps paint the picture of the human's mental behavior quite vividly. Quite a few dhamma discussers like to talk about the "final goal" such direct knowing, the arising of sati and panna, and the self-less mind state that is free from lobha and moha just like these end-goals are implementable simply by "just do it, you fool!". So I am pleased to read the following comments you have made: ## We can't just say, "stop clinging" and be done with the task. This proves that we can't "get to" Nibbana just by the power of our will. Should we just sit and wait until Nibbana "gets to us"? ##(About the 3-year old who is hitting others) Tell him, when you are angry, just observe your anger with wisdom, it will pass away, if you hit your friend again, just keep observing until you stop hitting him or he lays unconscious on the ground, or there is too much blood on your shirt. ## Why a monk is expelled from the Sangha if he kills another human?, why the Vinaya doesn't say, "Ok, if you killed, it is just conditions youknow, it was not really you, you know, that anatta thing, OK? I am now 6 messages behind you and Htoo in the discussion! I will have jump in later to join it. Thank you for initiating this thread. Warm regards, Tep ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Tep, Hugo and All, As Hugo message is very long I had to cut up into 6 pieces and replied. Otherwise the whole reply would have lost. This happened several times to me especially when I replied to Sarah's messages. You are welcome to join in at any time. With Metta, Htoo Naing 41912 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 3:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi Howard and Larry, op 08-02-2005 02:39 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: Larry:>> First, this classification of desirable and undesirable objects only >> applies to objects of kamma resultant cittas. N: Considering the sense-cognitions that are results of either kusala kamma or akusala kamma helps us to have more understanding of the fact that objects are either desirable or undesirable. But it is not so that they are objects only of resultants. There is a whole process of cittas and all these cittas experience the same desirable or undesirable object. Also the kiriyacitta that is votthapanacitta and is followed by kusala cittas or akusala cittas which still experience that same object. L: The object is not kamma resultant or necessarily kamma produced, but in >> order for kamma to come to fruition an appropriate object must arise for >> the kamma resultant consciousness. N: Yes. Except in the case of the last javanacittas in life that experience a pleasant or unpleasant object conditioned by kamma. L:... To me, kamma makes more sense on a conventional level, but whether we >> are looking at it conventionally or ultimately, there is a certain >> amount that is simply not explained. For example, there is no list of >> what is desirable, very desirable, or undesirable, but the indication is >> that these are characteristics recognizable to the "average person", >> e.g., the appearances of sunsets and blood. N: Well said. We usually think of kamma and vipaka on a conventional level, like an accident. Many experiences joined into a whole. Sarah and Jon gave examples: hearing bad news from the doctor. So many stories we think about. Or having cancer. Bad news, but in fact there may not be any pain, or disagreeable objects experienced. L: Nina, is the object of resultant jhana cittas classed as desirable? This >> would be a concept. N: It is the meditation subject of that jhana. I think that desirable is said of rupas: piya rupa, saata rupa: a sense object pleasant and dear. It is not said of concepts. Howard: One needs an instrumentally efficaceous definition - a testable criterion - on which to base a statement of the form "A is desirable" or "B is undesirable". N: Yes, Howard, I see your point. We shall never find this by thinking. Only by this: The solution is here: there are only six worlds: of the experience through the five senses and through the mind-door. These worlds are very ephemeral. Just a moment of seeing, and this is completely different from thinking about what we see. Just a moment of hearing and then gone like a flash of lightning. When we think of a situation, we may find that through eyes there is the experience of an agreeable object, and through touch a disagreeable object. Early morning the frozen dewdrops glittering in the sun look like silver. When we touch them the cold hurts the fingers, it is pain. But they are all gone in a moment. A phantom, and a dream. When seeing experiences visible object, it is not beneficial to try to find out what we cannot know. We keep on thinking and this conditions many akusala cittas: either we are infatuated with an object we find pleasant or we have aversion and sadness about an object we find unpleasant. It does not help to try to find out: is this intrinsically so or not. It does not lead to liberation. Only insight does. Through insight we learn to experience one world at a time. Insight and Abhidhamma, these go together. At the first stage of insight it is truly understood what vipaaka is, not before. The vipaakacitta is not mixed up with rupa or with thinking. Now we do, we mix them all up. We are not sure what seeing is, pure nama different from rupa. We are not sure what seeing is and thinking about what is seen, it is all so fast. Insight helps to face the object with more equanimity, even when we are only beginners. We cannot help thinking, being overwhelmed by the objects, but remembering that there are six worlds will lead to more equanimity. Then, when we face a person there are conditions for the Brahmavihara of equanimity. But, I admit that it is a hard task. When I am with my ailing father there are undesirable objects through eyes, ears and nose. (Thank you Tep, for your kind words.) If I think about it too much it gives rise to many moments of aversion. Already for years his body is decaying, and now he cannot hear or take in anything we say, he is in bed now. He is afraid of death and we are unable to help. Then it is time for equanimity. This to show that equanimity is important. But we cannot have this at will. Howard: I'm sorry, Nina, but I still do not know what intrinsic pleasantness can mean in something that is experienced as unpleasant. There must then be some other criterion for its pleasantness, and that has not been stated. N: My example was seeing the Budha's body. He had bodily characteristics that were produced by all his kusala kamma in the past, all his good deeds, dana, sila, helping others with compassion. When sectarians saw his body surrounded with an aura, they saw a pleasant visible object, but reacted with aversion. The cittas with aversion still experienced a pleasant object. Thus, we should not mix pleasant object with feeling. Different cittas with different feelings each arising because of their own conditions, and all fleeting, ephemeral like a bubble, like foam. Nina. 41913 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 3:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Arising of Right View Dear Tep, Thank you for your good wishes, but there will hardly be recovery. op 08-02-2005 03:49 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m...:> > I am happy that you like MN 43, Mahavedalla Sutta. Indeed, I need > some interpretation of "the release of mind with right view and its > results, and the release through wisdom with right view and its results". N: Release of mind, ceto vimutti is usually said of jhana. But we also have to study whether it is said of the fruition consciousness. The Co is very, very long and slowly I shall look at it. It explains about vipassana. Nina. 41914 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 3:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga XIV, 136 Hi Larry, op 08-02-2005 02:19 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > It seems that vitakka and vicara can help or hinder concentration. Is > there anything said about how that works? N: It depends on whether they are kusala or akusala. As jhanafactors, vitakka is opposed to sloth and torpor and vicara to doubt. But when calm has grown these jhanafactors are no longer needed in order to concentrate on the meditation subject. When one is able to attain the higher stages of jhana they are abandoned. In the third stage of the fivefold system, they are both abandoned, since they are more coarse than the other jhanafactors. Then they would be a hindrance to higher calm for the yogavacara. He surmounts them, they would be disturbing for higher calm (IV, 142, here it is said of the second jhana of the fourfold system). Nina. 41915 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 4:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: Hello Htoo, ...snip.... In short, Htoo, you are disrespectful to people. -- Hugo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Hugo, Thank you very much for your kind remark. You posted a long message. When I replied it, it took me a long time and it was time-consuming. And sometimes some replies were lost because of network problem. So I just cut your message into 6 different pieces. In all these 6 messages there are detail discussions. Tep has already wanted to join in the discussion and I have welcome him. But when I checked what I found was that even though there are 6 replies you selectively replied to only one message and you ended with above remark. It is fine. The reason that I am participating in different Yahoo Groups' discussion is to help people to be on the right path and no more than that. But some thought and some thought second time, some third time and some even many times that I was behaving so and so. I must say no. You said 'I am a sniper'. If you think in that way it is only you who finds that way. Sometimes I had to use words anonymously not to affect individuals. Example is as above like 'some thought and some thought second time..' This is anonymization. Specific person would know and then can think in another way and this maight lead him or her to a new way of thinking. This is just for communication. Moderators will not allow battles here. Instead of replying to the 1st 5 messages which contained good discussions you went silent to these first 5 messages. Anyway you carry your intention and I bring my intention. With Metta, Htoo Naing 41916 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 6:04am Subject: Salesmanship: Re: abhidhamma - Andrew L Hi Sarah, Sarah: OK, let's pause here if this is the first baby step. Please explain what you understand by sila and how it is perfected (as a baby step!!). James: Oh Sarah, this is such a silly question for YOU to ask! You know perfectly well what sila is; I am not going to bother to define it for you. You are being unnecessarily argumentative. Sarah: My comments would just be a little like the white kasina qus I asked Htoo yesterday. James: Sorry, but I'm not able to read all of the posts. There are too many to follow. I didn't read that post. Sarah: If we read such a sutta and think we should then focus on the breath and that this in itself will lead to any kinds of wholesome states, how can it and why should it? James: This is again another silly question, Sarah. You talk as if you don't know the first thing about the Buddha's teachings. The Buddha explained that mindfulness of breathing is `of great fruit and benefit'. What more do you need to know? Don't you have faith in the Buddha's teachings? I thought you did. If so, you shouldn't need to have to ask such questions. You shouldn't need to have everything explained for you. However, to answer briefly, for those reading this conversation who truly don't know (and aren't asking leading questions), mindfulness of breathing leads to samadhi and samadhi is necessary to see (*know*) the three characteristic of all conditioned phenomena: impermanence, suffering, and non-self. Sarah: Here we are in full agreement. Do we have Rahula's knowledge and understanding? Yes, different audiences. No rule that what was suitable for Rahula is suitable for us. James: Mindfulness of breathing is suitable for anyone who wants to make an end to dukkha. If it wasn't suitable, the Buddha wouldn't have taught it so often to large groups of monks, monks from the beginning stages up to arahants. Sarah, the people in this group want to make an end to suffering, they have enough wisdom (panna) to know that. In other words, they meet the only prerequisite required to practice the Buddha's teaching. Sarah: Assuming you've answered and explained the first question about sila. How does sila in itself (as defined by you), lead to panna? James: Well, I didn't answer that question. I'm not going to play that game ;-). Sarah: Ok, you begin to explain a little here. How does `one' `build the seven path factors led by right view'? What exactly do you mean by the `one' here? James: By `one' I mean a living entity. This would include: humans, devas, brahmas, nagas, etc. Sarah: I understand you are saying that for those with poor sila – most householders—should look to any other path factors to develop first, but this is a slower track. James: First, I don't believe that most householders have poor sila. Second, yes, if one does not perfect sila/virtue, then the path will be a slower one. Sarah: It helps me understand more about your viewpoint, thank you. James: You're welcome. Sarah: One last question here: How does your understranding of practice on the breath, developing sila, samadhi or other path factors differ from similar practices of those who have never heard the Buddha's teachings? Again, I'd truly be glad to hear your views. James: You aren't going to find someone else following the Noble Eightfold Path unless they are familiar with the Buddha's teachings; the exception to this would be a `Silent Buddha' occurring outside a Buddha Sasana. Again, I would think that you know this already. Metta, James 41917 From: Hugo Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 6:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Hello Tep, On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:14:16 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > It is true, like you said, this topic is right at the center of several threads > at DSG, so this message is important not only for me. I think the problem with this Middle Way is that it is too thin so it is difficult to try to walk on it......and on top of that we have to realize that there is no self walking... AAAAAHHH!!! :-) > Quite a few dhamma discussers like to talk about the "final goal" such > direct knowing, the arising of sati and panna, and the self-less mind > state that is free from lobha and moha just like these end-goals are > implementable simply by "just do it, you fool!". Well, don't discard the possibility/fact that some people can indeed "just do it". Think of any physical skill, some people grab three balls and can juggle them without much practice, others can try, and try, and try and never get to juggle them. > So I am pleased to read > the following comments you have made: > > ## We can't just say, "stop clinging" and be done with the task. > ##(About the 3-year old who is hitting others) > ## Why a monk is expelled from the Sangha if he kills another human?, Also, don't forget that one part of my message says that we ALSO have to "observe with wisdom". So it seems that we need to do both. Then I thought that I (we?) are basically running around the same thing, and part of the problem is that there are those who advocate to "do something" but think that if you "observe with wisdom" is not "doing something". But "observing with wisdom" is really "doing something", so there is no basic difference!! We are all "doing something". Some of us try to "counteract" the defilements (think of setting them traps, attacking them, etc.). Others just don't listen to the defilements, they just "observe with wisdom". If you visualize the defilements as little monsters that push you around, and then you do nothing but "observe with wisdom", you are really doing something, you are resisting them, you are not moving with them, which means you are employing some force (to counteract the push). See? > Thank you for initiating this thread. Thanks for your reply, as I said, I was mainly "thinking out loud" because I got so convoluted in thinking about "free will", "doing vs. not doing", etc..... Anyway, I also thought that if there is something called "free will", it has to be conditioned too!!, so then if everything is conditioned then how "free" is this "free will"......but I'd better stop, I am getting convoluted again. "Aham avero homi" (may I be free from hatred). -- Hugo 41918 From: Philip Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 6:43am Subject: Re: Revulsion, Nibbindati, viraga, these are a few of my favorite things. Hi Frank I enjoyed your post. > If there is any kind of emotional component to "revulsion" (in a Buddhist > sense), I can only imagine it to be utter joy. Whenever a sense of > "revulsion" towards the sense pleasures arise in me, I feel a deep sense of > pleasure. "Utter joy....deep sense of pleasure.." Isn't it more like a sense of calm, of peace of mind? "Utter" sounds pretty intense. I know what you mean though. The "your sukkha is my dukkha...your dukkha is my sukkha" kind fo thing. (snip) >! How can we feel anything but disenchantment and > revulsion when we look at the world with even just a mundane level of right > view? This sounds just like mean on metta - I remember writing something like "how can we not feel metta when we have even a basic understanding of the first and second noble truths." And I still feel that way. On the other hand, with revulsion, insight comes much more fleetingly for me. A moment of urgency and confidence when understanding of how poisonous sense pleasures really are arises, but then the sweetness and gratification of them is back before I know it and I'm lost again. I think of that verse in Dhammapada about the joys of a person being well-oiled. I slide back into them so easily, back into clinging to khandas, unaware again that delighting in the khandas means delighting in suffering, as the Buddha put it. If this revulsion was available so readily, liberation would follow. I think it's not so easy, but it could be accumulations. Metta is easy for me, it seems - revulsion might be "easier" for you. I will see how much more often revulsion/disenchantment will arise for me in the years to come. Here's hoping. Metta, Phil 41919 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 6:56am Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? "Aham avero homi" (may I be free from hatred). -- Hugo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Hugo, Tep and All, You have already been freed from hatred. There are 2 kinds of enemy. One is outside. Another is inside. Outside enemy will kill you once only. Inside enemy will be killing you again and again and for many lives until you can kill him. That inside enemy is 'dosa' or 'hatred. Outside enemies are many and this will depend on how we define them. Basically there are 1. weapon 2. fire 3. poison 4. animals and many others. :-) ''Tvam averaa hontu''(may you be free from hatred) With Metta, Htoo Naing 41920 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 7:19am Subject: Dhamma Thread (262) Dear Dhamma Friends, Dhamma Thread starts with very very easy and very simple basic facts. As it approaches to further there becomes deeper and deeper. And finally it might reach the bottom of ocean. As some or most would complain that there are a lot of Pali, I have to admit that there are many in Dhamma Thread posts. This happens because Dhamma Thread goes one after another and later messages may not include any explanation on Pali words. But as you may as well notice I always include a message to give a reply at the bottom. This also means any Pali word, which the reader who does not know it, can be asked at any stage of Dhamma Thread. Instead of complaining somewhere else, it will be better to post on the list where I can respond. In the earlier post it touches general and then starts with exploration on citta and different kinds of citta and their different classifications. I hope the word 'citta' at this time is quite normal word to hear and see in Buddhism Dhamma discussion Groups and does not need further explanation. If thinking it needs, just give me a shout at any point. After exploration on cittas, Dhamma Thread went on mental factors. Actually many of suttas are about these mental factors even though there is no single sutta that would explain all mental factors. After mental factors, Dhamma Thread approached on rupa-dhamma or material things or matters. Nibbana and pannatti dhammas are also discussed to some extent in these Dhamma Thread posts. Pannatti are 'names' 'designation'. Dhamma Thread (261) is about lifespan of different beings in different realms. Again when these so-called beings are looked into there is no being at all. But citta, cetasikas or mental factors, and rupas or matter. There are 31 planes of existence or 31 realms or 31 bhumis. There are 89 cittas in summary. But these 89 cittas will not arise in each and every realm of these 31 bhumis. Because there are limitation that some realms do not have specific cittas. There are 89 cittas. Even The Buddha had not had all these 89 cittas. This is because there are boundries among bhumis or realms. Otherwise there will not be 31 separate relams and there will only be one single realm where all beings enjoy and dwell. 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. 41921 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 7:33am Subject: Dhamma Thread (263) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 89 cittas in total. There are 31 bhumis or 31 realms. At least other 30 realms are not accessible to us and we cannot know them. So it will be better to concentrate on the current realm of manussa bhumi or human realm. There are 89 cittas. But in human realms not all 89 cittas are possible to arise. The maximal number of cittas that are possible to arise in human realm is 80. Why? Because 'patisandhi-bhavanga-cuti cittas of rupa and arupa brahma' which are 1.1st jhana rupavipaka citta 2.2nd jhana rupavipaka citta 3.3rd jhana rupavipaka citta 4.4th jhana rupavipaka citta 5.5th jhana rupavipaka citta 6.1st arupa jhana arupavipaka citta 7.2nd arupa jhana arupavipaka citta 8.3rd arupa jhana arupavipaka citta 9.4th arupa jhana arupavipaka citta can never arise in human realm. These 9 cittas cannot arise in any human being. Let alone ordinary lay people, these 9 cittas cannot arise even in Living Buddhas. So in our world of human beings there are a total of possible 80 cittas which also include arahatta magga citta and arahatta phala citta in these 80 cittas. In general it is hard to attain even jhana let alone magga and phala cittas. So 99.9999 out of 100 times there are cittas which are these 54 cittas. These 54 cittas are called sensuous-sphere-consciousness or kamavacara cittas. Again not all 54 cittas can arise in people in general. Because there are cittas that are only possible in arahats. Before going that, 54 kama cittas will be summarised here again, which has already been explained in citta portion of Dhamma Thread. 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. 41922 From: Hugo Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 7:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. Hello Sukinder, On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 02:05:06 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > how can I understand the D.O. except in theory. And with all the > tanha and avijja, would I not risk fooling myself into thinking that I know > and understand more than I really do? I don't know if it can be said that I understand D.O. in practice, but I will tell you about some experiments I ran: Reading a book, assaulted by a SWAT team ================================= I go to a room to read a book. Two little kids break into the room demanding attention. I give them some attention (which means I stop reading my book). Then I strategically do something so the kids are distracted with something else. I return to reading my book. The kids come back after me. I stop reading. The above repeats for a few rounds, then I start getting annoyed, so I put the book away, put the kids away (so to speak) and "observe with wisdom". I notice that I feel annoyed only when "I want" to read the book and at the same time "I want" to please the kids. If I stop wanting to read the book, then play with the kids, the pain goes away. My diagnosis is that I experience pain if I attach to reading the book. Screams in the middle of the night ======================== My son starts screaming in the middle of the night (I guess nightmares). I go there and pacify him. Half an hour later he does it again. I go again. One hour later he does it yet again. I go again, but now I am annoyed and more than pacifing him is more like "shut up!". After reflecting on this, I found that I am attached to the peaceful rest I am having. So I resolve to not attach to it, if I hear any scream for help, I will just drop it and go and fix the problem. A few nights later, the scene repeats and my experiment works, I pacify him, I don't feel annoyed and I can return to sleep peacefully!! Months ago I described a similar experiment, similar to the one I called "Screams in the middle of the night". As far as I can see, there was contact (ear, noise), there was feeling (annoyed), there was craving and attachment. I am sure that the other links of D.O. were also present, but these ones are the most easily noticeable for my untrained eye. How can I know if I know how to swim? Jump in and try, if you sink to the bottom, well, guess what, you don't know. If you just float, well, you know something, if you can cross to the other side, bingo!, you know how to swim. Greetings, -- Hugo 41923 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 8:05am Subject: Dhamma Thread (264) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 89 cittas. a) 54 sensuous-sphere-consciousness (kamavacara cittas) b) 15 fine-material-sphere-consciousness (rupavacara cittas) c) 12 non-material-sphere-consciousness (arupavacara cittas) d) 8 supramundane consciousness (lokuttara cittas) ----------------------------- 89 consciousness or 89 cittas Citta is a state of consciousness to a particular object. Citta is consciousness. Citta is a mental state. Citta is a mind state. Citta is a state of mind. Citta is a state of mind's condition. There are 89 such states in total when every possible state is included and they are summarised. The first 3 groups 54, 15, 12 cittas are mundane consciousness and they all are in line with world-related things. They are never beyond the world-related things. This includes states when mind is not in ordinary states as we experience most of the time. These are jhana cittas or absorption-consciousness. Still, they are mundane consciousness or lokiya cittas. Only 8 cittas in group d) are lokuttara cittas or supramundane consciousness. Apart from these 8 states of mind, no other states can be referred to as supramundane or lokuttara dhamma. As these 8 cittas are difficult to attain, let us move to other cittas or consciousness. Leaving 8 supramundane consciousness there left 81 states of consciousness and they all are mundane consciousness or lokiya cittas. Again 15 and 12 are jhana cittas and they are also hard things to be attained. So for ordinary people there are 54 sensuous- sphere-consciousness. Again these 54 cittas are not always possible to arise in an average person. Why? There are cittas or states of mind that can only be possilbe to arise in arahattas only. To summarise there are 54 kama cittas or 54 sensuous-sphere-consciousness. They are a) 12 akusala cittas (12 unwholesome consciousness) b) 15 ahetuka-vipaka cittas(15 rootless-resultant-consciousness) c) 3 ahetuka-kiriya cittas( 3 rootless-functional-consciousness) d) 8 mahakusala cittas ( 8 great-wholesome-consciousness) e) 8 mahavipaka cittas ( 8 rooted-resultant-consciousness) f) 8 mahakiriya cittas ( 8 rooted-functional-consciousness) ------------------------- 54 kama cittas (54 sensuous-sphere-consciousness) e) 8 cittas are also called 8 sahetuka-mahavipaka cittas or rooted- resultant-consciousness to differentiate them from 8 ahetuka-vipaka cittas or 8 rootless-resultant-consciousness of wholesome origin. f) 8 mahakiriya cittas or 8 great-functional-consciousness are also called suhetuka-mahakiriya cittas or rooted-great-functional- consciousness to differentiate them from ahetuka-kiriya cittas or rootless-functional-consciousness. The last category is cittas that arise in arahats. So these 8 mahakiriya cittas or these 8 great-functional-consciousness do not arise in us. So 54 - 8 = 46 cittas left. Again there are 3 ahetuka-kiriya cittas or 3 rootless-functional- consciousness. One of them is hasituppada citta or smiling-arising- consciousness of arahats. So 3- 1 = 2 cittas left in this category. Or from 46 cittas calculated above if we substract this hasituppada citta or smiling-arising-consciousness there will left only 45 cittas. These 45 cittas are most of the states of mind that have been happening in human beings. When processions of consciousness or vithi cittas are being considered then these 45 cittas will come to mind again. There are 31 bhumis or 31 planes of existence. But when this current bhumi or realm of human is considered there are mostly the above stated 45 cittas or 45 states of mind. These will be dealt with in the coming posts. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: 1.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. 2.This post is almost free of Pali. But if there believe some words are still not explained then just reply and focus on those words. I will be happy to deal with them. 41924 From: Hugo Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 8:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: abhidhamma - Andrew L Hello Sarah and Andrew, Sara wrote: > So I'd say that any moments of attempting to cultivate sati 'while using > it' (notion of self) will not be helpful at all. I would be careful about categorical statements like that. I guess it will be helpful or not depending on the level of wisdom and development of each person. Like with little kids, you have to keep asking them if they want to go to the potty, until they develop the awareness of the body by themselves. And in order to have them cultivate this awareness there should be some kind of reward (candies, stickers, etc.). Somebody might say, well, if you don't give them any stickers or any candy, they will learn by themselves. True, but it is still the same, the reward in that case is that they won't feel ashamed when they go and pick his girlfriend with all the pants wet. My own experience is that now I am more aware (or aware of more things, events, feelings, etc.) than before, and that's because I resolved in doing it, but also I set up some experiments to find out what it really means to be aware of something and how I could know that I was indeed aware or not. I still have long way to go, but at least I feel that awareness arises more frequently now. Sara wrote: > Awareness and wisdom need > to differentiate between such moments of wrong view or practice and real > naturally arising awareness. I agree. Sometimes I think I am aware when it truth I am inferring or thinking. Sara wrote: > but > always just to be aware of present dhammas by understanding more and more > about their characteristics. And don't you think that is "doing something"? You are resolving to "be aware". I know, being aware is subtle, as I said before, sometimes I confuse awareness with thinking and inferring, but still making the resolution to not do anything but just be aware is "doing something". So there you go, specific physical practices like eating only once a day, sleeping on the floor, etc. and "just being aware" are the same, both are ways of practice. Both require an intention and an action. I think we are dividing something that can't be divided. > S: Conditions. Having heard, listened, considered and again like now. We > think 'we' can decide to hear, read posts and so on, but this is only true > in a conventional sense. What is this 'we'? As I wrote in another post about free will. Free will is also conditioned (I guess), so how "free" it really is? This sounds like everything is "written". But then we have options......right now I have the option to stop writing and unsubscribe from DSG and not learn from all of you. Why I am not doing it? I have the option to say, ok, I am still young for this Dhamma thing, let me enjoy a little bit more of the senses and then I will go and once I am in a wheel chair or hospital bed, I will sit down and "observe with wisdom". I am not stating that I am in favor of one approach or another, I don't know if everything "is written", I don't know if there is real "free will", so I am eagerly waiting for your reply, to add more to the convoluted soup of thoughts that assault my mind. > S: What 'we actually do', are just cittas and cetasikas performing their > functions according to conditions. Considering the quality of metta now, > how gentle, friendly and humble it is, is a condition then and there for > metta to develop just a little perhaps. If however, there is an idea that > by concentrating on oneself, or on the metta sutta to have more metta, or > on another being likewise, wrong view of self is sure to be there. One is > then following a ritual motivated by clinging to a self with more metta. > Oh, the path is subtle;-). BTW, if we follow the line of thought that I said earlier in this message, the one that says that both, "just being aware" and performing certain specific tasks in order to "train ourselves" are essentially the same, then we can conclude that the very same wrong view of a self can be present in "just being aware". What do you think? Sabbe satta sabba dukkha pamuccantu. (may all beings be free from suffering) -- Hugo 41925 From: jwromeijn Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 8:38am Subject: Re: Kamma and Buddhism (was Dhamma Threade 249/ old kamma used up --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: ... (snip) Dear Htoo For some reasons I had not yet read your answers to my questions weel enough. And in between I had repeated a part of my questions in another thread 'Anicca as characteristic' Most of your answers are clear to me (or: as clear as possible in my imperfect mind). Two remarks Htoo: Answer 1: Nibbana is not a phenomenon. It does not arise and fall away. Names are not phenomena. They do not arise and they do not fall away. Likewise kamma is not a phenomenon. So kamma does not arise and fall away. Joop: When kamma is not a phenomenon than it must be a concept? Here I will repeat my question of today to Nina cs: More details of my not-understanding what 'Kamma' is: I understood that there are two types of Dhamma: pannatti (concepts) and paramattha. And that there are four of these paramattha, ultimate, realities: citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana. Of these four only Nibbana is nonconditioned, the other three are falling away (disappear in my language). So in my understanding I have three possibilities: - Kamma is none of these four paramatthas but is a panatti - Kamma is none of these four paramatthas but is a fifth type of paramattha - Kamma is the accumulated sum of certain types of cetasikas When one of the first two possibilities are right: that's new information to me. When the third possibilitiy is right, then my question is: why does this accumulation not obey the 'law of anicca' and just disappeatrs after its proper time When none of the three are right, then there is the theory that 'kamma' is the energy that arises when a citta is falling away, an energy that is transmitted (or: transmits itself) to the next citta that arises. But of this theory my question is: what is fact is 'energy'? Is this word used as a metaphore, is it a kind of electromagnetism that arises when electric and magnetic fields are changing? I that 'energy' not itself a Dhmma (a fifth paramattha)? It's a good exemple of my big 'ontological need' that I think the answers I got till now on this questions are not complete, cannot be the ultimate answers. ============================================= My second remark is about your reaction on my 'question to myself': Is it possible to be a Buddhist, even a Theravadin, without believing in the idea of rebirth ? Htoo: So my kind advice will be 'do not think that you do not believe rebirth' and just leave it alone and tey to touch other dhammas. … You must learn. You must be mindful. You must consistently persistent in producing effort to investigate all phenomena that arise at each moment. You should try to be calm and settle down your mind and finally you will definitely see 'A LIGHT'. Joop: I will do, and I do one thing more: trust myself, or as said in the Parinibbana Sutta "be an island to myself, a refuge to myself". Metta Joop 41926 From: Andrew Levin Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 8:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: abhidhamma - Andrew L --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Andrew L, > > --- Andrew Levin wrote: > > Sorry for the long time between posts, will try to do better in the > > future. > .. > ;-) To start with this note, no problem. I'm just happy that you're back > on the thread. (Meantime, one or two others picked it up and gave me lots > of food for thought too, as you probably saw). Yeah, glad you have patience with me. I always want to post and get to the nitty gritty but I just as often, or even more often, procrastinate, especially since this is sort of new territory for me. I look to this group to clear things up, and if I haven't been active in threads, my practise suffers for it, like I feel empty of where I could know nama and rupa otherwise. [self] > …. > So I'd say that any moments of attempting to cultivate sati `while using > it' (notion of self) will not be helpful at all. Awareness and wisdom need > to differentiate between such moments of wrong view or practice and real > naturally arising awareness. So how much indeed of this awareness arises naturally? I can (or have been able to in this past) go from sitting at my computer on IRC to thinking I should cultivate awareness or mindfulness, I guess without idea of 'me' doing it, but sitting on my pillow or meditation cushion and practising mindfulness. > S: it seems like there are these various choices and dilemmas, but that's > only because the ideas of self and control etc are so ingrained in our > views. No `we' to do or wait. Right, well, until we eradicte deeper views of self, can't there be some right practise, while superficial views of self are still there? > … > >If one of the > > conditions is to read, study, or discuss dhamma, I would say that > > that's still operating with normal self-view, and that's on par with > > cultivating sati intentionally. > … > S: Depends on the presnt moment states. For example, now we're reading and > `talking'. Does there have to be any self-view or intention for a self to > have sati now? Isn't there just seeing visible object,reflecting on what > we see, thinking, confusion and so on? In the end, only panna > (understanding) can know. > …. > >I haven't tried detachment and > > allowing sati to arise on its own, > …. > S: Excuse me for interrupting your flow, but I don't think detachment can > ever arise or develop by `trying'. I think it arises with understanding > which `knows' what is being experienced. That's all. [snip] > As for `Sarah's book'. Of course I often think of `Sarah's book'. This can > be with or without wrong view of self however;-) So do you ever acquire any goodness when you open "Sarah's book'? > Some people think we > shouldn't have any possessions or have particular beds or seats or spots > in the yoga room (as we all tend to do in my morning class!!). However, > even the Buddha had his own robes, his own kuti (cell/space) etc. On our > recent trip we could see at Jetavana how there were different kutis with > the largest for the Buddha, then the key disciples, then Rahula and so on. > Also, going up Vulture's Peak, we saw the special caves for maha > Moggallana, Sariputta, maha Kassappa and then the kutis for Ananda and the > Buddha. So, just because you or I have a large library, doesn't mean more > wrong view;-). It may just indicate a keen interest in the teachings. > Again, only panna can know at any given moment. > …. > >It > > seems we can generate the conditions for sati, > … > S: Excuse me again, but not `we' who can… > … > >but I'd like to hear > > your take on whether or not it is mostly uncontrollable (if it is > > uncontrollable, why do we, who are interested in the BuddhaDhamma > > experience it, but others do not? > … > S: Conditions. Having heard, listened, considered and again like now. We > think `we' can decide to hear, read posts and so on, but this is only true > in a conventional sense. What is this `we'? Would you be willing to accept that after reading the Dhamma which specifically instructed one to do so, 'Andrew' has intentionally tried to be mindful of his body and thought procecesses and succeeded, and at the end of the day felt a huge burden lifted off of him, sort of the opposite of that ever-present hole that most people try to fill with a person, a goal, or possessions? And that when answering the telephone, there was more attention to be put on the receiver or what words were going to be said? And that all this was done just as scripture instructed one to do so, and this mindfulness lasted into a formal meditation session? Sort of similar to knowing less 'ultimate' and more 'conventional' realities such as mindfulness of posture, after only reading "Be mindful, thoroughly know, your posture, and small deportments" and similar text? Also, I am somewhat skeptical that just reading Dhamma conditions mindfulness, it seems that just reading an instruction to 'be mindful' is enough, and that one's own thoughts to 'be mindful' should work just as well. [cittas with wrong view of self] > S: What `we actually do', are just cittas and cetasikas performing their > functions according to conditions. Considering the quality of metta now, > how gentle, friendly and humble it is, is a condition then and there for > metta to develop just a little perhaps. If however, there is an idea that > by concentrating on oneself, or on the metta sutta to have more metta, or > on another being likewise, wrong view of self is sure to be there. One is > then following a ritual motivated by clinging to a self with more metta. > Oh, the path is subtle;-). > So you're saying metta just has to be read about or conditioned to come rather than my "I must read meditations on loving-kindness to cultivate good amounts of metta"? Could anything else just happen to condition metta to arise, like realizing the need for it, or wanting to promote the welfare of living beings [even one's own]? > Andrew, that was just your first paragraph and there is so much more good > material and questions, but I think I'll leave it there for now as it's > already long enough. > > Please keep responding and I'll try to pick up other points/qus later this > week (I've got lots of posts I'm hoping to reply to). OK. Also have another question. I haven't been able to get that good 'study' mode going to get into CMA but I do recall that there is a citta or cetasika that arises when the object is 'extremely' desirable and I think I have experienced this recently, and, since I have gotten Bhikku Bodhi's "The Noble Eightfold Path" I think that my intention should be on renunciation instead of strong liking, greed, or attachment, to that. As it is, it sort of sucks me in into a downward spiral. :/ So now, with a different perspective, do you think it would be good to start doing a citta study thread again? I can see I missed out on the large part of the cetasika study thread, but nonetheless maybe it would be beneficial to start one. Ideas? 41927 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 9:26am Subject: Re: Kamma and Buddhism (was Dhamma Threade 249/ old kamma used up Dear Joop and All, Joop, you asked good questions. Questions are good tools to explore dhammas as deep as possible. Please see our discussions below. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Joop: Dear Htoo For some reasons I had not yet read your answers to my questions weel enough. And in between I had repeated a part of my questions in another thread 'Anicca as characteristic' Most of your answers are clear to me (or: as clear as possible in my imperfect mind). Two remarks >Htoo: Answer 1: Nibbana is not a phenomenon. It does not arise and fall away. Names are not phenomena. They do not arise and they do not fall away. Likewise kamma is not a phenomenon. So kamma does not arise and fall away. Joop: When kamma is not a phenomenon than it must be a concept? Here I will repeat my question of today to Nina cs: More details of my not-understanding what 'Kamma' is: I understood that there are two types of Dhamma: pannatti (concepts) and paramattha. And that there are four of these paramattha, ultimate, realities: citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana. Of these four only Nibbana is nonconditioned, the other three are falling away (disappear in my language). So in my understanding I have three possibilities: - Kamma is none of these four paramatthas but is a panatti ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: The word 'Kamma' may well be a name or 'pannatti'. But the essence is not pannatti. So kamma is not pannatti. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Joop: 2nd possibility: - Kamma is none of these four paramatthas but is a fifth type of paramattha ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: No. There is no 5th type of paramattha dhamma. Kamma is not 5th paramattha dhamma. But part of kamma is paramattha dhamma called cetana cetasika. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Joop's 3rd possibility: - Kamma is the accumulated sum of certain types of cetasikas When one of the first two possibilities are right: that's new information to me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: None of the 1st 2 possibilities are right. They are all wrong and not true to say in those ways. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Joop: When the third possibilitiy is right, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Not completely right. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Joop continued: [When the third possibility is right] then my question is: why does this accumulation not obey the 'law of anicca' and just disappeatrs after its proper time ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: There are 5 laws. Kamma obeys kamma-law while other 4 obey their specific law. Example: Citta is a dhamma and it obeys the law of citta and it reflects anicca or impermanence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Joop: When none of the three are right, then there is the theory that 'kamma' is the energy that arises when a citta is falling away, an energy that is transmitted (or: transmits itself) to the next citta that arises. But of this theory my question is: what is fact is 'energy'? Is this word used as a metaphore, is it a kind of electromagnetism that arises when electric and magnetic fields are changing? I that 'energy' not itself a Dhmma (a fifth paramattha)? It's a good exemple of my big 'ontological need' that I think the answers I got till now on this questions are not complete, cannot be the ultimate answers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Some time unthinkables will not have satisfactory answers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================= Joop: My second remark is about your reaction on my 'question to myself': Is it possible to be a Buddhist, even a Theravadin, without believing in the idea of rebirth ? > Htoo: So my kind advice will be 'do not think that you do not believe rebirth' and just leave it alone and tey to touch other dhammas. … You must learn. You must be mindful. You must consistently persistent in producing effort to investigate all phenomena that arise at each moment. You should try to be calm and settle down your mind and finally you will definitely see 'A LIGHT'. Joop: I will do, and I do one thing more: trust myself, or as said in the Parinibbana Sutta "be an island to myself, a refuge to myself". Metta Joop ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Yes. Even though there is no self at all, the self that you are now having can be used as a vehicle to convey to nibbana. That is why 'be an island to myself, a refuge to myself' or 'attaahi attano naatho'. Even if The Buddha was alive today He would not be able to sent you to nibbana. But who send you to nibbana is 'yourself'. The Buddha would help that 'self'. With Metta, Htoo Naing 41928 From: Hugo Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 9:59am Subject: Opinion about: Samsara Divided by Zero Hello everybody, With many threads about free will, deliberate practice, observing with wisdom and topics like that, I would like to hear your opinion about this very short essay (to tease you I took an excerpt): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/resonance.html Over the years many schools of meditation have taught that mental fabrications simply get in the way of a goal that's uncaused and unfabricated. Only by doing nothing at all and thus not fabricating anything in the mind, they say, will the unfabricated shine forth. This view is based on a very simplistic understanding of fabricated reality, seeing causality as linear and totally predictable: X causes Y which causes Z and so on, with no effects turning around to condition their causes, and no possible way of using causality to escape from the causal network. However, one of the many things the Buddha discovered in the course of his awakening was that causality is not linear. The experience of the present is shaped both by actions in the present and by actions in the past. Actions in the present shape both the present and the future. The results of past and present actions continually interact. Thus there is always room for new input into the system, which gives scope for free will. There is also room for the many feedback loops that make experience so thoroughly complex, and that are so intriguingly described in chaos theory. Reality doesn't resemble a simple line or circle. It's more like the bizarre trajectories of a strange attractor or a Mandelbrot set. "Aham sukhito homi" (May I be happy) -- Hugo 41929 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 10:16am Subject: Re: Opinion about: Samsara Divided by Zero Hello everybody, With many threads about free will, deliberate practice, observing with wisdom and topics like that, I would like to hear your opinion about this very short essay (to tease you I took an excerpt): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/resonance.html Over the years many schools of meditation have taught that mental fabrications simply get in the way of a goal that's uncaused and unfabricated. Only by doing nothing at all and thus not fabricating anything in the mind, they say, will the unfabricated shine forth. This view is based on a very simplistic understanding of fabricated reality, seeing causality as linear and totally predictable: X causes Y which causes Z and so on, with no effects turning around to condition their causes, and no possible way of using causality to escape from the causal network. However, one of the many things the Buddha discovered in the course of his awakening was that causality is not linear. The experience of the present is shaped both by actions in the present and by actions in the past. Actions in the present shape both the present and the future. The results of past and present actions continually interact. Thus there is always room for new inputinto the system, which gives scope for free will. There is also room for the many feedback loops that make experience so thoroughly complex, and that are so intriguingly described in chaos theory. Reality doesn't resemble a simple line or circle. It's more like the bizarre trajectories of a strange attractor or a Mandelbrot set. "Aham sukhito homi" (May I be happy) -- Hugo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Hugo, Thanks for your post. While 24 conditions or patthana dhamma, Dependent Origination or paticcasamuppada are already complicated, I think no other logics are needed to study when these dhammas have not been studied. 'Aham sukhi attaanam pariharaami' (May In be happy) Htoo Naing 41930 From: Hugo Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 11:13am Subject: Buddha said: That's how you should train yourselves Hello everybody, It seems that the Kakacupama Sutta (The Simile of the Saw) http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn021.html settles the question about training ourselves or not, don't you think? Excerpt: [...] "Thus, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will be easy to admonish and make ourselves easy to admonish purely out of esteem for the Dhamma, respect for the Dhamma, reverence for the Dhamma.' That's how you should train yourselves." [...] "In any event, you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic to that person's welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading him with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with him, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will -- abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves." [...] "Monks, if you attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw, do you see any aspects of speech, slight or gross, that you could not endure?" "No, lord." "Then attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw. That will be for your long-term welfare & happiness." "Aham anigho homi" (May I be free from troubles) -- Hugo 41931 From: nina Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 11:47am Subject: walking, what is sati,Tep. no 2. Dear Tep, Continuing with the Visuddhimagga XX. We studied rupakkhandha with Larry. There were many details about the rupas arising in groups, and their conditions. The four factors producing different rupas: kamma, citta, heat, nutrition. I cannot remember all the details, but still, they sink in. They are helpful for the understanding of the intricate conditions for the arising of rupas. Now we go to Vis. Ch XX. Buddhaghosa explains step by step impermanence. Beginning at XX, 47: from birth to death he allots hundred years for taking up at rebirth and putting donw at death. He divides the period of life into ten decads, and shows disappearance of what grows old in each stage. He then makes the periods of time shorter and shorter: seasons, night and day, one day, and shows impermanence in a very clever way. Then XX, 61: moving forward and moving backward: Then we come to your passage: T: " Next he divides a single footstep into six parts as 'lifting up', 'shifting > forward', 'shifting sideways', 'lowering down', 'placing down', and 'fixing > down'. " VM XX, 62 > > "He attributes the three characteristics to materiality according > to 'disappearance of what grows old in each stage' by means of these > six parts into which he has thus divided. ... ... wherever they arise, there > they cease stage by stage, section by section, term by term, each > without reaching the next part: therefore they are impermanent, painful, > not-self " VM XX, 64-65. N: Beautiful. He goes very, very gradually to illustrate the three characteristics. He makes the periods shorter and shorter. Let us go on. XX, 65: I used to bake mustard seeds, so this appeals to me. Next he comes to rupas originated from the four factors. Then comes the verse often quoted here which always touches me. When he discerns rupa originating from citta (XX, 72): Life, person, pleasure, pain-just these alone Join in one conscious moment that flicks by... No store of broken states, no future stock; Those born balance like seeds on needle points. Break-up of states is foredoomed at their birth; Those present decay, unmingled with those past. They come from nowhere, break up, nowhere go; Flash in and out, as lightning in the sky...> Now back to your footsteps: XX, 64: here he shows the composition of materiality by the four great elements. Lifting up: fire and wind are predominant. I understand: they have to for motion. Lowering down: earth and water are predominant. Yes, it is the heavy weight put down. He shows how the groups of rupa are composed in a very intricate way. It helps to eliminate the idea of I am walking. T: I would appreciate your thought on the VM's method above: is there > sati with such walking meditation? Or is there only thinking and > comprehending? N: Footnote to XX, 22, taken from the Tiika: he should see how materiality is generated: Thus, all this is a way of teaching and, as is always the case when listening and considering, it sinks in. It is a condition for more understanding so that sati can arise and be aware. It is not a method we have to follow. If we think of lifting, or concentrate on a step, all the rupas have gone already. They flash in and out as lightning in the sky. > > T: I think the VM's example above is a practice for conditioning an > insight about the materiality's characteristics to appear. I believe this > walking meditation is also useful as "a step toward anatta" like you > said. Do you think so too? N: It is a method of teaching, but we have to distinguish thinking from direct awareness. I read in the Commentaries about monks who walked slowly and stopped when they were unaware. it is said. They reached arahatship. They had accumulations to do so, and surely they knew the difference between thinking and direct awareness. Another question is, do we have to imitate them? They were highly gifted and could reach arahatship. XX, 16, it is stressed that rupa is non-self. It has no core, there is no doer, and experiencer, one who is his own master. Whatever nama or rupa appears, there is no master, no posessor. Only conditioned phenomena. Every one should find out for himself whether it is helpful to condition sati by a certain method, by thinking or by concentrating on each step. One should ask oneself whether this helps one to understand sati as a dhamma arising whenever there are conditions for it, a dhamma that is devoid of self. > T: I understand now that we "should not try not to have thinking" in order > to avoid the wrong idea of self. But don't you think that thinking does > interfere with the walking meditation in the VM's example? When a > thought occurs, then the attention will slip from the sati's object of > awareness. And we will have to condition sati to arise and stay with the > object again. N: When walking, there is thinking, there is seeing and hearing, different kinds of nama. They can be objects of awareness too, otherwise we take these for self. They arise because there are conditions for their arising, they have no core, no possessor. Nina. 41932 From: nina Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 11:58am Subject: Pilgrimage India 5 c Pilgrimage India 5 c Each kusala citta is accompanied by the cetasika of effort or viriya, and this cetasika is also kusala. Thus, at such a moment there is no indolence. When kusala citta with right understanding arises there is right effort already, because of the appropriate conditions, and there is no need to think of effort or control. One may wonder why Acharn Sujin is often speaking about lobha, attachment, instead of emphasizing the development of kusala and abstaining from akusala. Clinging is the second noble Truth, the Truth of the origin of dukkha. This includes 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. Clinging can only be eliminated by understanding more clearly the characteristic of lobha when it appears. It can be known as just a conditioned dhamma, and at such a moment we do not have the wrong view of ³my clinging². It is difficult directly to know akusala cetasikas (akusala mental factors accompanying citta) and sobhana (beautiful) cetasikas, but understanding can begin to develop. However, we should not forget that the first stage of insight is knowing nåma as nåma and rúpa as rúpa, distinguishing their different characteristics. At that stage there cannot be clear understanding yet of lobha, dosa or any other akusala cetasika. We may notice them but we are bound to take them for self. **** Nina. 41933 From: Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 8:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/7/2005 5:17:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: But, you see, a string or chain of perceptions is, itself, not something ever directly observed. The perceptions fly by, and then there are memories of them, and then there is the mental operation of seeming to grasp them as a whole, but that "whole" is never actually encountered. So, to me, the term 'concept' is extremely imprecise -- ultra-fuzzy in fact, and it only serves to make us *believe* we know what we are talking about! With metta, Howard Hi Howard (and Jon) I don't think any analysis is going to break down the components completely: other than as principles. The more a component is attempted to be isolated, the more it is "taken out of" its conditional matrix." In that sense it becomes less known for what it really is. On the other hand, without any attempt at identifying states, one cannot become aware of conditionality. So it seems to me that we need not go overboard in thinking that we are discovering "realities" by isolating states. Nor should we fall short in isolating them. They need to be made aware of with the idea that it is merely to understand the principles of the way things are functioning. A "middle way" of analysis if you will. We need to realize that any formation that can come under scrutiny only 'appears' as a separate thing, in reality it is not. (And this applies every bit as much to the so called paramattha dhammas.) The value of this process lies not in discovering so called "realities," but in discovering conditionality principles of impermanence, suffering, and no-self in order to eliminate craving/suffering. To use your term ... whatever states are analyzed are "fuzzy." They are fuzzy when not analyzed, they become clearer when analyzed, the become fuzzy again when "overanalyzed." The Buddha's teachings point out the states and conditions we need to be aware of to succeed in the task of overcoming suffering. He uses a variety of methods analysis including conceptual tasks, without reservation. Where does the Buddha ever say... "It is realities I want to teach you, and you must know realities to overcome suffering?" Much of contemporary Abhidhamma thinking would have you believe just that, however. In fact, many will even claim that's what the Buddha taught without batting an eye. But from my limited perspective, that notion will; in and of itself, prevent the goal of the Buddha's teaching from coming about. That's why I argue against it. Its not Abhidhamma I'm against, its the overestimation of thinking these states are "realities" that I am against. I see it as a subtle fostering of self view. One might say concepts are complex conglomerates of perceptions, etc., and not a separate thing...but that applies to all the "realities." Is it not likely that perceptions are formed from "strings of feelings?" Feelings from strings of contacts? But if the totality of conditional factors generating these states were to be calculated, the number would be astronomical. The experience of a feeling or perception is also a "holistic" experience of a conglomeration of factors. Perceptions are the result of processing and refining feelings. Concepts are the result of processing and refining perceptions. This is conceptual proliferation and is one of the minds main activities. I can experience a concept such as "dog" as single whole, much like I can experience the percept "blue" as a single whole. Is the concept dog fuzzier than the percept blue? Yes, but my visual perceptions without my glasses are much fuzzier than they are than when I am wearing glasses. Does that make them less real? I think not. Concepts can only be every bit as real as feelings and perceptions because they are formulated from them. Sure they are aspects of delusion in an unenlightened mind, but so are perceptions. One reason we want to be mindful and stop conceptualization is to get rid of a complex delusional network that obscures our vision and insight into impermanence, suffering, no-self. Concepts are mental phenomena that arise, alter, and cease in accordance with conditions. They should be viewed as empty of self or substatiality like any other condition. They are supports for suffering if a mind has craving or attachment regarding them. For human beings, attachment to concepts, thoughts, ideas, probably generates more suffering than any other type of attachment. TG 41934 From: Tep Sastri Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 2:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > > I don't know if it can be said that I understand D.O. in practice, but > I will tell you about some experiments I ran: > > Reading a book, assaulted by a SWAT team > ================================= > I go to a room to read a book. > Two little kids break into the room demanding attention. > I give them some attention (which means I stop reading my book). > Then I strategically do something so the kids are distracted with > something else. > I return to reading my book. > The kids come back after me. > I stop reading. > The above repeats for a few rounds, then I start getting annoyed, so I > put the book away, put the kids away (so to speak) and "observe with > wisdom". > I notice that I feel annoyed only when "I want" to read the book and > at the same time "I want" to please the kids. > If I stop wanting to read the book, then play with the kids, the pain goes away. > > My diagnosis is that I experience pain if I attach to reading the book. > > > Screams in the middle of the night > ======================== > My son starts screaming in the middle of the night (I guess nightmares). > I go there and pacify him. > Half an hour later he does it again. > I go again. > One hour later he does it yet again. > I go again, but now I am annoyed and more than pacifing him is more > like "shut up!". > > After reflecting on this, I found that I am attached to the peaceful > rest I am having. So I resolve to not attach to it, if I hear any > scream for help, I will just drop it and go and fix the problem. A > few nights later, the scene repeats and my experiment works, I pacify > him, I don't feel annoyed and I can return to sleep peacefully!! > > > Months ago I described a similar experiment, similar to the one I > called "Screams in the middle of the night". > > As far as I can see, there was contact (ear, noise), there was feeling > (annoyed), there was craving and attachment. I am sure that the other > links of D.O. were also present, but these ones are the most easily > noticeable for my untrained eye. > > How can I know if I know how to swim? > Jump in and try, if you sink to the bottom, well, guess what, you > don't know. If you just float, well, you know something, if you can > cross to the other side, bingo!, you know how to swim. > > > Greetings, > -- > Hugo Dear Hugo, Is it fair to say that the conclusion to your message is " don't worry about whether or not you understand the Dhamma (D.O., or whatever), just simply try using it in real situations"? Isn't there a risk of "sinking to the bottom"? Best wishes, Tep ========== 41935 From: Tep Sastri Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 3:09pm Subject: Re: Opinion about: Samsara Divided by Zero Friends Hugo and Htoo - In the message #41928, Hugo quoted Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu who stated that it was wrong to believe that "doing nothing" would result in empty mind (zero mental fabrications). He explained that causality was a complex, nonlinear thing; while the belief of "doing nothing" would produce "zero fabrication was based on the false assumption of linear causality, hence it was wrong. Htoo's response in message # 41929 was, "While 24 conditions or patthana dhamma, Dependent Origination or paticcasamuppada are already complicated, I think no other logics are needed to study when these dhammas have not been studied". My question to Hugo is : how should we deal with such complex causality, given that our goal is to avoid (or cease) mental fabrications for good? My question to Htoo is : Do you mean to say that the logics of the 24 paccaya + patthana dhamma + Dependent Origination are all one needs to eradicate mental fabrications? If your answer is 'yes', can you tell me 'how'? Best wishes, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > 41936 From: Philip Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 3:15pm Subject: Re: Opinion about: Samsara Divided by Zero Hi Hugo, and all I remember I read some of his essays/transcribed talks last year and thought some of the ideas were a bit peculiar. For example, there is one in which he says we should sit and savour the breath, enjoy it in its variations, in an intentional way change the breath to make it more pleasant. What on earth is that all about? And another in which he says that since we will also tell stories, we should master telling the stories, improve the content, or words to that effect. And I would guess that's what he's getting at here: >>>>there is nothing illogical in actively mastering the processes of mental fabrication and causality for the sake of going beyond fabrication, beyond cause and effect. Thanissaro Bhikkhu has done so much to help to bring Dhamma to the West through his translations so it seems uncharitable to criticize him (especially for someone of my calibre) but frankly I think some of his ideas are eccentric. And since they are available through the internet I'm afraid his talks/essays will be responsible for spreading a lot of wrong view. (Mind you, I haven't read/studied them that carefully.) The essays/talks I've read by him make me suspicious of his translations as well, to tell the truth. Metta, Phil 41937 From: Tep Sastri Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 3:29pm Subject: Re: Buddha said: That's how you should train yourselves --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > Hello everybody, > > It seems that the Kakacupama Sutta (The Simile of the Saw) > > http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn021.html > > settles the question about training ourselves or not, don't you think? > > Excerpt: > [...] > > "Thus, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will be easy to > admonish and make ourselves easy to admonish purely out of esteem for > the Dhamma, respect for the Dhamma, reverence for the Dhamma.' That's > how you should train yourselves." > > [...] > > "In any event, you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be > unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic > to that person's welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner > hate. We will keep pervading him with an awareness imbued with good > will and, beginning with him, we will keep pervading the > all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will -- > abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill > will.' That's how you should train yourselves." > > [...] > > "Monks, if you attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of > the saw, do you see any aspects of speech, slight or gross, that you > could not endure?" > > "No, lord." > > "Then attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw. > That will be for your long-term welfare & happiness." > > > > "Aham anigho homi" > (May I be free from troubles) > -- > Hugo ------------------- Dear Hugo - Not only that this sutta MN 21 teaches me how to not be angry, it also tells me about the five aspects of speech that everyone should always implement: timely, not untimely; true, not false; affectionate, not harsh; beneficial, not unbeneficial; with a mind of good-will, not with inner hate. Kind regards, Tep ===== 41938 From: Philip Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 3:33pm Subject: Re: Pilgrimage India 5 c Hello Nina, and all > One may wonder why Acharn Sujin is often speaking about lobha, attachment, > instead of emphasizing the development of kusala and abstaining from > akusala. Our goal should be eradicating defilements, not gathering virtue. However, in the back of my mind (and sometimes in the front), there is a vague belief that as defilements are eradicated, virtue will arise - that clearing out the toxic weeds, the suffocating weeds, will make it easier for the beautiful plants to grow. FOr example, the brahma-viharas. I think in terms of finding myself in the divie abides as defilements are eradicated rather thanintentionally moving in myself. I don't dwell on this, but the idea is there. Not an expectation, but a suspicion that this is how it will work. Is this wrong view? Would Kh Sujin warn against this idea? >Clinging is the second noble Truth, the Truth of the origin of > dukkha. This includes 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. Clinging can only be eliminated by understanding more > clearly the characteristic of lobha when it appears. It can be known as just > a conditioned dhamma, and at such a moment we do not have the wrong view of > ³my clinging². When there is a moment of clearly knowing the characteristic of lobha as it appears, and knowing it as not-self ( albeit intellectually) does lobha lose conditioning power at that moment? (ie is there less lobha accumulated than if we had been oblivious?) Is this sure to happen? Is this how defilements are eradicated, ever so gradually, through a dwindling of accumulation thanks to moments of insight? (Even shallow insight based on intellectual understanding?) Thanks in advance. Metta, Phil 41939 From: Philip Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 3:54pm Subject: Re: walking, what is sati,Tep. no 2. Hi all N: When walking, there is thinking, there is seeing and hearing, different kinds of nama. They can be objects of awareness too, otherwise we take these for self. They arise because there are conditions for their arising, they have no core, no possessor. Ph: I'm very keen on walking, walk about an hour (fast) a day for exercise. A couple of years ago I developed a practice in which I concentrate on the breath (or don't) as I walk. Now I know that this is not really "right", but I find myself still doing it in a natural way. As the body moves quite quickly, the breath becomes stronger and stronger, and it becomes everything. And if the breath is everything, Phil is nothing. I also had a practice of softly saying the Japanese syllables "hei" and "wa" with the inhalation and exhalation. Together, they mean peace. It sounds silly, but I still find it happening. Combined with the endorphines that arise from the exercise, it sets me into a very peaceful mood. At this point, to stop doing it I would have to use will power because it happens naturally (conditioned by the many times I did it in an intentional way a few years ago.) The concentration on the breath comes and goes, but when it's there I do find it pleasant and linked in a way to right understanding because it helps me to understand anatta in a very small way. (There is no controlling it, and when it is there there are no stories, no Phil. Also, all and everything that I have clung to for 44 years would fall away if the next breath didn't come. All the stories hinge on the next breath.) I've never tried the kind of walking meditation that the Buddha taught , but I like to walk in the way I imagine the Buddha did when he went through the world teaching, with a firm stride and hearty breath! He probably *didn't* walk that way, though, but it still inspires me. Also, when I walk I am sometimes aware that it is a blessing to be able to walk on two legs. There must have been good kamma in some past lifetime to have allowed us to be born as humans with healthy legs and - more importantly - an interest in the Buddha's teaching. I read somewhere someone said that "walking on water is not a miracle - it is walking on earth that is a miracle" or something like that. Now I'm going to go for one of my walks in the park and see what happens. But no expectations. (Too late - now there are expectations. Posting about one's subjective experiences is not always a good idea because it could condition clinging and expectations. I guess that's why there are quite a few members here who prefer not to post about subjective experience. No stopping me though!) Metta, Phil 41940 From: Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 5:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi Nina, Just a word of clarification. Rupas that are cognized through the mind-door only are not classified as desirable or undesirable because they are not objects of kamma resultant consciousness, such rupas as life force or intimation, for example. Also we shouldn't confuse the inherent quality of "desirability" in certain rupas with feeling (vedana), identity (sanna), or affection (sankhara). This would muck-up the nama/rupa distinction. Larry 41941 From: Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 5:09pm Subject: Vism.XIV,137 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 137. (vi) 'Energy' (viriya) is the state of one who is vigorous (viraa). Its characteristic is marshalling (driving). Its function is to consolidate conascent states. It is manifested as non-collapse. Because of the words 'Bestirred, he strives wisely' (A.ii,115), its proximate cause is a sense of urgency; or its proximate cause is grounds for the initiation of energy. When rightly initiated, it should be regarded as the root of all attainments. 41942 From: Carl Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 5:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry (and Nina) - > > In a message dated 2/7/05 8:22:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... > writes: > > > Hi Howard and Nina, > > > > I have a couple of thoughts on this subject and a question for Nina at > > the end. > > First, this classification of desirable and undesirable objects only > > applies to objects of kamma resultant cittas......(polite but big snip)... > >....... Larry > > > ========================== > Howard replied: Larry, while you don't quite explicitly say it, it seems to me that your point is that whether a dhamma is inherently pleasant or inherently unpleasant is a matter of the kamma (volitions) that were conditions for it. Whether > that is so or not, and whatever the details of it might be if it *is* so, this > is just the sort of thing I was looking for when I requested a criterion! One > needs an instrumentally efficaceous definition - a testable criterion - on > which to base a statement of the form "A is desirable" or "B is undesirable". > > With metta, > Howard =========================== Carl asks, Howard, I very much like Larry's reply "desireable/undesirable" is dependent on kamma. (I think that is what you said Larry) That a condition of desireable/undesirable may be present at a sense door (coming from the outside, so to speak) is somewhat unsettling. Does this agree with your thinking? For instance, the smell of rotting flesh can not be said to be undesirable or desirable untill a consensus is reached. To a buzzard, the smell of rotting flesh would seem to be not undesirable. Thanks Carl 41943 From: Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 1:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Opinion about: Samsara Divided by Zero Hi, Phil (and Hugo) - In a message dated 2/8/05 6:32:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, plnao@j... writes: > I remember I read some of his essays/transcribed talks last year > and thought some of the ideas were a bit peculiar. For example, there > is one in which he says we should sit and savour the breath, enjoy it > in its variations, in an intentional way change the breath to make it > more pleasant. What on earth is that all about? ==================== I have some reservations about some of the venerable's positions, but in this regard perhaps he is picking up on the following from the Anapanasati sutta: "[4] He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication (the breath),[3] and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. "[5] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to breathe out sensitive to rapture. [6] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure." 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) 41944 From: Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 1:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi, Larry (and Carl, whose post I somehow missed) - In a message dated 2/8/05 8:32:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, c7carl@y... writes: > Carl asks, > Howard, I very much like Larry's reply "desireable/undesirable" > is dependent on kamma. (I think that is what you said Larry) > That a condition of desireable/undesirable may be present at a > sense door (coming from the outside, so to speak) is somewhat > unsettling. Does this agree with your thinking? > > > For instance, the smell of rotting flesh can not be said to be > undesirable or desirable untill a consensus is reached. To a > buzzard, the smell of rotting flesh would seem to be not undesirable. > Thanks Carl > > ===================== In my opinion, the buzzard's pleasant-smell-of-rotting-flesh is not the same rupa as the human's unpleasant-smell-of-rotting-flesh. Two different rupas in two different namarupic streams, one pleasant and one unpleasant. As to the desirable/undesirable feature in rupas, I don't know what it is supposed to mean. To me, a rupa that is pleasant leads to desire, and one which is unpleasant leads to aversion - unless one is beyond reacting, in which case pleasant is just pleasant and unpleasant is just unpleasant. 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) 41945 From: Philip Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 6:35pm Subject: Re: Opinion about: Samsara Divided by Zero Hi Howard, and all > > > I remember I read some of his essays/transcribed talks last year > > and thought some of the ideas were a bit peculiar. For example, there > > is one in which he says we should sit and savour the breath, enjoy it > > in its variations, in an intentional way change the breath to make it > > more pleasant. What on earth is that all about? > ==================== > I have some reservations about some of the venerable's positions, but > in this regard perhaps he is picking up on the following from the Anapanasati > sutta: "[4] He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication (the > breath),[3] and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. "[5] He trains > himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to breathe out sensitive to rapture. > [6] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out > sensitive to pleasure." Phil: Thanks Howard. BTW, I think it's very shoddy of me to loosely paraphrase something that I vaguely remember reading last year. I know it was in a section called "40 Meditations." Apologies for not providing proper quotations, so all please disregard my comments. Gotta run. Metta, Phil 41946 From: Carl Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 7:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Carl writes: Thanks for your reply Howard. You did not miss my post. That was my first post in many monthes. I value your opinion. Buzzards aside :) . You say, "......As to the desirable/undesirable feature in rupas, I don't know what it is supposed to mean....." Howard, I would hope you continue your inquiry. You are much better at ferriting out answers than I. I believe you are addressing the point of contact(phassa)?. At least this is my intention. ...That moment of contact befor awareness. That instant of a rupa "arriving" upon a sensory field. My question is, does this contact, this initial moment of sensory impact (not including mind door) carry with it "desirable/undesirable" ? What do you think it means? Thanks Carl ....so you think a Buzzard has different rupas than a sentient being? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry (and Carl, whose post I somehow missed) - > > In a message dated 2/8/05 8:32:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, c7carl@y... > writes: > > > Carl asks, > > Howard, I very much like Larry's reply "desireable/undesirable" > > is dependent on kamma. (I think that is what you said Larry) > > That a condition of desireable/undesirable may be present at a > > sense door (coming from the outside, so to speak) is somewhat > > unsettling. Does this agree with your thinking? > > > > > > For instance, the smell of rotting flesh can not be said to be > > undesirable or desirable untill a consensus is reached. To a > > buzzard, the smell of rotting flesh would seem to be not undesirable. > > Thanks Carl > > > > > ===================== > In my opinion, the buzzard's pleasant-smell-of-rotting- flesh is not > the same rupa as the human's unpleasant-smell-of-rotting-flesh. Two different > rupas in two different namarupic streams, one pleasant and one unpleasant. > As to the desirable/undesirable feature in rupas, I don't know what it > is supposed to mean. To me, a rupa that is pleasant leads to desire, and one > which is unpleasant leads to aversion - unless one is beyond reacting, in > which case pleasant is just pleasant and unpleasant is just unpleasant. > > With metta, > Howard > 41947 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 8:41pm Subject: Re: for James - SammaSankappa and Panna Hi Robert K, Robert: I meant that those were jhanalabhi and able to master jhana and attain nibbana could only exist at the first stages of the sasana. After taht there can still be sukkha vipassaka arahanst for another 1000 years, but at this time there can only be anagami who are sukkhavipassaka. James: I don't believe that this is true. Acariya Mun was an Arahant and he died November 10, 1949: http://buddhanet.net/pdf_file/munbio_photos.pdf Metta, James 41948 From: Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 3:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi, Carl - In a message dated 2/8/05 10:20:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, c7carl@y... writes: > Thanks Carl ....so you think a Buzzard has different rupas than > a sentient being? > ====================== Well, my point is that a pleasant rupa and an unpleasant rupa even if apparently "the same" in all other respects, are in fact *not* the same. Some folks say that a person may experience rupa A *as* pleasant according to conditions, and another person, or the same person at another time, may experience that same rupa A as unpleasant. But what I am saying is that these are not the same rupa; that due to conditions, in one case a pleaant rupa is experienced and in the other case a different, unpleasant one is experienced. The point is that differing conditions are resulting in different rupas to arise, rather than different evaluations of the same rupa. 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) 41949 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 11:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi Carl, You wrote to Howard: ---------------- > I believe you are addressing the point of contact (phassa)?. At least this is my intention. ... That instant of a rupa "arriving" upon a sensory field. > ----------------------------- I think that you refer to a 'point of contact' where the Abhidhamma refers to vipaka citta. --------------------- C: > That moment of contact before awareness. --------------------- And you refer to 'awareness' where the Abhidhamma refers to impulsive (javana) cittas. ---------------------------- C: > My question is, does this contact, this initial moment of sensory impact (not including mind door) carry with it "desirable/undesirable" ? What do you think it means? ---------------------------- As I understand it, sense consciousness (vipaka citta) experiences an object as it is. So the experience of an undesirable sense object is different from the experience of a desirable sense object, is different from the experience of a moderately desirable sense object. But vipaka citta has no kammic reaction to that object (no attachment, detachment, aversion and so on). When that same object is experienced by mind-door (javana) consciousness, there will usually be attachment in the case of a desirable object and aversion in the case of an undesirable object and, I suppose, just plain ignorance in the case of a moderately desirable object. But there can be kusala reactions (detachment and non-aversion with, or without, wisdom) regardless of the object's desirability status. Sometimes, there will be attachment to undesirable objects and aversion for desirable objects - it all depends on the tendencies we have accumulated. ------------------ C: > ....so you think a Buzzard has different rupas than a sentient being? > ------------------ As I understand - and I could be wrong - a buzzard has accumulated tendencies for reacting to certain undesirable visible rupas, olfactory rupas and savoury rupas with attachment and pleasant feeling. Regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" wrote: > > > Carl writes: > Thanks for your reply Howard. You did not miss my post. That was my > first post in many monthes. I value your opinion. > Buzzards aside :) . > > You say, "......As to the desirable/undesirable feature in rupas, > I don't know what it is supposed to mean....." > > Howard, I would hope you continue your inquiry. You are much better > at ferriting out answers than I. > 41950 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 0:05am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder I Dear Tep, I am going to divide my response into separate posts corresponding with your answers I – VII. I am way behind in reading and I have not even read your whole post yet, but I am going to do so as I respond one by one to your answers. > T: According to the suttas that I have studied, the Buddha always > encouraged His monks to attain Nibbana, nothing less, and He gave > clear-cut discourses for them to achieve that purpose. Yes, that's a > short cut. I have not seen even one sutta in which He instructed the > monks to develop 'the parami' first, no matter how long the process > might be. He even compared the urgency of reaching Nibbana to > having one's hair and clothes on fire. So, from my perspective I do not > see what I have written as going against the Teachings. S: I think firstly that you misunderstand my comments about developing the parami. Remember, I am one of those who don't believe in deliberate practice? So I wouldn't say to the effect to develop parami or sila or anything first or last. Urgency is not something someone else can instill into one's mind. What the Buddha said would be the correct conditions only if correspondingly there is a level of understanding on the part of the audience. Without understanding, the image of "one's hair and clothes on fire" will be anything but right. Likewise, Nibbana is an empty concept at best and an object of desire and wrong view at worst, depending on how wrongly we understand it. Besides what is `urgency' if not a conditioned reality which lasts only a moment, and given our accumulated akusala that subsequent moments would not necessarily keep us pointed to the right direction? The Buddha could give the most appropriate teaching on many occasions, but not everyone become enlightened after hearing him and some even disliked his Teachings. On the question of parami, haven't you heard that if these are lacking, then enlightenment is not possible? Do you think that without sacca, khanti, metta, nekhamma, panna, viriya and other qualities being developed to a high degree, it would be possible for sati and panna to develop far enough? I think that viewing the Teachings as prescriptive creates a big problem, one becomes `goal oriented' and ignores conditions which are causes, namely one's accumulations as expressed from moment to moment. And if one does not see the prime importance of developing understanding in daily life, then these conditions which make up the cause will not become apparent. Moving on to part II. Metta, Sukinder 41951 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 0:07am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder II Dear Tep, > (II) >> T: The "moment of satipatthana", as I understand it, is a part of > Vipassana for attaining pativedha. > > Sukinder: > Do you mean to associate satipatthana with so called `Vipassana > meditation'? > > T: I mean satipatthana, according to the Satpatthana Sutta, which is > samma-sati (Right mindfulness), is a Path factor that supports samma- > samadhi. And, in turn, sama-samadhi supports sama nana(Right > knowledge) and samma vimutti(Right release), according to the Great > Forty [MN 117]. > > "Bhikkhus, here right view becomes foremost. How does right view > become foremost? To one with right view arise right thoughts. To one > with right thoughts arise right words. To one with right words arise right > actions. To one with right actions arise right livelihood. To one with right > livelihood arise right endeavour. To one with right endeavour arise > right mindfulness. To one with right mindfulness arise right > concentration..To one with right concentration arise right knowledge. > To one with right knowledge arise right release. Thus the trainer has > eight factors and the perfect one has ten factors.[endquote] > > If vipassana meditation accomplishes Right release as explained > above, then the answer is 'yes'. S: My question had to do with whether `vipassana meditation' as popularly understood is a necessary condition for the arising of satipatthana. I wasn't asking if satipatthana lead to vipassana (not the meditation) or the Eightfold Path. I think it does. But I don't see any place for the so called `vipassana meditation' in the Buddha's teachings and so I don't think *this* leads to the 8FP. Satipatthana is not just the development of sati, but at any moment there is samma-sati, then at that time there is also samma-samadhi, samma-ditthi, samma-sankappa and samma-vayama. On to part III. Metta, Sukinder ---------------- 41952 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 0:08am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder II Dear Tep, > (III) > Sukinder: > I think Dana and Sila are parami only when they are known with sati > and panna. A Christian or Moslem with wrong view, being generous > and moral is not in my opinion developing the parami at any time, > though this may condition a good habit. And if and when in the future he > or she comes to appreciate the Dhamma, this accumulated habit can > become an asset in terms of developing the parami. And obviously > developing the parami *is* patipatti. > > T: Your example is confusing. With sila-visuddhi, does it matter > whether one has accumulated parami or not? Every Buddhist I know > gives out dana and practices sila (even only at the level of the Five > Precepts, the sila is pure) with gladness and awareness of their kusala > kamma. So it is clear that sati and panna, being associated with > saddha, are automatically present. S: `Sila-visuddhi', this is a very big word for me ;-). I am guessing that it means `purification of virtue'. Are you saying that your `every Buddhist' is moving towards Sila-visuddhi even if he is not developing satipatthana? And you seem to be saying that sati and panna is there by virtue of this kind of saddha? How!!? Without satipatthana, silabattaparamasa is inevitable. Without sacca parami for example, there is no way to develop understanding to know if one is following the precepts centered on `self' or not. So yes, the parami *is* important for every level of development along the path. > T: On the other hand, your intention to > accumulate a 'good' habit or 'parami' may or may not be free from > lobha (a desire to accumulate parami) or ignorance (say, you just > follow your parents' tradition). Now, if we give dana by our own free will > and follow the Precepts to the perfected state because of our saddha > in the Triple Gem alone, without anyone telling us to do it, isn't that > kusala kamma already free from lobha and moha? S: Exactly! So called good-intention is no guarantee for any good being developed. This is what many of us have been saying. This is why panna has to lead. And "giving dana by our own free will and follow the Precepts to the perfected state because of our saddha in the Triple Gem" is only an ideal if there is no development of satipatthana and accumulations of the perfections. At the moment of giving, sure it must be kusala. But even if we are doing without any outside influence, `self' will follow if there is no sati and panna to know the moment. So lets not be mislead by outer manifestations of deeds. Let us remember that `self' is there at every turn. > T: Besides, we don't > have to have that ditthi to look down upon a Christian or Moslem as > having a "wrong view". (Our view is purer because we are Buddhists?) S: My point was to point to the dhamma, miccha-ditthi, and `Christian or Moslem' is just a convenient conventional designation. I wasn't prepared to bring out the exact wrong views, it would be impossible for me to do that. Neither do I entertain such thoughts as "`my' view is purer because I am Buddhists". However, I don't think as you seem to do, that if there is comparison, that this would itself be ditthi..? On to post no. IV Metta, Sukinder 41953 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 0:11am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder IV Dear Tep, > ----------------- > Sukinder: > I agree with anyone who states that patipatti is more important than > pariyatti. But I think that it may be self-defeating to think that "I can or > should develop more patipatti and be less concerned about pariyatti." > Firstly both these terms refer to levels of panna not necessarily related > to any conventional activity. Secondly, they are anatta and arises and > falls because of conditions unrelated to any thinking and decision on > my part. In other words, if my level of understanding is such that I seek > to understand more on the `conceptual' level, I will read dsg, but there > is no guarantee that there will be any understanding. However, if > indeed the conditions are right, even while reading, there can be a > moment of satipatthana. And this I believe would have been in part > because there was no `self' trying to direct the show. ;-) > > T: I didn't say that patipatti was more important that pariyatti. I just said > that you should do more bhavana, because it is lacking. S: That's a relief and it is encouraging. ;-) > Tep: At our level of "satipatthana" the 'self' is always unavoidable, > regardless of your chanting that there is "no 'self' trying to direct the > show". That is not understanding, it is memorizing.( ;>|) S: When you say "At our level of "satipatthana" the 'self'…" this is already wrong. You are implying there is a `self' who does it, so surely there *will* be a `self'. And with this you go on to conclude that all of us who speak about the danger of `self' creeping in to one's practice, that this is like `chanting' "no-`self'". Whether or not there is sitting or `not sitting', there really is no self. And this is what some of us are saying. But you are making the conclusion to the effect that since we have not eradicated self-view for good, then let us `sit' *with* self. And this is because you have been completely convinced that through this practice, ultimately there will be insight into the fact of no-self. But is this the right cause for the right result? Using `self' to uproot `self'? You say that to assert that there is no self, is memorizing. How do you know? I understand that many people think this way. But is it? Can't there be any direct understanding of the moment? Can't the development have been such that the nimita of lobha and ditthi for example, are recognized at some level or the other? I think people like Nina and Sarah for example, are quite perceptive and quite capable of recognizing `self' whenever it pops its head out. Look at Phil for instance; he has made the whole world his meditation hall. And he is able to do that precisely because he has not put any limit with regard to time, place and posture. But then again, this is because of his good accumulations and it can't be imitated by others. Next post… Metta, Sukinder 41954 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 0:12am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder V Dear Tep, > --------------- > (IV) >> T: Being alone is kaya-viveka ('abiding in solitude free from alluring > sensuous objects'). > > Sukinder: > I think that this is important for developing Jhana, but is it of any > consequence in terms of developing vipassana panna? > > T: Yes, vipassana panna is supported by Right concentration. "And > what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- quite > withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) > qualities ..." [DN 22] So kaya-viveka supports Right concentration. This is a matter of interpretation and there have been many discussions about this. So I won't comment on this except to ask you, If there is concentration at the moment of satipatthana, and if by virtue of other corresponding mental factors this is deemed as samma- samadhi, why need to develop any other kind of samadhi which has instead of a paramattha dhamma, a concept as object? What relationship do you see between the two? Next. Metta, Sukinder. 41955 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 0:16am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder VI Dear Tep, > ---------- > (VI) >> T: How would you know "the difference between samatha and > vipassana" if you do very little (or zero?) samatha-bhavana but a lot > more on listening and reading? > > Sukinder: > As has often been pointed by some of us, pariyatti *is* a level of panna > which should not be overlooked. And this is not a matter of theorizing, > but right understanding of particular level. So there can be *right* > understanding of the concept of samatha-bhavana esp. when informed > by a corresponding level of understanding about conditionality. So > don't you think that this may be more reliable than any reference to > experience which may have resulted from lobha and ditthi? There is no > `learning from experience' if driven by avijja. And wrong view does > appear right to the person who has it, no? > > T: Sure, pariyatti should not be overlooked; even the first level of > parinna(full understanding) is about knowing specific characteristics of > nama and rupa. That requires pariyatti knowledge and noone can > overlook that fact. But I don't believe in the speculation that "there can > be *right* understanding of the concept of samatha-bhavana esp. > when informed by a corresponding level of understanding about > conditionality". If reading and studying without true experience of the > Dhamma is that great, they wouldn't have residence programs in > almost every hospital. A book-expert medical-school graduate would > start working right away in a hospital, prescribing medicines, > performing surgery, etc. You can imagine, that would be chaotic and > dangerous. Another analogy is, for example, the reading and studying > ('pariyatti') how to drive an automobile would not help you to be able to > drive it safely on the road right after reading the book. Only with a > practice ('bhavana'), then you can. S: I think you are mixing up conventional reality with ultimate reality. The way we learn about and apply our knowledge in the conventional world is not the same as how dhammas condition one another. Take for example the perfections they support the development of wisdom even though, for example, viriya, khanti and sacca do not "know" and understand the object as panna does. In the case of knowledge and application of conventional realities, there is no particular need for mental states or even qualities of `persons' to act as conditioning factors for reaching a particular goal. In fact, rules and rituals act as positive contributing factors for most worldly achievements, but this is a great hindrance to the development of panna. The way that knowledge is accumulated in medicine is through remembrance of data and past experiences. But dhammas, good or bad are conditioned by sankhara and does not rely on the same process as conventional knowledge. Panna therefore is not about comparing data and developing bodily and verbal skills. It is not about a whole lot of information stored and the ability to retrieve that information. It is about `insight'. It is `wordless' ability to understand through signs, the present dhamma. > T: No, I don't have to do the samatha-bhavana that is driven by lobha > and ditthi like you have imagined. Of course, lobha and moha still are > with us, because we are worldlings. But they can be peeled off layer by > layer when both samatha and vipassana are more and more > developed and become well balanced. S: But they do not arise all the time. And when there is right view of the level of pariyatti, already `self-view' is being dealt with, with whatever power. Meanwhile if we think in terms of a `self' who has lobha and moha and needs to do formal meditation in order that these may slowly peel off, this may be encouraging atta-ditthi and so increases those akusala instead of decreasing them. > T: I know it because I have done some myself. S: I wouldn't rely on hindsight and experience to judge anything dhamma. ;-) > T: Starting as a novice, no matter how well you think you > know about the dangers of lobha and ditthi (moha), you still are not > better of than any other practictioner, because that book- knowledge of > the concepts is too weak to fight with lobha and moha or any > defilement. S: True `pariyatti' understanding is weak and does almost nothing to decrease akusala. But this *is* the right foundation. However wrong practice is wrong, and should not be relied upon even if one were to think in terms of `trial and error' process. Why? Because wrong conditions more wrong and one ends up being further away from the right. > T: No, that book-knowledge is not *right* understanding! Right > understanding (or Right view) is samma-ditthi, meaning you are free > from the first 3 fetters! [I have a sutta support for that.] Again, what you > think you know from studying the concepts is totally different from > seeing and knowing as the result of bhavana. Indeed, "learning from > experience" helps peeling off the wrong-view-layers of the avijja onion. S: :-) Development of panna is about greater familiarity with the presently arisen dhamma. It is not a matter of looking back and learning from the past. Thinking about the past involves sanna and citta vipallasa and can't be relied upon. Right understanding has many levels, including with concept about the Teachings as object, and like I said before, this is not about `words'. It is time to go and pick up my son from school. I will respond to the rest (which I have yet to read) of your post some other day. (We don't have help at home presently, so I am busy when I get back ). :- ( Thanks for your patience. Metta, Sukinder ps: In hurry, I ended up mismatching the posts. Sorry. 41956 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 0:04am Subject: Impersonality & the Egoless Absolute ... !!! Friends: No Self Exists ... There neither ever was, nor is now, nor will ever be any 'Person'... There neither ever was, nor is now, nor will ever be any 'Self'... There neither ever was, nor is now, nor will ever be any 'Soul'... There neither ever was, nor is now, nor will ever be any 'Identity'... There neither ever was, nor is now, nor will ever be any 'Ego'... There neither ever was, nor is now, nor will ever be any 'Me'... There neither ever was, nor is now, nor will ever be any 'I'... Since if everything changes continuously from moment to moment, whether physical or mental, whether internal or external, & nothing therefore can remain 'Identical' & 'Same' even for a single moment, how can there possibly ever exist any stable 'Identity' & same 'Self' ??? The 'I-Me-Mine-Personality-Identity-Ego-&-Soul' are thus mere Mentally Constructed Ideas & Assumed Conceptualizations, that never can be actually observed nor verified, but is arised caused by mental clinging: Clinging to What? Clinging to views of personality-belief & the conceit 'I Am','Mine' & 'Self'. Clinging to Forms, Feelings, Experiences, Constructions & Consciousness. Clinging to Seeing, Hearing, Smelling, Tasting, Touching & Thinking. This Cluster of Clinging is the very core of all deeply mistaken Egoism ... This Cluster of Clinging is the very root of all Conceit, Pride & Arrogance ... This Cluster of Clinging is first cause of repeated birth, sickness & Death ... Remove & cure it by observing, accepting & understanding that: Any body & form, any feeling, any experience, any construction, & whatever consciousness is always changing, transient, impermanent, decaying & vanishing even while happening... What is always decaying & vanishing is dissatisfying, frustrating, & quite painful... What is always changing & vanishing, frustrating & painful, and unsafe & uncertain, cannot correctly be regarded as neither 'I-Me-Mine' nor as any 'Self' nor as belonging to any 'Self'...!!! If it really were self, then one could keep & control it completely, by making any body, feeling, experience, construction, & consciousness stable & always pleasant!!! But one cannot even for a second control this flux... One cannot, even for a second, stop this Change... One cannot, even for a second, halt this Ageing... One cannot, even for a second, avert this Decay... One cannot, even for a second, prevent this Death... Only the State of Nibbana is Unchanging, Eternal, Stable, Safe, Same, Lasting, Certain, Still, Imperturbable, Ultimate & Deathless... There is no other Alternative ... There is no other Solution ... There is no other Absolute ... Go for it ! It is deep Peace !!! It is open Freedom !!! It is sole Bliss !!! Beyond both Being and Non-Being ... Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. 41957 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 3:54am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. Hi Robert, Thanks for this. Do you have more? > ..the shock I felt when reading the statement in the 4th section > (p.135) that "a number of Buddhas togther with their arahant > disciples" had paid a vists to the Acharn to "offer their > congratulations upon his achievement". The controversy that > understandably arises upon such a statement can I think be > conclusively and decisively settled..[he then quotes sutta passagae ] > Obviously , the statements abscribed to venerable Acharn Mun are in > contradication with the afore quoted sutta passage. > There are also conflicts with other well-known utterances of the > Master on the nature of Tathagatha, on Nibbana, and the > khandhas..Admirers [of acharn Mun] will have to face the dilemma and > solve it for themselves, honestly without misinterpreting the Buddha- > word" endquote from Nyanatiloka I had read a little about A. Mun and found it quite strange the descriptions about his meditative experiences. I had heard that he was the greatest Thai Acharn and that he was an arahatta. But there was no piti at all when I started reading this part of his biography. This was before I came upon dsg and K. Sujin. In case anyone might think that I was brainwashed by abhidhamma perspective ;-). Sukinder 41958 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 7:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi Larry and Howard, op 09-02-2005 02:04 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Just a word of clarification. Rupas that are cognized through the > mind-door only are not classified as desirable or undesirable because > they are not objects of kamma resultant consciousness, such rupas as > life force or intimation, for example. N: I think that desirable and undesirable is said of sense objects. The stress is on object: it has to be experienced by citta. L: Also we shouldn't confuse the inherent quality of "desirability" in certain rupas with feeling > (vedana), identity (sanna), or affection (sankhara). This would muck-up > the nama/rupa distinction. N: I agree. Only I would not call sañña identity, but remembrance or recognition. Affection: do you mean lobha? That is sankhaarakkhandha. We should distinguish rupa from the feeling arising with different types of citta experiencing the object. That is very important. Howards writes: < As to the desirable/undesirable feature in rupas, I don't know what it is supposed to mean. To me, a rupa that is pleasant leads to desire, and one which is unpleasant leads to aversion - unless one is beyond reacting, in which case pleasant is just pleasant and unpleasant is just unpleasant.> N: Howard, when you say this, I am sure you are not fatalistic and you know that there can be wise attention to the object, also in the case of worldlings. How otherwise could we develop kusala? We worldlings are not beyond reacting. As I said before, we should distinguish vipaakacittas, the passive side of life, and kusala cittas or akusala cittas the active side of life. I want to add about feelings: as you know, kusala citta can be accompanied by happy feeling or by indifferent feeling. No matter how pleasant the object is, there can be wise attention. Akusala citta rooted in lobha can be accompanied by happy feeling or by indifferent feeling. Akusala citta rooted in dosa is accompanied by unhappy feeling. Akusala citta rooted in ignorance is accompanied by indifferent feeling. When seeing experiences a pleasant visible object the javanacittas in that process may react as follows: by kusala citta accompanied by happy feeling or by indifferent feeling. I gave the example of a beautiful gift and a receiver being present. Or seeing a pleasant object can be followed by any of the akusala cittas mentioned above. Why is that? Because the vipaakacitta is conditioned by kamma-condition and by natural strong dependence-condition. Whereas the kusala citta or akusala citta is conditioned by accumulated inclinations, and this falls also under natural strong dependence-condition. Thus, it is very important to distinguish feelings accompanying cittas conditioned by different factors. Some feelings are vipaaka, some feelings are kusala or akusala. Nina. 41959 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 7:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anicca as characteristic Dear Joop, op 08-02-2005 12:27 schreef jwromeijn op jwromeijn@y...: . > Nina, you talk about 'accumulations'; as far as I had understood it > are accumulated parts of cetasikas. > Why these accumulations don't obey the 'law of anicca' and disappear ? N: I understand you dilemma. Let us talk first in general. You do not look the same as in childhood. Still, you are not entirely different. What you learnt at school may still be remembered, though not all. What we learn is never entirely lost. We can remember what was learnt before, we also remember what we heard yesterday or today. How can we remember when each citta falls away? There is a connection between cittas that succeed one another. The present is neither the same nor entirely different from the past. The present is conditioned by the past. We develop certain tendencies and habits in our life. When we have the opportunity to help others, this conduct can become established. It becomes more and more easy to help others. Or when we are stingy, it can become a habit that is deeply engrained. We are born with different inclinations, different talents. Why is that? It is conditioned by what has been accumulated in the past. I use the term accumulation now. Our life is an unbroken series of cittas accompanied by different cetasikas. This series goes back far into the past, and it shall continue in the future, so long as we are in the cycle of birth and death. True, each citta falls away, and it never comes back, aniccaa. But it conditions the following one. From birth to death there is still what we call Joop's individuality. It changes each moment, but there is also a connection, and this can be understood when we consider different conditions that are operating. Each citta falls away but there are conditions for accumulating experiences, tendencies and kammas, from moment to moment. As Htoo explained, kamma is volition or intention, cetanaa. It is mental, and thus also kamma is accumulated. It can produce result when there are the right conditions. When we commit a good or bad deed many kusala cittas or akusala cittas accompanied by intention are involved. That is why we read in the sutta that one kamma could produce rebirth in a certain plane many times. Also, the tendencies to kusala and akusala are accumulated when performing a deed. It is very intricate and we cannot know precisely how it all operates. J: You (and Nina and Sarah) are right in stating that the Buddha was the > Teacher of anatta. But was the Buddha not also the Teacher of anicca, > or did the anicca-principle alreay exist in prebuddhistic India ? I > don't think so. N: I explained in a recent post that wise people before the Buddha developed jhana and that they must have realized passing away of cittas. But the Buddha taught anicca infinitely more precisely, and he taught the connection of anicca, dukkha and anatta. How can we direct or control that which falls away immediately? And what is anicca is not worth clinging to, it is dukkha. Nina. 41960 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 8:30am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > Thanks for this. Do you have more? > > > ..the shock I felt when reading the statement in the 4th section > > (p.135) that "a number of Buddhas togther with their arahant > > disciples" had paid a vists to the Acharn to "offer their > > congratulations upon his achievement". The controversy that > > understandably arises upon such a statement can I think be > > conclusively and decisively settled..[he then quotes sutta passagae ] > > Obviously , the statements abscribed to venerable Acharn Mun are in > > contradication with the afore quoted sutta passage. > > There are also conflicts with other well-known utterances of the > > Master on the nature of Tathagatha, on Nibbana, and the > > khandhas..Admirers [of acharn Mun] will have to face the dilemma > and > > solve it for themselves, honestly without misinterpreting the Buddha- > > word" endquote from Nyanatiloka > > I had read a little about A. Mun and found it quite strange the > descriptions about his meditative experiences. I had heard that he was > the greatest Thai Acharn and that he was an arahatta. But there was no > piti at all when I started reading this part of his biography. > > This was before I came upon dsg and K. Sujin. > In case anyone might think that I was brainwashed by abhidhamma > perspective ;-). > > Sukinder Hi Sukin and Robert, Oh, I didn't know that there was already a thread discussing A. Mun. (I can't keep up with all these posts!! ;-)) Honestly, when I first read that I was also taken aback, but then I continued reading. A. Mun asked the Buddha and his Arahant disciples how they could possibly appear to him in material form since they had transcended existence and the material world (he wasn't stupid or crazy). The Buddha then explains to A. Mun how and why this is done. It is too long to quote here, so if you are interested read pages 241-242 from this document: http://buddhanet.net/pdf_file/munbio_photos.pdf What the Buddha explains to A. Mun in no way contradicts the suttas. The Buddha was quite silent on the issue of the existence or non-existence of an Arahant after parinibbana. Actually, what A.Mun told, he only told his closest disciples and it probably wasn't meant for public consumption. In my opinion, the author shouldn't have included it in the biography- but that is neither here nor there. The general public couldn't possibly understand the types of psychic connections that A. Mun had with the various world systems, nibbana, and his ability to read thoughts. Those who just read the texts think they know, but they don't really know. For example, ask yourselves two questions: 1. What is the nature of nibbana? 2. What is the nature of the citta? Metta, James 41961 From: Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 3:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/9/05 10:22:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: > Howards writes: > is supposed to mean. To me, a rupa that is pleasant leads to desire, and one > which is unpleasant leads to aversion - unless one is beyond reacting, in > which case pleasant is just pleasant and unpleasant is just unpleasant.> > N: Howard, when you say this, I am sure you are not fatalistic and you know > that there can be wise attention to the object, also in the case of > worldlings. How otherwise could we develop kusala? > ---------------------------------- Howard: Yes, you understand me correctly. I am not fatalistic. When I speak of being beyond reacting, I realize that one needn't be even a sotapan to be non-reactive on occasion due to wise attention (and intention). While the only beings who are *perfectly* and *consistently* beyond reaction are arahants, even worldlings are not doomed to consistently reinforce their ignorance, else there would be no escape. ---------------------------------- We worldlings are not> > beyond reacting. > As I said before, we should distinguish vipaakacittas, the passive side of > life, and kusala cittas or akusala cittas the active side of life. > -------------------------------- Howard: Understood, though even the active side is conditioned as well. ------------------------------ > I want to add about feelings: as you know, kusala citta can be accompanied > by happy feeling or by indifferent feeling. ---------------------------------- Howard: Makes sense to me. ---------------------------------- No matter how pleasant the> > object is, there can be wise attention. -------------------------------- Howard: Certainly. ------------------------------ > Akusala citta rooted in lobha can be accompanied by happy feeling or by > indifferent feeling. Akusala citta rooted in dosa is accompanied by unhappy > feeling. > ----------------------------- Howard: The first of these makes complete sense to me as well, but I have a slight questioning about the latter. It seems to me that some truly evil people get pleasure from their hatred and from acting on it, and that many people get pleasure from what they call mistakenly call "righteous anger". --------------------------------- > Akusala citta rooted in ignorance is accompanied by indifferent feeling. > --------------------------------- Howard: That makes good sense to me. (I presume that when you say "rooted in ignorance" you mean rooted *solely* in ignorance.) ---------------------------------- > When seeing experiences a pleasant visible object the javanacittas in that > process may react as follows: by kusala citta accompanied by happy feeling > or by indifferent feeling. I gave the example of a beautiful gift and a > receiver being present. > Or seeing a pleasant object can be followed by any of the akusala cittas > mentioned above. > Why is that? Because the vipaakacitta is conditioned by kamma-condition and > by natural strong dependence-condition. > Whereas the kusala citta or akusala citta is conditioned by accumulated > inclinations, and this falls also under natural strong dependence-condition. > Thus, it is very important to distinguish feelings accompanying cittas > conditioned by different factors. Some feelings are vipaaka, some feelings > are kusala or akusala. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Understood. ----------------------------------- > Nina. > > ===================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 41962 From: Tep Sastri Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 9:04am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ A. Mun's Biography --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" > wrote: > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > Thanks for this. Do you have more? > > > > > ..the shock I felt when reading the statement in the 4th section > > > (p.135) that "a number of Buddhas togther with their arahant > > > disciples" had paid a vists to the Acharn to "offer their > > > congratulations upon his achievement". The controversy that > > > understandably arises upon such a statement can I think be > > > conclusively and decisively settled..[he then quotes sutta > passagae ] > > > Obviously , the statements abscribed to venerable Acharn Mun are > in > > > contradication with the afore quoted sutta passage. > > > There are also conflicts with other well-known utterances of the > > > Master on the nature of Tathagatha, on Nibbana, and the > > > khandhas..Admirers [of acharn Mun] will have to face the dilemma > > and > > > solve it for themselves, honestly without misinterpreting the > Buddha- > > > word" endquote from Nyanatiloka > > > > I had read a little about A. Mun and found it quite strange the > > descriptions about his meditative experiences. I had heard that he > was > > the greatest Thai Acharn and that he was an arahatta. But there > was no > > piti at all when I started reading this part of his biography. > > > > This was before I came upon dsg and K. Sujin. > > In case anyone might think that I was brainwashed by abhidhamma > > perspective ;-). > > > > Sukinder > > Hi Sukin and Robert, > > Oh, I didn't know that there was already a thread discussing A. Mun. > (I can't keep up with all these posts!! ;-)) Honestly, when I first > read that I was also taken aback, but then I continued reading. A. > Mun asked the Buddha and his Arahant disciples how they could > possibly appear to him in material form since they had transcended > existence and the material world (he wasn't stupid or crazy). The > Buddha then explains to A. Mun how and why this is done. It is too > long to quote here, so if you are interested read pages 241-242 from > this document: > http://buddhanet.net/pdf_file/munbio_photos.pdf > > What the Buddha explains to A. Mun in no way contradicts the > suttas. The Buddha was quite silent on the issue of the existence > or non-existence of an Arahant after parinibbana. Actually, what > A.Mun told, he only told his closest disciples and it probably > wasn't meant for public consumption. In my opinion, the author > shouldn't have included it in the biography- but that is neither > here nor there. The general public couldn't possibly understand the > types of psychic connections that A. Mun had with the various world > systems, nibbana, and his ability to read thoughts. Those who just > read the texts think they know, but they don't really know. For > example, ask yourselves two questions: 1. What is the nature of > nibbana? 2. What is the nature of the citta? > > Metta, > James Hi James, RobertK and Sukinder - I am grateful to James for quickly responding to the criticism by RobertK and Sukinder about Acariya Mun's arahantship, including the story about his incredible physic powers, i.e. the ability to communicate with the Buddha (or Buddhas). Of course, the story is always shocking to people who think of the Buddha's parinibbana as final, or the extinction of the citta. So I am glad to see James raising two questions about Nibbana (there are more). However, it might be a good reminder to RobertK and Sukinder that the amount of knowledge presented by the Buddha to His disciples was much smaller than the total amount He had discivered. Besides, Nibbana is not a simple subject for worldings' discussion. "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there; Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it; The path is, but no traveler on it is seen." (Vis.M. XVI) Respectfully yours, Tep ==== 41963 From: Hugo Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 9:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:29:54 -0000, kelvin_lwin wrote: > For a self-proclaimed Upasaka, you seem to speak from the position > of an expert. Sorry for the confusion, but I don't think I can be in a position of an "expert" at all. I said what I am doing currently, it is good or not, I don't know, is it suitable for everybody else, I don't know. I have seen good results out of it, though (I lost 10 Kgs!, I don't get angry as much or with as much intensity as before :-) ). > What you described below are being mindful of merely > pannattis and far away from paramattha dhamma. I still don't see > how you refute a retreat is a better environment. I don't refute it. I agree with the fact that a retreat is very useful, also to have some time reserved in your day for a meditation session. I try to do both of the previously mentioned activities as much as my household live allows me. In a post I made months ago, I compared the meditation sessions as the lab and gym of the mind. The lab because it investigates things and the gym because it helps make it "stronger". So, I am in favor of both retreats and so-called "formal meditation sessions". My point was that we should not try to reach Enlightenment just there in the retreat or in the meditation session, but all the time. And it is actually in everyday activities where we can test if we learned something at those retreats and meditation sessions. > Maybe if someone > can keep that environment no matter the situation but I know I'm not > one yet. Before I reach that stage however I have enough sense to > admit it to myself. I can't be mindful all the time yet, but everytime I try to be mindful of everything I do. I use the following trick, I ask myself "why?" of every action, which helps me identify if the action I am about to do, or I am doing, or I just did, was based on a defilement or not. Which becomes very difficult because sometimes it is the defilements who answer "no, it is not us, look other way", but after doing it many times and setting myself "traps" and "experiments" I have been able to at least catch the most gross examples of the defilements, like for example when I go for a third portion of food even when I am already full, or why do I want a bowl of cereal at night if I am full (just because I am used to), or why do I get angry for this or that? (even though it seems that the blame is on the other person, the truth is that the anger arises because of my attachment of certain thing, so if I remove that attachment, the angers goes away even if the other person keeps behaving like that). Greetings, -- Hugo 41964 From: Tep Sastri Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 10:08am Subject: Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Hi Hugo, While I am responding to your reply (#41917) I have kept in mind the following quote from your message # 41860, which tells clearly what " the real practice" of the Dhamma really means to you: "If you look carefully, the 'real world' offers you more variety of opportunities to practice than a retreat or a "formal meditation session". But it would be better to stop labeling and make 'your life' = 'your practice'. I am taking a shower, I am practicing, I am eating alone, I am practicing, I am eating with the whole family and the neighbors, I am practicing......in short I am not doing anything else, but practicing". In message # 41917 you wrote: H: I think the problem with this Middle Way is that it is too thin so it is difficult to try to walk on it......and on top of that we have to realize that there is no self walking... AAAAAHHH!!! :-) > T: > Quite a few dhamma discussers like to talk about the >"final goal" such direct knowing, the arising of sati and panna, > and the self-less mind state that is free from lobha and moha > just like these end-goals are > implementable simply by "just do it, you fool!". H: Well, don't discard the possibility/fact that some people can indeed "just do it". ... Also, don't forget that one part of my message says that we ALSO have to "observe with wisdom". So it seems that we need to do both. If you visualize the defilements as little monsters that push you around, and then you do nothing but "observe with wisdom", you are really doing something, ... ... . Tep's Reply to all of the above: In short, you claim to have both sati and sampajjana (thorough understanding) in almost every moment so that you can "just do it" by "observing with wisdom". Now, Hugo, can you teach me to do the same? Do not talk about your present state of mind that is too far above mine. Just give me a step-by-step written instruction in your own words, please. Thank you much in advance. Warm regards, Tep ============ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > Hello Tep, > > On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:14:16 -0000, Tep Sastri 41965 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 11:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. Pilgrimage India 5 c Hello Phil, op 09-02-2005 00:33 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: I think in terms of finding myself in the divine > abides as defilements are eradicated rather than intentionally moving > in myself. I don't dwell on this, but the idea is there. Not an > expectation, but a suspicion that this is how it will work. Is this > wrong view? Would Kh Sujin warn against this idea? N: It depends on the moment: clinging with or without wrong view. Both may alternate. Also, rather than intentionally having Brahma viharas,we should remember that this depends on conditions, on understanding. Ph: When there is a moment of clearly knowing the characteristic of > lobha as it appears, and knowing it as not-self ( albeit > intellectually) does lobha lose conditioning power at that moment? N: At that moment there is kusala citta, no lobha, but it will arise again. There will be conditions so long as there is the latent tendency. PH (ie is there less lobha accumulated than if we had been oblivious?) > Is this sure to happen? Is this how defilements are eradicated, ever > so gradually, through a dwindling of accumulation thanks to moments > of insight? (Even shallow insight based on intellectual > understanding?) N: We can hardly speak of less lobha, there is such a lot of it, clinging to all objects. We cannot measure how much or whether there is less. Not for a long time, we can be sure. We should not think of having less, but, as Kh Sujin would say, we have to develop more understanding. That is encouraging. You wrote something about walking meditation, but we read in the Satipatthana sutta that the monk should be aware no matter he is walking, standing, etc. during all four postures, and no matter what he is doing:eating, speaking, being silent, etc. Thus, the term walking meditation may be confusing if we do not get it in the right perspective, what do you think? Nina. 41966 From: nina Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 11:40am Subject: Pilgrimage India 5d Pilgrimage India 5d Citta and cetasikas are nåma, they experience an object and they are different from rúpa. Citta merely cognizes an object, and the akusala cetasikas that accompany citta cause it to be impure. Gradually, understanding can be developed of citta as the dhamma that knows an object, and later on paññå can understand the characteristics of lobha and dosa more precisely as nåma, conditioned dhammas. When we doubt whether the citta that arises is kusala citta or akusala citta and when we worry about it, understanding is not being developed at that moment. The sotåpanna who has attained the first stage of enlightenment has eradicated the wrong view of self, he does not take kusala or akusala for self. His kusala is much purer than the kusala of the non-ariyan. Moreover, there are no longer conditions for transgressing the five precepts, no more conditions to harm others in a serious way. Right understanding can condition a true sense of urgency to develop understanding of this very moment, such as seeing, visible object, hearing or sound. Lodewijk was wondering why Acharn Sujin always speaks about seeing and visible object and why we discuss the same subjects year in year out. We have accumulated ignorance and wrong view and therefore we need to listen to true dhamma again and again, it never is enough. We continue to take visible object for persons or things. Or we cling to my seeing. We fail to consider visible object and seeing as impersonal elements and this gives rise to a great deal of akusala. ***** Nina. 41967 From: Hugo Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 0:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Another one I am working on as of a few weeks ago is "boredom". It is a Sunday, all the family is in the home, my wife busy with something, the kids playing, and me? bored. So, let's comtemplate "boredom" what is "boredom"? What does it mean to feel "bored"? In the past I would go off to the T.V., or to the Internet or to read a book or something that provided Entertainment. So, I investigated what is "Entertainment", and it is something to "distract" the mind, which means that the mind wants to keep playing and if it doesn't have something to play with it, then it becomes "bored" which is basically dukkha. Ah! So, the reason the minds wants to play is because it is not content with the "status quo", it wants to move here and there. Now, if I leave it move here and there what will happen? Well, if it finds something to play with it will be bored of it soon, why? because unless it is Nibbana, whatever it finds will be subject to change (anicca), and that will lead to dukkha. So there is no entertainment that is worth doing because all of it will lead me to dukkha. What do I do?, I am still bored! Well, sit and contemplate boredom, so I go and sit, because my family is doing their business I hear a lot of noices (toys, T.V., voices, screams, etc.) all those noices are perceived by my mind, and what does it do?, it attaches to them and start building thoughts around and about them, then some feelings arise, and now I am no longer bored, because I am now contemplating feelings and everything else the mind is doing, so while I can't make the mind still, at least it is doing something worth of doing. Then I play with the mind trying to "deattach it" from that object that it got and attach it to some other object, or the breath or something. In other words, try to make it "move" in a certain way so I can "feel" it so I can detect later when it "moves" and attaches to something and thus being able to break the attachment to avoid dukkha. I know about the no-self and that the mind is not a self, but I can't find other words to describe what I do or try to do. It is like trying to describe how you hold off your urine to not wet your pants when you are about to burst but still are 30 minutes far from the nearest toilet. I can't name the muscles that move, all I can say is that I tighten them. :-) Greetings, -- Hugo 41968 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 0:20pm Subject: Nonduality Hello all, Non-Duality is a confusing term. I have read many posts on the internet where people are writing of non-duality, and it seems to me that they often don't seem to be talking about the same thing. Some mean 'interconnectedness of independent awarenesses', and some mean 'merging completely with a ground-of-all-being' (by whatever Name), and there are other views. It appears from the scanty information I have been able to locate, that Theravada Buddhism does not accept Nonduality in any form. I am particularly interested in any information, sutta, commentary, article regarding the Theravada Buddhist view on nonduality - my sole resource to date being Bhikkhu Bodhi's article "Dhamma and Non- duality": http://www.vipassana.com/resources/bodhi/dhamma_and_nonduality.php I'm hoping that I may gain clarification and further understanding here. Metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 41969 From: Hugo Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 11:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:08:05 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > In short, you claim to have both sati and sampajjana (thorough > understanding) in almost every moment so that you can "just do it" > by "observing with wisdom". :-) I don't know if I have both of sati and sampajjana, or maybe I should say that I don't know what means to have those. What I know is the following: I am not aware of everything. I am not aware 100% of the time. I am aware of more "things" than before . I am aware more % of time than before. I understand other things that I didn't understand before: why do I eat so much, why do I get angry and other gross things like that, nothing supramundane or arupa or anything to that level. When I say "before", I mean before I started to "train myself" which is a few months ago. I haven't seen anything divine, miraclous, supramundane or anything like that, what I have found is just big, gross, and obvious faults in "me". I have also managed to understand that they are indeed faults (before, I always found some excuse for them, if I even noticed them at all). Hey, I don't think that I have even reached any Jhana, let alone seeing any interesting nimitta, or any of those events that are talked about that happen in meditation sessions. I am well on the human and clinging to self level. Basically I have concentrated on behavioral issues, because I found that my behavior was the more predominant source of suffering at this time of my life. The interesting thing is that it seems that those behaviors (defilements?) anger and the drive for overeating seem to be less powerful now, and that's what SOMETIMES allows me to observe them. In other ocassions, the anger is still stronger so I have to use other tricks, like the infamous "plasted smile" to keep it at levels where I can observe it. Sometimes I can observe it but still go ahead and carry out activities lead by anger. > Now, Hugo, can you teach me to do the > same? Do not talk about your present state of mind that is too far > above mine. Just give me a step-by-step written instruction in your own > words, please. Thank you much in advance. :-) I can tell you what tricks and experiments I have ran to catch and correct (to a certain level) those behaviors of mine, but I am not claiming that they are the only way, the right way or anything, all I am claiming is that it coincides that after I started training myself with the specific purpose to control and extinguish those behaviors they seem to have lost power. One of the first tricks I used is to ask myself "why?" of every action I am about to perform, which of course can't be done for 100% of the actions otherwise it would take me years to type this message, but I can ask myself "why do I want to reply to this message?". When dealing with anger, I couldn't ask myself "why?" before, actually I think I still can't, most of the time it is after, so I ask myself "why am I angry?", then whatever I respond to myself I ask "why?" and I keep going until I realize that it is stupid the reason I am angry and it is "me" who is making this anger and it is not that "that lady made me angry". After I have done this many many times, my mind now whenever I ask "why?" tends to say "ok, you win, no reason to be angry", but still it is stubborn and very ingenious, so when it seems that the anger is winning, I try the "plaster smile" approach, unfortunately it seems that it doesn't work anymore, so now I have switched to remember some of the words of the Buddha imagining he is whispering to my ear so, it makes it very difficult to do anything bad if you have The Teacher right next to you. But still, sometimes the anger just wins. http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/nonviolence.html has been my source for words from The Buddha in situations where anger arises. The current situation is that I am angry less times than before and when I get angry it is less intense or at least I the actions I perform are less intense. The overeating issue was much easier to deal with, I started by taking ONLY fruit for lunch at the office, the mind was complaining, even with physical headaches and stuff, I started generous (lots of fruit) so the trick was to get the stomach full (to much matter) but the fruit is digested quickly so just minutes afterwards I felt hungry again, but there was nothing more to eat. Then I started lowering the amount of fruits, and the days I felt particularly strong, I didn't eat anything for lunch, at all. Also, I wouldn't accept any treats that people bring to the office: bagels, cake, etc. I ask myself why?, and the response is always "because I like the pleasure it gives me eating something that particular item", so just when I hear the word "pleasure" an alarm rings and say "watch out, if it is pleasure it is a source for attachment, and attachment leads to suffering". The result is that I lost 10 Kgs (20 lbs), I got to the point when I had the same weight that I used to be when I got married!! :-) Of course there is the danger of now attachment to having a nice body and stuff like that, but I keep it at bay with the chanting for dispassion of the body and by not doing exercise (well, this last one is more for laziness I guess). BTW, including chanting before my meditation sessions has also helped! I got the printed version of: http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/misc/chanting/index.html Mainly: http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/misc/chanting/morning.html http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/misc/chanting/evening.html From the above two, I skip all the verses for celebration of The Buddha, The Dhamma and The Sangha. So it is basically the Introduction and the part related to the use of the Requisites, ah, and in the morning chant, the section called: "Salutation to the Triple Gem & The Topics for Chastened Dispassion" which I have found really useful and good. http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/misc/chanting/refuge.html#buddham http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/misc/chanting/reflections.html#five http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/misc/chanting/discourses.html#ps http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/misc/chanting/reflections.html#sublime http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/misc/chanting/reflections.html#ovada http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/misc/chanting/reflections.html#noble http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/misc/chanting/reflections.html#body Anyway, that's just some of the stuff I do, I would like to hear what you Tep and everybody else do as part of your practice, I certainly could use some tips from everybody. Ah!, another one, when watching T.V. (which I rarely do), when beautiful women appear in bikinis, is another good practice. On the other hand, I don't go and watch the Playboy channel on purpose.....mmmmm... (my wife) "honey, why did you subscribed to the Playboy channel?" (me) "I want to fight the defilement of lust and sensuous pleasure" (my wife) "yeah right". Greetings, -- Hugo 41970 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 1:31pm Subject: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation Hi Hugo, I think we're in complete agreement. The example you gave below is what I think too. I agree about being mindful as much as possible in every situation. My main point was when it's not strong enough, we would only be testing and not improving. Probability of success is higher in a retreat but whatever work you do outside or anywhere will only increase the success rate. - kel > In a post I made months ago, I compared the meditation sessions as the > lab and gym of the mind. The lab because it investigates things and > the gym because it helps make it "stronger". > My point was that we should not try to reach Enlightenment just there > in the retreat or in the meditation session, but all the time. And it > is actually in everyday activities where we can test if we learned > something at those retreats and meditation sessions. 41971 From: Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 4:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nonduality Christine: "I am particularly interested in any information, sutta, commentary, article regarding the Theravada Buddhist view on nonduality" Hi Christine, I think anatta should suffice as nonduality. If not, there's always nibbana. Larry 41972 From: Tep Sastri Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 5:25pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Hi, Hugo - A quick question if you don't mind. You wrote: > Then I play with the mind trying to "deattach it" from that object > that it got and attach it to some other object, or the breath or > something. In other words, try to make it "move" in a certain > way so I can "feel" it so I can detect later when > it "moves" and attaches to something and thus being able > to break the attachment to avoid dukkha. > How can it possibly "break the attachment to avoid dukkha"? The "moves" of mind are sankhara khandha. Read this : "You have to keep hammering away at this point: When it doesn't cling, the mind can stay at normalcy. Empty. Undisturbed. Quiet and still. But if it doesn't read itself in this way, doesn't know itself in this way, it will fall for the deceits of defilement and craving. It will fashion up all sorts of complex and complicated things that it itself will have a hard time seeing through, for they'll have their ways of playing up to the mind to keep it attached to them, all of which is simply a matter of the mind's falling for the deceits of the defilements and cravings within itself. The fact that it isn't acquainted with itself -- doesn't know how mental states arise and disband and take on objects -- means that it loses itself in its many, many attachments". Reading the Mind by Upasika Kee Nanayon Translated from the Thai by Thanissaro Bhikkhu Copyright © Khao Suan Luang Dhamma Community 1995 Kind regards, Tep ========= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > Another one I am working on as of a few weeks ago is "boredom". > > It is a Sunday, all the family is in the home, my wife busy with > something, the kids playing, and me? bored. > > So, let's comtemplate "boredom" > > what is "boredom"? > > What does it mean to feel "bored"? > > In the past I would go off to the T.V., or to the Internet or to read > a book or something that provided Entertainment. > > So, I investigated what is "Entertainment", and it is something to > "distract" the mind, which means that the mind wants to keep playing > and if it doesn't have something to play with it, then it becomes > "bored" which is basically dukkha. > > Ah! > > So, the reason the minds wants to play is because it is not content > with the "status quo", it wants to move here and there. Now, if I > leave it move here and there what will happen? > > Well, if it finds something to play with it will be bored of it soon, > why? because unless it is Nibbana, whatever it finds will be subject > to change (anicca), and that will lead to dukkha. So there is no > entertainment that is worth doing because all of it will lead me to > dukkha. > > What do I do?, I am still bored! > > Well, sit and contemplate boredom, so I go and sit, because my family > is doing their business I hear a lot of noices (toys, T.V., voices, > screams, etc.) all those noices are perceived by my mind, and what > does it do?, it attaches to them and start building thoughts around > and about them, then some feelings arise, and now I am no longer > bored, because I am now contemplating feelings and everything else the > mind is doing, so while I can't make the mind still, at least it is > doing something worth of doing. Then I play with the mind trying to > "deattach it" from that object that it got and attach it to some other > object, or the breath or something. In other words, try to make it > "move" in a certain way so I can "feel" it so I can detect later when > it "moves" and attaches to something and thus being able to break the > attachment to avoid dukkha. > > I know about the no-self and that the mind is not a self, but I can't > find other words to describe what I do or try to do. > > It is like trying to describe how you hold off your urine to not wet > your pants when you are about to burst but still are 30 minutes far > from the nearest toilet. I can't name the muscles that move, all I > can say is that I tighten them. :-) > > Greetings, > -- > Hugo 41973 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 5:31pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" > wrote: > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > Thanks for this. Do you have more? > > Nyanaponika: .".the shock I felt when reading the statement in the 4th section > (p.135) that "a number of Buddhas togther with their arahant disciples" had paid a vists to the Acharn to "offer their > > > congratulations upon his achievement". The controversy that understandably arises upon such a statement can I think be conclusively and decisively settled..[he then quotes sutta > passagae ] > > > Obviously , the statements abscribed to venerable Acharn Mun are > in contradication with the afore quoted sutta passage. > There are also conflicts with other well-known utterances of the > > > Master on the nature of Tathagatha, on Nibbana, and the >khandhas..Admirers [of acharn Mun will have to face the dilemma and solve it for themselves, honestly without misinterpreting the > Buddha-word" endquote from NyanaPonika Mahathera >========== Dear Sukinder, The World Fellowship of Buddhists were distributing A. Muns biography and they serialized it. I met one of the editors in 1985 (when they were at the other end of Sukumvit road), he was a strong supporter of A. Boowa and recommended I should stay at A. Boowa's temple. They were not at all happy with Venerable Nyanaponika's criticisim of A. Mun. THis is some of the published reply: "To Ven. Nyanaponika, Forest Hermitage, Kandy I have received your letter dated decemeber 1975 strongly criticising the biography of the venerable meditation master phra acharn Mun Bhuridatto. It did not come as surprise that the English version should be no less controversial than its Thai counterpart.. [it was]strongly criticised by a number or readers who could not tolerate what was contradictory to their former belief. Some of them I dare say did so out of sheer jealousy and to flatter their own egotisn and vanity rather than out of genuine doubt. To such people no amount of reasoning or explanation will help. They are not seekers after Truth but are like Sanjaya and the six teachers (makkhali Gosala and others), and cannot bear to see others stand out more prominent than they do. AS far as your letter is concerned I would say that your viewpoints expressed therin are, to say the least, too strong and intolerant. <.....>I do not understand why so many Buddhists prefer to idolize the concept of Absolute Nothingness or Total Loss like that of the materialists and attribute it to teh cessation of suffering or Nibbana. What benefit is there in clinging to the nihilist idea of nothingness, hoplessness or bleakness like that? To be well versed in the Tipitaka is never enough. That is only pariyatti, which could become a hindrance and even a snake killing whoever makes a religion or God of it. This attitude towards book- learning, unsupported by firsthand experience through practice, is called agaladdupara pariyatti. It can be another Net of Wrong View. The pariyatti or book learning may earn the students such grandiose terms as Maha, pandita etc, yet it is memory work, speculation, imgination, anything but firsthand experience or attainment. Such being the case who is in a position to misinterpret the Buddha's word. Those admirers[of book study] will have to face the dilemma and admit the incompleteness of such book-study and the delusion of high-sounding titles such as Maha, pandita ect." <....>Nibbana, unlike the materialists death, does not end all. If acceptance of this fact should bring the Theravdins a bit closer to the Mahayanists then it is to be willingly accepted. After all it is better than a concept that brings us closer to the materialists isnt it."endquote WFB He also gave some sutta quotes to support that nibbana is not cessation. The venerable Nyanaponika Mahathera never replied (as far as I know) and I think it was the last time he wrote anything for WFB. Robertk 41974 From: Tep Sastri Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 5:59pm Subject: Re: Butting in on Right Concentration/ sobering reminder Dear Sarah - I think because the Dhamma is timeless, so your message on Right concentration should not be the exception. 1. The first comment of Bhikkhu Bodhi (a.) states : "All noble disciples acquire the right concentration of the Noble Eightfold Path, which is defined as the four jhanas. This need not be understood to mean that stream-enterers and once-returners already possess jhaana before they reach stream-entry." The first sentence confirms my understanding that the Right concentration "is defined as the four jhanas"; and since all noble disciples acquire the Right concentration, it should directly follow that they all acquire the four jhanas. But then the second comment (b.) just contradicts the first (a.) by his saying that he "would not take it as a rigid pronouncement that all noble disciples actually possess all four jhaanas, or even one of them". Why did he (BB) contradict himself? Or was I confused? (or both) 2. You commented : `one-pointednes is fivefold….' I take to mean is equivalent in the strength to one of the jhanas depending on whether which --if any-- is used as a base for liberation. For sukkha vipassakas (dry insight attainers), the right concentration is equivalent in strength to that of first jhana (appana samadhi). I am not clear about the point you have made, Sarah. What are the five things that make the "fivefold" characteristic of "one-pointedness"? Why did you relate the fivefold-ness to "strength" of the jhanas (4 or 5 jhanas?) and "liberation"? S: Under the line I quoted above from the commentary under `Path factors', we read the following sobering reminder: "…Wrong view, etc, are path factors because they constitute the path to unhappy destinies." T: I'll keep this "sobering reminder" in mind too. Warm regards, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Tep, RobertK & Connie, > > Butting in late here… > 41975 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 6:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Hi Hugo, I have enjoyed reading your posts, and I like your daily practice. But it is not a uniquely Buddhist practice, is it? When Htoo suggested some inconsistencies with the Dhamma you seemed to take offence, but I'm sure it was meant in a non-disparaging way. I see your method as, "Practical Psychology in Daily Life", as distinct from, "Abhidhamma in Daily Life." ---------------------- H: > Anyway, that's just some of the stuff I do, I would like to hear what you Tep and everybody else do as part of your practice, I certainly could use some tips from everybody. ---------------------- Strictly speaking, Dhamma practice is satipatthana, which is an extremely rare and precious phenomenon. Less strictly speaking, it is any wholesome volitional activity that is connected with the Dhamma. Unwholesome activity - of any kind - can never qualify as Dhamma practice. A big problem arises whenever we start thinking about MY satipatthana, MY Dhamma-study and MY wholesome activity. It doesn't work that way. Why would we have those concerns if not out of desire for personal gain? In other words, the idea of intentional Dhamma-practice comes under the heading of "akusala activity," and so it should be understood as the opposite of Dhamma practice. Regards, Ken H 41976 From: Tep Sastri Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 6:26pm Subject: Re: for James - SammaSankappa and Panna/ A. Mun's arahantship Dear RobertK, I cannot say it better than James in his message # 41797: Robert: I meant that those were jhanalabhi and able to master jhana and attain nibbana could only exist at the first stages of the sasana. After taht there can still be sukkha vipassaka arahanst for another 1000 years, but at this time there can only be anagami who are sukkhavipassaka. James: I don't believe that this is true. Acariya Mun was an Arahant and he died November 10, 1949: http://buddhanet.net/pdf_file/munbio_photos.pdf Regards, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > wrote: > > > 3. RobertK wrote : > > > According to the texts these > > > most developed disciples can no longer exist. > > > > Mike did not comment on it. But I don't have any idea what Rob > meant. > > > >===== > Dear Tep, > I meant that those were jhanalabhi and able to master jhana and > attain nibbana could only exist at the first stages of the sasana. > After taht there can still be sukkha vipassaka arahanst for anotehr > 1000 years, but at this time there can only be anagami who are > sukkhavipassaka. > The Netti-pakarana (587) > "Tattha Bhagava tikkhindriyassa samatham upadassati, majjhindriyassa > Bhagava samathavipassanam upadissati, mudindriyassa Bhagava (snipped) > From Ledi sayadaw > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/individu.htm > 41977 From: Tep Sastri Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 6:40pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > wrote: > >> Are you familiar with Thai Forest Monks' stories? Acariya Mun > > BhuridattaThera was Arahant and most of his close disciples were > > Arahants too. Some of their names can be found at Access to > Insight and at a few Thai Web sites (or try Web search with the following key words: Thai Forest monks, LuangTa Maha Boowa, Laung Pu Dun). > > > > A clue for confirming Arahuntship is crytal-like relics after the > monk passed away. They are displayed at certain temples in Thailand. > > > >======== > Dear Tep, > I have had a look at the biography of Acariya Mun. I really can't > see why crystal like relics would mean someone was an arahant, I > think it is not how they were known in the Buddha's time. > > Do you know the international controversy after the Bio of Acariya > Mun was published. > > Here is a section from the World Fellowship of Buddhists Magazine > VolXIII no1 (BE2519/1976) > From Nyanaponika Mahathera > Forest Hermitage Kandy, Ceylon ..the shock I felt when reading the statement in the 4th section (p.135) that "a number of Buddhas togther with their arahant disciples" had paid a vists to the Acharn to "offer their congratulations upon his achievement". The controversy that > understandably arises upon such a statement can I think be > conclusively and decisively settled..[he then quotes sutta passagae ] > Obviously , the statements abscribed to venerable Acharn Mun are in contradication with the afore quoted sutta passage. > There are also conflicts with other well-known utterances of the > Master on the nature of Tathagatha, on Nibbana, and the > khandhas..Admirers [of acharn Mun] will have to face the dilemma and solve it for themselves, honestly without misinterpreting the Buddha- word" endquote from Nyanatiloka > > > Robertk ========= [Reply to #41900 above] Dear RobertK, I am glad that finally, after some eye-opening helps from James, you have a clearer understanding of Acharn Mun as is shown in your own message (#41973) below: Dear Sukinder, The World Fellowship of Buddhists were distributing A. Muns biography and they serialized it. I met one of the editors in 1985 (when they were at the other end of Sukumvit road), he was a strong supporter of A. Boowa and recommended I should stay at A. Boowa's temple. They were not at all happy with Venerable Nyanaponika's criticisim of A. Mun. THis is some of the published reply: "To Ven. Nyanaponika, Forest Hermitage, Kandy I have received your letter dated decemeber 1975 strongly criticising the biography of the venerable meditation master phra acharn Mun Bhuridatto. It did not come as surprise that the English version should be no less controversial than its Thai counterpart.. [it was]strongly criticised by a number or readers who could not tolerate what was contradictory to their former belief. Some of them I dare say did so out of sheer jealousy and to flatter their own egotisn and vanity rather than out of genuine doubt. To such people no amount of reasoning or explanation will help. They are not seekers after Truth but are like Sanjaya and the six teachers (makkhali Gosala and others), and cannot bear to see others stand out more prominent than they do. AS far as your letter is concerned I would say that your viewpoints expressed therin are, to say the least, too strong and intolerant. <.....>I do not understand why so many Buddhists prefer to idolize the concept of Absolute Nothingness or Total Loss like that of the materialists and attribute it to teh cessation of suffering or Nibbana. What benefit is there in clinging to the nihilist idea of nothingness, hoplessness or bleakness like that? To be well versed in the Tipitaka is never enough. That is only pariyatti, which could become a hindrance and even a snake killing whoever makes a religion or God of it. This attitude towards book- learning, unsupported by firsthand experience through practice, is called agaladdupara pariyatti. It can be another Net of Wrong View. The pariyatti or book learning may earn the students such grandiose terms as Maha, pandita etc, yet it is memory work, speculation, imgination, anything but firsthand experience or attainment. Such being the case who is in a position to misinterpret the Buddha's word. Those admirers[of book study] will have to face the dilemma and admit the incompleteness of such book-study and the delusion of high-sounding titles such as Maha, pandita ect." <....>Nibbana, unlike the materialists death, does not end all. If acceptance of this fact should bring the Theravdins a bit closer to the Mahayanists then it is to be willingly accepted. After all it is better than a concept that brings us closer to the materialists isnt it."endquote WFB He also gave some sutta quotes to support that nibbana is not cessation. The venerable Nyanaponika Mahathera never replied (as far as I know) and I think it was the last time he wrote anything for WFB. Robertk ---------------------------------- Warm regards to James, Tep ======= 41978 From: Tep Sastri Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 7:10pm Subject: Re: Anatta, Present Moment and Goal / Kel & Ken H Dear Mike - It has been a great Dhamma discussion that I have had with you. Thanks. M: Even the mundane path factors--those of satipa.t.thaana--arise only in the absence of "I" I think-- T: If you keep on thinking like that then your satipatthana won't ever be developed.( ;>|) The development process should be gradual and Path factors mutually dependent as sated in the Great Fory Sutta [Maha-cattarisaka sutta, MN 117]. >T: The necessary work must be done (the Noble Eightfold > Path). M: --then the path itself does the work, I think--assuming the work you mean is insight. T: The work of the Path consists of Sila, Samadhi and Panna. M: Hearing and considering the Dhamma can certainly be done with a sense of self or even self-view present. When this results in insight, though, no sense of self or self-view present at that moment. (Nearly all forms of kusala are conditioned by ignorance and thus contribute to continued rebirth--but satipa.t.thaana is not and does not). If these moments are profound enough or accumulate sufficiently, then self- view is attenuated and evenutally eradicated at stream entry, as I understand it. T: Yes, I agree with you, now that you say : "when this results in insight, though, no sense of self or self-view present at that moment". Importantly, the moment "when this results in insight" (elimination of the 3 fetters) is the beginning of the whole grand scheme that is described in MN 117. But I might be wrong here. Please correct me if you think so. M: Perversion, vipallaasa, continues until arahattaa, according to the texts--but eradication of self-view occurs with the first stage of liberation, stream-entry, as I understand it. T: You are absolutely right! Warm regards, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "mnease" wrote: > Hi Tep, > 41979 From: Tep Sastri Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 7:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Dear Ken H. (and Hugo), Today MY full confidence in MY dhamma practice and gradually improved understanding over the span of 20+ years was diminished because of the following strong statement of yours ("Opposite of Dhamma practice"? It sounds like a judge's sentence that the defendant is wrong and must be put in jail for life). KH: > > A big problem arises whenever we start thinking about MY > satipatthana, MY Dhamma-study and MY wholesome activity. It doesn't work that way. Why would we have those concerns if not out of > desire for personal gain? In other words, the idea of intentional > Dhamma-practice comes under the heading of "akusala activity," and so it should be understood as the opposite of Dhamma practice. > Thank you so much for that, Ken! Kind regards, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Hugo, > > I have enjoyed reading your posts, and I like your daily practice. > But it is not a uniquely Buddhist practice, is it? When Htoo > suggested some inconsistencies with the Dhamma you seemed to take > offence, but I'm sure it was meant in a non-disparaging way. I see > your method as, "Practical Psychology in Daily Life", as distinct > from, "Abhidhamma in Daily Life." > > ---------------------- > 41980 From: Hugo Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 7:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Opinion about: Samsara Divided by Zero Dear Tep, On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 23:09:42 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > My question to Hugo is : how should we deal with such complex > causality, given that our goal is to avoid (or cease) mental fabrications > for good? Hugo who? me? I don't know, but this is my best guess: I think the goal is not to avoid or cease mental fabrications, but to not attach to anything. The cessation of the mental fabrications is a byproduct of not attaching to anything. Look at: http://dhammasala.org/theheart.htm search for: THE LAST DUST, THE FINAL PASSING. The only thing I can think of is somehow to manage to fabricate enough good actions and enough good habits (so rebirth after rebirth we keep doing good actions) and avoid performing bad actions. All this while we try to understand and accomplish how to not attach to anything including this obnoxious concept of self. Sorry, that's all I can think of. -- Hugo 41981 From: Tep Sastri Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 7:42pm Subject: Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Dear Hugo - Thank you very much for your detailed explanation that is exceptionally clear. I understand and accept your approach to dealing with anger, using conviction(saddha) in the Buddha's Teachings and your own "asking why" approach. I am sure that it is going to lead you to the state of near-zero-anger one day in this very life. You know, the Anagami no longer has anger/ill will. Kindest regards, Tep ============ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:08:05 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > > In short, you claim to have both sati and sampajjana (thorough > > understanding) in almost every moment so that you can "just do it" > > by "observing with wisdom". > > :-) (snipped) > > > One of the first tricks I used is to ask myself "why?" of every action > I am about to perform, which of course can't be done for 100% of the > actions otherwise it would take me years to type this message, but I > can ask myself "why do I want to reply to this message?". > > When dealing with anger, I couldn't ask myself "why?" before, actually > I think I still can't, most of the time it is after, so I ask myself > "why am I angry?", then whatever I respond to myself I ask "why?" and > I keep going until I realize that it is stupid the reason I am angry > and it is "me" who is making this anger and it is not that "that lady > made me angry". > > After I have done this many many times, my mind now whenever I ask > "why?" tends to say "ok, you win, no reason to be angry", but still it > is stubborn and very ingenious, so when it seems that the anger is > winning, I try the "plaster smile" approach, unfortunately it seems > that it doesn't work anymore, so now I have switched to remember some > of the words of the Buddha imagining he is whispering to my ear so, it > makes it very difficult to do anything bad if you have The Teacher > right next to you. But still, sometimes the anger just wins. > > http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/nonviolence.html > > has been my source for words from The Buddha in situations where anger arises. > > The current situation is that I am angry less times than before and > when I get angry it is less intense or at least I the actions I > perform are less intense. > (snipped) > Greetings, > -- > Hugo 41982 From: Hugo Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 7:47pm Subject: Re: Opinion about: Samsara Divided by Zero Htoo, Tep, Howard, Phil and everybody else, Thanks to all who have already replied and to those who will reply. Excentric, accurate or not, what I think is interesting is that Thanissaro tries to explain how it is possible that one can "come out" from Samsara. I have thought the following: 1) Everything is conditioned, except Nibbana. 2) Is there Free Will? 3) If everything is conditioned, how "Free" is that "Free Will"? These last 3 items, make me think that everything is "written" and there is nothing I can do to get out of Samsara, except for sit and watch the show and wait until the conditions are proper so I can get out of here, something like winning the Lottery.......mmmmm.....actually I can't compare it even with the Lottery because to win the Lottery I need to buy a ticket, if we go by the "everything is conditioned, you can't do anything" I don't even need to buy a ticket, the ticket will come to me. But I also have: 4) The fact that The Buddha taught anything at all seems to imply that he knew that people can do something about it. If everything was "written" then what benefit is to go and tell everybody what was found and then raise false expectations that you can do something about it? Plus articles like the one from Thanissaro and another booklet I am reading "Rebirth explained" from The Wheel series which specifically mention Free Will, plus other articles that talk about "breaking links" in the D.O. And let's not forget the Vinaya, which is a whole set of instructions on how to behave and act, if making a decision on what action one should do for everything (eating, accepting invitations, asking/receiving items, etc.) was not important, why to have the Vinaya in the first place? So far, my understanding is that everything is conditioned, there is Free Will, but the Free Will is Free only as far as the conditions allow it. Something like you are free to bend your back only as far as you are young and flexible. Greetings, -- Hugo 41984 From: Tep Sastri Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 8:00pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Dear Hugo - You wrote, H: > > I think the goal is not to avoid or cease mental fabrications, but to > not attach to anything. > The cessation of the mental fabrications is a byproduct of not > attaching to anything. > T: What would you respond, if i say : I think the goal is not to not attach to anything, but to eradicate ignorance (avijja), because the non- attachment to anything is the by product of panna (zero avijja)? Best wishes, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > Dear Tep, > > On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 23:09:42 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > > My question to Hugo is : how should we deal with such complex > > causality, given that our goal is to avoid (or cease) mental fabrications > > for good? > > Hugo who? me? I don't know, but this is my best guess: > > I think the goal is not to avoid or cease mental fabrications, but to > not attach to anything. > > The cessation of the mental fabrications is a byproduct of not > attaching to anything. > > Look at: http://dhammasala.org/theheart.htm > search for: THE LAST DUST, THE FINAL PASSING. > > > The only thing I can think of is somehow to manage to fabricate enough > good actions and enough good habits (so rebirth after rebirth we keep > doing good actions) and avoid performing bad actions. > > All this while we try to understand and accomplish how to not attach > to anything including this obnoxious concept of self. > > Sorry, that's all I can think of. > -- > Hugo 41985 From: Tep Sastri Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 8:27pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice:/ Tep's Practice --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: (snipped) > > Anyway, that's just some of the stuff I do, I would like to hear what > you Tep and everybody else do as part of your practice, I certainly > could use some tips from everybody. > (snipped) > Greetings, > -- > Hugo ============ Friend Hugo - You have asked me how I practice. My One Teacher has been the Buddha. The Assitant Teachers are those great Arahants like Moggalana, Sariputta, Ananda, Maha-Kaccana, Maha-Kassapa, Bhikkhuni Dhammadinna, etc. I stay close to the suttas as my compass and steering wheel in the practice. I also try hard (against those defilements) to consistently learn and develop sila-samadhi- panna, and compare my results with those in the suttas. I hope this answer makes sense to you. Kind regards, Tep ======== 41986 From: Hugo Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 8:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ A. Mun's Biography Tep, James, Sukin and RobertK Wow! Excellent thread, thanks everybody for this thread, I love this kind of proof here, proof there threads. -- Hugo 41987 From: Hugo Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 8:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ A. Mun's Biography Tep, James, Sukin and RobertK I forgot to tell you something more. I read "the sequel" of this book called "Patipada or the mode of practice of Venerable Acharn Mun": http://www.luangta.or.th/english/site/book6_patipada.html Unfortunately it is not yet on-line, I got a copy from the monastery. It is about many of the disciples of Ajahn Mun. When I read it I was also shocked about some of the descriptions that the disciples told to Maha Boowa (the author of the book). In one of them the disciple said that he saw the arahant descend from the skies and touch the ground (or something like that). I immediately raised the red flag and decided to ask my teacher. So, at the monastery I asked him, and when he saw that book he said "oh, that book", then he said that book was not recommended for lay people as they might get confused (don't remember the exact words), then I proceed to ask him exactly why and what was about that description as if he was indeed seeing the arahant in front of him or not. My teacher said "no, the arahant didn't came flying, what he "saw" was created by the disciple's mind out of the energy from the arahant" (something like that). Then he continued, the Thai monks visualize Thai people, the western monks visualize western people. Greetings, -- Hugo 41988 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 10:42pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder VII Dear Tep, Continuing… > ------------- > (VII) > > > S: (About the importance of Right exertion and viriya-bala) Are you > thinking that there is some `short cut method', one that will bypass any > lack of accumulated parami? Many people view meditation practice, > particularly `jhana', in this way. They think that these are special > techniques taught by the Buddha and developed by later `masters' > (Zen, Dzogchen etc) for the purpose of getting to enlightenment `in this > very life'. I think this is all symptomatic of `attachment to self'. > > > > T: Those later masters cannot be complete fools. Don't put them > down too easily! The strength of Right exertion/effort that is the > characteristic of viriya bala is important like a rocket booster to propell > a spacecraft into the outer space. Many, many stories of successful > monks during the Buddha Era and after that to the recent history, e.g. > those several well-known Burmese and Thai acariyas ( the Forest > monks) are my supporting evidence, Sukinder. S: If it *is* viriya bala, then other associated dhammas would also have been developed to the corresponding strength. Are you saying that if a person decides to sit, strive and does it, that these are expressions of viriya bala or that it might grow to such? I think that right effort is not determined by any striving or aim, but rather what panna knows at that moment. If the object at that time is an `idea of a self doing something' then it can't be right effort nor will it ever condition such. The monks during the Buddha's time were able to achieve levels of insight upon hearing the Buddha's exhortations to `strive', because they knew intimately the characteristic of "dhammas", including viriya. They were able to achieve enlightenment not because of some conventional effort which acted as a positive condition (propulsion) in spite of any lack of other positive dhammas, but precisely because the faculties were ripe. Does it make sense to think that by sheer effort, kusala dhammas would be conditioned to arise? My opinion of later masters comes from little reading of what they taught. I think though, that it is enough when what they said does not appeal to my sense of what dhamma is. I have to be motivated to keep on reading, but this does not happen when I read their descriptions and interpretations of dhamma. :-( > Sukinder: > I was particularly talking about Mahayana, and no, I don't think there > can possibly be one enlightened person within this group. In fact I think > the label Buddhism should not include both the Pali and the Mahayana > teachings, they are too different and only one of them is right. I have > little knowledge of the so-called `Burmese and Thai acariyas', and > have no reason to think them enlightened, unless of course I believe > what most people say about them. I heard that many years ago there > was a monk in some part of Thailand who was considered an ariyan > by many people. Even he thought that he had `attained' something. But > he heard K. Sujin on radio and soon came to realize that he really did > not attain even the first level of insight. So he decided to disrobe and > from then on became K. Sujin's student. > > T: I wouldn't conclude that way about Mahayana monks. Remember, > there are several paths to the top of a mountain. S: No, no, no! When you first made this remark, I thought that you were perhaps speaking about different accumulations, but still limiting within the Theravada. But now I see that you express a view common amongst proponents of other religions and Mahayana, which I have always considered to be a product of blurriness of vision, doubt and even fear. Coming from someone who follows the Theravada I think that it is because the person does not really understand the Teachings, particularly Vipassana panna and the practice of satipatthana. > T: About that converted monk, it was a pity. Has he now achieved > enlightenment under Acharn Sujin? Probably at the time he was in > monkhood, he didn't know or care about attaining an Ariya-magga. S: This is not a very reasonable thing to say. Sorry for being direct. You are appealing to outward appearance and behavior. Are you not aware of the state of the institution of monkhood these days? Do you take becoming a monk and aiming for release to be guarantee of achievement? By asking if the ex-monk attained ariya- magga under K. Sujin, are you implying that most monks have achieved or are close to enlightenment? Besides, isn't it infinitely better to become a good layperson than a bad monk? > T: If the Buddha and His Disciples were not enlightened there would > not be the Buddhsasana that has lasted over 2500 years, and nobody > would have faiths in the Teachings. But His Dhamma has been > testproven to be true, and the Truths are timeless, etc. S: Yes, the Teachings appeal in part because it can be proven and the possibility of enlightenment is not unreasonable. But other religions also claim to enlightenment and followers do feel that what is taught there is true. And most of these religions will outlast Buddhism, and this is because Miccha ditthi rules in the conventional world. My faith is not based on number of people who are enlightened. I wouldn't know and recognize and enlightened person, so what use is it to speculate. > T: So it is extremely important to find out if the easy-going-book- study > scheme (not taught by the Buddha), which is not supported by samatha- > vipassana bhavana (taught by the Buddha), is going to help you or > anybody become enlightened or not. S: Tep, you should really consider the nature of `viriya' as a paramattha dhamma and not to confuse conventional activity with these states. Whether I am meditating, reading or sleeping, there is viriya. What makes it `right' is if whether there is sati and panna at the moment. As to conditions which are necessary for enlightenment of whatever level, it has been pointed out many times on dsg, that these included association with the wise, hearing the true dhamma, wise reflection and applying what one has heard. You seem to be saying that this `applying' is in the decision to "sit". But again here I think you should keep in mind the ephemeral nature of dhammas and how they arise unrelated to time, place, posture, activity and any intention. Sati and panna both have conditions beyond any control. And sitting on my chair and reading is no sign of thina and mida nor `meditating' a evidence of samma viriya. > T: Or, if you can find an evidence > that someone else is enlightened without the "formal meditation" and > jhanas taught by the Buddha, then you'd have your point proved too. S: I don't appeal to such kind of evidence for any saddha, however I heard that most folks during the Buddha's time were enlightened from listening and this proves to me that pariyatti arose and conditioned patipatti and pativedha in a very short time. No jhana was practiced. I know, I know, some will argue that they had practiced in previous lives or something, but that's just rationalization to me. > T: About the Visuddhimagga just read it slowly and ponder over what > you've read. S: I'll take the easy route, read Nina's and others sub- commentary. ;-) > T: You need to find your way around that sticking point which keeps > coming back to the discussion! S: Discussion, I think this is the way to go. ;-) > T: It is stated above that samma-ditthi > (which you call panna or understanding?) is the forerunner as stated in > the Great Forty [MN 117]. > > "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is > one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & > remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three > qualities -- right view, right effort, & right mindfulness -- run & circle > around right view.... ". The object of viriya in this sutta quote is miccha- > ditthi and it is turned into samma-ditthi later. S: Right, but informed by samma-ditthi. At the moment of satipatthana, there is samma sati, samma ditthi, samma vayama and the other mental factors. It is at this moment that it "Right". Are you implying that in the above there is no samma sati of miccha ditthi? > T: Samma-vayamo, samma-sati, and samma-ditthi are the three qualities > that circle around each Path factor to make it mature too. Nekkhamma > sankappa can be an object of viriya, for example. When the three > qualities circle around nekkhama sankappa, the latter is turned into a > Path factor. S: This is deep stuff for me, so I won't comment. :-) > Sukinder: > If we can differentiate between cetana and vitakka, and if we would like > to identify `thinking with a particular objective in mind' as `one's > intention to do something', then I have no problem with calling this > right/wrong intention. But as a dhamma I would not think this to be > cetana, but rather vitakka (and any necessary associated state). But > then Right intention would be determined by Sati and Panna, because > only then the object would be a paramattha dhamma and not an `idea > of a self wanting to do and achieve something'. > > T: I have no problem with that. But I doubt if the idea of self is > completely gone from an Armchair Dhamma Discusser who > understands Paramattha dhamma. S: The `Armchair Dhamma Discusser' is not saying that he is without `self view' nor does he say that he understands Paramattha dhamma beyond the intellectual level, and this too relatively low. He however understands at this level, that whatever he does, there are ultimately only dhammas. Greed, hatred and delusion arises in him as it has always had, only now with some understanding of Dhamma, he sometimes observes them without believing them to be part of or belonging to a `self'. And because of this distance, there is better appreciation of subtle forms of akusala, but most notably, the dhamma revealed to us only by a Buddha, miccha-ditthi. So yes, it is a powerful experience, the type neither meditation sitting nor retreat has ever revealed or can reveal. If in fact it does, it would be in spite of it. > T: You should read Hugo's first > message under the thread, 'Deliberate practice: should we "do" > something or just "observe with wisdom"?' S: I don't agree with what he has written, no surprise, but I don't want to respond because of lack of time, not wishing to be involved in too many threads. > T: Again, I repeat, trying hard the right way (as explained above) does > not have to be loaded with lobha and avijja. In fact, viriya-bala > associated with samma-vayama is not loaded with lobha and avijja. > But, to keep on chanting your book knowledge about the danger is not > going to eliminate your lobha and avijja for you either. ;-)) S: If it is bala, if it is samma, then of course, no fear of lobha and avijja. In fact there is no need to fear them even now ;-). The danger is in miccha-ditthi, one form of which is manifested in the view that just making the decision to `meditate' or `watch' is going to develop these `powers' and that the sammas would be conditioned to arise. And yes, `chanting' is not going to condition any kusala. The key is panna. Whew! Metta, Sukinder 41989 From: Philip Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 10:42pm Subject: Re: Nonduality Hi Christine, and all > Non-Duality is a confusing term. As it happens, I came across a sutta yesterday which said something to me about duality, though not so explicitly. It's Samyutta Nikaya 22:79. In it we find a progression as the noble disciple realizes that he is being "devoured" by form etc, and then, having seen annica, dukkha and anatta in the khandas, he/she comes to "dismantle, and not build up/scatter and not amass/extinguish and not kindle/abandon and not cling to the khandas. So far this feels like the usual dualistic approach that we find in the right efforts. But then as the sutta progresses, and the noble disciple makes progress, we find this: "This is called, bhikkhus, a noble disciple who neither builds up nor dismantles, but who abides having dismantled; who neither abandons nor clings, but who abides having abandoned; who neither scatters nor amasses, but who abides having scattered, who neither extinguishes nor kindles, but who abides having extinguished." To me this points at a non-duality that arises as the result of insight into the khandas and progress in finding "revulsion" towards them, or detachment, if you will. We will come to abide in this non- duality, or we won't, in line with whether panna is cultivated successfully or not, so perhaps there is no point wondering what it is. We will find out, or not find out. In the meantime, there are more pressing concerns moment by moment as we gradually develop understanding of realiites through the six doors, i.e the panna that will be the only thing that allows us to really understand what non- duality is. As Larry said, anatta seems a good way to see it for now, and of course we don't have adequate insight to have directly seen into anatta yet and won't any day soon. That's an inadquate answer to your question based on a (probably) incorrect interpretation of the sutta, but for what it's worth... BTW, hope you've been feeling back up from your Dhamma slump. Metta, Phil 41990 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 10:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Hi Tep, ------------- T:> Today MY full confidence in MY dhamma practice and gradually > improved understanding over the span of 20+ years was diminished > because of the following strong statement of yours ("Opposite of > Dhamma practice"? It sounds like a judge's sentence that the > defendant is wrong and must be put in jail for life). -------------- Sorry if that was a bit over the top. In cases where akusala consciousness is without wrong view, "opposite of Dhamma practice" would be too strong a description. So, if it's not too late, can I just say there is 'no Dhamma practice' at such moments? I think you will agree, however, that "opposite" would apply to moments where there is wrong view. Now, without wanting to get too personal (again), let's ask whether there is, or is not, wrong view at moments of formalised vipassana practice. Is there, at such moments, acceptance of the laws of kamma and vipaka (cause and effect, conditionality)? Or is there belief in control over dhammas? To put it another way; is there acceptance of the anatta doctrine? Regards, Ken H KH: > > > A big problem arises whenever we start thinking about MY > > satipatthana, MY Dhamma-study and MY wholesome activity. It > doesn't work that way. Why would we have those concerns if not out of > > desire for personal gain? In other words, the idea of intentional > > Dhamma-practice comes under the heading of "akusala activity," > and so it should be understood as the opposite of Dhamma practice. > > > > Thank you so much for that, Ken! > > 41991 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 11:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Self view, conceit, sense of self etc. Hi, TG Thanks for the explanation of your reference to 'sense of self'. TGrand458@a... wrote: >When I refer to the "sense-of-self," I merely mean the way each of us feels >ourselves to be a "me." This might be closest to being compared with conceit. >Conceit in English generally has a negative connotation of being overly >selfish, arrogant, or "self satisfied." I think of sense-of-self as more palinly >stated IMO. Its nothing elaborate. Its just the plain feeling or sense of "I >am." > > I think that is the commonly understood meaning of the term. I think 'sense of self' is likely, as you indicate, to be a form of either conceit or wrong view, but it may also I suppose be plain old attachment without either conceit or wrong view involved. We can't really generalise. Only the person in whom the sense of self arises could know which particular form of akusala is involved, and then only if panna has been sufficiently developed. >This might also be considered an "intuitive sense" albeit delusional. > > Yes, intuitive in the sense of habitual and deeply ingrained. This means there is the latent tendency (anusaya) to that particular kind of akusala. Jon 41992 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:09am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 120 - Vitality/jivitindriya and Attention/manasikaara (d) 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.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)contd] ***** The cetasika jívitindriya which vitalizes the accompanying nåmadhammas is nåma. There is also jívitindriya which is rúpa.(1) Rúpajívitindriya is a kind of rúpa produced by kamma and it maintains the life of the other rúpas it arises together with. Rúpas arise and fall away in groups, some of which are produced by kamma, some by citta, some by nutrition and some by temperature. Jívitindriya is part of only the groups or rúpa which are produced by kamma. It maintains the life of the rúpas it accompanies and then it falls away together with them. *** 1) See Visuddhimagga XIV, 59 ***** [Ch.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 41993 From: Andrew Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Hi Tep and Ken H I have just had a look at this thread and think I might be able to streamline one aspect of it. Ken H, when you write: let's ask whether > there is, or is not, wrong view at moments of formalised vipassana > practice. what is the time period you are referring to? Are you referring to: 1. a mind-moment of formalised vipassana practice(?); or 2. "moments" in the sense of, say, ten minutes of sitting-following- the-breath meditation; or 3. some other period? I think you should make this clear because, in the case of (1), you might be able to use the Abhidhamma to suggest what citta and cetasikas are or could be at work. If you are referring to (2), I think you will have to explain how you can understand the workings of conditionality for that period of time to be able to say what is arising and what isn't (compared to, say, ten minutes of reading a Dhamma book). Make sense? (-: Best wishes Andrew T 41994 From: gazita2002 Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:15am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder VII Hello Sukin, Tep, Have really enjoyed this thread and you have made some great points Sukin, thank you. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Continuing… > > ------------- > > (VII) > > > > > S: (About the importance of Right exertion and viriya-bala) Are > you > > thinking that there is some `short cut method', one that will > bypass any > > lack of accumulated parami? > > Whew! > > Metta, > Sukinder Azita: your Whew made me smile - it was quite an effort and for me, well worth the read. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 41995 From: jwromeijn Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:25am Subject: Re: Nonduality --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello all, > > Non-Duality is a confusing term. I ... > I am particularly interested in any information, sutta, commentary, > article regarding the Theravada Buddhist view on nonduality - my > sole resource to date being Bhikkhu Bodhi's article "Dhamma and Non- > duality" Dear Christine I have had many discussions with a friend who is a follower of Advaita Vedanta, so what I understand of 'nonduality' (not so much) is from this tradition. There are people who say all religions are in fact the same, and (some) follower of Advaita are saying that too, but my conclusion was: the gap between Adaita Vedanta and Buddhism is big, is not to bridge (In fact not 'Buddhism' but 'Theravada' because Advaita and Tibetan Buddhism have more in common) The biggest problem is that an individual, responsible for his/her actions in fact not exists in nonduality, so 'nondual ethics' don't exist, only a very general 'don't harm principle'. Maybe nonduality and anatta have some in common, but (again: as far as I understood) the nondual is at the end a kind of 'wordlsoul', and then the old Hinduistic and theistic phrase 'Brahman=Atman' is appearing. Perhaps there is another entry: when I look at the labels given at he 'Immaterial Jhanas' (Unlimited Space, Unlimited Consciousness, Nothingness, Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception), I think: that sounds like nonduality. Perhaps you can study more in that direction (but of course I'm curious and will ask you: why do you want to know it ?) Metta Joop 41996 From: jwromeijn Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:30am Subject: Re: Kamma and Buddhism (was Dhamma Threade 249/ old kamma used up --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > > Dear Joop and All, > > Joop, you asked good questions. Questions are good tools to explore > dhammas as deep as possible. Please see our discussions below. Dear Htoo, Thanks for your answers and reactions. I have on this moments no other questions or remarks. Metta Joop 41997 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation Hi, Kel kelvin_lwin wrote: > kel: I think commentaries are essential for our understanding and >briding the divide from that era to modern world. I don't even know >if I can separate my knowledge into original and commentary since >it's so intertwined. It's also clear to me the same process is what >will lead to end of sasana however. Intepretation upon one another >result in practices that have totally lost the original intent. > > I like your reference to the 'original intent' of the suttas. Very important. The better one's understanding of that (pariyatti), the better the support for the development of insight (patipatti) that is the real goal. It seems to me that if the original intent is misunderstood then any intended development of insight cannot occur, no matter how well-intentioned. (Regarding the commentaries, I think there were commentaries in existence at the time of the Buddha (or very shortly afterwards) to help bridge the divide between the (relatively) less developed understanding of many followers and the more developed understanding needed to fully understand the suttas unaided, so they were essential in that era also.) > Kel: There is definitely a grave danger [of self-delusion creeping in]! The path is full of >potholes and hopefully we don't walk off a cliff. One has to be >constantly re-examine oneself. Part of learning to be an objective >observer is we can be true to ourselves without distortions of how >we want to be. Then there's acceptance of who we are and what we >are. Further it becomes clear what we need to do. Atta ditthi > > I am not sure about the need to 'constantly re-examine oneself'. It is not something I can think of off-hand as having any corresponding reference in the texts. Is there not still room for self-delusion in that approach? I tend to think in terms of being true to oneself (the quality of sacca, one of the paramis), because this is the obvious antidote to self-delusion. And courage; courage to face up to (i.e., own up to) the akusala that is always there. > Kel: I think you mean genuine to be lasting and I define it for >only an ariya. Maybe a simile with the backyard and weeds will show >my position better. There's a certain amount of work I can do. So >I can pull weeds at some rate. Rain, fertilization and number of >seeds make weeds sprout out faster than I can pull them. So while I >can keep clear a certain percentage of my backyard, it still has >many weeds. Then let's say it's summer with no rain and I pour >pesticides over it. Then not only can I pull the weeds out but I >can dig further into the soil to get the seeds for the same amount >of work. Once I get rid of the seeds, even if it rains again >there's less for me to pull out. So eventually I can hope to win by >uprooting all the seeds from the backyard. > > I think the weeds in your simile represent our accumulated akusala tendencies, and you see these as choking off the growth of panna/insight, hence the gradual loss of 'progress' achieved during the retreat. But there's another simile you will be familiar with that puts things in a different light, the simile of the (beautiful) lotus flower that grows clear of the (muddy) pond that is its natural environment. I think sati/panna can grow in the most akusala-laden surroundings. And the cittanupassana section of the Satipatthana Sutta seems to confirm that aksuala mental states can be object of sati in just the same way that kusala mental states can. The akusala we can see is probably just the tip of the iceberg that constitutes our accumulated latent tendencies (anusaya). So the weed-clearing would never end ;-)). On the other hand, the quality that distinguishes the Sotapanna is the absence of wrong view and certain other (limited) forms of aksuala, so as long as right view is being developed there is progress towards the path regardless of the amount of akusala of other kinds. Jon 41998 From: jwromeijn Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:55am Subject: The future is not important Dear all, What sometimes surprises me, is that ethic behavior (sila) is so based by many people on the effect in the future. The most important effect in many Theravada-texts (when one thinks getting enlightened in this life) seems to be: been reborn in higher realms as reward and not been born in lower realms as punishment. In my understanding Buddhism that is not important at all: who is it that get that effect? Not me, anatta, you know! I think behaving according ethics should not be done for any effect, also on the ethical level one should live in the 'here and now'. I try to live ethical: try to keep the Five precepts and the sila of the Noble Eightfold Path and not been driven by hate and desire: not for the future but just because I think I had to do it. Call it conscience or call it keeping promises (to myself), even call it conviction (= understanding). So, not only in daily life but also in spiritual life the future is not important. Metta Joop 41999 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Howard upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon and TG - > > You two seem to be in disgreement with each other. I, being >equal-opportunity disagreeable, find that I have problems with each of your "positions". > > ;-)) >>'Nama' is the designation for dhammas that experience and object. If >>you say that thoughts are nama it suggests they experience an object >>(just like consciousness). But if thoughts are themselves mind-object, >>what object do they experience? >> >> >---------------------------------------- >Howard: > Jon, right away there is an exception to the definition of a nama as >dhamma that experiences an object, namely nibbana. It is an exception, and no >contortions will make that otherwise (unless, of course, one wants to take >nibbana to be an objectless consciousness reminiscent of the Vedanta Brahman!). > > You are correct. Nibbana is classed as a nama even though it does not experience an object. It is the only dhamma that that is so classed that does not experience an object. >Moreover, there are plenty of other mental phenomena that can be viewed as >taking an object only if the meaning of the word 'object' is stretched very far. >Sadness, for example, may have been conditioned by some experiential event, but >that event is not *known* by the sadness. In fact, the event may be long gone >and not even remembered, but the sadness remain. In fact, sadness typically >does not know, but is *known*. The sadness itself is typically a citta object or >a citta "flavor". (Of course one may *say* that the object of one's sadness >is the experiential event that led to it, but that is just an informal, >conventional way of speaking!) > I believe 'sadness' would be a mixture of different moments of consciousness, much like 'hope' or any number of other conventional emotions, each accompanied by sets of mental factors. Where the object is not another nama or a rupa, it will be a concept (thought). >The same thing is true about those actual dhammas that >are elementary thoughts. A thought, such as a mental image, does not know >anything - it is *known*, it is a citta object. And thinking is a process >consisting of a sequence of mindstates with such thoughts as objects. Thoughts don't "do", they just arise and cease as fleeting experiential content. > > As I understand what you say here, this is indeed how things are said to be, except that 'elementary thoughts' are not regarded as 'actual dhammas'. Thus, thoughts are not namas. Jon